The Future of Wisconsin Conservation Funding: Alternatives & Options for

1. 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 InglisSteinfeld

2. Current Fish & Wildlife Revenues Fish & Wildlife Total Revenues 2010-11: $77,631,400 Source: Polasek, 2012 2/25

3. Current Fish & Wildlife Expenditures Fish & Wildlife Total Expenditures 2010-11: $78,494,800 Source: Polasek, 2012 3/25

4. Gun Deer Hunting (Males) Projection 2000-2030 Source: Winkler & Klaas, 2011 4/25

5. Hunting Participation Rates 2000, 2005, & 2009 Source: Winkler & Klaas, 2011 5/25

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Alternative 2: Retention Efforts Minnesota DNR webpage: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/index.html 12/25

13. Alternative 2: Retention Efforts Minnesota DNR webpage: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/index.html 13/25

14. Alternative 2: Retention Efforts Minnesota DNR webpage—Washington County Example 14/25

15. 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

16. 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

17. Alternative 3: Funding Source Restructuring Actual & Predicted Sales of Resident Deer Hunting Licenses Source: Polasek, 2012 & Author’s calculations 17/25

18. Alternative 3: Funding Source Restructuring Revenue maximizing price: $116 Resident Deer Hunting Licenses—Predicted 2012 Sales & Revenues at Various Prices Source: Polasek, 2012 & Author’s calculations 18/25

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

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