nodog

Yep they knew it. They will most likely not double it. It is the game that's played. Start high, come down to what they already had planned and everyones happy. Pathetic! (not you for going, the way things are)

buckhunter14

Thanks for that information, that is what I was looking for. I will still be going out as well. I just think this is going to promote more poaching.

es1

First time here. I enjoyed reading the responses. I agree it will lead to more poaching, if the license increase goes through. The DNR has never made much sense to me in things they do. If we could all not buy any licenses for one year we would show them who should really be in charge of our hunting rights. Of courseI know this is a very big dream but it would make them realize just how important we are to the conservation of this great state. They say they are facing a huge defecit but they drive brand new 4 wheel drive loaded pickups, they fly planes to keep a "Big Brother" eye on us. I heard the other day on the radio where they wanted to purchase a large chunk of land on the Lake Michigan shoreline. Seems like a bad time to do that, but like I said before they never have made much sense to me. I think there are other options to cut there budget then to raise hunting fees causing fewer to be purchased. And making hunting out of reach for some people, who use the game harvested to supply food for there families. Thanks for the time and any comments

buckhunter14

es1, thank you for much for posting. I agree with you and your comments are appreciated. Welcome to the forums!

zuren1cs

This is my first visit to the Midwest forum and figured I might find this topic. My good friend works for the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC)and I asked her what the deal was. She offers some opinion and info that I'm not sure is 100% accurate (e.g. statement that MI fees are some of the lowest in the nation, I'm not sure where we rank) but she is a knowledgeable and trusted source of info. The MUCC is pro-hunting and lobbies in support of hunters. The skinny of it is the DNR does not get money from the general fund anymore, so moneyneeds to come from somewhere. Here is the email she sent me:

"You’re right in saying that the license fee increase is a hot topic. The reasoning behind the increase is that the DNR no longer receives any money from the general fund. All of their dollars come from license fees, user fees, forestry profits, etc. Each year the amount of money they got from the general fund got cut until the current point where they no longer receive any dollars from that source. The sources of money they do have to run the department and programs are currently projected to fall far short of the amount they actually need, hence the fee increases.

In my opinion, they do need a fee increase (MI’s hunting and fishing fees are some of the lowest in the nation and haven’t been raised in years), however, the amounts given in the report are the amounts needed for the OPTIMAL budget. They are higher that the DNR actually needs to keep in business. Also, it’s important to note that all of these fees have to go through the legislative process. It would take a divine intervention for the recommended fees to pass through the legislature untouched. There is going to be a hefty negotiation process and what will probably come out will be a moderate increase to some of the licenses.

Our board actually voted to support the fee increases as is because they really think that what the DNR does is important and they want those services to continue. In my opinion (you’re getting a lot of my opinion today), the licenses fees are necessary to an extent- they do need a small increase, but the DNR should be looking to collect money from all the other (hikers, bikers, mushroom pickers, etc) who use state land and don’t pay a thing, to even things out.

Also, I’ll let you know that there is a much broader discussion going on to find long-term funding sources for almost all the departments in the state, but the DNR and DEQ are the ones we are following. Long term funding sources meaning like a percentage of the sales tax, a penny surcharge on certain purchases, etc. Basically they are in the brainstorming phase of this and the license fee increase is to tide them over while a reasonable and feasible solution is reached.

Here’s the link to the DNR’s report : http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153--157566--,00.html

Let me know if you need more info/ further explanation. The bill that will authorize the fee increases probably won’t be introduced until the beginning of 2007 and who knows how long it will take to pass it once that happens. I’m guessing quite a while."

rcgerchow

Seems to be the same rhetoric as always. I posted earlier they have raised fees in regard to duck stamps and antlerless permits. Lets just have an annual sticker for $10.00 each for each and every person that uses State Land, this sticker would allow you to park on or along side State land and use that land for your recreation purposes. I have tried hunting a piece of State land that has mountain bike trails all through it, just a great feeling to be all set up before sunrise and have 3 or mountain bikers come whooping on through or maybe some horseback riders. They are brainstorming, give me a break they are going after the easiest money. If they were truly brainstorming they wouldn't put an additional burden on the hunting population. Right now they are disposing of tracts of land that are not connected to major State Land holdings, you know the type, that little 40 acre parcel down the road from you that you hunt. The one not many people know about, and you hunt in peace and quiet. Well they want to sell that to a developer so he can build homes in this booming economy of ours. Our maybe sell it to a township or city (if they can afford market value for the property, sounds like an asset to me)that will make a nice park out of it with trails and swings and no hunting. I am a member of MUCC and was a district rep for MUCC many years ago. They do many good things for hunters but they are not the be all end all for us.

buckhunter14

I, as well, think there are other places the DNR could get money.

zuren1cs

I never said they were. I'm simply a messenger offering more info to the topic, that is all.

I don't know that I would be all that upset (or surprised) if I was hunting on state land near a mtn. bike trail and mountain bikes rodepast. That's like buying a house next to the highway then being angry about the traffic noise, or buying a beach house on L. Michigan and getting p*ssed about people walking across your property along the water's edge. The law says they can be there, so you get what you set yourself up for. I'm a biker/adventure racerbutdon't ride during deer season as I am a hunter as welland don't want to ruin someone else's hunt, and there are too many peoplewho may shoot first then identify their target later. Closing the trails during general firearm may be a way for everyone to play nice but you'll have the horseback stables/riders, bikers, hikers, runners, photographers, bird watchers, dog owners, XC skiers, adventure racers, etc. screaming about their access being denied!

The $10 sticker for everyone mentioned above isn't a bad idea, but most people I know who seek out state land for recreation generally have the DNR annual pass ($24) anyway. Increasing thatand the day pass to be spread across allstate land users would probably be a good strategy, as an annual user will almost always get their money's worth.