fish and wildlife deficit

[Lin]

I tried to figure out where best to start this thread but since Fish and Game covers so many items not just water & fishing I figured I'd post it here. For those that can access the Citizen, here is an article on a major deficit looming over Fish and Game and what it might do to their upcoming budgets and programs. Taken from their website at http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/index.htm
is their mission statement:
OUR MISSION:

As the guardian of the state's fish, wildlife and marine resources, the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department works in partnership with the public to:

Conserve, manage and protect these resources and their habitats;
Inform and educate the public about these resources; and
Provide the public with opportunities to use and appreciate these resources.

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...062/-1/CITIZEN

[Lin]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

It's New Hampshire Fish and Game.

Ok, so I corrected the error. Now since you knew the correct name of the agency how do you feel they should correct the deficit?

I've worked alongside state fish and wildlife while as a supervisor of several state parks in my home state. I was surprised to find out that retirees of NH Fish and Game come out of their revenue and not the State of NH. Those items should fall under the state retirement system. They deserve the best as state employees. There are costs that will always be going up employee benefits, retirement, energy and fuel costs to name a few. For an agency that is self dependent this will really hurt the budget. In the news article it is stated 42% of the $23 million funded comes directly from fishing and hunting fees and 56% come from dedicated Federal funds. Most likely these are the Pittman-Robertson Act, Dingell-Johnson Act and the Wallop Breaux amendment (this amendment is why we pay a bit extra on firearms, ammo, archery, fishing tackle) to name a few. It was also stated in the article that there has been a nationwide shift downward in hunting and fishing licenses. My concern is if fees were raised again to overcome a shortfall (which Director Perry would be against) would no doubt lose more potential license holders because of the costs. One alternative they are suggesting is maybe setting up a type of foundation to help supplement the fish and game budget. But that proposal always have ups and downs too. It's based on the whims of people who can at one time or another donate to it. But what happens if donations drop and you are already relying on that income?

Whether you hunt, fish or just utilize boat launches, open space & conservation lands for outdoor recreational pursuits everyone should be supporting their Parks or Fish and Game departments. These departments are usually the lowest on the totem pole for monies to run their programs but usually the first to be cut or abandoned in times of need meanwhile in our hectic world these agencies oftentimes are the most needed to bring us into a peacful meaningful quality of life in our outdoor pursuits as an escape to a crazy world.

In MA on the income tax (which we all know is a dreaded word in NH) but we do have the option of checking the box to help donate to the Endangered wildlife conservation project. Also when you buy a fishing or hunting license in MA you pay $5.00 for a wildlands conservation stamp whereas NH only requires $2.50 wildlife habitat fee. I know that several of my friends who don't hunt or fish do support our fish and wildlife by purchasing a license just to show support for buying conservation land through the fish and wildlife program.

[jrc]

First of all, I think the fishing license (I don't hunt) fees are high enough and already act as a deterent to casual fishing. I live here and have a boat and a canoe so it's worth it for me to spend $35 for the year. But when I have friends come up from Mass. They really don't want to $35 for a 7 day license just to throw a line out for a few hours, so we don't fish.

Well I just did some research and it looks like the state already figured this out. Now there are one day and three day out-of-state licences and a one day in state license. Combined with online purchase, there's no reason not to fish.

I think sportsman are proud of the fact that they support there own department. We should pay our own way for stocking, wildlife managment and other tasks directly related to hunting and fishing. But since the mission of the fish and game is broader, the general public should contribute to the broader tasks that benefit all. Perhaps there should be a fee for canoeists and hikers who gain the benefits of their efforts for free.

[Lakegeezer]

The state employee retirement plan is a problem that should be addressed now to ward off future problems. There are fewer and fewer companies that provide a pension. Instead, its a 401K plan, that is managed by a financial institution, which is responsible for funding, investment, and pay-out. The auto and airline industries are going broke paying for retirement benefits. Sounds like state agencies, and especially F&G, are having the same problem. It would not be fair to strip benefits from the current retirees, but why shouldn't current government employees be subject to the same financial changes that employees of private and public companies are going through. This would ease some of the funding problems down the road. Hunting and fishing are important to NH - and some of the funding should come from the businesses that benefit.