The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department is staring down the barrel of a $5 million budget shortfall and has asked the Governor and the Legislature for help. Essentially what they asked for was a portion of the meals and lodging tax that they believe is representative of the portion generated through programs run by Fish and Game.
Now, according to the Concord Monitor, Governor John Lynch has responded to the requests of Fish and Game by suggesting the state should auction off at least 50 moose permits each of the next two years. This would bring an estimated $500,000 to the coffers, far short of what’s needed.
But there’s danger in this as is seen nationwide in states that have discovered the money that can be made from auctioning off highly valued hunting permits. Before we look closer at this, let’s first go back and take a look at how fish and game has evolved over the years.
When states set up fish and game departments, the major function of such an organization was to manage and provide fish and game for sportsmen. It was realized this would take money and so license fees were established to accomplish this. For many years license fees were able to cover the expenses incurred by the departments to meet the needs and demands of the sportsman.
Not only did the needs and demands of the sportsman go up but states began dumping added responsibilities on the fish and game departments. This has begun a snowball effect that has forced the rise in license fees. With these added demands, fish and game departments began getting creative in ways to generate revenue. One of those ways is being done under the shroud of “hunting opportunities”. The term hunting opportunity camouflages the real intent of the initiative. While the average “Joe” thinks he’s getting more chances to hunt, the reality is the fish and game departments are sucking more money out of all hunters, fishermen and trappers in order to pay for non-fish and game programs.
Hunters, fishermen and trappers should be able to participate in these outdoor activities for free – in an ideal world. This is unlikely to be the case because of man’s created demands and through wildlife encroachment, etc., we must “manage” our game. But asking the license holders to pay for non-game programs is not right.
Once states discover that there is a market for auctioning off valued permits, such as the New Hampshire moose permits, the snowball continues to grow larger and where will it stop? The attitudes of those involved in such programs is very disturbing as well as is reflected in comments made in the Concord Monitor article by a hunter named Duke Lovetere.
“It’s an easy way to make money” and support the agency’s sporting and conservation missions, Lovetere said.
The argument that “it’s not fair if someone can’t afford it (is) not a good argument, because the same people that say they can’t afford $2,000 for an auction will have two $4,000 snowmobiles in their backyard or a $20,000 pickup truck, so it does come down to priorities,” he said.
Fred Allen, president of the Pemigewasset Valley Fish and Game Club, doesn’t really object to the idea but it is obvious from his comments that to him it’s not about the cost and loss of hunting opportunities to those who can’t afford it.
Allen, the president of the Pemi Club, said he doesn’t disagree with the free-market argument. But he would skip any auction himself and stick with the lottery, even though he has yet to be picked in 19 tries.
“I’m a very practical person,” he said. “I’d just wait my turn and use the money I save to go on archery hunts to Pennsylvania and Colorado and travel with my wife. And take the grandkids to Disney World.”
Throughout the article there is very little talk of the realities of what is going on with such actions.
Rep. Gene Chandler, a Bartlett Republican and lifelong hunter and fisherman, called the governor’s plan “absolutely reprehensible” and “ludicrous.”
“I don’t care how many there are, even if it’s just one. What are we going to do next? Deer and bear? Chipmunks?” Chandler said. “Hopefully the sportsmen of this state will rile up against that because this is wrong – as wrong as wrong can be.”
I might tend to agree with Chandler but unfortunately in this article, we don’t know why it is “as wrong as wrong can be.”
Only one time is there any reference to the fact that the “common man” can’t afford this auction with no reference to the fact that there are many who can’t afford the present system.
John Williamson, who works at Skip’s Gun Shop in Bristol and who accompanied a friend on a successful moose hunt last year, said he feared the auction idea might eventually lead to all moose permits being given to the highest bidders. “And then that leaves out the people that make up New Hampshire, the regular people that can’t afford this auction stuff,” he said.
Ed Drew has gone on two moose hunts in New Hampshire. He opposes any auction.
“I hate to see the money chase. The random lottery is pretty sweet,” said Drew, an engineer who lives in Keene. “The guy that’s just put 10 bucks in has the same chance as the guy driving the Mercedes.”
Neither of these two guys have anything to say about who can afford what, just that the auction is too expensive for most. While I concur with Drew, both guys have the same chances but there are many who won’t by a chance because they can’t afford the $100 if they are chosen. Therefore many are priced out of the “hunting opportunity” for moose.
When fish and game departments were formulated, nowhere did it say that its function was to provide game for the sportsman who can afford the costs of such. It’s purpose was geared to give everyone a chance.
I’ll concede a reasonable cost of a license for those able to pay and am an advocate of some kind of sensible program to allow licenses to be given to those who can’t, but the continued “hunting opportunities” that are bleeding us dry has to stop. I will be quite honest with you. I cannot afford to hunt moose in New Hampshire or Maine. In New Hampshire a resident has to pay $22.00 for a hunting license. It will cost the same hunter $10 to apply for a chance at a moose permit. If successful, the same hunter now coughs up $100. Answer me how that affords every New Hampshire resident a chance to hunt moose?
I contend that if New Hampshire and other states turn the clock back and begin to restructure their fish and game departments for the purpose they were intended, then affordable and real hunting opportunities would be available to residents. It’s time for others to pay for non-game wildlife management, search and rescue, bird watching, wildlife viewing and all other programs now being paid for by the license buyers that are not directly related to fish and game.
I think New Hampshire needs a bailout to get them through and then they need a giant restructuring. Heading down the road the Governor is suggesting has proven itself to be politically and economically driven and relies on no wildlife science in managing fish and game for sportsmen. This important aspect of fish and game will become secondary to making money. It only further prices more and more residence out of an opportunity to hunt, fish and trap.
And we shrug our shoulders not understanding why participation is waning.
Tom Remington
