The Future of Wisconsin Conservation Funding:

Alternatives & Options for

Fishing & Hunting Licenses

Prepared for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Ishmael Amarreh Peter Braden

Stephanie Chase Kimberly Farbota

Nathaniel Inglis Steinfeld

Current Fish & Wildlife RevenuesFish & Wildlife Total Revenues 2010-11: $77,631,400

Source: Polasek, 2012

Worksheet

All Other16%

Resident Hunting Licenses

28%

Nonresident Hunting Licenses

10%

Resident Fishing Licenses

19%

Nonresident Fish-ing Licenses

14%

Combination Licenses

13%

2/25

Current Fish & Wildlife Expenditures

Fish & Wildlife Total Expenditures 2010-11: $78,494,800

Source: Polasek, 2012

Worksheet

Law En-forcement

22%

Fish Mgmt.21%

Wildlife Mgmt.16%

Admin & Tech Services

7%

Customer Assistance &

Licensing5%

Other29%

3/25

Gun Deer Hunting (Males) Projection 2000-2030

Source: Winkler & Klaas, 2011

Worksheet

20002002

20042006

20082010

20122014

20162018

20202022

20242026

20282030

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

650,000

Constant Rates Projection

APC Projection

Survival Ratio Projection

Observed Hunters

Num

ber o

f Mal

e D

eer G

un H

unte

rs o

ver A

ge 1

2

4/25

Hunting Participation Rates 2000, 2005, & 2009

Source: Winkler & Klaas, 2011

Worksheet

12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2000 2005 2009

Age

Parti

cipa

tion

Rate

5/25

Overview: Approach & Methods

• Cultural Shift & Attitudes About Hunting

• Political & Financial Constraints

• Lessons from Other States

• Quantitative Analysis Photo Source: http://eatdrinkbetter.com, 2012

6/25

Policy Alternatives & Evaluations

• We considered 4 alternatives:– The Current System– Retention Efforts– Funding Source Restructuring– Public Relations & Outreach Efforts

• And evaluated each alternative based on 3 criteria: – Potential for Revenue Generation– Probable Sustainability– Equity

7/25

Alternative 1: Current System

• Potential for Revenue Generation– Declining numbers of hunters Reduced license revenue to

fish and wildlife account– Reducing license fees Unlikely to increase hunting

numbers and license revenue

• Probable Sustainability– Declining license revenues Declining conservation funding

• Equity– Dependence on license revenue Cost of conservation

borne by fewer and fewer Wisconsin residents8/25

Alternative 2: Retention Efforts

• Retain current hunters by:– Returning put-and-take programs to

previous levels

– Make information about land access and game availability easy to find

9/25

Alternative 2: Retention Efforts

• Returning put-and-take programs to previous levels– Put-and-take programs increase hunting

participation and satisfaction

– Increasing license fees associated to offset costs associated with these programs

10/25

Alternative 2: Retention Efforts

• Make information about land access and game availability easy to find– Perception among

hunters that there is no land available

– Other states, such as Minnesota, have easily accessible information on their website

Photo Source: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/pheasant/Index.html, 2011

11/25

Alternative 2: Retention EffortsMinnesota DNR webpage: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/index.html

12/25

Alternative 2: Retention EffortsMinnesota DNR webpage: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/index.html

13/25

Alternative 2: Retention EffortsMinnesota DNR webpage—Washington County Example

14/25

Alternative 3: Funding Source Restructuring

• We considered 3 possible methods for funding source restructuring:– License Fee Increases– Sales Tax Option– Reduce Inefficiency

Photo Source: http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/outdoor-activities/hunting/regulations/hunting-season1.htm, 2012

15/25

Alternative 3: Funding Source Restructuring

• Predictive Model of Number of Licenses Sold Annually

– Data: 1987 – 2011

– Model 1: resident angling licenses

– Model 2: resident deer hunting licenses

• Prediction: How changes in license prices influence number of licenses sold

– Data: 1992 – 2011

– Explanatory variables: previous year sales, population, license price, per capita income, unemployment rate, gasoline prices, and weather

16/25

Alternative 3: Funding Source Restructuring

Actual & Predicted Sales of Resident Deer Hunting Licenses

Source: Polasek, 2012 & Author’s calculations

Worksheet

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

Predicted Number of Licenses Sold

Actual Number of Licenses Sold

Num

ber o

f Dee

r Gun

Lice

nses

17/25

Alternative 3: Funding Source Restructuring

Resident Deer Hunting Licenses—Predicted 2012 Sales & Revenues at Various Prices

Source: Polasek, 2012 & Author’s calculations

Worksheet

Revenue maximizing price: $116

18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90 99 108 117 126 135 144 153 162 171 180$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

Revenue

Number of LicensesFee for Hunting Licenses

Tota

l rev

enue

Num

ber o

f lic

ense

s so

ld

Current price:$24

Revenue Maximizing Price: $116

18/25

Alternative 3: Funding Source Restructuring

Sales Tax Option– Arkansas and Missouri:

• ‘Conservation sales tax’ of 1/8th percent (1 cent of every $8 spent)

– WI sales tax rate is low at 5 percent• Between Missouri (4.225 percent) and Arkansas (6 percent).

– A statewide sales tax spreads support for conservation among all residents.

– Our recommendation: 1/8th percent rate for Wisconsin.

19/25

Alternative 3: Funding Source Restructuring

Reduce Inefficiency– DNR should review its current license fee structure to

eliminate inefficiencies in fees.

– Issuing the licenses cost the state 50 cents/license

– 800,000 anterless deer licenses issued annually $400,000 lost revenue

20/25

Alternative 4: Public Relations & Outreach Efforts

• DNR could focus on two primary groups:– Individuals who move as

young adults and lose touch with their former hunting community

– Individuals living in urban areas who are interested in sustainable living, environmental efforts, and local, organic food

Photo Source: http://underground foodcollective.org/photos, 2012

21/25

Alternative 4: Public Relations & Outreach Efforts

• Young Individuals Who Move

– Learn to Hunt events: Partnership with the University of Wisconsin System and Wisconsin’s Technical Colleges System

– Use modern technology to make information on hunting more easily accessible

– Language offeringsPhoto Source: http://www.in.gov/mobile/2367.htm, 2012

22/25

Alternative 4: Public Relations & Outreach Efforts

Outreach to Wisconsin Foodie (an Emmy-nominated independent TV series)

Urban Populations & “Foodies”

Explore partnerships with local food groups such as Northland College, Slow Food UW, F. H. King Student Farm, Underground Food Collective, and others

Photo source: Wisconsin Foodie blog, 2012

Photo source: Northland College student farms, 2012

23/25

Recommendations

• Long term: increase participation and consider fee increases and alternative revenues sources

• Short term: public relations outreach and easing entry for new communities

Photo Source: http://www.outdoorcentral.com/, 2012

24/25

Questions?

For Further Information:

Contact the La Follette School’s publications office at 608-263-7657 or publications@lafollette.wisc.edu

Or see www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workshops.html

Thank you for allowing us to be part of this project and process!Ish, Pete, Stephanie, Kim, & Nate

25/25