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 Revenues
Fish & Wildlife Total Revenues 2010-11: $77,631,400
Combination
Licenses
13%
All Other
16%
Nonresident
Fishing Licenses
14%
Resident
Hunting Licenses
28%
Resident Fishing
Licenses
19%
Source: Polasek, 2012
2/25
Nonresident
Hunting Licenses
10%
Current Fish & Wildlife Expenditures
Fish & Wildlife Total Expenditures 2010-11: $78,494,800
Other
29%
Law
Enforcement
22%
Customer
Assistance &
Licensing
5%
Admin & Tech
Services
7%
Source: Polasek, 2012
3/25
Fish Mgmt.
21%
Wildlife Mgmt.
16%
Gun Deer Hunting (Males) Projection 2000-2030
Number of Male Deer Gun Hunters over Age 12
650,000
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
Constant Rates Projection
400,000
350,000
Survival Ratio Projection
Observed Hunters
300,000
Source: Winkler & Klaas, 2011
4/25
APC Projection
Hunting Participation Rates 2000, 2005, & 2009
40%
2000
2005
2009
35%
Participation Rate
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
Age
Source: Winkler & Klaas, 2011
5/25
80
76
72
68
64
60
56
52
48
44
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
0%
Overview: Approach & Methods
• Cultural Shift &
Attitudes About
Hunting
• Political & Financial
Constraints
• Lessons from Other
States
• Quantitative Analysis
6/25
Photo Source: http://eatdrinkbetter.com, 2012
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 residents
8/25
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 Efforts
Minnesota DNR webpage: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/index.html
12/25
Alternative 2: Retention Efforts
Minnesota DNR webpage: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/index.html
13/25
Alternative 2: Retention Efforts
Minnesota 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/outdooractivities/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
600,000
550,000
Number of Deer Gun Licenses
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
Predicted Number of Licenses Sold
Actual Number of Licenses Sold
300,000
250,000
200,000
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: Polasek, 2012 & Author’s calculations
17/25
Alternative 3: Funding Source Restructuring
Resident Deer Hunting Licenses—Predicted 2012 Sales & Revenues at Various Prices
Revenue Maximizing Price: $116
Revenue maximizing price: $116
$30,000,000
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
$20,000,000
300,000
$15,000,000
250,000
200,000
$10,000,000
Current price:$24
150,000
100,000
$5,000,000
Number of licenses sold
Total revenue
$25,000,000
50,000
$0
0
Revenue
Fee for Hunting Licenses
Source: Polasek, 2012 & Author’s calculations
18/25
Number of Licenses
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 offerings
Photo Source: http://www.in.gov/mobile/2367.htm,
2012
22/25
Alternative 4: Public Relations &
Outreach Efforts
Urban Populations & “Foodies”
Outreach to Wisconsin Foodie (an
Emmy-nominated independent
TV series)
Photo source: Wisconsin Foodie blog, 2012
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: 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