the future of Fish and Game is on the operating table in New Hampshire

Hunting and fishing, it seems, no longer pays the bills. The New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game relies on hunting and fishing license funds to cover nearly half of its annual $24 million budget. Across the country, the trend in hunting and angling has been downward over the past decade, and after years of predictions, it has finally created an acute budget shortfall.

Simply put, “Revenue is not keeping pace with the rising cost of doing business,” says Fish and Game Director Lee Perry.
In 1865, New Hampshire established the Fisheries Commission, with a mission to restore sea-running fish to the Merrimack and Connecticut Rivers. During the 20th century, the expanded New Hampshire Fish and Game Department would grow into a multi-faceted organization with greatly expanded roles.

Currently, department responsibilities include oversight of hunting and fishing licenses; management of wildlife populations and preservation of their habitat; wildlife conservation education of the public; registration of off-highway recreational vehicles (OHRV), including snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles (ATV); and a police force that takes the lead in search and rescue operations for all lost persons.

Coming into the 21st century, Fish and Game depends on very antiquated means for funding. Much of the department’s job description and funding is done the way it’s done primarily because that’s the way it’s always been done. More than two-thirds of the 2006 annual budget came from proceeds from hunting and fishing license sales or from federal funds.

Conversely, expenditures by the department are pretty evenly divided between a number of various programs: Inland Fisheries Management & Hatcheries, Conservation Law Enforcement, Wildlife Management, Marine Resources & Estuarine Reserve, and Administration, Finance & Information Technology. Fish and Game is mandated to perform numerous functions, but has until now been expected to be financially self-sufficient from the state’s point of view.

The department currently only receives $50,000 per year from the General Fund, in the form of matching funds for non-game wildlife and habitat conservation. It doesn’t even get to keep two-thirds of the $4 million in OHRV registration fees it’s mandated to collect (the N.H. Department of Resources and Economic Development received $2,731,451 of that money in the 2006 budget).

For the past 50 years the department has relied upon hunters and anglers to carry the bulk of the load for its entire budget. Hunting and fishing license fees are already the highest in New England and, according to Perry, the data indicates that raising them any further would actually result in a loss of revenue.

Beginning in fall 2004, Fish and Game identified that it would be running a deficit by 2008. Perry went to Governor Lynch to see what options existed.

“At the time, Governor Lynch told me that Fish and Game had to live within its means and cut costs,” Perry says.
There would be no extra expenditures. Two years later, after trimming 14 positions, Fish and Game has still come up short, and beginning with the 2008-2009 biennium, it will be $5 million short. Included in Governor Lynch’s two-year budget is $1.3 million per year from the General Fund to be used as a stopgap measure to fund Fish and Game.

Fish and Game has floated a number of theoretical proposals aimed to create additional long-term revenue. The largest is to dedicate a small portion of the state Rooms and Meals Tax to Fish and Game. According to a 2002 study, $579 million is injected into the state’s economy each year by hunters, anglers and wildlife watchers. Fish and Game proposes that $4.6 million (4 percent of the 60 percent of the tax that goes to the General Fund) be earmarked for their budget.

Other proposals single out specific user groups. One is the establishment of a saltwater fishing license. Currently, if you fish in a lake or stream in New Hampshire you are required to purchase an annual license ($35 for residents, $53 for non-residents), but there’s no fee if you drop that line into saltwater along the coast. Of course, the same is true in Massachusetts and Maine, either of which are just a short jog in either direction of our 18-mile tidal coastline.

One of the arguments for such a license fee is that Fish and Game is in charge of managing saltwater fish species (as well as shorebirds, lobsters and island birds). A license and the resulting oversight of catches would give the agency a better ability to manage the saltwater fish populations the way that they do with clamming, which already requires a license.

Another proposal suggests that all kayaks, canoes and other non-motorized vessels be required to purchase and display a conservation decal at a $10 annual cost. Jeff Sweat, vice president of the Merrimack Valley Paddlers Club, staunchly opposes such a fee. He recently spoke against it during a discussion on N.H. Public Radio’s “The Exchange.”

“In general, the paddle sport community tends to be against this type of a fee. We don’t see that we have any benefit from paying a fee to Fish and Game. If I’m going to fish, I need a fishing license already, if I’m going to hunt I need a hunting license,” Sweat said. “Charging a fee for a boat —many of us have multiple boats —this is the equivalent of having separate registration for each firearm we own or separate registration for each shotgun or deer rifle we might own.”

Bill Downey, owner of Portsmouth Kayak Adventures, a Seacoast-based company that provides guided kayak tours, has a wider outlook. “Part of me feels that it’s fair. Someone has to pay and it makes sense that (paddlers) contribute to the ecology. Without knowing all the details, my concern is that kayakers don’t get the same level of direct benefit from Fish and Game as hunters or anglers, but at the end of the day $10 isn’t that much to pay to generate money for a good cause.”

Fish and Game is currently also involved in ongoing efforts to counteract the amount of land being converted from open space to private development. “(In the Seacoast) around Great Bay, there is a successful partnership including Fish and Game and the Nature Conservancy that has been purchasing outright or gaining easements on lands surrounding the bay,” Perry notes. The state currently owns only 40,000 acres of public land.

Jericho Lake ATV Park in Berlin suggests a way to protect open space and collect fees. ATV owners have long complained that there has been little payback for the nearly $4 million generated annually by OHRV registration fees. A year ago, the state spent $2.1 million to purchase outright 7,200 acres in Berlin (an additional 293 acres of land was donated by the town of Berlin) to created the third largest state-owned park. Between 150 and 200 miles of trails dedicated to ATVs will be created over the next few years, and fees for camping facilities and day-use at Jericho Lake are expected to generate $694,000 in annual revenue. When complete, Jericho Lake ATV Park will be the largest facility this side of Pennsylvania permanently dedicated to ATV usage.

In terms of a budget crisis, N.H. Fish and Game’s situation is not unique in New England. “We are not alone in our predicament,” says Perry. “Already, 31 states have changed the way they fund their state’s wildlife agencies. Vermont and Maine both have had some General Fund money.” The future, it seems, requires a sea change in the way we manage, fund and think about our natural treasures if we don’t want them to slip away.

No matter what the Legislature decides over the next few months, there is hope among many in the Granite State that the state will help hold back the tide of human development.