Wisconsin NRB poses questions on DNR license fee increases

Madison — While most of the focus falls on Wisconsin DNR fish and wildlife questions or Conservation Congress advisory questions during the annual spring fish and game hearings, the Natural Resources Board (NRB) may also offer advisory questions of its own. This year the NRB is asking seven questions regarding possible DNR funding changes.

The following explanations and questions will appear on the spring hearing questionnaire.

License fee increase?

State conservation work across the U.S. is funded from a variety of sources such as sales taxes, income taxes, lottery funds, real estate transfer fees, and hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses or stamps. In Wisconsin, DNR funding comes from two primary sources, state hunting, fishing, and trapping license fees; and the Wildlife Restoration (Pittman-Robertson Act) and Sport Fish Restoration (Dingell-Johnson Act) grants. PR grants are collected by a federal excise tax on firearms and ammo and DJ funds are collected from an excise tax on fishing ear and a small portion of boat fuel.

In general, most fishing, hunting, and trapping fees are lower in Wisconsin that in adjacent states. Most license fees have not increased since 2005 (22 years ago) while inflation has increased costs by 66% since the last major fee increase. DNR operating expenses now outpace license fee collections. Also, hunting license sales have been declining and fishing license sales have remained static. Resident gun deer hunters have declined from more than 610,000 in the early 2000s to fewer than 580,000 in recent years. Not only has the purchasing power of license revenue declined, but so has the total dollar amount.

MORE COVERAGE FROM WISCONSIN OUTDOOR NEWS:

Sandhill crane season comes up short in Wisconsin

Ask a fisheries biologist: What research is saying about the impact of forward-facing sonar

Elk tag, longer bow season highlight Wisconsin DNR wildlife questions

From 2005-2022, the DNR pieced together budgets by taking advantage of strong federal funding for wildlife management, reorganizing programs and holding positions vacant, reduced staffing, reduced projects, and implemented restrictive program budgets. In 2023 and 2025, extra funding was provided through a transfer of money from the DNR forestry account. However, since 2019, revenue has continued to decline resulting in a deficit.

12. Do you support increasing hunting, fishing, and trapping fees to account for the 66% inflation rate over the last 22 years for wildlife management, fisheries management, and/or law enforcement to bring the levels of funding in line with current economic conditions?

13. Do you support increasing hunting, fishing, and trapping license fees by 25% to support wildlife management, fisheries management, and conservation law enforcement?

14. Do you support increasing license fees by 50% to support wildlife, fisheries, and game wardens?

15. Do you support increasing license fees by 75% to support wildlife, fisheries, and game wardens?

16. Do you support a one-time increase in license fees to meet the budget shortfall, making license fees more comparable to other Midwest states, with legislation that would establish smaller increases bi-annually based on the annual rate of inflation subject to approval by the Natural Resources Board and the Joint Finance Committee?

17. Do you support a $6 increase to the inland trout stamp (from $10 to $16), which has not changed since 2006?

18. If additional funding sources are not realized, will the continued reduction in funding, and the reduction in services (fish and pheasant stocking, habitat management, and fish and game enforcement), impact your participation in wildlife and fish activities?

19-22. Other states have found alternate funding sources for conservation. While funding from license sales for hunting, fishing, and trapping does enhance access to the outdoors for these purposes, there are insufficient funds to manage conservation programs such as trail development, fish and wildlife stocking, and other conservation activities.

Ensuring adequate resources are available to maintain and improve access to outdoor recreation is the focus of the following questions. The average Wisconsin resident and visitor pays sales tax at the rate of 5%. Wisconsin has a low sales tax burden, ranked 42nd among other states. The sales tax rates are: 6.875% in Minnesota, 6% in Michigan, 6.25% in Illinois. The state’s tourism industry generated a record $25.8 billion in economic impact in 2024, which included a record 114.4 million visitors. Sales taxes are a way to ensure that residents and visitors contribute.

In Minnesota, a similar sales tax increase of .00375 (3/8 of 1%) generates about $145 million for conservation efforts.

19. Do you support a small increase in the sales tax of one-eighth of 1% (similar to Minnesota and Missouri), to be used to fund conservation programs (such as wildlife, fish, and game wardens)?

20. Do you support using general tax revenue to reimburse the value of free or reduced license fees in place, which is approximately $20 million?

21. Do you support charging an access fee, similar to the fees for a state park sticker for all users of public lands (including fishery, wildlife, and state natural areas)? The access fee would be directed to fund habitat management, public access, and associated infrastructure such as parking lots, boat landings, etc.

22. Do you support requiring non-motorized watercrafts such as canoes, kayaks, and stand-up paddle boards to be registered with fees used for outdoor recreational activities?