{"id":82806,"date":"2026-01-06T18:05:05","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T18:05:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ammunitiontogo.com\/lodge\/?p=82806"},"modified":"2026-01-06T18:05:05","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T18:05:05","slug":"hunting-license-fee-increases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ammunitiontogo.com\/lodge\/hunting-license-fee-increases\/","title":{"rendered":"Hunting License Fee Increases For Us. Pay Hikes For Them."},"content":{"rendered":"

Hunting License Fee Increases by State<\/h2>\n

Recent findings show conservation agency directors taking five-figure salary increases across seven years \u2013 all the while running deficits and staffing shortages. Bloat the top and the bottom is starved. <\/span>In many instances, open officer positions will remain unfilled due to \u201clack of resources.<\/span><\/a>\u201d Instead of tightening their belts, agencies are plugging their budget roles by forcing hunters and anglers to pay more for the same privileges.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Nearly one in five states has proposed or enacted hunting license fee increases \u2013 some reaching 30% or more \u2013 in only the past few years.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
State<\/span><\/td>\nFee Hike Increase %<\/span><\/td>\nStatus<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Washington<\/span><\/td>\n38% across most licenses<\/span><\/td>\nImplemented 2023. Additional Increase in 2025<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Maryland<\/span><\/td>\nHunting +42.9% (res), +23.1% (nonres); fishing +~56% nontidal<\/span><\/td>\nImplemented 2023. Additional increase in 2025<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Oregon<\/span><\/td>\n~12\u201314% (2026) + 6\u20138% (2028, 2030) => ~27\u201330% total<\/span><\/td>\nImplemented (phased through 2030)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Nebraska<\/span><\/td>\n14%<\/span><\/td>\nImplemented 2024. Additional increase in 2026<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Wisconsin<\/span><\/td>\nResident Small Game: $16>$36<\/span><\/p>\n

Resident Deer Tag: $22>$42<\/span><\/p>\n

Non Resident Archer: $165>$200<\/span><\/td>\n

Proposed, then blocked (2025)<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ohio<\/span><\/td>\n$74>$210 Non Resident Deer Permit<\/span><\/td>\nAwaiting approvals<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Michigan<\/span><\/td>\nProposed ~+33\u201334% on combos<\/span><\/td>\nProposed. Not implemented<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A Michigan resident<\/span><\/a> put it plainly:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cDNR should CUT vacation budget before pushing fee increases. <\/span>DNR Director, governor recently left for a taxpayer-funded trip to the United Kingdom and Ireland<\/span><\/a>.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the median American worker sees only 3-4% annual wage growth\u2013and that\u2019s if they\u2019re lucky. Agencies will insist that inflation and rising operational costs justify these hikes. Prove it.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Inflation over the last decade? 3% on average.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Salary hikes for top conservation brass? Some exceed 50%<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
State<\/th>Role\/Position<\/th>2010<\/th>2011<\/th>2012<\/th>2013<\/th>2014<\/th>2015<\/th>2016<\/th>2017<\/th>2018<\/th>2019<\/th>2020<\/th>2021<\/th>2022<\/th>2023<\/th>2024<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Wisconsin<\/td>Director of Natural Resources<\/td><\/td><\/td>$125,000<\/td>$125,000<\/td>$126,251<\/td>$127,514<\/td>$127,026<\/td>$127,026<\/td>$127,026<\/td>$147,000<\/td>$149,947<\/td>$152,755<\/td>$152,755<\/td>$155,813<\/td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Oregon<\/td>ODFW Director<\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td>$136,320<\/td>$142,464<\/td>$145,308<\/td>$148,572<\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td>$222,804<\/td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tennessee<\/td>TWRA Executive Director<\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td>$168,708<\/td>$168,708<\/td>$168,708<\/td>$168,708<\/td>$168,708<\/td>$150,324<\/td>$181,968<\/td>$178,968<\/td>$214,416<\/td>$243,776<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Utah<\/td>Utah Director of Natural Resources<\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td>$126,214<\/td>$129,247<\/td>$130,042<\/td>$132,974<\/td>$132,974<\/td>$140,004<\/td>$140,004<\/td>$158,870<\/td>$158,870<\/td>$163,634<\/td>$241,508<\/td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Maryland<\/td>Maryland DNR Secretary<\/td>$148,778<\/td>$148,778<\/td>$148,778<\/td>$148,778<\/td>$148,778<\/td>$148,778<\/td>$159,312<\/td>$159,312<\/td>$159,312<\/td>$159,312<\/td>$159,312<\/td>$166,427<\/td>$171,454<\/td>$215,000<\/td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Missouri<\/td>Missouri Director of Natural Resources<\/td>$120,000<\/td><\/td><\/td>$120,000<\/td>$120,500<\/td>$121,705<\/td>$121,705<\/td>$124,139<\/td>$124,139<\/td>$124,139<\/td>$129,142<\/td>$129,142<\/td>$138,970<\/td>$160,821<\/td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Michigan<\/td>Michigan DNR Director<\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td>$145,000<\/td>$145,000<\/td>$150,000<\/td>$148,500<\/td>$155,000<\/td>$165,000<\/td>$165,000<\/td>$170,000<\/td>$173,400<\/td>$178,637<\/td>$189,444<\/td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Washington<\/td>WDFW Director<\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td>$136,700<\/td>$152,700<\/td>$155,600<\/td>$183,124<\/td>$170,800<\/td>$169,100<\/td>$176,000<\/td>$188,800<\/td>$205,000<\/td>$211,100<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Nebraska<\/td>Nebraska Director of Natural Resources<\/td><\/td><\/td><\/td>$113,882<\/td>$116,444<\/td>$117,772<\/td>$145,003<\/td>$148,483<\/td>$149,968<\/td>$151,919<\/td>$151,919<\/td>$170,000<\/td>$173,401<\/td>$220,002<\/td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ohio<\/td>Ohio Division of Wildlife Chief<\/td><\/td><\/td>$127,400<\/td>$127,400<\/td>$127,400<\/td>$127,400<\/td>$137,113<\/td>$137,113<\/td>$144,061<\/td>$169,998<\/td>$174,678<\/td>$172,723<\/td>$179,629<\/td>$185,016<\/td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n
(Source: Opengovpay, ballotpedia, Govsalaries, Openpayrolls, https:\/\/salaries.flatwaterfreepress.org\/)<\/h6>\n

If budgets are truly strained, start by cutting administrative bloat\u2013not squeezing the people who actually fund conservation. Either reduce the bloated salaries, or stop pretending this is an \u201cinflation problem\u201d while padding paychecks at the expense of the hunters.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Consequences: Few Hunters, Less Conservation Funding<\/b><\/h2>\n

\"Father<\/p>\n

Participation will fall\u2013and every agency should know it. <\/span><\/p>\n

A 2024 study of how price sensitive outdoorsmen are<\/a> makes it clear hunters love the pastime. But they can only pay for licenses up to a certain point.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

The table below shows what recent license price hikes are in certain states followed by the drop in hunters that comes along with the hike, according to that study. It doesn’t paint a pretty picture for the future of conservation in our country.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
State<\/span><\/td>\nLicense Hike<\/span><\/td>\nResident Drop <\/span>Projection<\/b><\/td>\n# of participants <\/span>Projection<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Washington<\/span><\/td>\n38%<\/span><\/td>\n6.7%<\/span><\/td>\n~33,500<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Maryland<\/span><\/td>\n42.9%<\/span><\/td>\n7-8%<\/span><\/td>\n~11,000\u201312,000<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Oregon<\/span><\/td>\n30.4% phased to 2030<\/span><\/td>\n~5% cumulative by 2030<\/span><\/td>\n~13,000\u201314,000<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Nebraska<\/span><\/td>\n14%<\/span><\/td>\n2.5%<\/span><\/td>\n~7,000\u20137,500 resident hunters<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Wisconsin<\/span><\/td>\n21.2%<\/span><\/td>\n1.4%<\/span><\/td>\n~1,200\u20131,300 nonresident hunters<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Ohio<\/span><\/td>\n55%<\/span><\/td>\n~3.6%<\/span><\/td>\n~2,500\u20132,800 nonresident hunters<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

One Missouri resident<\/span><\/a> summed up a growing national sentiment:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThey should change their name to the \u2018Missouri Department of Wildlife Eradication.\u2019 I used to respect our conservation department\u2026 but I sincerely believe they\u2019ve lost their calling.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The people who are actually managing wildlife aren\u2019t the ones being paid \u2013 the people who are managing spreadsheets are.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In one case, the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency proposed a fee hike to help pay for <\/span>salary increases<\/span><\/a>. In the state, the director\u2019s salary rose $60k+ in just 2 years! The fee hike proposal has since been scrapped.<\/span><\/p>\n

On average, <\/span>Wildlife techs are making <\/span>$15\u201322\/hour.<\/b><\/a> Biologists are being paid between <\/span>$40\u201360k.<\/b>
\n<\/b><\/a>Field officers<\/span><\/a> are stretched so thin with resources highly concentrated and allocated towards leadership salaries, many agencies are keeping open positions unfilled.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bureaucratic Bloat: Greasy Handshakes Shakedown Conservation<\/b><\/h2>\n

\"Red<\/p>\n

When hunters and anglers open their wallets to buy a license, they assume the money flows into conservation, habitat, or wildlife management. What they don\u2019t realize is that among the drivers of these fee hikes aren\u2019t deer populations<\/a>, habitat declines, or rising diesel costs \u2014 they\u2019re the people sitting at the top of these agencies.<\/span><\/p>\n

And not a single one of them was ever voted into power.<\/span><\/p>\n

In every state pushing double-digit license increases \u2014 Washington, Maryland, Oregon, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Ohio \u2014 the story is the same. Directors and secretaries are <\/span>not elected<\/b>. They\u2019re <\/span>appointed<\/b> by governors or by commissions who are also appointed. It\u2019s a closed loop: bureaucrats selecting bureaucrats, insulated from the voters who actually fund the system.<\/span><\/p>\n

No Downward Accountability<\/h3>\n

These directors don\u2019t answer to hunters or anglers. They answer upward \u2014 to political appointees, administrative boards, and governors\u2019 offices. Downward accountability? Zero. If they mismanage budgets, shrink public access, or lose tens of thousands of participants through higher fees, there is <\/span>no mechanism<\/b> for the public to remove them.<\/span><\/p>\n

A decline in hunter participation that would get a CEO fired earns a wildlife director a new title, a new deputy, and a fresh 5-figure salary bump.<\/span><\/p>\n

Institutional Nepotism Inside Wildlife Agencies<\/h3>\n

The hiring pipeline makes it worse. Many directors<\/a> are promoted from inside the very agencies they later oversee \u2014 climbing the ladder from biologist to supervisor to administrator to deputy director, until they eventually become the ones signing off on the fee hikes. It\u2019s not meritocracy. It’s a bureaucratic lineage. <\/span>Institutional nepotism<\/b> \u2014 not familial, but structural.<\/span><\/p>\n

They protect each other.<\/span><\/p>\n