DNR Director Responds

[Duke]

Tom,
Do you honestly think the 4,000,000 current NRA members are all Rambo mercenaries, militia members or assault rifle activists??? Give me a stinkin break. The NRA supports HUNTERS, because overwhelmingly that is what their membership is made of.

[kmur]

Tom,
Do you honestly think the 4,000,000 current NRA members are all Rambo mercenaries, militia members or assault rifle activists??? Give me a stinkin break. The NRA supports HUNTERS, because overwhelmingly that is what their membership is made of.

AMEN

[Kingfisher]

Amen brother. We cant put it all on the Hunters and gun owners to pay the bills. The N.R.A. did the right thing and prevented an unnesassary increase based on false information(no money) Thank God someone saw throught the bull s543 , Kingfisher

[Heavyhound]

Whoa there, I don't think that's it at all. No one is calling anyone here names and not calling sportsmen "ignorant scum". It was simply pointed out that there are DNR haters that are very vocal, these same people want change made based on feelings and not science or economics.

When I read this site and see terms like "NRA Violators" and "DNR Haters" used, it seems like name calling to me. There are idiots out there that blindly hate the DNR and I don't defend them. But those of us that oppose the license fee plan for more thoughtful reasons are painted with the same brush. You can support the DNR while opposing 100% fee hikes on non-residents.

I'd also point out that the economics part of the science and economics argument turned out to be baloney after the head of the DNR had to admit she really didn't have a handle on her own department’s budget or revenue estimates. Fortunately it was an error that worked in the DNR's favor.

[Heavyhound]

Yes the ballot initiative option is there, but first we need to see which final solution is selected by the legislators before deciding if needed. All the ideas haven't been fully debated yet. The legislators also have option of putting up a ballot initiative without all the hassle of public petitions which is very expensive. Good or bad they sometimes play that political game to bypass other ballot initiatives put up by the public. The politicians do not always like the public having direct political power of ballot initiative unless it is their own underground cohorts pushing their agendas. That goes back to DNR-DEQ funding political football not the welfare of the state resources.

Thanks. I really feel like there ought to be a way to guarantee the DNR a certain amount of state revenue outside of the fees they collect. They could then make fee hikes smaller and easier to swallow

[Will Schultz]

Heavyhound - I don't think opposing this or that is being a DNR hater, heck I've opposed plenty of things from size limits to harvest limits to overall management plans. I don't consider myself a DNR hater, in fact I consider myself a friend of the DNR. I'm certain that "DNR hater" was not directed at you or anyone that opposed the license increase. You recognize there are "idiots out there that blindly hate the DNR" that is the person that will not take the time to educate themself or get involved they're simply going to hate the DNR.

The economics of the license increases are very real and certainly not baloney. Regardless of the mistake in the estimate this year the money just isn't there. Could they have pushed the license increase through over two or three years to make it easier to swallow? Sure but the increase still needs to be made to keep the levels of management and enforcement we're used to seeing. If we want to see more law enforcement, more surveys and studies to determine if management plans are appropriate then the DNR will need more money than can be generated from just the license increase.

[Kingfisher]

One thing I am going to support is that a certain amount of General funds be allocated to the D.N.R. from the state. The reason?? Because people other than hunters and fishermen use these parks and launches and even the law enforcement. This is why the increases were fought by The N.R.A. and many other sportsmen including myself. It is completely unfair that sportsmen be handed the entire bill for the parks and enforcement divisions when non sportsmen use these all the time. Engler and Granholm both have pulled general funds from the D.N.R. starting in 2001. The state can not be allowed to shirk its duty to contribute to this agency. General funds should pay for enforcement and state parks /launches while license fees ,sticker fees and violation fines should be used for Managment , Fisheries and environment(habitat). This is the only fair solution because non sporting residents and non residents use these parks. The D.N.R. officers like state police should be payed by general funds because they work for the entire state not just us sportsmen.

This is the main reason I oppose any increases at this time. Jenny needs to step up to plate and accept the fact that her adminisration needs to change direction and do what is right. They need to put back the general funds that they have denied the D.N.R. and set an amount that will cover enforcement and state parks. Its the only fair solution. Kingfisher

[Heavyhound]

The economics of the license increases are very real and certainly not baloney. Regardless of the mistake in the estimate this year the money just isn't there. Could they have pushed the license increase through over two or three years to make it easier to swallow? Sure but the increase still needs to be made to keep the levels of management and enforcement we're used to seeing. If we want to see more law enforcement, more surveys and studies to determine if management plans are appropriate then the DNR will need more money than can be generated from just the license increase.

Warning - Dead Horse Beaten Below

I've never disagreed with the idea that the DNR needs more money. I also would support a modest increase in fees with some new smaller fees on things like boat launch use. My problem is that the proposed fee hikes are several times higher for non-residents (the fee doubles) and they are not phased in as they are for residents. If the fees come into effect a family with a couple of teenagers could have to pay over $300 in fees to take a fishing trip in Michigan.

The DNR material says, "In many cases, the current fees in Michigan are the lowest in the Upper Midwest. The new proposed fees bring many of our fees in line with what licenses cost in other states." That is VERY carefully worded and misleading because in reality the non-resident fees will be twice what neighboring states charge. Throw in the cost of $3.5/gallon gasoline and Michigan will be just too damn expensive for many families to fish. Since tourism is the second largest economic factor in Michigan driving away tourists is short sited in a state with HUGE economic problems.

The DNR has blown some of their toes off politically with this budget mistake. It will be damn near impossible to generate support next year when they say they still need to raise fees. So even if they come up with some resonable idea, that everyone can live with, this mistake will probably hamstring their efforts. Rebecca Humphries may need to resign in order to restore trust.

In my opinion the whole thing is a mess.

[Kingfisher]

Hound, I dont think that set of increases is going to be implimented. They hit a brick wall when they put it forward. Like I have been saying it can not be put on the sportsmens backs because it is the responsability of everyone in the state. Only the hunting and fisheries apply to us sportsmen . I do not support a large increase on non resident licenses and in fact would recommend lowering the non resident fishing and hunting licenses to generate an incentive for more to come here. That is a very small part of the equation. The main concern I have is that sportsmen would get hung funding the whole thing and that is just not fair to Resident and non resident sportsmen alike.


In the 80's we had a solid D.N.R. running on general funds and a D.N.R. trust fund. The trust was making so much money that Blanchards crew put forward a proposal that would allow the state to take surplus revenues from this fund. I voted yes on this sorry piece crap proposal not understanding what I had done. I was in my 20's. Whithin months our spouses were required to buy fishing licenses and state park stickers were increased. At the same time they cut many programs at the Goverors request. The result was the biggest surplus revenue the D.N.R. ever had. The state took it all. These funds went towards paying off the deficit or budget balancing or something like that. After that Engler came in and rearranged the D.N.R cutting ,slashing and took more so called surplus revenues. Just before he left office he appropriated the largest amount ever taken from the fund and passed it to Governor Granholm who promptly spent it On social welfare programs in Detroit. Her liberal spending practices didnt stop there. Now she is asking the state congress to fund a bill that would put 80 thousand unemployed auto workers through College and we are supposed to pay for it . In the meantime my daughter has worked her way through medical school at Grand Valley with no help from the state. Can see my wrath rising YET?? These men and women dont want hand outs they want Jobs!!! This is what we have to work with here.

The D.N.R. has been stripped of its general funds so that these funds can be used to put forward these social spending bills. The only way it be fixed fairly is to reinstate the general funds to the D.N.R. and put the D.N.R. revenues back into the trust fund where they are now safe from state pilfering. This will take the congress and senate to agree on and pass legislation to this effect . They have to earmark a certain amount every year to maintain the D.N.R. at the law enforcement and park level. The rest should be funded from the D.N.R. trust fund. This is the way things were run before three governors trashed it. Kingfisher

[Kingfisher]

I have to add one other thing, The Governor has started to turn back on this issue. She authorized the state to pay 5 million back to the D.N.R. to help stabilize the situation. This is the first positive move she has made in my opinion. To do that she had to give on a couple of spending projects . I applaud her decision to do this. Now she needs to go the rest of the way and restore the General funding that was the mainstay of our D.N.R. long before she took office. If she does this she gains my respect. Write your reps. and let them know that you do not support sportsmen shouldering the entire bill. Let them know that we feel this is everyones problem when it comes to D.N.R. law enforcement and state parks. Kingfisher

[Heavyhound]

King: I agree that restoring the money from the general fund is critical but I don't think fee increases are off the table. When the $5,000,0000 is gone they will be brought up again. I just hope the proposal is reworked to be more reasonable to those of us that want to visit the great state of Michigan.

[Kingfisher]

Last night I watched the end of life as we know it start to unfold as Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire. If wins the white house she will complete the Globalization of the planet that Carter and Bush started. There wont be a high paying job in this state. With the middle class gone we will end up a tourist trap for the rich. Buy your motel now and get yourself a good rifle before they are Illegal. I have sick feeling in stomach. It feels like I am losing my country and my way of life. This little tribble we have here in Michigan is nothing compared to what is going on in world affairs. And dont say she wont or cant win. They thought Obama would blow her out of the race and now she is top of the world. We are in big trouble. Kingfisher

[Kingfisher]

What I am saying is that the general fund( the 5 million for instance) needs to be set in stone for every year but I would think it would be higher than 5 million. But in short an on going general fund for the D.N.R. Thats what is needed. Then small increses on state park stickers first(everyone uses these or can use them) Boat launches 2nd. Then we can talk about license fees going up. That would be the fair way to proceed in my (opinion) . Kingfisher

[Hamilton Reef]

DNR funding is still an issue

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti ... 30655/1058

01/13/08 ERIC SHARP at 313-222-2511 or esharp@freepress.com.

In 1966, a Michigan resident deer license and a membership in the National Rifle Association cost $5 each. Today, a Michigan deer license is $15, but an NRA membership costs $35.

The NRA says it opposes any increase in the cost of Michigan hunting and fishing licenses, and the Legislature is so spineless that it won't stand up to the gun lobby and pass even modest increases of $3 or so.

So here's a proposal -- Michigan will forego license fee increases if the NRA will drop the price of its memberships to $15. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Frank Wheatlake is a member of the Natural Resources Commission that sets policy for the Department of Natural Resources, including requests to the Legislature for fee increases.

He is also on a committee that Sen. Michelle McManus, R-Lake Leelanau, established to find a new way of funding the DNR that doesn't put a great burden on the hunters, anglers and people who visit and camp in state parks.

Unfortunately, McManus predicated her plans for DNR funding reform on the Legislature passing some form of license fee increase. With legislators weaseling out of that responsibility, it becomes even more important to figure out something before a budget crisis arrives.

"Whether we have a $10-million fund balance (in the Game and Fish Fund) is irrelevant," said Wheatlake. "What we need is to get back to the employment levels of 2005 to run the department properly."

The DNR should be given some license increases simply to bring it up to par with the cost of inflation. No one with a lick of sense would suggest that the DNR can defray 2008 prices with a 1980s revenue stream. But the agency's credibility is shot because of the way it has handled its fiscal problems.

Wheatlake said the DNR's spending is audited by state and federal agencies, and that there has never been a material deficiency. "That tells me that there is no inappropriate accounting or expenditure of revenues in that department," he said.

But he said the recent flap in which a projected $10-million shortfall turned into a $10-million positive balance and averted some announced job layoffs was a good example of why some accounting changes need to be made.

"We need to be reviewing the budget monthly, like a business does, not quarterly, as state agencies do now," Wheatlake said, a practice that would have shown a month-by-month accrual of money in the Game and Fish Fund as spending cuts and other revenue-enhancing measures took effect.

I've had a hard time getting some people to understand that the $10 million in the Game and Fish Fund isn't a surplus. About $60 million to $70 million, much of it from license sales, passes through the Game and Fish Fund each year, and $10 million is the minimum balance the fund is required by law to maintain.

The real answer is to come up with a way to provide dedicated funding for the DNR that is protected from politicians and provides a flexible cash flow.

Wheatlake and others on McManus' committee will look at a lot of options, such as the small tax voters in Missouri imposed on themselves to pay for their DNR, or the higher-cost, voluntary license tags that people in Wyoming buy to support their resource agency.

The burden should be spread around. Whether they use them directly or not, the natural resources of this state belong to all of the people of Michigan.

As for the NRA, it can have a say in our DNR funding when it's willing to drop its membership fees to 1980s levels. Until then, butt out.

[Kingfisher]

Well of course the N.R.A. cant drop its membership fees because it is the only group on the planet that stands in the way of world order scumbags who seek to remove our firearms from our possesion. It takes billions of dollars to confront anti gun New world order swine around the world. The facts speak for them selves. This administration bluffed and got called end of story. Modest increses have to start with non hunting and fishing things like State parks and boat launches where the burden is equal. There is no opposition to these increses. Returning the general funds and increasing state park and requiring these stickers at all state owned boat launches should be the first step. Then as this gentelman stated they need to monitor the funds every month like a business. Increases to fishing and hunting licenses should only come to the table after fairly and I mean fair for all increases are implemented to the entire state of Michigan. After this happens there wont be much need for license increases especilly since the fund will grow from interest and lack of state pilfering. We all have to remember that the state took millions and can not do that anymore. If those funds had never been taken there would be no problems at all at the current rates. So this means if we had a year to stock some bucks away at the current rates this fund will come back and grow. Kingfisher