Michigan Muskie Alliance

HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT WORK GROUP
FINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 9, 2006
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/f ... 7934_7.pdf

NRC proposal would increase hunting license fees

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/statewide ... xml&coll=1

11/10/06 Bob Gwizdz

LANSING -- The cost of a resident deer hunting license would double under a proposed fee schedule announced Thursday at the Natural Resources Commission meeting.

The increase is deemed necessary as the Department of Natural Resources faces huge budget deficits, as soon as next year, in its fish, wildlife and law enforcement operations.

The proposal would increase the cost of all hunting and fishing licenses. It is the product of a 10-month effort by a work group, made up of wide swatch of constituent groups, appointed by NCR chairman Keith Charters.

The proposal calls for a restricted fishing license, which does not allow the take of trout or salmon, to increase from $15 to $20 and an unrestricted fishing license to increase from $28 to $40.

A resident small game license would increase from $15 to $20, a duck stamp would go from $5 to $10, an elk license would double to $200, a turkey license would double to $30 and a bear license would more than triple from $15 to $50.

In addition, the current senior citizen's discount -- 60 percent -- would be reduced to 20 percent, though the current youth discount would remain at 50 percent.

License fees were last increased in 1996.

Non-resident licenses would also increase under the proposal, but generally not by as large a percentage.

Non-residents would pay $300, up from $150, for a bear license; $165, up from $138, for a deer license; $100, up from $69, for a small game license and $140, up from $69, for a turkey tag.

The proposal also includes a provision to discount some licenses for management purposes. The DNR currently discounts antlerless deer tags from the full cost of a deer license ($15) to $10. Under the proposal, antlerless tags would cost $30, but would be subject to discount.

Natural Resources commissioner Frank Wheatlake, who oversaw the work group, said the NRC has identified legislative sponsors for the fee increase and hopes to have a bill introduced shortly.

The new fee schedule, Wheatlake said, would allow the DNR to restore the program cuts it has made in recent years to avoid a budget deficit, including a more than 50 percent cut in the number of coho salmon stocked in Lake Michigan annually.

In addition, the NRC wants the Legislature to approve additional fee increases in the future linked to the Consumer Price Index. If that doesn't happen, the current fee schedule would carry the DNR through to 2010, Wheatlake said.

The new package would generate $35 million over the next three years, assuming a 5 percent decrease in license sales due to resistance to the new fees. The projected budget deficit for the state's Game and Fish Protection Fund next year is $10 million.

The governor's office has been briefed on the proposal, Wheatlake said.

The work group, which met 10 times to develop the proposal, was made up of representatives of hunting, fishing, conservation, tourism and business groups, Wheatlake said.

But Wheatlake cautioned that the fee increases are a short-term fix and the NRC will continue to explore other options for funding the DNR over the long haul.

The old proposal (C) that was backed by and passed under Blanchard lets the state take surplus revenues out of the D.N.R and funnels it into the main tax fund to pay for social programs and budget balancing. The last time they hiked up state park fees and spouse licenses and such was the same bull #### they fed us before and now are doing it again. I hope proposal 1 passed. this will stop further pilfering of D.N.R. funds by the state of Michigan. You can thank the departing Republican congress for getting this proposal on the books before being ousted.Kingfisher

I have been researching this to see if this is still in effect. Heres some results. http://www.michigandaily.com/media/stor ... ndaily.com this shows that proposal 1 if passed this past election would in fact stop the state from raiding the D.N.R. every time they cant fund something. It explains the past actions of Blanchards crew when they raised every state park costs ,cut D.N.R. personal and made your spouse buy a license. This kind of political trickery is common in the democrat party. If they couldnt raise taxes they found another way to steal the money to fund social programs in Detroit. I have not heard much on television about the election results in Michigan. I am praying that proposal 1 passed. This will slam the door in Grandholms face and keep her hand out of the D.N.R. funds. My next post will have the results of the election. Kingfisher

I am very happy to say that Proposal 1 did in fact pass with over 80 % of the voters telling Granholm to keep her mits out of the D.N.R. fund. The last four years must have decimated the D.N.R finacial base to warrent these increases. Its about time the voters woke up to this raping of the D.N.R. Blanchard, Engler and Granholm all used that old proposal C to slip in the back door and take the money out. This is why the out houses at the parks are full off stinking crap and not pumped. This is why we dont have money for fish stocking and a spotted Muskie program. This is why state parks are in the worst condition since before Blanchard.This is why there are not enough D.N.R. officers patroling our rivers and lakes. and this is why we will have to suck it up and pay the higher fees to rebuild and protect our natural resourses. As long as Granholm cant touch the money this is a good thing. It will repair the damage of the last 16 years and insure that it never happens again. http://www.mlive.com/elections/election ... ?proposals Thanks for posting this Hamilton,this is important information.

Would someone please tell me how the answer to fewer license sales is to raise the price? Only government uses that kind of stupid, flawed logic. The assumption seems to be that sales won't drop because sportsmen are so addicted to hunting and fishing that will just suck it up and pay any fee they have to for the privilege. Many will pay the fees but speaking for the out-of-state sportsmen I can say many are giving up.

The out-of -state fees are far too high and have already resulted in less tourism. I'm proof. As a Michigan native that moved to Ohio I've been forced to pay out of state fees for about 15 years. In all of those years I organized groups to go to northern Michigan to go deer hunting. We spent literally thousands of dollars in Michigan, gas, food, sporting goods, camping fees. We stopped last year when we couldn't afford to pay the fees and bring our kids. The money we would have brought to Michigan will not be there this year either. Great plan boys, great plan.............

I too was Angry at first because I thought that the state would just take the money again like they did for the last 16 years. The D.N.R. has been stripped by three governors who forced budget cuts and and higher costs to raise what they called surplus revenues. This money was used for social programs by the Democrats and to replace lost revenues due to tax breaks for corporations by Engler. Both sides were guilty of beating the D.N.R. into the ground. If we want our programs to get back on line we need a huge source of funds to jump start the Programs back into service. At least now all the money will be used by the D.N.R. They are calling it a short term fix. I hope to see license fees and state park fees down in a few years as they get a new budget established and funded. You have to remember they were raped for 16 years . Many stocking programs have been shelved due to lack of funding. We have to rebuild this Organization from the ground up. I dont feel so bad spending the extra money as long as I know Granholm and Governors to come cant touch it. Its a shame we have had to get to this point but with the new Amendment we will assure that this political trickery never happens again. This means food for the baby muskies. This means putting officers back on the rivers and lakes . It means getting the toilets pumped at the state parks. This is better than what we had. Kingfisher

Another example of ignorance!!!

I just don't understand how they can say and do some of the things that they can do!!

The fact is we voted it into law in the 80,s. It was a proposal that then Governor Jim Blanchard backed and asked for our support on. At the time I was a democrat and voted what my governor asked for. I thought it would do no harm to take (extra monies) from the D.N.R. to balance the budget. If we all would have understood the language of the bill we would have been horrified at the wide open checkbook we were giving the state. Immediately they doubled all license fees and made spouses have to purchase fishing licenses. It was a huge shocking wakeup call and was one of the reasons I changed my party preference. The problem was that Engler and Granholm continued to pilfer the funds until the republican majority state house fielded this proposal . It passed with over 80% of the vote. Its finnally over. The D.N.R. now has a program to rebuild and they need lots of money to get it done. Like I said before , as long as the funds stay in the D.N.R. and are used for wildlife and fish/parks programs. I support it. Kingfisher

I am all for increases but some of the decisions are ignorant.

For example:

-10-11 year olds cannot pull back a bow that has the energy to kill a deer. Let them use a gun.

-If we believe that we need to kill more antlerless deer than why make the lic. 30 bucks, encourage people to harvest does.

-A non-resident can fish and deplete our great lakes salmon and St. Clair muskies for 15 bucks a day, abolish the one and three day and make it a 7 day or an annual. ROOKIES

-Senoirs should pay nothing!!!

I was under the impression a young person had to be 12 to hunt deer. Im sure there are going to be some changes made like the seniors and one day stuff but the bottom line is still the money stays in the D.N.R. . THAT IS A HUGE CHANGE. Mike and Michelle

If I plan to hunt and fish and buy the same tags this year as last year my out of pocket increase will be 158 dollars.

305 dollars, 120 of which I will not be able to save the % for buyin 4 or more at a time.

I agree the prices are to cheap now compared to some places but I am by no means a rich man and I will need to start saving now!!!

I can only imagine that I am in the middle when it comes to what I hunt and fish for so lets just say that 500,000 sportsmen buy the same tags as me.

that will be a 79,000,000 boost in the states economy from last years lic. fees as I only added in the amount more that we will pay.

Lets just for *****s and giggles say that 100,000 seniors play the same games I do, that will be another 10,720,000!

And lets say that 100,000 juniors want to play too!! 3,450,000 increase.

That means if we just add the extra amount we are gonna pay this year to hunt and fish the DNR will get an extra 93,170,000 above what they had last year.

I tried to estimate here and I am probably way off but either way if this goes thru and now that prop 1 passed I would be looking for some DNR officers for your next loan!!!
__________________

As noted in the proposed changes this wasn't put together by the DNR alone. There was a workgroup that made these proposals, I've been involved in this type of workgroup on behalf of MMA. I can assure you that this is not taken lightly and there isn't a concern that you can think of that has not been discussed.

That said, this is a LONG way from being on the books.

I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when they decided to make the antlerless tag 30 bucks, there must have been some real brains in that group!!!

MuskyDan wrote:I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when they decided to make the antlerless tag 30 bucks, there must have been some real brains in that group!!!

Careful, you may be surprised who you're insulting. Some of the biggest hunting and fishing groups were likely involved in the workgroup.