Where Have All The Hunters (fishermen) Gone?

http://www.cnn.com/2...s.ap/index.html

They nailed it in the article. Higher Fees and Urbanization. Most of the ponds and creeks I grew up fishing in have been converted to new housing or otherwise privatized. I still enjoy fishing at state fishing lakes, but as my focus shifts to herping, I find it hard to shell out $20+ for catching a couple sub prime bass each year. Also now that I have a scientific collecting permit ($10) I can seine and net all I want.

http://www.cnn.com/2...s.ap/index.html

Interesting artical, but I wonder if some of the decline is caused by Lifetime Licenses.
For some reason they do not count lifetime licenses, only the ones baught each year.
Indiana stopped selling them due to this problem, & were going to introduce senior licenses.
The Feds doll out money to the States by amount of license sold each year.

Before Indiana stopped selling them their was a huge surge in sales, people were even buying them for babies.

Mike

Access to quality land and water is a big part of this. That and dare I say the really stupid actions of some of these "sportsmen" has bastardized the practice of hunting and fishing which has restricted even more land from access.

I have to say I do not hunt public land anymore after so many frustrating and sometime despicable things that I have encountered. I mostly hunt only private lands of family and friends now. Guns and jerks do not mix well and public lands are full of them when the season is open. There really are not many spit rail or fair chase hunters left out there which is very disturbing.

It is also urbanization and the elimination of (any realistic) natural science studies in schools. Children and young adults today are further from the land then ever before. They either want to selfishly exploit it or run away from it. These are not the types that make license sales...

I could actually go on and on about this and how it is seriously affecting Public land and wildlife management efforts but I'm already in a bitter mood (ironically related) so will come back later.....

In the magazine Field & Stream, Bill Heavey writes a comical but informative back page (He's my favorite contemporary outdoor writer). A couple of Months ago he wrote a great column on the ethics (or lack thereof) of today's hunters. I recommend reading it.

I think you guys have nailed it already. Maybe you can add this, too. When the agencies respond to decreasing license sales by increasing license fees to make up for loss of revenue, this causes further loss in sales. The response - increase license fees some more to make up for that loss of revenue, causing a further decline in sales...

This has the potential to be a never-ending cycle.

another thing that drives me nuts is how expensive a non-resident license is. I live near the state line of Kansas and Missouri, but I just avoid Missouri because the non-resident license is $40 compared to a resident license of $12. Id like to see neighboring states work together to discount a near state license for resident license holders. I would think if states would give resident pricing to non residents that have a license for their state that would increase sales for both states involved.

Dang, maybe I should live in Missouri to avoid the $20 Kansas resident license.

another thing that drives me nuts is how expensive a non-resident license is. I live near the state line of Kansas and Missouri, but I just avoid Missouri because the non-resident license is $40 compared to a resident license of $12. Id like to see neighboring states work together to discount a near state license for resident license holders. I would think if states would give resident pricing to non residents that have a license for their state that would increase sales for both states involved.

Dang, maybe I should live in Missouri to avoid the $20 Kansas resident license.

It's called taxation without representation. Jack up the fees on people who can't vote you out. That's also why motel taxes and car rental taxes are sky high everywhere, for example. It goes over well with voters if you tax people from other jurisdictions.

It's called taxation without representation. Jack up the fees on people who can't vote you out. That's also why motel taxes and car rental taxes are sky high everywhere, for example. It goes over well with voters if you tax people from other jurisdictions.

Non resident License fees are not a "Tax" they are a payment to a state to use state resources..While some may seem high I do see justification for them as a Non resident does not pay proportionate local and state taxes to offset the licensing cost and agency expenses. Most funding to these agencies is based on revenue gathered from license and permits... it is their lifes blood. Maybe if more people would put more of those ACTUAL federal and state tax dollars to conservation and wildlife management then those costs would go down for resident and Non-resident alike.

Non resident License fees are not a "Tax" they are a payment to a state to use state resources..While some may seem high I do see justification for them as a Non resident does not pay proportionate local and state taxes to offset the licensing cost and agency expenses.

Most funding to these agencies is based on revenue gathered from license and permits... it is their lifes blood.

These two statements seem contradictory to me.

These two statements seem contradictory to me.

How??

Yes, I am wondering how also. I reviewed this quite a bit, and am not sure how they contradict.

I know it kind of sucks to have to pay high fees to fish in other states, but in most cases I support higher out of state fees simply because it keeps the fees down in the places I frequent most often. I know in my home state of Oklahoma there are a huge number of Texas people at many of the state parks and lakes because ours are free and theirs aren't. Sometimes you can go to some of the more popular destinations in southern OK and see 60-70% Texas license plates. The problem with this is that they put stress on the infrastructure without paying anything for it, causing budget shortfalls and threats to make the park system fee-based. I just hope our ridiculously high out of state licenses help offset some of it so that some of my favorite spots stay free. (Who cares about Texans anyway? )

another thing that drives me nuts is how expensive a non-resident license is. I live near the state line of Kansas and Missouri, but I just avoid Missouri because the non-resident license is $40 compared to a resident license of $12. Id like to see neighboring states work together to discount a near state license for resident license holders. I would think if states would give resident pricing to non residents that have a license for their state that would increase sales for both states involved.

Dang, maybe I should live in Missouri to avoid the $20 Kansas resident license.

Alot of states offer recipricol agreements on shared bodies of water, which aims to address the living/fishing near borders. I see it like this: typically out of state fisherman come to hit the resources hard. They want trophy fish or alot of fish. They generally have no vested interest in the long term management of the resource, just a get what is mine while I can approach. The burden should be shifted, hence higher costs, should be on them and their use of the resource to support management for residents. Maryland non resident fees are no higher than resident and in some cases I believe are cheaper than their own state resident licenses. Alot of DE residents come over to MD waters to blue crab hard because it is so cheap comparitively. There are guys that fly to Lake Erie once or twice a year, get a 3 day, or whatever it is, license and make multiple trips taking limits each time, which is illegal, on walleye and yellow perch, and are hammering the fishery. Why shouldn't they pay more? There are some that are outrageous though, like Tennessee's non-resident is going sky high, and continually increasing, but people continue to pay it to fish Dale Hollow, TN River impoundments, the Cumberland River striper fishery, Kentucky Lake, mountain and tailwater trout, which continue to be quality fisheries.

It's not a tax because you don't HAVE to pay it. You can chose not to pay it, just don't fish in that state.

Why shouldn't they pay more?

I didnt mention people flying in. Im talking about getting in my car and driving for 5 minutes to another state.

Here in NM license fees have been going up. For my resident license I paid $39 for the year: $25 annual license, $4 second rod validation, $4 habitat management and access validation (required), $5 habitat improvement stamp (optional) and finally a $1 vendor fee. The second rod and habitat improvement are optional and I choose to put that extra $9 in, but it's still hard handing over almost $40 for a fishing license.
Non Resident licenses are $56 annually, $12 for a day, $24 for 5 days plus the $4 required habitat management and access and if they choose the second rod validation that's another $4.
Kinda sucked cuz when I was in college (a whole 36 miles over the north of the NM/CO border), I couldn't afford to fish in my home state since I had established residency in CO for tuition purposes.

See 40 dollars a year doesn't seem that much to me. Think of all the other "luxury" items people spend money on that cost almost that or more a month. Forty dollars a year, let alone a month, could be saved by minor lifestyle and behavioral alterations.

See 40 dollars a year doesn't seem that much to me. Think of all the other "luxury" items people spend money on that cost almost that or more a month. Forty dollars a year, let alone a month, could be saved by minor lifestyle and behavioral alterations.

I can't remember the last time I took and ate a fish from my home state. I'll bet I've consumed less than 10 fish from my home state in 33 years of fishing here. I can also assure you that not a single one of the consumed fishes were stocked. I'm also not the type to go to another state and take my limit. In fact I've not eaten a fish in over 12 months from any of the states I'm licensed to.

I don't mind supporting the various departments of conservation/natural resources but let's face it. Much of that money goes into stocking LMB and trout into waters they don't belong. Very little of that money goes to non-game fish and mussels.

Years ago (and probably still) Ontario offered a "conservation" license. I recall it allowed for 1/2 limits and certain fish were off limits. Naturally the license was offered at a reduced price. I thought this was brilliant idea and wish the states would follow suit. I would certainly pick up many licenses if this were the case since I don't really take fish in any case. This would be net gain I believe with the outrageous price tags certain states charge for non-residents. A great many catch and release anglers (and fishheads like us) would buy an annual permit at the reduced price even if just popping in for a weekend (you never know if you'll get a chance to come back to that state within year).

There are moves afoot in Alabama to offer some variation of a "conservation" license. The DCNR is still developing it from what I can tell. I told a friend in the State Lands Division that I'd buy one, but then he expected me to say that...

Guess it depends on cost of living where you're at and you're income. Where I live the median income is WAY below average and cost of living is WAY above average. Go figure, hopefully we'll be moving soon. Home is too expensive.
Also, I've already had my spill on how things work in this state. Not exactly the most progressive thinking. That's why I want to get involved, hopefully make a difference somewhere down the line.