Here in MI there is talk that our hunting licenses will triple in cost for next season. Currently a combo license (two tags to be used for either gun or bow) runs $30, a firearms only tag runs $15, and an archery only tag runs $15. Next year my license will cost $90. Too steep?
The state claims the additional revenue is needed to manage resources better. Some hunters I talk to agree with the DNR while others think the DNR is useless as is so additional funds will ony be squandered away. One view of the situation I heard claimed the additional prices will weed out the "yahoos" filling our woods every year leaving only the "true" hunters. I think the "yahoos" will be more inclinded to poach their venison next season.
What do you think?
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
I wouldn't think that is too steep. In Tennessee, our total license used to cost $100. Two years ago, we had a 30% fee increase on all licenses, so now the fee is $130. A lot of Tennessee hunters were outraged because they felt the increase was too much. I agreed with them that 30% is an awfully big bite to swallow at one time, but since we hadn't had a license increase since around 1990, we were so far overdue that the large increase was needed to make up for a pretty big revenue shortage.
I think $130 is a lot of money, but I'm not going to complain. Tennessee is never going to be mentioned in the same breath as midwestern whitetail meccas like Kansas, Illinois, Ohio or even Kentucky, but our agency does a good job with the conditions we have (which aren't really conductive for growing Boone & Crockett whitetails). Tennessee is recognized as among the nation's 10 best states for turkey hunting. We have bear hunting in the east, and next year will have an elk hunt in the Cumberland Plateau region, albeit a very, very limited hunt. Bear reintroductions have resulted in a bear population in another area of the state that has nearly reached hunting capacity, and we have some very quality fishing here. When I consider the total package, $130 isn't too much.
Of course one aspect of our license prices here is that Tennessee does not have a state income tax; pretty much 100% of our game agency's funding comes from either federal sources or license sales. No funding is provided by the state. That's exactly as it should be, since that keeps the legislature's grimy little paws off our hunting regulations to a certain extent. I'm glad to pay a little more for my license in exchange for seeing the legislature have a little less impact on our hunting regs.
How much funding does Michigan receive from the state?
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
When was the last time they raised the fees ? Has it been over a decade ? If so then the increase is justified . You're getting off pretty cheap if you ask me .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
Ben - does the $130 cover small game, bear, turkey, and fishing? Here in MI all those are separate licenses (the combo license I spoke of is for deer only), then add in stamp costs if you are into waterfowl or trout. So... the total package for small game, large game, fishing would be hundreds of dollars and that still wouldn't include trout or waterfowl stamps, bear, turkey, or elk. Currently an out of state deer archery-only tag is $130. I would imagine a nearly $400 tag would keep out of state revenue from coming in.
Kev - we've had a few license fee increases over the past 10 years, but nothing large. I think ten years ago I could buy a doe permit for $3, they went to $5, then to $7, now are $10. Still reasonable, but $30 for a doe tag on top of all the other license fees is a little nuts.
__________________
We were made by God and for God, and until you figure that out, life isn't going to make sense.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a civilization, it expects what never was and what never will be.
If the $$$ you currently pay are responsibly spent by the DNR, and it is obvious that it is not enough to take care of things, then it is only right that an increase take place. Certain steps could be taken to make it less painful, like yearly increments instead of one big hike. Maintaining discount liscences for seniors is another worthy goal, IMO.
If the state is wasting it's income from hunting fees, if the increase is poorly implemented, or if more is being asked for than what is really needed, then hunters should raise as much Cain as possible about any proposed hike.
IMO, Michigan should do what it can to attract out of state/vacation hunters and fishermen -- especially in the beautiful Northern Lower Peninsula. This might be a case where decreased fees may actually increase revenues, much like tax cuts.
Ben - does the $130 cover small game, bear, turkey, and fishing? Here in MI all those are separate licenses (the combo license I spoke of is for deer only), then add in stamp costs if you are into waterfowl or trout. So... the total package for small game, large game, fishing would be hundreds of dollars and that still wouldn't include trout or waterfowl stamps, bear, turkey, or elk. Currently an out of state deer archery-only tag is $130. I would imagine a nearly $400 tag would keep out of state revenue from coming in.
Kev - we've had a few license fee increases over the past 10 years, but nothing large. I think ten years ago I could buy a doe permit for $3, they went to $5, then to $7, now are $10. Still reasonable, but $30 for a doe tag on top of all the other license fees is a little nuts.
One nice thing about Ohio, you buy a hunting liscence, I think $19, and that covers small game. Then you buy a deer tag for $24. It's good for a buck or doe. After that, you can buy additional tags, depending on what region you live in. You also buy separate turkey and water fowl tags.
I remember in Michigan, a doe tag used to be (when I was a teenager)awarded on a lottery system.[:'(]
when Colorado raised their non-res fees from $250 to $500, THATS when you realize just how much power G&F have to virtually end hunting, simply by raising fees and pricing people out.
and now we're seeing more and more liberal and semi-hunters at G&F positions and its all a very big deal IMO
so what do I think ? The G&F of your states is suppoe to maximize hunter opportunities while protecting the herds, and if they can prove a triple increase in tags will do both, then I would agree with it, however its likely hunter maximization and/or health of the herds or both won't be part of that package
Hunters are an aging group, most in or approaching their peak earning years. Such facts are not lost on our lawmakers. Nor is the fact that we approach it with a certain passion which allows for the smooth rationalization of costs involved.
Raising hunting license fees: Good or Bad?
