There seems to be some significant misunderstandings regarding changes to the new licensing system. First, and there really is no escaping this issue; the current system is dying. The hardware we are using is no longer manufactured, and replacement machines are limited to a relatively small supply that we have in stock. Under the new system there will be three sales channels: walk-in retail agents, home/library/other PC Internet sales, and telephone sales.

We have been without telephone sales for over a year. Bringing this sales channel back will be a major improvement to license availability. We will have to spend some money to have a system that can provide licenses and account for $20 million in revenues annually. And, there have been no general appropriations for that task. Lump sum funding simply does not exist. We are left with the service charge option that was approved in concept as early as 2001. No one likes to have to use that funding mechanism, but we are out of other options.

Under the current pricing structure, $2.75 would be added to the cost of a transaction regardless of how many licenses are being purchased. Even with this charge, I believe that Georgia hunters and anglers will find license prices in Georgia to be a bargain compared to most Southeastern states.

There has been considerable discussion about money going out of state. This issue puzzles me. We do a lot of business with vendors headquartered outside of the State of Georgia. Doing so saves sportsmen’s money by getting the best deal available. If we artificially exclude competition, you can be guaranteed higher costs. Let me share an example. We now print the Popular Guides to Hunting and Fishing Regulations through a vendor in Utah for about $15,000. Some years back these were printed in Georgia; hunting regulations alone cost $50,000. The sportsmen of Georgia are better served by the money going out of state with a $35,000 savings that can now be put on the ground in wildlife management. The same principle holds true for the automated licensing system. Besides, if a company has an in state regional office and an out of state headquarters (some do, not in this case), would we get to consider their bid under an in-state vendors only policy?

There also is considerable misunderstanding regarding private and public information. First, the data collected through the licensing process belong to the Department not to Central Bank. Central Bank cannot use or release this information. Data, like name and address, held by any government agency is public record except for a few special circumstances specifically excluded in law.

This legal requirement is not new, and it was not created by DNR or WRD. This requirement comes from Georgia law on open records. For example, names and addresses collected for WMA quota hunt applications have been released for many years. In fact, many organizations, including some highly critical of the new contract, have requested lists like licenses buyers and quota hunt applicants.

Names and addresses that WRD collects on an application or at a point of sale are public records. These data have been and will continue to be provided upon request when required by law. The records collected through the old licensing system had certain (but not complete) protections only because name and address was collected through linking with driver license data that has a legal exclusion.

In summary, we are spending $2.2 million to have the ability to sell hunting and fishing licenses, manage associated data, and receive an additional $10 million in associated federal funds. A spin-off benefit is that $550,000 in operations and personnel costs will be shifted from administration to on-theground wildlife management.

The money paid by sportsmen and women still comes to the State (less the service charge). License revenues plus some additional general revenues are appropriated to the Department. We raise around $17.5 million with license sales and are appropriated around $28 million annually.