Lifetime license revenues

[Doc]

Does anyone here know for a fact how the revenues from lifetime hunting licenses are handled? Are they placed in a unique interest bearing account that actually grows over time? Are they stirred into the annual budgets and treated like one-shots that are spent annually? Are they stirred into the DEC over-all budget including environmental expenses, or re they used for wildlife/fishing management?

 

I have not found anything specific or official that states where this money goes. My thought is that if these lifetime license incomes are not invested for long term use in accounts that keep up with inflation (and then some), they are not as valuable an income source as annual license purchases that come in every year.

 

I know how I would manage these funds, and how I am hoping  they would use it, but has anyone run across an authentic and credible accounting of how these lifetime license funds are managed?

[mike rossi]

The funds from the sales of lifetime licenses are invested and the DEC gets the interest. This interest goes to the division of fisheries, wildlife, and marine resources. 

 

If you buy an annual license, the entire fee goes directly to the division. 

[G-Man]

What mike said.. intrest only to dec..

[Grouse]

Then what happens to the principal that was invested?

[G-Man]

Invested and put in general account..

[Grouse]

Invested and put in general account..

 

The state's or the DEC's?

[Doc]

So the annual interest on the $765 lifetime license fee (for those 12 - 69 years old as an example) makes up for the revenue missing from those hunters that otherwise would have bought all the individual licenses each year? I'm just asking. I haven't done the math, so I don't know. I'm not trying to be that precise anyway, I was just curious if it all adds up. I've never seen the management plan actually laid out anywhere.

[Grouse]

So the annual interest on the $765 lifetime license fee (for those 12 - 69 years old as an example) makes up for the revenue missing from those hunters that otherwise would have bought all the individual licenses each year? I'm just asking. I haven't done the math, so I don't know. I'm not trying to be that precise anyway, I was just curious if it all adds up. I've never seen the management plan actually laid out anywhere.

 

With interest rates as low as they currently are, I can't imagine it's earning enough.

[phade]

$765 @ 5% = $38.25

 

69-12= 57 years

 

57 x $38.25 = $2,180.25 in interest over the lifespan noted at a rough 5% interest as an example.

 

Once that money is in the acct - that is locked in forever to bear interest in some capacity. There is no guarantee a license is bought every year individually, but this locks in interest bearing income for the government.

[G-Man]

No it by no way makes up for lost money from yearly licence sales, the principal goes to the states coffers.. plus your gambling that they will have a season every year... they vote on that every year... don't think it's possible??? The safe act passed.....

Edited February 22, 2016 by G-Man

[mike rossi]

 

 

Once that money is in the acct - that is locked in forever to bear interest in some capacity. There is no guarantee a license is bought every year individually, but this locks in interest bearing income for the government.

 

You are rationalizing and defending a mistake that was made.

 

Conservation is not wall street.

 

Conservation is about taking care of problems as soon as possible. You dont do that by taking millions of dollars away and returning 6 percent a year later or what ever the formula is/was. What you do instead is you take all the money you have available and create budgets for that amount of money to get conservation work done without going broke. You dont wait for the interest when you have the cash and let species, natural resources or ecosystems erode while in the process of waiting for that interest. 

 

I made a video about this a couple years ago, in it I stressed "conservation matters are time sensitive". Nobody was interested so I took the video off of you tube. 

[mike rossi]

Another thing Phade did not factor in is the ability for the DEC to obtain federal matching grants which do not have to be repaid.

 

If the DEC cannot come up with matching dollars, it cannot obtain Pittman Robertson grants. Its my understanding that   the current situation is in fact that the DEC does not have the funds to meet the match for many grants it wants to apply for, and, as a result, projects are not getting started. 

[Elmo]

In a some what similar analogy.

I have an annual membership to the zoo. Simply by going there at least twice a year, I make get my full value back. I go several times a year. With all honesty, prior to the membership, I can't remember the last time I've been to the zoo. So essentially, with an annual membership, the zoo made a minimum of two visits worth of revenue from me that they otherwise would not have made with no real additional sunk cost as a result of my multiple visits.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited February 23, 2016 by Elmo

[phade]

You are rationalizing and defending a mistake that was made.

Conservation is not wall street.

Conservation is about taking care of problems as soon as possible. You dont do that by taking millions of dollars away and returning 6 percent a year later or what ever the formula is/was. What you do instead is you take all the money you have available and create budgets for that amount of money to get conservation work done without going broke. You dont wait for the interest when you have the cash and let species, natural resources or ecosystems erode while in the process of waiting for that interest.

I made a video about this a couple years ago, in it I stressed "conservation matters are time sensitive". Nobody was interested so I took the video off of you tube.

It is not wall street. But, it IS government.

And, government is a business form. It has a balance sheet. If they can lock in interest bearing funds in perpetuity, they will. Government is long-term.

Trying to rationalize the second bird in the bush usually results in the hand being empty. They have one in hand and any assumption beyond that is short sighted for any entity, government included.

Edited February 23, 2016 by phade

[mike rossi]

It is not wall street. But, it IS government.

And, government is a business form. It has a balance sheet. If they can lock in interest bearing funds in perpetuity, they will. Government is long-term.

Trying to rationalize the second bird in the bush usually results in the hand being empty. They have one in hand and any assumption beyond that is short sighted for any entity, government included.

 

They didn't have a balance sheet previous to the poorly thought out lifetime license scheme?

 

The gradually extinction of the hunting culture is not something the DEC is not aware of.

 

When most / all hunters are gone, the DEC is still going to develop new funding strategies, they already started. They are not going to maintain the same level of funding created by the life time license sale boom that occurred when it was promoted. They are going to want and/or need more.

 

What you are essentially saying is that the DEC can operate perpetually on the interest from the lifetime license boom. If they cant accomplish all their goals now, then how can they later? They cant , plus there will be other tasks to add to the pile.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

I would like to see how many lifetimes are being bought in Ny now a days. Cant imagine its alot.

[mlammerhirt]

I would bet the license sales for the birth-3 age group is the highest purchased lifetime license on a yearly basis....

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[mike rossi]

The ruffed grouse society, pheasants forever, and ducks unlimited have an annual budget that is similar to that of the DEC Division of F,W, and MR.

 

If those organizations handed over their donor's money to the goverment and only used the interest gleamed off of the sum for habitat conservation they would: 

 

1) Not have many donors

 

2) Would not have conserved a fraction of the habitat that they have.  Instead, they would have all these "future plans" contingent on funding.

[mike rossi]

I would bet the license sales for the birth-3 age group is the highest purchased lifetime license on a yearly basis....

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

I have heard this argument before....

 

But the fact is, if daddy holding a lifetime hunting license no longer is an active hunter, then he isn't buying a license for his offspring.  

 

Even prior to lifetime licenses, the DEC had a very limited ability to calculate how many "active"  hunters there are. Lifetime licenses have made this even more difficult. 

 

Without a fair estimate of how many "active" hunters, how can it be assumed parents will perpetually buy birth-3 age group lifetime licences for their kids? Or accurately project how many  kids they will have to begin with?

Edited February 23, 2016 by mike rossi

[mlammerhirt]

It can't be assumed....I am sure your parents thought you what happens when you assume something.

Just making a long shot guess that whatever active hunters we have left in the state are attempting to preserve a family tradition or value... Thus purchasing a lifetime license for their child or young family member.

Another long shot guess at why the child's lifetime license may be purchased more then an adult lifetime license could simply be cost.

Not assuming anything....just taking a guess.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Edited February 23, 2016 by mlammerhirt

[phade]

They didn't have a balance sheet previous to the poorly thought out lifetime license scheme?

 

The gradually extinction of the hunting culture is not something the DEC is not aware of.

 

When most / all hunters are gone, the DEC is still going to develop new funding strategies, they already started. They are not going to maintain the same level of funding created by the life time license sale boom that occurred when it was promoted. They are going to want and/or need more.

 

What you are essentially saying is that the DEC can operate perpetually on the interest from the lifetime license boom. If they cant accomplish all their goals now, then how can they later? They cant , plus there will be other tasks to add to the pile.

 

Nobody has said anything about them operating perpetually - you are putting words in my mouth and quite a big jump at that. There is a difference between someone saying they have guaranteed operating income vs. operating perpetually solely based off of that income. 

 

It doesn't account for any hypothetical seasonal license purchase that hasn't happened and a sale in which nobody can guarantee happens, not even you.

 

In 75 or 100 years, in theory, that investment is still bearing interest after that person is dead/no longer hunts. That is the kind of thought process that the government takes - it outlives the individual.

[mike rossi]

.

 

In 75 or 100 years, in theory, that investment is still bearing interest after that person is dead/no longer hunts. That is the kind of thought process that the government takes - it outlives the individual.

 

I understand that.  But while it outlives the individual the environment dies. 

[jrm]

Hesitant to jump into the middle of this, but want to make sure I understand.

From what has been written, annual license fees go into the DEC spending pot and lifetime license fees go into an interest bearing vehicle with the interest being available for the DEC spending pot. That being the case, I don't understand Mike's distaste for lifetime licenses.

Phade used the example of a lifetime license generating the following revenue: $765 @ 5% = $38.25. That's for the lifetime sportsman license, which included small/big game, turkey and fishing.

Alternately, there is the Hunting lifetime for $535. Using the same 5% return (which I think is a little high for the current market, but will use is anyway)the annual revenue it $26.75.

An annual hunting license is only $22. The DEC actually does $4.75 more income on a lifetime license.

For all privileges of the sportsman (hunt, turkey, fish) you would pay $57/year vs.the theoretical income of $38.25. Seem like a loss - however, that lifetime license forces every hunter to buy all three items. If they get it just for deer and turkey, for example, they also pay for fishing. Now the state actually receives $38.25 as opposed to an annual fee of $32. I don't know how many lifetime sportsman holders do or do not take advantage of all three license privileges (or how many would not have if buying individually on an annual basis). That's a calculated risk that still seems to tip in favor of lifetime income.

On top of that is the already mentioned point. The lifetime payment is all up-front. It continues to generate that annual fee whether or not the person hunts and long after the person is deceased. Seems like a good idea all around.

The income generated seems to be at least the same, and probably more (definitely more over the long term). How does that cause the environment to die?

Edited February 23, 2016 by jrm

[growalot]

I consider, as with Elmo's post...they did a great deal of LT sales off of ppl like me 40's and up which cost more...where we are more libel to die in 15-20 years or stop hunting due to health issues before the senior price kicks in...

 

Then you have all the guys that did buy for their kids...HOPING that they would continue to hunt...many many that won't...had they not gotten the LT than the DEC would have never gotten any funds in those cases...So if they handle those funds properly they are ahead of the curve. That is the gist of it...managed properly

Edited February 23, 2016 by growalot

[phade]

I understand that.  But while it outlives the individual the environment dies. 

 

It doesn't die. It changes. Evolves per say.