Syracuse.com - Hamilton sportsman says Cuomo's new outdoors licensing plan has problems

[HuntingNY-News]

"I don’t get the feeling fish and wildlife management will be further ahead with this proposal in the long run," he said.

Gary Will, of Hamilton, shared the following in an email he sent me this weekend. It deals with what he sees as problems with the governor's proposed license restructuring proposal. He said he related his concerns at recent DEC meetings concerning the plan at meetings in Cortland and Utica, and has also sent a letter to the governor's office.

My name is Gary Will. I live, hunt, fish and trap in southern Madison County between Hamilton and Earlville. I also fish in Otsego County and have a camp in Oswego County. I do not belong to any group or club, however I am a volunteer to the DEC Southeast Zone Waterfowl Season Setting Task Force.

A 365 day license is proposed. I have the feeling people will forget specific dates of previous purchase. Isn’t it possible the fishing license purchase can become confusing with other licenses issuing dates? How many people have been surprised to learn their NYS Vehicle Inspection had expired when stopped by an officer? Unlike a sporting license this inspection sticker is visible every time a person gets in the vehicle.

Here’s an idea start all licenses Jan 2 and end Jan 1 in essence a calendar year license. What a marketing ploy for a parent to get a license for a young person for a Xmas gift.

Perhaps a better question is, “why are we changing the sport license time period”.

Next, I see there is no Marine angling license yet more than 2 dozen fisheries people, environmental protection staff and law enforcement officers are assigned to Coastal shores and waters. Apparently it is acceptable for freshwater fisherman to pay downstate expenses. On the other hand, I’m sure a new fee won’t fly considering a bulging Conservation Fund … speaking of which….

My major concern in this proposal is the omission of the fact there is 40 million dollars of surplus or balance dollars in the Conservation Fund. I understand reducing fees will eat into the surplus and after a few years that balance will be gone. Although programs will probably be maintained we deserve additional programs, ample opportunity to hunt & fish and at the same time better conserve our F&W resources. So, I’m against lowering the hunting, fishing and trapping fees. Keep them the same and let the Division of F&W do more work through the surplus in the Conservation Fund.

One of the goals mentioned in this presentation is to “generate sufficient revenue to sustain fish & wildlife programs”. How do you do that with $5million dollars less? The answer is drain the surplus from an earmarked account until it is gone. The bottom line is, the Governor’s administrators really don’t want to enhance F&W programs and will be back to us around 2018 for a license fee increase.

Wouldn’t we rather see a portion of this 40 million dollar balance be used on an annual basis to fund additional staff, refurbish hatcheries and the remaining pheasant farm, new equipment and most importantly new projects? Wasn’t this promised during the last license fee increase in 2009? Now, what a great opportunity to enhance F&W resources as well as hunting, fishing and trapping. I realize trying to utilize surplus funds is going against the Governor’s office and more specifically the Division of Budget because this is their proposal. But, that’s too bad and this kind of irresponsible fiscal management needs to change. They work for us through one of the oldest and best dedicated funds in the nation, that is, the Conservation Fund which was established in 1925.

Another issue is combining license types. I don’t have a major problem with this section, however this may not be all that efficient. A trapper’s best interest is at stake when

biologists want to conduct a furbearer survey or a trapper survey. It will be more difficult and costly to sort a much smaller group of people, say 3,000, when they are lumped with 600,000 hunters.

The frequency of surveys may also be more limited due to costs. Boasting this proposal will save trappers $21 is absurd and insulting. I’m a trapper and very willing to pay for my trapping experiences. This year I sold one muskrat for $19, or if you prefer, the sale of one small beaver pelt has paid the license. I suggest removing the trapper’s license from the proposed hunting license.

I don’t think DEC, CFAB and especially the Governor’s office has any idea what the sporting public thinks on this issue. Making decisions based on the desires of only a few is not right and at best limited. By the way, I cannot find the details of this proposal on either the DEC or CFAB websites. I might add the similarity between the less than ample time in regards to announcing these meetings is very close to the enactment of the SAFE Act.

In this regard I have a suggestion. Since we have a computerized licensing system that includes communication with 1500 licensing issuing agents, how about designing a short survey consisting of 5 or 6 questions, email it to the these agents and ask them to hand out the survey when a person comes in to purchase a license. For those that want to complete the survey they can mail it back to Albany. DEC would have several months to collect the information from a wide group of anglers, hunters and trappers at a very reasonable cost. You may find out the constituents don’t want any change or less change than is being proposed.

Finally, I have never heard of any corporation designing a fiscal plan that has a goal to reduce income. DEC is not in the business of making money, however they are charged with managing this State’s resources for recreation and perpetuation of fish and wildlife. It takes time, money and qualified people to do this.

I don’t get the feeling F&W management will be further ahead with this proposal in the long run.

View the full article on The Syracuse Outdoors Blog