Why Do Fishing and Hunting License Fees Increase Every Year?

Good info Jerry. I wonder if there's a list of CA fishing license prices over the last 20yrs.

Yes there is.  I found it here;
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Statistics#SportFishingLicenses

Here are the stats for the period covered in the question as well as from then to now;

2005 $31.75 (basis year for the DFG claim of 4.7% ave increase from 2005-2009)
2006 $33.25 (+4.72%)
2007 $35.50 (+6.77%)
2008 $37.00 (+4.23%)
2009 $39.25 (+6.08%)
2010 $39.50 (+0.64%)
2011 $40.25 (+1.90%)
2012 $41.50 (+3.10%)
2013 $42.50 (+2.41%)
2014 $43.00 (+1.18%)
2015 $47.01 (+9.03%)



BTW, the difference between 2005 and 2009 license fees are 5.9%, not the 4.7% claimed.  (They divided the average for 5 years when the fee increase is over 4 years.  How do people make that kind of MISTAKE??!!!)

And this year the increase was WHOPPING 9+%.  No way,  no how that has anything to do with "cost of goods and services"

It may have something to do with the bump in supervisor pay, but I dunno.  I can assure you that no one I know in the department is getting rich off of your tax dollars.  Most of the guys I work with are there because they love the work, and sacrifice higher pay to work for the department.

What would be interesting is to look at the NUMBER of fishing and hunting licenses issued on a year by year basis. If there is a drop occurring then the price increases would likely exceed inflation for the people that do buy a license.

With increased Marine Protection Areas will likely come decreased interest as more areas become off-limits to fishing. 

I would like to see them offer a 2 or 3 trip per year fishing permit card for Cordell Bank and for ALL waters around the Farallon Islands.
They could price the card roughly $25 dollars for each trip. It would be offered only to the charter boat fleet to keep close track of the special fishing permit cards.

They need money. We need opportunity. They get money. And the fish in these zones are still largely protected from over harvest.

What would be interesting is to look at the NUMBER of fishing and hunting licenses issued on a year by year basis. If there is a drop occurring then the price increases would likely exceed inflation for the people that do buy a license.

They need money. We need opportunity. They get money. And the fish in these zones are still largely protected from over harvest.

License sold per year and revenue collected;
2005 1,245,007 $39,528,972
2006 1,256,784 $41,788,068
2007 1,283,454 $45,562,617
2008 1,203,586 $44,532,682
2009 1,179,195 $46,283,404
2010 1,112,783 $43,954,929
2011    999,968 $40,248,712
2012 1,035,224 $42,961,796
2013 1,030,016 $43,775,680
2014    985,157 $42,361,751

Between years 2005 and 2009, (the years referred to in the question) the revenue grew by 17.1%  THAT is 4.28% per year average. 

So, license fees increased at a averaged rate of 5.9% per year for the period between 2005 and 2009 while revenue collected only increased by an average 4.28% per year, while inflation in California averaged 2.68% per year.

Jacking up license fees are resulting in fewer licenses being sold.  I would venture to guess the number of folks fishing hasn't gone down, just the number of people willing to pay for a license to do so. 

Here's the thing; when the average citizen's income falls, they make adjustments to their spending despite what the inflation rate does.  DFG and most other government agencies don't have to stay within their budget.  They spend as much as they can justify as a status quo accounting for inflation.  All without any plan of where that money is gonna come from. 

This is mostly because budgets are set as a fixed dollar amount plus an inflation added increase instead of a percentage of revenue collected.  For example; if my income dropped by 10%, I would have to adjust my budget by 10%, not increase my spending by the annual inflation rate, or in this case, the cost of 'goods and services'. 

I don't begrudge any of the labor forces for their pay.  I do think the budget needs to respect the customers who purchase these 'goods and services'. 

I found out that DFG was full of it when pig tags went from free to $15.50 for one tag in a very short period of time. It's because they have to manage the species right? Bullshit. All the sudden the interest in killing feral hogs went through the roof and the state capitalized on it.

And I love how these questions are usually answered with a short,  direct response. This answer started off with,  we (DFG) don't come up with the price. Typical,  placing the blame somewhere else. The whole response was typical run around bs.

Like anyone thinks that DFG isn't as mismanaged or full of legal thievery as any other operation in this state.

I wonder if the list of license sales on that DFW site includes one-day, two-day, ten-day licenses too.

I thought the high price increase was at least partly based on FALLING numbers of total licenses sold.

A state with close to 38 million people and fewer than a million buy a fishing or hunting license (and dropping). This is indicative of a lack of interest more than the actual price of a license IMHO.

When fishing/hunting opportunity diminishes - interest wains.

To put those numbers in context, Minnesota (a state with around 5 million people) sells 773,000 annual FISHING licenses. This does NOT include any hunting licenses or those less than a year type of fishing licenses (2 day, 7 day, 14 day etc.). Only the ANNUAL total for angling.

So, California can pride itself in closing fishing opportunity on the coast as these off-limit to fishing zones increase in size. Eventually, when they just close the whole coastal complex to fishing, we can all sit at home and watch these fishing regulators just regulate themselves right out of a job!

I wonder if the list of license sales on that DFW site includes one-day, two-day, ten-day licenses too.

I've found all the data I've posted here;

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Statistics#SportFishingLicenses

Just click on the decade you want to get info on and it's all broken out.  Scroll to the bottom and you will get the grand total for all sport fishing revenue. 

If I worked for the DFG, I'd be making sure my union reps had all this info when they go in for contract negotiations. 

What would be interesting is to look at the NUMBER of fishing and hunting licenses issued on a year by year basis. If there is a drop occurring then the price increases would likely exceed inflation for the people that do buy a license.

They need money. We need opportunity. They get money. And the fish in these zones are still largely protected from over harvest.

 

Here's the thing; when the average citizen's income falls, they make adjustments to their spending despite what the inflation rate does.  DFG and most other government agencies don't have to stay within their budget.  They spend as much as they can justify as a status quo accounting for inflation.  All without any plan of where that money is gonna come from. 

Of course DFG has to stay within a budget. I don't wish to go into detail, but I don't see any willy nilly spending. In our program we track EVERYTHING so that we don't run out of funds mid project. 

Shoot, for the price of a single day ticket to Great America you can get access to diverse and abundant fisheries (largely managed by your purchase) for a whole year. I don't even blink when I go to buy my license.

I dunno, there are a lot of things in life that I pay for begrudgingly but a fishing license is not one of those things. $50 for 365 days of entertainment and stress relief ? For all that the opportunity to fish gives me, I'll gladly cut elsewhere to accommodate the increase. 

It is nice to be a governmental agency, as they don't have to justify their price increases. Can't be fuel as that has dropped way down and not expected to rise back anytime soon. The oil companies are cutting back due to cheap oil. 

Of course DFG has to stay within a budget. I don't wish to go into detail, but I don't see any willy nilly spending. In our program we track EVERYTHING so that we don't run out of funds mid project. 

Shoot, for the price of a single day ticket to Great America you can get access to diverse and abundant fisheries (largely managed by your purchase) for a whole year. I don't even blink when I go to buy my license.

Their budget has nothing to do with the revenue that is generated.  That is the point.

You or I would have to find a way to stay within our income.  Not so with the government. 

And for the price of that Great America ticket, charging me to recreate on my public property isn't what I would consider fair.  Where else are you charged to have access to your own property?  Personally, every resident should be responsible for the costs to manage the state resources, not just those who exercise the rights to fishing.  Everyone in the state pays the same amount and everyone is entitled to fish.  The management of the resources isn't based on the recreational fishing.  In many cases it's not even based on the best practice for the fish.  Instead, it's based on either political hogwash, or animal rights wackos who have personified animals as if they were sentient, like in movies like 'Finding Nemo'. 

I can not imagine being a biologist and having my work upsurped by a bunch of politicians or administrators who find it easier to cave in to the wacko demands than to fight in court.  Especially since those same wacko's contribute nothing to the funding for managing the resource.

Jerry, thanks for that link.

Interesting stats on the NUMBER of annual fishing licenses sold in California. 1970s averaged around 2 million a year. Peak period of annual fishing licenses for California was in the early 1980s with the peak year of 1981 at 2,296,107 annual licenses bought. The trend since then has been downward with only 985,157 bought last year in 2014.

Overall population trends for California from the 1970s until now would probably be of a magnitude of nearly DOUBLING in size over that time period.

So, we fishing folks are shrinking in numbers very fast. Why this is would be a good question.

So, we fishing folks are shrinking in numbers very fast. Why this is would be a good question.

Its not just California either - most of the western states have seen a significant declines in licenses purchased in recent decades. There are lots of potential reasons: increased urbanization, a shift in lifestyle and priorities, changes in family structure, increased technology, changing views on nature, decreased fishing opportunities, declining fish stocks, increased cost of licenses, and more of the population opting to fish without a license. Complicated, no doubt.

Of course DFG has to stay within a budget. I don't wish to go into detail, but I don't see any willy nilly spending. In our program we track EVERYTHING so that we don't run out of funds mid project. 

Shoot, for the price of a single day ticket to Great America you can get access to diverse and abundant fisheries (largely managed by your purchase) for a whole year. I don't even blink when I go to buy my license.

Their budget has nothing to do with the revenue that is generated.  That is the point.

You or I would have to find a way to stay within our income.  Not so with the government. 

And for the price of that Great America ticket, charging me to recreate on my public property isn't what I would consider fair. Where else are you charged to have access to your own property?  Personally, every resident should be responsible for the costs to manage the state resources, not just those who exercise the rights to fishing.  Everyone in the state pays the same amount and everyone is entitled to fish.  The management of the resources isn't based on the recreational fishing.  In many cases it's not even based on the best practice for the fish.  Instead, it's based on either political hogwash, or animal rights wackos who have personified animals as if they were sentient, like in movies like 'Finding Nemo'. 

I can not imagine being a biologist and having my work upsurped by a bunch of politicians or administrators who find it easier to cave in to the wacko demands than to fight in court.  Especially since those same wacko's contribute nothing to the funding for managing the resource.

National Parks, State Parks, County Parks, City Parks, lots of public museums and areas of historical interest, mining claims on public land, grazing lease on public land, toll bridges etc.

Decline in fishing! I think it is linked to our education system and Computer Games. This up coming Generation has no Idea of how to play. They are tought by the Computer generation, Now we see ads on T.V. saying the kids need 60 mins of exercise. There was not a reason to run an ad anything like that in the 60's. But of course we could go play on the local school grounds. These days there are not many places to play a pick up game of baseball or any other sport. This was caused by sue happy people.