Do American state fish and game departments worry about declining hunting and fishing license-buyers? Would they like them to increase a lot?
Licensing across the board and overall as well as by-state revenues would jump if we switched to Reciprocal Licensing. Tourism income would also leap up.
As it stands, does anyone think that out of state fees (which are often *TEN TIMES* as expensive) do anything to increase tourism or license purchases?
If licenses were applicable for no matter where you were, and if they were easily affordable, perhaps many more people would buy them in the first place or just in case.
However, if it’s really a case that everyone would flock to Colorado and hunt and fish it to the extent that no amount of increase in Colorado resident license-holders could offset the added expense of hatchery and stock management, then I suppose *we want to keep hunting numbers down in certain states*. However, I’ve never heard that’s what anyone wanted. I bet even Colorado wants its numbers up. Now, for more ‘normal’ states, it seems that for Indiana to be reciprocal with Ohio could only result in more licenses on both sides being sold. For both thrift and convenience reasons—with the net result being an overall increase in revenue for each state just the same. Win-win.
Now, what about the almost infinitely complex *season scheduling* and limits regulations? Does this encourage hunting and fishing? Does this really reflect the needs of nature? Does it reflect the facts of sport?
I would think that the Old Rule of “10% of the sportsmen get 90% of the game” would neutralize much of the beneficial effect of these regulations on 90% of the sportsmen—they end up simply being hassled. The super-effective 10% who get most of the game and who actually impact game numbers don’t mind the thick rulebooks. They’re basically professionals and probably spend as much time on computers or working their memories and logbooks to maximize their sports ‘careers’ as they spend time outdoors, which is a lot.
Does the current way that our seasons and rulebooks are set up reflect the natural world? Do animals mate and give birth by the clock? With each specie starting and stopping a few days apart from the other? I have a feeling that most animals mate or travel *sometime in the fall* then have their babies *sometime in the spring*. Hunting seasons probably only have to be that precise.
If we took my advice and started reciprocal licensing, cheap fees and simple seasons and rulebooks, we’d increase license-buying by ten-fold I bet.
And the animals wouldn’t know the difference.
Anyway, why isn’t there a license required to pick a blackberry or morel mushroom? Why not a user fee to BREATHE? Aren’t proper levels of fish and game simply the result of leaving nature alone? And treating it with proper restraint? Sure, nature needs help in our intrusive day and age. But isn’t outdoor food harvest a part of our culture? Why should we pay for it one at a time? Why not increase participation the best way of all by making it free and just including its costs in the general tax? That way all Americans would be connected to their heritage of hunters and fishermen, or gatherers of nuts and berries, as they desire.
