‘Market forces’ could bankrupt state’s Game and Fish Fund

A disturbing trend for Minnesotans who fish or hunt is the downward slide in the number of us who pursue those activities. A few statistics are in order. In the late 60’s and early 70’s, slightly over 40 percent of Minnesotans were licensed anglers. By 2010, according to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) records, only 29 percent were licensed anglers. Hunter numbers have always been lower than anglers, but they also have shown a recent decline. From numbers trending between 15 and 20 percent of our state population in the late 60’s – including a spike of 21 percent in 1978 – they declined to about 13 percent by 2010. Neither has significantly rebounded.

One obvious consequence of these downward trends is a loss of influence, or “political clout.” Politics is a numbers game, and the greater the number of stakeholders, the more likely it’s that their issues and priorities will be given support by lawmakers and our governor in St. Paul. For anglers and hunters, it’s issues like requiring grass or cover crop “buffers” along waterways and ditches to retard runoff of topsoil and polluting chemicals; or restricting the mowing and burning of ditches when pheasant hens are still nesting. There are other issues near and dear to the hearts of state anglers and hunters.

Sometimes it takes political will and muscle to achieve a positive outcome. The old saying “The squeaky wheel gets the grease” applies in politics and public policy. The smaller the base of citizens behind an issue, the quieter the “squeak,” and the easier it is for lawmakers to turn a deaf ear. In our case, fewer Minnesotans fishing or hunting means fewer voices to speak up for issues that are important to us.

There are other consequences of declining numbers of anglers and hunters, consequences beyond diminished clout at the Capitol. Those of us who fish or hunt buy our licenses each year – file them in our wallets – and probably don’t think about them again until they’re replaced next year; or, in the unlikely event we’re checked by a state or federal warden. 

Many of us have limited understanding of the role our license fees play in maintaining our fishing and hunting. Like the checks we write to a favorite charitable or service organization, few of us have any idea how those dollars are actually spent. We hope these hard-earned dollars are used wisely, but to a great extent we probably just take it on faith.

In Minnesota’s funding of fisheries and wildlife management programs, the largest share comes from fishing and hunting licenses fees paid into the DNR’s Game & Fish Fund. Our cash inputs pay for habitat improvement work on state wildlife management areas, fish population surveys, public water access development and maintenance, invasive species control, stream bank rehabilitation and a long list of other fisheries and wildlife management activities. Nothing in the Game & Fish Fund comes from the “general fund” that all state taxpayers contribute to.

So what happens when this very important funding source is eroded by a drop in the number of Minnesotans who buy fishing and hunting licenses? The ability to pay for programs that benefit anglers and hunters, and the many other Minnesotans who use the same spaces for non-angling, non-hunting activities, is diminished. 

The news coming out of St. Paul, where the Minnesota DNR is headquartered, is that the DNR Game & Fish Fund – the “checkbook” from which so many important programs are funded – is very close to “insufficient funds” status. Because by law the Game & Fish Fund can’t operate in deficit (unlike the federal budget!), there is no way that the current level of spending – about $110 million in the most recent budget year – can be maintained beyond the current year without the additional funds. If those funds are not available, cuts in programs and staff will no doubt have to be made.

What to do? In 2013, fishing and deer hunting license fees were increased, for the first time in more than a decade. While the prices of many things in our lives were going up over that period of time, the Minnesota Legislature, time and again, declined to raise license fees. Even in 2013, it not only required outspoken support by state anglers and hunters to convince the Legislature, but the increases authorized were not what was believed needed to meet expenses into the next decade. More is now needed.

It’s not hard to see market forces at work here. The price of a product – whether it’s the latest in ice fishing shelters, or a flat screen TV to watch the Super Bowl – is typically a function of how many people buy it. The more who buy, the more economies-of-scale enter the picture, and the price comes down. If fewer people buy it, the product will probably cost more. In the case of the Game & Fish Fund, if fewer people are buying angling and hunting licenses, the more each license would logically cost to generate the same dollars. That’s Economics 101.

Not everyone thinks so, especially at the Capitol in St. Paul. There, increasing the cost of a license is viewed by many lawmakers as a tax increase. Saying “tax increase” to many Minnesota lawmakers is like saying “mange” to a dog owner. Many have built political careers opposing taxes, and even though a license is not a tax – but a true user fee – some are so fearful of a political backlash that they will routinely oppose license fee increases of any kind. 

There is at least one logical alternative to higher license fees for making up some of the anticipated shortfall in the Game & Fish Fund. That is to tap the so-called general fund, which holds funds received by the state treasury from our Minnesota income tax returns. Many Minnesotans who neither fish nor hunt benefit from the funds generated by angler and hunter license fees. Hikers, bird watchers, skiers, and others use state wildlife management areas for their varied activities. Canoe and kayak enthusiasts benefit from stream management programs that stabilize streambanks and increase stream depth and flow. These are but two of many examples. 

Why not take a small slice of the general fund pie to shore up the Game and Fish Fund, which – despite its name – benefits many who will never cast a lure or pull a trigger.