Beyond higher fees

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is the only department in state government funded primarily by those who use its services – more than two-thirds of its $24 million budget is generated by license fees. This arrangement creates a special relationship between the agency and its constituents.

Often, as one might expect when those being regulated are paying a big chunk of the regulators’ salaries, the relationship is not always cordial. With IF&W now facing a substantial shortfall – some $8 million by 2005 – and the need to raise license fees apparent, the potential is for something considerably less than cordial.

For this reason, the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife made a wise decision to gather public comment on how the outdoor revenue gap should be closed before it develops legislation to increase any fees. These meetings will be held Wednesday in Ellsworth (6 p.m. at City Hall) and next month in Presque Isle at a date to be determined.

Increasing fees undoubtedly will be part of the solution, and not an unreasonable one. Maine licenses for hunting, fishing, ATVs and snowmobiles are reasonably priced compared with nearby states; given the quality of outdoor recreation here, they offer exceptional value. The fees charged out-of-staters are very competitive; in some cases, such as ATVs, snowmobiles and bear permits, they are a bargain. An increase of just $10 in the nonresident big game permit, now $85, could generate some $350,000 and still keep it at the low end of states in the Northeast.

IF&W has gone for five years without any fee increases, which not only explains the current shortfall but also serves as warning that fee increases are not the sole solution. Fees did not stagnate by accident; the remained frozen largely because proposed increases always are met with stiff opposition by those who would be paying them.

Sometimes they are met with unreasonable demands, as well. The current demand by the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine that increased fees would be accepted only if swapped for increased bag limits ignores the fact that bag limits are the determinations by IF&W wildlife biologists of what is sustainable. These scientific findings must be independent of funding considerations.

Maine’s outdoors industry is too important for its management to remain susceptible to these pressures and to these funding uncertainties. Relying up license fees to generate such a large portion of IF&W’s budget ignores the fact that wildlife management and outdoor recreation are statewide concerns and should be treated as such.

Although the state’s overall revenue deficit makes this an inopportune time to move more of the department’s budget to the General Fund, that is the long term direction lawmakers should consider as they chart a course out of the current difficulty.