The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources needs more money, but isn’t trying to bite the hand that feeds it.

For the first time in about a decade, hunters and anglers may soon be paying more for their pastimes.

Revenue will be a main topic at the DNR’s annual meeting with citizens Friday and Saturday in Brooklyn Center. They’ll discuss whether hunting and fishing fees should be raised to offset a pending revenue shortfall in the Game and Fish Fund, which is the main funding source for fish and wildlife management.

“We’ve been running at this level for the last 10 years,” said Jeanine Vorland, area wildlife manager with the DNR. “Inflation starts to chip away.”

However, many are concerned that increased costs could deter some anglers and hunters, and wipe away any funding benefits.

“It’s a big fear,” Vorland said.

“It doesn’t do us any good if we push people out of the market,” she added.

According to Vorland, Minnesota has a tradition of providing natural habitat across the state to provide opportunities for all wildlife enthusiasts. The Outdoor Heritage Fund, now provides a lot of that money, but Vorland said that’s only half the battle.

The fund provides ample money to expand habitat, but it doesn’t address the issue of having enough manpower and operating money to enact the changes.

“We are in a good news and bad news situation,” Vorland said.

DNR officials are already working with fewer employees. To save costs, the DNR offered early retirement to many workers, which has put more work on the backs of remaining employees. The early retirements were seen as a short-term fix, and Vorland said the DNR plans to eventually replace some of those positions.

Money from the Outdoor Heritage Fund does little to help the DNR maintain hunting and fishing programs the DNR offers and manages.

“The fee increase really keeps our core programs going,” Vorland said.

Another concern is an uneven fund balance between hunting fees and fishing fees. Vorland said fishing fees don’t bring in as much money as hunting licenses. Fishing fees don’t cover all the program costs, and hunting fees fill in the gaps.

While this has caused concern, Vorland said the reverse has been true in the past — fishing has also subsidized hunting costs.

“In the long run, it’s averaged out,” she said.

Vorland noted there is overlap between the two funds. For example, the reclamation project at Geneva Lake in Freeborn County was a combined effort that aimed to improve water quality, provide habitat for waterfowl and improve habitat for fish.

“There’s a lot of overlap in our program between the two sections,” Vorland said.

Talk about increased license fees is still in the early stages. If the Legislature passed a bill to increase fees, the soonest it would go into effect would be 2012. The level of increase is also still up in the air.

“There’s still a lot of homework that needs to be done,” Vorland said.

Vorland noted the DNR aims to limit fund increases to once a decade. While this avoids annual increases, it can lead to an increase that looks large when first enacted.

Vorland said the DNR will also look for other ways to attract funding without increasing fees.