Dennis Anderson: Needed: more give and less take

Republican are being short-sighted in their opposition to essential license fee increases.

How exactly the current legislative session might end is anyone's guess. Perhaps Gov. Mark Dayton, a DFLer, will parlay his evolving common-sense approach to governance into a victory over the Republican-controlled House and Senate. Or perhaps Republicans will gain the upper hand. Either way, expect few of these politicos at the May 14 fishing opener. Fisticuffs among them won't be complete by then.

As has been well-chronicled, Republicans so far are sticking to their mantra of "no new taxes.'' That goes for fees, also, and the House and Senate environment and natural resources commission so far have nixed proposed increases in hunting and fishing license fees, and also have thrown cold water on bumping up boat registration fees -- all ideas backed by Dayton and the Department of Natural Resources.

That the vast majority of Minnesota hunters and anglers can live with relatively small increases this session in license fees is a given. Hunters and anglers might be the only subset of Americans who have throughout history voted to tax themselves again and again to benefit conservation.

Who else would willingly require the purchase of trout stamps, duck stamps and pheasant stamps, in addition to hunting and fishing license fees -- wanting only reasonable stewardship of the state's natural resources in return?

Adding support to the Dayton and DNR fee-increase proposal, Minnesota hunting and fishing licenses -- which usually represent the smallest annual expense of hunters and anglers -- haven't gone up in price since 2001.

That said, some Republican outdoors-funding priorities this session are on the right track. Rep. Denny McNamara, R-Hastings, and Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, have properly emphasized the need to pay for increased invasive species control and chronic wasting disease monitoring, for example. And at least in some instances they can be applauded for substituting these important emerging issues at the expense of certain expendable projects approved previously for funding by the Legislative Citizen Committee on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).

But there's a problem, and it's the usual one: In their opposition to higher fees, McNamara, Ingebrigtsen, et al, reach too far, hanging their hats on what they argue is fiscal prudence, but what in the case of opposition to higher hunting and fishing license costs is fiscal buffoonery.

What, after all, besides declining services, less substantial field work and poorer natural resource management in general can result when fees that support the Game and Fish Fund are stagnant for 10 years?

In their tight-fisted gambit, House and Senate Republicans play to their advantage the largely unspoken reality that many hunters and anglers are more comfortable politically and philosophically in the Republican camp than with the DFL, no matter the details of the party's position on an a given issue.

Gun rights explain this in part. Republicans are for 'em, Democrats less so. But more broadly, many hunters and anglers simply are more culturally aligned with Republicans than Democrats. Exceptions exist. But it's generally true.

Also true, and benefiting Republicans this session, is that many hunters and anglers are more takers than givers. Few sentences in the English language, for instance, begin more misleadingly than those that start, "I've hunted and fished all my life'' -- a statement that in many cases demonstrates nothing more than a person's propensity toward equipment acquisition, and an interest in pulling triggers.

Takers, many of these people are, little more, as contrasted with hunters and anglers who give willingly, and substantially, of their time and treasure to benefit fish, wildlife and natural resources.

This session, implicitly or explicitly, Republicans are betting that enough of these self-servers can be cobbled together with other malcontent rod and gun toters to parlay their fee-hike struggle with Dayton into a victory, however short-sighted.

It says here that bet won't pay off, and in the end Republicans will regret they fought so hard to defeat a proposal that would jump a $17 fishing license all the way to $24.

Dennis Anderson • danderson@startribune.com

I agree with you 100% Fishinchicks. That's the problem I have with most fee and license increases is that they just spend more. In these times we all have to learn to live within our budgets. With the economy not recovering yet, it's not a time to raise them.

That being said, I'd still buy my licenses.

I can see a small increase for the resident anglers, but put the burden of this elsewhere....like the out-of-towners. I'd also rescind that no-license on portables law too. At 11 bucks a pop that adds up to a ton of money and is no different than charging for boat registration. You fish out of a boat, you pay for it to be on the water. You fish out of a shack of any kind during the winter, you should pay for that creature comfort too.

The increase in license money, as I understand it, is earmarked for the state's general fund. Only the additional fees for watercraft will go to the dnr and then will only fund the invasives issues

FnC is dead on with one word here....little. As in a little increase.

She is also dead on about this dnr living within its means.