The first residential hunting licenses were introduced in 1895 and considered widely successful in creating funds for the new fish and wildlife agencies. Despite having jurisdiction over the fish and wildlife within the state, the overwhelming majority of state game agencies have little control over setting the price of licenses, permits, and tag fees. Without that authority, this process makes it adjust license fees to effectively manage fish and wildlife on behalf of the public and implement recruitment, retention, and reactivation programs.
The first clear system of residential hunting licenses did not appear in the United States until 1895, with the state of Michigan issuing a 50-cent license for hunting deer. The success of this program prompted many states to follow suit, and by the early 20th century, newly created state fish and wildlife agencies were issuing licenses across the country. These licenses, sold and enforced by state game agencies, were designed to generate funding for the agencies to sustainably manage wildlife populations. Since their inception, there have been debates on how to price these licenses and who should set their price. Despite having jurisdiction over the fish and wildlife within the state, the overwhelming majority of state game agencies have little control over setting the price of licenses, permits, and tag fees. Rather, the authority often rests with the state legislature, requiring new legislation each time the state needs to change the fees in order to keep up with inflation. This process makes it difficult to increase license fees to effectively manage fish and wildlife on behalf of the public, often resulting in sudden, large price jumps when fees are finally increased after many years.
Points of Interest
- Four states (AL, CA, CO, NC) have legislative language linking license fees to consumer price indexes.
- The Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop Breaux acts limit state license revenue to only be used for management and restoration of wildlife , funding aquatic education, wetlands restoration, boat safety, clean vessel sanitation devices, and angling and boating access, in addition to fisheries and habitat management.
- State fish and wildlife agencies are funded primarily (in some cases nearly 100%) by the American System of Conservation Funding (ASCF).
- By granting price setting authority to state agencies, with legislative overview, or by allowing small, incremental license fee increases concurrent with cost of living indexes, states can avoid large, sudden jumps in license fees which can be a deterrent to participation.
The following legislation gives the respective state more flexibility in adjusting license fees. Please contact CSF for the specific language of these bills or for more information.
Alabama Section 9-11-68: The state’s Director of the Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources may, with the permission of the Commissioner of the department, submit a recommendation to the Advisory Board of Conservation and Natural Resources to increase both license fees and issuance fees for the license, based on the percentage increase of the consumer price index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). This increase, if approved by the board, is then submitted to the Chair of the Legislative Council for the Legislative Council’s review and approval.
California Fish and Game Code Section 713.g: At least every five years the department and the commission must analyze all fees for licenses, stamps, permits, tags and other entitlements it issues to ensure that the appropriate amount is charged. If these findings are unsatisfactory, the department can recommend changes to the Legislature.
Colorado 33-4-102: Nonresident big game fees will be adjusted annually in accordance with the consumer price index for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley consolidated metropolitan statistical area. The adjustment is only brought into effect after the commission notifies the joint budget committee of the adjustment.
North Carolina Section 113-270.1B: License fees may increase “in excess of the average increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers over the preceding five years”.
Elected officials should examine who has the authority to set license fees in their state, and consider opportunities to improve the process of changing those fees when necessary.
For more information regarding this issue, please contact Zachary Sheldon at email@example.com.
Share this page
Your opinion counts
Which of the following conservation programs do you feel is the most important as Congress seeks to reauthorize the Farm Bill in 2018? (Click here for descriptions of each program - Source: Ducks Unlimited)Vote Here
- Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (46.34%)
- Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP) (21.95%)
- Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) (4.88%)
- Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) (12.20%)
- Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) (8.54%)
- Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) (2.44%)
- Sodsaver (0.00%)
- Conservation Compliance (3.66%)