It's time non-consumptive users start paying their fair share

[Minivan]

I was talking with a friend at work the other day as I was going through my wallet and throwing away all of my last year's fishing licenses. I was remarking about the cost; Utah resident $24.00, Idaho non-resident $74.50, Nevada non-resident $51.00, etc.,etc.
My friend, who is active in all of the "extreme" sports ie., ice climbing, kayaking, backcountry cross country skiing, etc., remarked that once he buys his initial equipment he can do whatever "extreme" sport he wants, on public land, for FREE!!
I got to thinking about that comment awhile and he is right, basically hunters and fishermen carry all of the burden when it comes to funding public agencies. Think about it. My friend can kayak down the weber river a hundred times a summer and do it every single time for free. But say a guy wanted to fish the weber river. It would cost him $24. My friend can backpack into Kings Peak in the Uintas for 14 days, never spend a dime in fees. But let's say another person went along to fish for a few hours in a lake or two, that person would pay $24! The bottom line is non-consumptive users all over the west need to start paying their fair share. As it stands now they can use or abuse public lands at virtually no cost. My suggestion is a simple $5.00 "public lands user license". In other words, every cross country skier, snowshoer, bird watcher, snowmobiler, jogger, runner, walker, hiker, dirt biker, mountain biker, runner, photographer, painter, ice climber, mountain climber, kayaker, etc., etc., should have to pay to enjoy their past time on public lands. This $5.00 fee could be allocated to the State of Utah, U.S. Forest Service, BLM and so on. But they need to start paying their fair share. Hunters and Fisherman even chip in .25 cents per license for local search and rescue! So that drunk and stranded snowmobiler that you hear about being rescued on the 10:00 news, well his rescue was funded by you and I. Not by his fellow snowmobilers!!

[mcgx2]

The only problem with your thinking I can see is that if there were a $5.00 (or whatever) public land fee, fishermen and hunters would have to pay that too. Therefore it would cost you $29.00 to fish a day in the Uinta's. The government won't see fishing licenses as already paying their part. I'm not saying a public land fee is a bad idea just that it will cost us fishermen more in addition, not instead of.

mcg

[Mike]

Everyone already pays a large non-consumptive fee in the form of state and federal income tax! In certain situations where non-consumptive users abuse public land above and beyond the call of duty, there is usually an added cost associated with land use. Yellowstone has an entrance fee... Parking on Mirror Lake Highway costs a couple bucks... It costs a few dollars to get up Millcreek Canyon...

I like to see nature preserved and taken care of, but adding a totally non-enforceable license fee on top of what everyone is already paying for the right to use public land doesn't make good sense to me. That would kind of be like having to additionally pay for a "military protection license" every year to keep the country safe.

[HookInMouth]

This all sounds great in theory, but it has already been generally agreed upon in this forum that this state does a poor job of checking fishing licenses and enforcing rules. What makes you think they will have the resources at $5 a head to check and enforce rules on non-consumptive public land users. There is also something similar to this in effect for the west side of the Unitas and the Green River corridor, where vehicles who stop to use the public land are required to pay a user fee. These fees are on a per usage rate and well exceed $5 a year for those of us who frequent those areas.

[RAW]

I know. Here goes that Goof-ball RAW again.

Remember the old Habitat Fee increase of several years ago? That's when our license fee went from $18.00 to $23.00. The habitat fee was suppose to do exactly what you have proposed. Problem is all us fishermen got stuck with the fee increase but they couldn't get the general public in the doors to pay a $5.00 fee to use the habitat. Now they just tell use sportmen that the fee increase goes to protect and sustain the habitat. I was in the meetings when Mr. Valentine proposed that the hikers, birdwatchers, horse riders etc. start paying their fair share. My concern was that making them pay would give them a more important voice in the public and political arena. As it is we hunters and fishers can pretty much protect our concerns because we are the only ones paying for it. Give the tree huggers, PETA and other non-compromising groups the right to say they are helping pay for it and you can bet some of the hunting and fishing will suffer. Maybe this quote from a PETA member could be heard in one of the meetings: "I help pay for the habitat and it offends me to be enjoying a stretch of river and have to watch a fly fisherman make a trout struggle for its life on the end of a line. Can't we make some rivers or stretches of rivers off limits to the angler so I can enjoy it without witnessing an act of torture?"

We must be real careful who we empower. I would like nothing more than for these folks to pay their fair share...I'm just leary of it backfiring and giving them more voice.

[Wes Johnson]

Here are a couple of ideas that might work.

1. A 1-percent sales tax into a special fund to be divided up between recreation agencies to further the needs of users, consumptive and non-consumptive alike. This would be used like the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) funds; preserve open space, wildlife habitat, trail development, etc.

2. Virginia has divided up their angling license fee's to meet the needs of various groups. They charge one fee for catch and release anglers, about $16.00. Another fee for hookem and cookem anglers, about $30.00. This way you pay for what you take.

Just a couple of thoughts.

[DrewTrout]

RAW...

I always enjoy your point of view. When I post, I'm sure people think "Oh great, here is that long-winded blow hard that always regails in stories of when he worked for the state".

Anyway...

At one time (1998), DWR tried to implement a plan that voluntarily had non-consumptive users purchase a certificate very similar to the old habitat authorization license. I really don't know of the current status of it, but I never really thought it would work because of the whole "volunteer" thing.

[Juke]

As Wes mentioned, the GOCO fund in Colorado has been hugely successful. The CDOW has outright purchased huge reaches of public river access, minimum instream flows, conservation pools in reservoirs, and large parcels of land managed specifically for upland, and big game hunting opportunities.

The State of Utah could really use something like this. However, I think it will be a tough sell, taking into account our relatively high tax rate in Utah.

[Crosby]

This subject has bothered me for years. The permit you were talking about that someone who does not hunt or fish can come in and purchase so they can pull some of the weight had less than a dozen people actually purchase one. I understand your concern that if they purchase one then they will have more say.
I think most of those groups are pretty well organized and funded. Our problem is that though we may have many- we are not organized into a group would give more political clout.
We bicker between being a bait chucker, an ice fisherman or a fly fisherman----- somewhere along the line we have to come to the reality that if we don't unite somewhere with some sort of common ground our kids will not have what we cherish so dearly.

[Indylab]

The idea of paying a higher license fee to kill and eat fish sounds like a great idea to me. It seems as if those taking fish should pay more due to stocking fees. Has this issue been considered strongly in Utah? I rarely keep fish, but when I backpack in the Uintas I love to eat fish - most die in the winter anyways where we go. This idea of paying more for keeping fish than a fee for catch and release sounds very credible. I wonder how the states fare that have implemented this program.

[Mike]

The problem with paying a higher license fee to kill and eat fish is that it's not particularly fair. A careless fly fisherman who fishes a lot might end up killing far more fish than a guy who dunks a worm twice a year.

I know that the DWR doesn't want to do it (as was discussed at the BRFC open house in the Fall) but having license "stamps" that allow you to access Blue Ribbon or private waters or some other such thing would be a good way to get people to contribute more money to the cause. Of course if my fishing license cost $100 I wouldn't think twice about purchasing one. I realize that's not the case for everyone.

The bottom line is I personally don't mind paying more, I just want something above and beyond what the "other guy" is paying for. That's really basically how it works now if you think about! This goes back to the initial post in this thread. Joe Blow Populace pays taxes and has access to public lands. John Angler pays his license fee and is now allowed to keep fish and wet a line on public lands. If I could additionally buy a stamp that then provided me access to private land, I'd do it in a second.

Just tossing ideas out!

[Juke]

This is the key difference. Whether you harvest a fish, an elk, a cord of firewood, or a christmas tree, you pay for the privlige to have the opportunity to reduce the intended item to your posession. Any more even floating down a river is not free, you must have permits for the Colorado, Green, Salmon, etc. What can a hiker or kayaker take from their sport, some pictures, the experience, that is basically it.

Minivan, I am assuming that you are a consumptive wildlife user, and take home a fish or two on occasion(don't know too many 100% C&R folk who ice fish). You have made a decision to pay for the privlige to consume. The kayaker, has also made a similar decision, not to be consumptive. Hopefully there will be some things in life that are free.

Mike, Federal and State taxes are do not truely represent a persons use of government (public) programs. Maybe I utilize access to BLM lands to fish the B and C section of the Green more than a neighbor, and maybe they utilize services of FAA because they fly an airplane. In the end, he and I, do not care. Further, I do not feel that I am getting ripped off, due to the fact that somewhere, my taxes are being used to help subsidize my neighbors hobby. But I also know that my neighbor is also in some way helping support my hobby.

[Crosby]

Not buying into the thought wave that yakers aren't consumptive.
Maybe not as you would normally determine that but none the less . Is not time a commodity?
Lets see- a few years ago they got together and talked them into running Black Canyon full boar to kayak- they were going to fill every motel in Soda Springs- buy gas and groceries in Grace and Soda. Get real- they spent nothing- had the river levels raised to unfishable and few showed up. I have nothing against yakers- I run the snake in my pontoon boat a few times a month in the summer. Last time on the snake- I saw a donantion request to keep the parking open and to keep it still a non fee to run the river. I gave the guy a $20.00- told him it was a bargain for the thrill I get. I walked away and was getting ready to float and he ran down- gave me a shirt and a bunch of Snake River stickers and said except for a few groups - I was one of the few that had donated and said he hadn't had a kayaker donate while he was in the office. Somewhere along the line we all have to step up to the plate and not just when a license is required.
If they can have the river level raised just for their sport and excluding me from mine. Then you better donate or pay up for that time.
Or we can look at it the way they do- we all own the outdoors- no fees should be taken- no fishing license- no hunting license, no registration of off road vehicles- no limits on any game or fish.
And how long who our great outdoors be there for EVERYONE to enjoy. Sportsman foot the bill for everyone and thats a fact.

[Juke]

Crosby,

Think about it in the most littoral(bad pun) sense of the word. What does a kayaket consume or take away from his sport other than the challenge, the rush or the experience? How does he impact the reource? Even the 100% C&R fisherman has an impact on a fishery. Studies show about a 10% hooking mortality on C&R fish.

If kayakers did get the Bureau of Rec to raise the flows in the Black Canyon, good for them. It is a good case study for fishermen to show how organized and united they must be to effect a change, per your recommendation.

I follow water issues closely here in the west. I do not know of a single instance where water flows are managed for maximum angling opportunities. Water is too valuable, existing water rights will always have priority. The best anglers can hope for are minimum in stream flows, to keep fish alive during low water, or limits on maximum in stream flows to keep from displacing a population of fish/fry.

Kayaker/rafters do contribute to their sport through Dingell-Johnson funds collected on the boats, paddles, life vests, etc. that they buy. However, I do agree that sportsmen "pay" more to support their sport. This is probably why sportsmen(in general) have a loud voice on many issues.

Curtis- The rafters pay the same fee as an angler does to utilize the Green. The permit is only an access fee. It is not a permission to fish fee.

[Wyoming 2]

Imagine this kind of perfect world: snowmobilers pay for snowmobiling licenses after being taught snowmobiler education, kayakers pay for kayaking licenses after being taught kayaker education, rock climbers pay for rock climbing license after being taught rock climbing education...
...or, better yet, all public land users were responsible, ethical, and willing to replenish what they destroy.

Personally, I think the answers to many of our problems coincide with education. Users of natural resources want the resource to exist...if they were educated on being responsible and understood ramifications dealing with negligence, people would be more willing to pay and/or donate money to our resources--whatever the activity might be.

As for hunters and fishermen paying a larger share...well, personally, I am proud and happy about it--when it comes to managing our forests, streams, public lands etc., we should have a larger say.

[Wes Johnson]

A few years ago the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources introduced a "Wildlife Certificate" for non-consumptive users. It costs about $25.00 and gave the non-consumptive groups an opportunity to put up or shut up.

The first year they sold less than 10. I believe that the peak sales were less than 50. Most of the "certificates" were purchased by individuals who already had angling licenses.

Last year they sold less than 20.

Shows to go ya.