# Gov's budget proposal - license fee increases



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Some of you will no doubt disagree, but I think this is a great proposal, and LONG overdue! Especially the part about getting more "General Fund" dollars for the programs, which is a step in the right direction to make up some of the ground the DNR lost under the Engler administration days. 

http://on.lsj.com/TQmEdj


----------



## bowhuntordie (Mar 24, 2007)

I don't have a problem with it at all. Even if it cost me an extra $5,10 or even $15 its for a bigger picture. And spending $20 to do something I love for a whole season is a lot cheaper than other things I spend money on :lol::lol:


----------



## duckbuster2 (Aug 14, 2008)

Great it's about time.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

It's not in this article, but he's also proposing $21 mil for dredging projects at local harbors and marinas...another plus. 

Of course this is all a proposal...the legislators have to approve it, AND figure out how to pay for it 

On the down side (at least IMO), he's proposing to raise the gas tax 15 cents and raise our auto registration fees, all to pay for fixing our crappy roads.


----------



## weiss (Dec 1, 2008)

It's about time we raise the nonresident fee.


----------



## duckbuster2 (Aug 14, 2008)

just ducky said:


> It's not in this article, but he's also proposing $21 mil for dredging projects at local harbors and marinas...another plus.
> 
> Of course this is all a proposal...the legislators have to approve it, AND figure out how to pay for it
> 
> On the down side (at least IMO), he's proposing to raise the gas tax 15 cents and raise our auto registration fees, all to pay for fixing our crappy roads.


No gas tax do the roads right the first time.


----------



## Oger (Aug 28, 2008)

I agree as well in raising non resident but IMO there is a problem. The reason Iowa,Illionois,Ohio,etc are able to get away with charging big bucks for the DREAM of a big buck is because fundamentally those states are more focused on quality not quanity Many of hunting celebs,writers,etc have said in public and in print that Michigan is rarely on shows nationally is because for their time and money invested they need the best chance at shooting a mature deer on film. Im not trying to turn this into another QDM or OBR debate just saying that without the draw of quality of big bucks with the exception on a family or friend hunting camp tradition all that this will do for the rest will drive them away bringing in less money. For me personally Im fine with that because that means less hunters in an already overhunted state. To me I would rather make this a one buck state and make me put my money where my mouth is by charging the needed shortfall onto my tag. I know people dont agree just my opinion.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Bellyup (Nov 13, 2007)

Looks like Waterfowl will remain unchanged ? Or did I read that right it is going down to $10.00 plus applicable stamps ? 

I disagree with the proposal if it is lowering the fees, how is that going increase the coffers ? 

But then I suppose if it saves me money, I am all for it. Not like SW is gonna see any of it :evil:


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Oger said:


> I agree as well in raising non resident but IMO there is a problem. The reason Iowa,Illionois,Ohio,etc are able to get away with charging big bucks for the DREAM of a big buck is because fundamentally those states are more focused on quality not quanity Many of hunting celebs,writers,etc have said in public and in print that Michigan is rarely on shows nationally is because for their time and money invested they need the best chance at shooting a mature deer on film. Im not trying to turn this into another QDM or OBR debate just saying that without the draw of quality of big bucks with the exception on a family or friend hunting camp tradition all that this will do for the rest will drive them away bringing in less money. For me personally Im fine with that because that means less hunters in an already overhunted state. To me I would rather make this a one buck state and make me put my money where my mouth is by charging the needed shortfall onto my tag. I know people dont agree just my opinion.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Oger,

With all due respect, please don't turn this thread into a QDM or APR discussion (although you said you weren't trying to...you definitely were). I beg you! If you wanna debate that stuff, and get into all the drama, go over on those forums cause I can't take visiting them any longer.

I posted this here because we waterfowlers have discussed many times over the years the fact that licenses and fees for waterfowling have not been adjusted in over a decade, AND the DNR funding structure was drastically changed during the Engler administration. This combination has been very harmful to waterfowl hunters, especially our managed areas, and the aquisition of wetlands. A good share of us have been begging to pay a bit more...honest to god....because we realize how long it's been since the fees have been raised, AND we realize how badly the DNR needs more funding. Just study the numbers of Conservation Officers on the road now vs. 10 or 15 years ago. You'd be shocked :SHOCKED:

So I'm all for a big jump in non-resident fees, as well as a modest one for waterfowlers too. Could it impact those who travel to Michigan to hunt? Sure. But I believe what is being hatched is a whole different licensing process, where all of the options are reduced down to fewer choices, and being more fiscally sound with their options. Again, this is something that's been needed for years. I'm personally hoping the Gov gets his way on most of this one.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Best paragraph ever...

It would create a base hunting license costing $10 for most in-state residents, with lower rates for youths and seniors. For out-of-state hunters, the price would be $150.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

duckbuster2 said:


> No gas tax do the roads right the first time.


Keep crying you could live in IN, IL, or OH where all major highways are tolled. :yikes:


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

Bellyup said:


> Looks like Waterfowl will remain unchanged ? Or did I read that right it is going down to $10.00 plus applicable stamps ?
> 
> I disagree with the proposal if it is lowering the fees, how is that going increase the coffers ?
> 
> But then I suppose if it saves me money, I am all for it. Not like SW is gonna see any of it :evil:


The Whitetail Combo tag is the "cash cow" for the DNR already. under this proposal the price goes from $30 to $50 ($10 hunting stamp and $20 per kill tag). They also eliminate the $15 restricted Fishing License and make the All-species the only option at $25. By significantly raising the highest volume tags, they can actually lower the price of other activities in a way.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

SBE II said:


> Best paragraph ever...
> 
> It would create a base hunting license costing $10 for most in-state residents, with lower rates for youths and seniors. For out-of-state hunters, the price would be $150.


hey look at that...I agree with you for a change! This has been discussed for quite some time by MUCC and other groups. Michigan's sheer number of licenses options is ridiculous. They desperately needed to simplify their process, and hopefully this is it.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

just got an email from MUCC. Here's their press release on it.

http://www.mucc.org/2013/02/release-mucc-statement-on-governors-proposed-dnr-budget-license-changes/


----------



## JackieTreeHorn (Sep 15, 2008)

It's a good start. The fed duck stamp price needs to go up a bit as well.


----------



## fishhuntfun (Jan 11, 2013)

Near as I can tell a deer is a real big hunk of MEAT..stop your whining I support this measure.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

It's been 20 years or so since our license fees were raised. It's time.


The base license is not raising fees, but creating new ones. I'm not sure how I feel about this yet.

If I read this right, the fee increases put the burden on the non-res and the fee increases amount to 18 million in protected DNR dollars, which is a good thing. We go from 300 + or - different licenses to 31. And your deer license is good for any season. Yep, I like it.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

just ducky said:


> hey look at that...I agree with you for a change! This has been discussed for quite some time by MUCC and other groups. Michigan's sheer number of licenses options is ridiculous. They desperately needed to simplify their process, and hopefully this is it.


They need to get hunting new species out of the hands of legislation as well. If they could put dove season in place they could have a $10 dove stamp that would increase profit as well.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

JackieTreeHorn said:


> It's a good start. The fed duck stamp price needs to go up a bit as well.


why? show me why this needs to increase...you better have good figures and do math really well because i'm prepared to show you why it doesn't need to increase.

i really hate when people just say something needs to increase with no reason for it.

we should be trying to keep prices low and accountability high. I'm not against an increase in license fees at all, but show me a scheduled increase over time (to equal inflation increases) not a "well it has been 20 years and its time"....thats poor planning. Schedule the increases in 5 year blocks or something that shows why you are increasing.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

SBE II said:


> They need to get hunting new species out of the hands of legislation as well. If they could put dove season in place they could have a $10 dove stamp that would increase profit as well.


i agree, should be left to the science and not the public to decide. thank our legislation process and the ability for anti-hunters to skirt the issue and drag it in front of our public for a "vote". some on here think that every move the dnr does needs to be put to a "vote"...dove bill was a perfect example of how polling the whole state will totally **** a certain core of what was originally intended. wolves will be next...anti's just haven't ramped up there political weight yet to get the mass sheep to shed tears over them yet...wait til the first hunters start picking off wolves and posting pics and it will start.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Correct me if im wrong JD but this sounds very similar ND's license structure minus white tail draws for residents.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> Correct me if im wrong JD but this sounds very similar ND's license structure minus white tail draws for residents.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire



I also think non resident hunting in MI should be an application/draw as well for big game and waterfowl. Probably just made a guide cringe on that one..


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> Correct me if im wrong JD but this sounds very similar ND's license structure minus white tail draws for residents.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


getting much closer to it  If you want a laugh, take a look at ND's fishing licensing and regs...really, really simple. Anyone can figure out what to buy, AND what's open to fish for. AND very few minimum size restrictions...pretty much if you want to clean it, they'll let you  VERY practical and common sense, unlike what we've had here for decades. You need a damn PhD to understand the fishing regs in Michigan.


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

> I also think non resident hunting in MI should be an application/draw as well for big game and waterfowl. Probably just made a guide cringe on that one..


Why all the hate for non-residents who hunt and fish in Michigan? I've held both hunting and fishing licenses for Michigan as a non-resident for the past 15 years. 

The proposed increase in non-resident fees is surprising to say the least. Yes, I understand that I should have to pay more to hunt and fish outside of the State in which I reside, but to more than double the annual license fee in one fell swoop? I think the State is making a pretty big assumption with their proposed realized revenue that all of us will still purchase out of State licenses. 

I buy a MI license to hunt waterfowl only...and do so b/c it allows me to basically hunt ducks and geese from early October through the end of January, since I also purchase Ohio licenses. It has been great for the past 15 years, but I won't do it in the future if this goes through. 

So...there you go...not only are you not getting my $150.00 license fee + waterfowl stamp money, you also aren't getting my money in food/beverage/fuel that I always spend as well. I think this is going to accomplish what so many of you are implying...that you do not want non-residents in your State utilizing your natural resources. 

What is the real kick in the nuts for me is that I actually have worked part time at Monroe Co. Comm. College since 1999. I pay taxes in MI...and then I also have to pay taxes to Ohio for that income as well to the tune of over $600 per year. 99% of my outdoor gear is purchased at Cabelas in Dundee. I play golf in MI all the time. I fish Lake Michigan with my friends, and I also fish the MI waters of Erie as much as I fish Ohio waters. 

I understand the push to want to make hunting and fishing more accessible, but just because I've been willing to pay $69.00 for a non-resident license since 1997 doesn't mean I am willing to pay $150.00 for it (and the increase for the fishing license makes me scratch my head too). I bet you will see a helluva lot more guys who live in OH that also fish MI waters just plain out refuse to buy a MI license in the future. 

Pure Michigan...for Michiganders only it would seem?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

BFG said:


> Why all the hate for non-residents who hunt and fish in Michigan? I've held both hunting and fishing licenses for Michigan as a non-resident for the past 15 years.
> 
> The proposed increase in non-resident fees is surprising to say the least. Yes, I understand that I should have to pay more to hunt and fish outside of the State in which I reside, but to more than double the annual license fee in one fell swoop? I think the State is making a pretty big assumption with their proposed realized revenue that all of us will still purchase out of State licenses.
> 
> ...


As much as I understand your sentiment, the concern of some non-residents actually no longer buying licenses in Michigan was considered (See first footnote at the bottom of the attached document). You'd have to ask the bean counters who put the proposal together if they also considered other lost revenues such as gas, food, lodging, etc. as you mentioned. But obviously they felt that potentially losing 7% of you and your dollars would be offset, producing the income increase that they project.


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

How many non-resident hunting and fishing licenses are sold in Michigan every year?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

BFG said:


> How many non-resident hunting and fishing licenses are sold in Michigan every year?


don't think anyone here has the answer, except the few DNR staff that visit here occasionally, and they aren't going to say. I know the information is reported out periodically by the DNR because some of their reports on their website list that kind of data. But current, real-time info? Betting MUCC would know.


----------



## John Singer (Aug 20, 2004)

My son-in-law is a nonresident. The proposed changes will actually save him some coin.

Last year, for him to purchase two deer tags ($138 x 2) and a small game license ($69) cost a total of $345.

Under the proposed changes the total cost will be considerably less: Base hunting license {includes small game} ($150) + two deer tags (2 x $20) for a total of $190.

Maybe the fee changes will encourage some nonresidents to hunt more in Michigan.


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

Somebody better tell 'em to triple the cost of the Sportcard for non-residents to $3.00 while they are at it!


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

John Singer said:


> ...Maybe the fee changes will encourage some nonresidents to hunt more in Michigan.


Betting that's the case


----------



## daakota (Jan 17, 2006)

My big beef is with the senior license cost. Why do they get a discount just because there old, bull. Usually there the ones that can afford it. I would say that's discriminating against anyone under 65. There are laws about this why is it allowed.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

daakota said:


> My big beef is with the senior license cost. Why do they get a discount just because there old, bull. Usually there the ones that can afford it. I would say that's discriminating against anyone under 65. There are laws about this why is it allowed.


i can name a few reasons. ready set go.

1. most seniors are on a fixed income.
2. most seniors payed so much into the system already, your contribution is a mere fraction to what they contributed.
3. seniors deserve some respect...they are our elders. 
4. keep a senior active = a healthy senior = less cost to the state in the long run.
5. ideally the majority of the worksforce age group funds everything for the young, less fortunate and seniors...been that way for long time...nothing new.
6. kinda hard to call discrimination....they are giving a benefit to an older age group that is likely retired...how in any way is that discrimination? lol.

some of my most memorable hunts in my life happened with a senior...i wish he didnt have to buy a license at all, greatest mentor ever (WWII vet). RIP E. Ruzowski.


----------



## S.B. Walleyes&Waterfowl (Jan 10, 2012)

The only way I would support the increase of license fees is if the State actually puts the money towards preserving hunting grounds. Like dredging, etc. And I wanna see it happen now, not 10 years from now.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

daakota said:


> My big beef is with the senior license cost. Why do they get a discount just because there old, bull. Usually there the ones that can afford it. I would say that's discriminating against anyone under 65. There are laws about this why is it allowed.


I'm going to ignore you even posted this...for all the reasons that Shi Kid gave, and a MILLION more! Bottom line is anyone who lives into their 70's or 80's deserves A LOT more from each of us than a free hunting or fishing license.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Keep non residents out as much as possible. Make em apply for everything, when they do receive a license it should be $100+. It will make the experience that much better for residents. All deer should have to be checked to by both residents and non.

As far as seniors go. They deserve the benefits as do the military members that want to hunt.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> i can name a few reasons. ready set go.
> 
> 1. most seniors are on a fixed income.
> 2. most seniors payed so much into the system already, your contribution is a mere fraction to what they contributed.
> ...


All I agree with except for 1 and 2...social security will be eaten up before I'm ever able to retire and I pay into that. Taxes are a part of life and with the fiscal cliff it's only getting worse for the working American. Whole other discussion Shi


----------



## adam bomb (Feb 27, 2006)

Fine by me but I'm opposed to the extra on gas. Cost me 250 a month to go to work as it is. Not digging the 3.79 right now. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Wingmaster22 (Oct 29, 2003)

daakota said:


> My big beef is with the senior license cost. Why do they get a discount just because there old, bull. Usually there the ones that can afford it. I would say that's discriminating against anyone under 65. There are laws about this why is it allowed.


there ya go daakota, lets just kick all seniors to the side.....get them out of our way. dude i'm not that far away from being a senior and your post offends me.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

adam bomb said:


> Fine by me but I'm opposed to the extra on gas. Cost me 250 a month to go to work as it is. Not digging the 3.79 right now.
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Truth...maybe Adolf Obama and the gang will correlate low gas prices equates to more money distrubuted through the economy. We gotta keep their pockets deep!


----------



## Mr. 16 gauge (Jan 26, 2000)

Um...is anybody besides me concerned that the extra revenue from license sales will NOT go to where it is intended, but to other "pet" projects (like building a bridge, maybe) that the politicians decide we need and vote for themselves?
I am against any increase _at this point_ until the following criteria are met: 1.) that any revenue that comes in from the sales of licenses, permits, managed areas, ect, ect. be returned *directly* to the DNR budget, and *cannot* (via legislation) be tapped for other projects. 2.) that the deer hunting establishment no longer gets the lion's share of every dollar spent, and that more focus is put on waterfowling, small game, upland hunting, ect (or at least *as much*focus). 3.) That money from fish and game fines goes directly to the DNR budget (it is my understanding at this time that it does not, and that very little money from fines goes back to the DNR).
If money can be funneled from a 'general fund" into a department, what is to prevent it from being funneled *back* to the general fund _from_ a department?
Sorry, but I am really concerned that all these "user fees" (a tax by any other name) will not go to it's intended purpose....the roads will still be just as ******, the quality of education will still be the same, ect, ect....but all the sudden, we're going to find that there is money to build a bridge to Canada.
Maybe if we did some cracking down on what bridge cards should be used for, and pursue finding out who the welfare cheats are and bring them to task, we will have that extra revenue.
Just my opinion.............your's may vary.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Mr. 16 gauge said:


> Um...is anybody besides me concerned that the extra revenue from license sales will NOT go to where it is intended, but to other "pet" projects (like building a bridge, maybe) that the politicians decide we need and vote for themselves?
> I am against any increase _at this point_ until the following criteria are met: 1.) that any revenue that comes in from the sales of licenses, permits, managed areas, ect, ect. be returned *directly* to the DNR budget, and *cannot* (via legislation) be tapped for other projects. 2.) that the deer hunting establishment no longer gets the lion's share of every dollar spent, and that more focus is put on waterfowling, small game, upland hunting, ect (or at least *as much*focus). 3.) That money from fish and game fines goes directly to the DNR budget (it is my understanding at this time that it does not, and that very little money from fines goes back to the DNR).
> If money can be funneled from a 'general fund" into a department, what is to prevent it from being funneled *back* to the general fund _from_ a department?
> Sorry, but I am really concerned that all these "user fees" (a tax by any other name) will not go to it's intended purpose....the roads will still be just as ******, the quality of education will still be the same, ect, ect....but all the sudden, we're going to find that there is money to build a bridge to Canada.
> ...


i have same feelings 16g. i do believe that money's from licenses are protected DNR funds. It might have even been added to michigan constitution at one point a few years ago. I'm sure JD knows the details.

i'm more concerned about general funds and a % being dedicated to the DNR. Something like 29% of the DNR budget came from the general fund in the early 90s and it dwindled to like 5% presently if any. Now if we get any of that % back, that is a good thing. yo-yo'ing the general fund contribution is what needs to brought in check. it was yanked to pay for other ******** over the last 20 years and literally shoestringed the DNR and forced DNR to pay for everything off a hunters license which is total ********....thats when they started changing rules to SELL more licenses of any kind rather than sell by science/resource.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Mr. 16 gauge said:


> Um...is anybody besides me concerned that the extra revenue from license sales will NOT go to where it is intended, but to other "pet" projects (like building a bridge, maybe) that the politicians decide we need and vote for themselves?
> I am against any increase _at this point_ until the following criteria are met: 1.) that any revenue that comes in from the sales of licenses, permits, managed areas, ect, ect. be returned *directly* to the DNR budget, and *cannot* (via legislation) be tapped for other projects. 2.) that the deer hunting establishment no longer gets the lion's share of every dollar spent, and that more focus is put on waterfowling, small game, upland hunting, ect (or at least *as much*focus). 3.) That money from fish and game fines goes directly to the DNR budget (it is my understanding at this time that it does not, and that very little money from fines goes back to the DNR).
> If money can be funneled from a 'general fund" into a department, what is to prevent it from being funneled *back* to the general fund _from_ a department?
> Sorry, but I am really concerned that all these "user fees" (a tax by any other name) will not go to it's intended purpose....the roads will still be just as ******, the quality of education will still be the same, ect, ect....but all the sudden, we're going to find that there is money to build a bridge to Canada.
> ...


License fees are "restricted", which means that they cannot be diverted to other purposes (such as building a bridge to Canada). "General Fund" dollars are basically tax revenue, and are spent any way the Gov and the Legislators see fit. Engler changed the DNR funding back in his administration from a decent share of GF dollars, to almost none. This is a big reason why the DNR has been hurting for years now, and why the parks needed to come up with something like the Recreation Passport in order to survive.

The Gov's proposal gives the DNR something like 7% more GF dollars, which is HUGE in this economy. Although that wouldn't all go to the Wildlife program, but never the less, it's a big win for the DNR if it actually comes to being.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

just ducky said:


> License fees are "restricted", which means that they cannot be diverted to other purposes (such as building a bridge to Canada). "General Fund" dollars are basically tax revenue, and are spent any way the Gov and the Legislators see fit. Engler changed the DNR funding back in his administration from a decent share of GF dollars, to almost none. This is a big reason why the DNR has been hurting for years now, and why the parks needed to come up with something like the Recreation Passport in order to survive.
> 
> The Gov's proposal gives the DNR something like 7% more GF dollars, which is HUGE in this economy. Although that wouldn't all go to the Wildlife program, but never the less, it's a big win for the DNR if it actually comes to being.


i'm starting to like this proposal. i feel for the out of state guys on this but at same time we gotta do something. being threatened with a DNR shutdown every year (granholm administration days) was ridiculous. DNR needs money diverted from EVERYONE, not just hunters. hunting is a small portion of what the DNR does. Any increase in general fund contribution is a step in the right direction.

BFG: i know it sucks for you as your located where you can pluck from both sides of the border. imagine if you lived on the MN/NoDak border and you get limited to 14days with your waterfowl license....that michigan out of state fee looks pretty good compared to it.


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

Im all for more money in the dnr budget....im not sure raising any hunting fees will do us a bit of good its one more nail....it will just cause a few,more to stop hunting.....i really am worried about hunter numbers dropping ....from hitting deer on the road to seeing duck hunters just vanishing....many problems will arise

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

walleyeman2006 said:


> Im all for more money in the dnr budget....im not sure raising any hunting fees will do us a bit of good its one more nail....it will just cause a few,more to stop hunting.....i really am worried about hunter numbers dropping ....from hitting deer on the road to seeing duck hunters just vanishing....many problems will arise
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


But I think you may have missed the fact that for a lot of us (mainly Mich residents), our fees may in fact go down. It shouldn't make residents less likely to buy a license. And the licensing options should be simpler to understand...at least that's the intent. may lose some non-residents, but the people who put this together project an increase in revenue.


----------



## Orlando fireman (Nov 17, 2008)

SBE II said:


> Keep non residents out as much as possible. Make em apply for everything, when they do receive a license it should be $100+. It will make the experience that much better for residents. All deer should have to be checked to by both residents and non.
> 
> As far as seniors go. They deserve the benefits as do the military members that want to hunt.


As a non-resident and still partial homeowner in the S.E. lower part of Michigan, let me say this. I would love to come "home" to hunt not because of the quality of deer but the experience you can only get in the midwest. My lease is 5 1/2 hrs from Orlando in Georgia and for an archery,muzzle and firearm liscense it costs almost $400.00. I can harvest two bucks (second must have 4pts on one side and to the ears) and 10 does. I am blessed to have some great property in Michigan to hunt and figure the out of state fee is very acceptable. With that in mind, I KNOW going to hunt up there I could very easily fill my tags with 1.5-2.5 year old bucks all day long. I chose to hunt Georgia because my chances of getting a nice buck are increased 10 fold.

What I do miss is the commraderie that you can only get in the midwest. Restaurants welcoming hunters, buck poles, seeing deer transported on the back of vehicles etc... You will not get that experience anywhere but the midwest. Its troubling to hear members basically say "stay out" of Michigan. I am more than willing to spend my hard earned dollars and contribute to the area in which I hunt in return for the opportunity to share this experience with my family. I would think as sportsman from the south to the north, east to west we would all welcome hunters from anywhere into the state. 

"Apply for a liscense"? Why? I'm sure we can agree that Michigan is no Iowa or Kansas. Making the process harder for non-resident hunters would in my oppinion deter more people from considering hunting in Michigan. I would think the opposite would be a better approach and encourage out of state folks in. Prices for resident and non seem very affordable and a slight increase from an "outsider" looking in appears to be very minimal provided the money goes back into the DNR.


----------



## slwayne (Aug 27, 2009)

just ducky said:


> Oger,
> 
> With all due respect, please don't turn this thread into a QDM or APR discussion (although you said you weren't trying to...you definitely were). I beg you! If you wanna debate that stuff, and get into all the drama, go over on those forums cause I can't take visiting them any longer.
> 
> ...


Amen brother! Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## murfster3 (Feb 2, 2012)

SBE II said:


> I also think non resident hunting in MI should be an application/draw as well for big game and waterfowl. Probably just made a guide cringe on that one..


What about all the sportsman that own land in michigan but live out of state


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Orlando fireman said:


> ..As a non-resident and still partial homeowner in the S.E. lower part of Michigan, let me say this. I would love to come "home" to hunt not because of the quality of deer....I chose to hunt Georgia because my chances of getting a nice buck are increased 10 fold...


As I told Oger in the other post, don't even start a QDM discussion here on the waterfowl forum. I've hunted deer on the same property in central lower Michigan since 1972, and my deer hunting is better than ever thank you. Without getting into the tired out, endless debate that goes on over on the deer forums, with all due respect those of you who seek better "Quality" deer hunting (in your mind) should seek out other areas for that. Many states offer bigger racks on a consistent basis, and if that's your thing, go there...honestly. 



Orlando fireman said:


> ...Its troubling to hear members basically say "stay out" of Michigan....


Please don't generalize and believe that a majority are saying "stay out", because that's only a handful of people. Most of us welcome you, and your dollars  But this is a survival issue for this DNR, and unfortunately you may have to pay a bit more, just like I do when I go to North Dakota each fall for ducks and pheasant. And there I'm limited to a total of 2 weeks hunting.


----------



## Orlando fireman (Nov 17, 2008)

just ducky said:


> As I told Oger in the other post, don't even start a QDM discussion here on the waterfowl forum. I've hunted deer on the same property in central lower Michigan since 1972, and my deer hunting is better than ever thank you. Without getting into the tired out, endless debate that goes on over on the deer forums, with all due respect those of you who seek better "Quality" deer hunting (in your mind) should seek out other areas for that. Many states offer bigger racks on a consistent basis, and if that's your thing, go there...honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't generalize and believe that a majority are saying "stay out", because that's only a handful of people. Most of us welcome you, and your dollars  But this is a survival issue for this DNR, and unfortunately you may have to pay a bit more, just like I do when I go to North Dakota each fall for ducks and pheasant. And there I'm limited to a total of 2 weeks hunting.


First off, its not a QDM issue its a financial issue, secondly nowhere in my statement did I state a majority...hence the quote. Funny how your quick to judge about QDM yet hunt birds out of state.....just sayin


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Orlando fireman said:


> First off, its not a QDM issue its a financial issue, secondly nowhere in my statement did I state a majority...hence the quote. Funny how your quick to judge about QDM yet hunt birds out of state.....just sayin


hunting out of state (nodak) for ducks really has nothing to do with QDM. now if he went to SoDak, then you would have an argument as they control incoming non-residents through drawings for resident quality.

nodaks 2 week rule is merely to keep MN from ruining their hunting as they have completely killed their own state and were invading the states around it in search of game. lol.


----------



## Orlando fireman (Nov 17, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> hunting out of state (nodak) for ducks really has nothing to do with QDM. now if he went to SoDak, then you would have an argument as they control incoming non-residents through drawings for resident quality.
> 
> nodaks 2 week rule is merely to keep MN from ruining their hunting as they have completely killed their own state and were invading the states around it in search of game. lol.


Kinda like Michigan and their whitetail population? I fail to follow your point. "invading states"? as you call it is nothing more than contributing to YOUR economy. If you dont want out of state folks hunting Michigan, by all means join together as sportsman and tell other hunters they arent welcome. I would laugh as I was watching an outdoor show when hypotheticaly speaking a comercial came on and said " We the sportsman of michigan take great pride in our trophy 1.5 year old deer heard and are unified in keeping it as such. We wish to notify all out of state groups that you are not welcome in our deer rich state and kindly request you hunt those states to the south and west of us" You would think for a minute you would WANT people to bring their dollars into Michigan yet it appears that you wish folks would just stay away.......I fail to follow your logic?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Orlando fireman said:


> Kinda like Michigan and their whitetail population? I fail to follow your point. "invading states"? as you call it is nothing more than contributing to YOUR economy. If you dont want out of state folks hunting Michigan, by all means join together as sportsman and tell other hunters they arent welcome. I would laugh as I was watching an outdoor show when hypotheticaly speaking a comercial came on and said " We the sportsman of michigan take great pride in our trophy 1.5 year old deer heard and are unified in keeping it as such. We wish to notify all out of state groups that you are not welcome in our deer rich state and kindly request you hunt those states to the south and west of us" You would think for a minute you would WANT people to bring their dollars into Michigan yet it appears that you wish folks would just stay away.......I fail to follow your logic?


none of us said anything about not welcoming out of staters...geeze. 


i can tell you this much, if you think out of state deer hunters or duck hunters is a huge influx of money inserted into our economy, lol what are you smoking. this is NOT a destination white tail state...let alone a waterfowl paradise for out of staters. theres 10 states in front of us for both species.

bottom line is they are raising the non-resident fee, no one is telling you guys not to come to michigan to hunt, its just gonna cost more like every other state in the U.S...its ridiculously cheap to hunt here as a non-resident...thats it.

i also fail to see your point when you admit it costs you $400 for tags in florida but your not willing to spend that much here to hunt?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Orlando fireman said:


> First off, its not a QDM issue its a financial issue...


um...go back and read your own post. *"I chose to hunt Georgia because my chances of getting a nice buck are increased 10 fold."*

And you admit you'll pay $400 to do it. It's about big racks. Now like I said, deer hunting in Michigan is fine...has been for 30+ years. But many of you want to make it something it's not, and never will be. So be happy in Georgia, or southern Ohio, or Kansas, where you have a better chance at as you say a "nice buck".

Geez...here I go...arguing QDM and APR's on the waterfowl forum


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> ...i also fail to see your point when you admit it costs you $400 for tags in florida but your not willing to spend that much here to hunt?


he's not willing to drive 1000 miles, and spend for the out of state license, if he's not reasonably assured of getting a "nice buck". a 1.5 year old 6 or 8 pt. *IS* a nice buck.


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

> BFG: i know it sucks for you as your located where you can pluck from both sides of the border. imagine if you lived on the MN/NoDak border and you get limited to 14days with your waterfowl license....that michigan out of state fee looks pretty good compared to it.


Agreed...but I was just having a tough time with SBE II and his "non resident " sentiments. I've spent a lot of money in Michigan over the last 25 years. I could care less when folks come to the Maumee river or Ohio waters of Erie to fish for walleyes from other states. It is a resource to be enjoyed by all, and the local economy depends on those dollars, no matter where they come from in this Country. 

I mean....look at the license plates at the launches on Lake Michigan from April to September. I am pretty sure that the port communities and charter fleet might disagree a bit when it comes to what was mentioned earlier. 

But then again, perhaps not. And no...I would never want to live in Minnesota.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

BFG said:


> Agreed...but I was just having a tough time with SBE II and his "non resident " sentiments. I've spent a lot of money in Michigan over the last 25 years. I could care less when folks come to the Maumee river or Ohio waters of Erie to fish for walleyes from other states. It is a resource to be enjoyed by all, and the local economy depends on those dollars, no matter where they come from in this Country.
> 
> I mean....look at the license plates at the launches on Lake Michigan from April to September. I am pretty sure that the port communities and charter fleet might disagree a bit when it comes to what was mentioned earlier.
> 
> But then again, perhaps not. And no...I would never want to live in Minnesota.


When did I ever mention anything about fishing?


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> none of us said anything about not welcoming out of staters...geeze.
> 
> 
> i can tell you this much, if you think out of state deer hunters or duck hunters is a huge influx of money inserted into our economy, lol what are you smoking. this is NOT a destination white tail state...let alone a waterfowl paradise for out of staters. theres 10 states in front of us for both species.
> ...


Amen...if you look into Iowas system for non resident deer hunters it's also well constructed. MI has some of the best agriculture to promote deer growth but with the way regs are 125+ is considered a quality deer here to where my friends that hunt in Iowa pass those up. SD waterfowl system I do like, 10 days for non residents and that's it unless you get a special unit that allows the full year, but it's only one unit that allows this. As a non resident of many states I hunt I'm more then willing to pay good dollar for the EXPERIENCE.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

BFG said:


> Agreed...but I was just having a tough time with SBE II and his "non resident " sentiments. I've spent a lot of money in Michigan over the last 25 years. I could care less when folks come to the Maumee river or Ohio waters of Erie to fish for walleyes from other states. It is a resource to be enjoyed by all, and the local economy depends on those dollars, no matter where they come from in this Country.
> 
> I mean....look at the license plates at the launches on Lake Michigan from April to September. I am pretty sure that the port communities and charter fleet might disagree a bit when it comes to what was mentioned earlier.
> 
> But then again, perhaps not. And no...I would never want to live in Minnesota.


Last time I hunted Houghton Lake several years ago the parking lot was mainly Ohio and Indiana plates. So yes, hunting does mean tourism dollars. But again, the bean counters that put this proposal together apparently feel the net result will not be a loss in revenue.


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

> When did I ever mention anything about fishing?


If I won't pay double for a base hunting license, I most assuredly will not pay double for a fishing license. 

Like I said earlier, perhaps I am an isolated case in this regard, but it would be interesting to see just how many non-resident hunting and fishing licenses are sold every year to folks from Ohio. I see the daily fishing license doubled to $15.00 as well. $90.00-$110.00 for six walleyes plus $15.00 for a license. Yikes..

I understand the desire for a process by which to generate revenue. I just find it odd that the premise would be based on cutting the knees off of your cash cow (that being tourism dollars from non-residents). I mean...worst case scenario...what does an Ohio resident do? They fish Ohio waters? 

I spoke with my 4 friends from Wisconsin who come every year for at least one week, keeping their boat at TBM in a slip, and stay at a hotel in Monroe. They will be going elsewhere. Deal breaker for them.


----------



## coyoteman34 (Oct 17, 2008)

I dont mind paying the 85.00 . i also wont mind paying it for my sons to hunt but really 150.00 apiece? really . if mi fixed the money problem and got out the way they got in this discusion wouldnt be here. making me pay double is not going to solve the problem is it? mi ducks are not made of gold,they dont taste better .I have shot mi ducks since 1978 I was a resident until 96 dude really how did mi get in the fix they are in now? raising the fee wont fix it getting more wardens wont fix it either. figure it out yet?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

SBE II said:


> Obama at his best? This could be flipped to say give me more more more without the cost if you're arguing your point, thats a democratic view, you want all the benefits at a minimal to no cost...
> 
> If you don't feel like paying an increase for wages and moneys that fund MI resources, then the MI residents and I'm sorry to say this, probably don't want or need you. By the way I'm middle class just like everyone else, I just budget my funds accordingly..TSS has the cash maybe you can ask ol daddy warbucks to float you when the increase happens...


----------



## goosemanrdk (Jan 14, 2003)

When I turned 16 and had to pay full price for my hunting license, it was basically $15 for the small game and $5 for the state stamp and $15 for the federal stamp. This past year the cost was exactly the same.

Yet, when I started driving at 16 the cost of gas was 97cents a gallon, a regular candy bar was 45cents and a gallon of milk was pretty cheap as well. Look at what the cost of those items is now.

I think cost increases whether for residents or non-residents is WAY OVER DUE!!!!!


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

goosemanrdk said:


> When I turned 16 and had to pay full price for my hunting license, it was basically $15 for the small game and $5 for the state stamp and $15 for the federal stamp. This past year the cost was exactly the same.
> 
> Yet, when I started driving at 16 the cost of gas was 97cents a gallon, a regular candy bar was 45cents and a gallon of milk was pretty cheap as well. Look at what the cost of those items is now.
> 
> I think cost increases whether for residents or non-residents is WAY OVER DUE!!!!!


Could you imagine how well off the economy could be if gas was that price:yikes:


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

SBE II said:


> Could you imagine how well off the economy could be if gas was that price:yikes:


lowest i can remember was .68c/gallon when i was filling up my 77' ramcharger. lol. bottle (glass) of mtn. dew was .50


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> lowest i can remember was .68c/gallon when i was filling up my 77' ramcharger. lol. bottle (glass) of mtn. dew was .50


You're old...:lol: .97c when I started driving...


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

goosemanrdk said:


> When I turned 16 and had to pay full price for my hunting license, it was basically $15 for the small game and $5 for the state stamp and $15 for the federal stamp. This past year the cost was exactly the same.
> 
> Yet, when I started driving at 16 the cost of gas was 97cents a gallon, a regular candy bar was 45cents and a gallon of milk was pretty cheap as well. Look at what the cost of those items is now.
> 
> I think cost increases whether for residents or non-residents is WAY OVER DUE!!!!!


Been saying basically the same for years  ridiculously low fees that we pay here for what we have. Managed area annual fee has been $13 for how many years now? C'mon guys...most people spend more than that in coffee in a weeks time. :yikes:


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

SBE II said:


> You're old...:lol: .97c when I started driving...


:lol::lol: he he...there are a few of us here who can remember when it was around .25/gal :yikes: I remember dad bitching about that price :lol: I can remember the 50's and 60's when I started driving.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

toots said:


> ...Keep the money out of the general fund. Take money from the general fund to help pay for CO's.


"general fund" is just a fancy term for tax revenue that the state takes in. License fees are what they term "restricted" in that it can only be used for certain things. There's good and bad to being restricted fees. Good is the politicians have a hard time "redirecting" them. Bad is it usually takes legislative action to revise them, which is part of the reason our licenses have not changed in so long...legislators/governors have been reluctant to increase them claiming it would amount to a "tax increase". But it finally looks as if the moons have aligned and the politicians are willing to revise them.


----------



## duckbuster2 (Aug 14, 2008)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> lowest i can remember was .68c/gallon when i was filling up my 77' ramcharger. lol. bottle (glass) of mtn. dew was .50


It was .28c/gallon when I was filling up my 69' chevelle at 8 miles to the gallon, and eating up all them chrysler junks.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

duckbuster2 said:


> It was .28c/gallon when I was filling up my 69' chevelle at 8 miles to the gallon, and eating up all them chrysler junks.


My first car was a 65 dodge coronet, 4 door, robins egg blue, with a 440 in it. That thing was a beast. I have no clue, but I'm betting that didn't even get 8 mpg :lol: Back then we didn't give a rip.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

duckbuster2 said:


> It was .28c/gallon when I was filling up my 69' chevelle at 8 miles to the gallon, and eating up all them chrysler junks.


Yes, i learned very early about buying dodges, lol


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

just ducky said:


> My first car was a 65 dodge coronet, 4 door, robins egg blue, with a 440 in it. That thing was a beast. I have no clue, but I'm betting that didn't even get 8 mpg :lol: Back then we didn't give a rip.



Bought 'er new off the lot, eh? :lol:

My first was a '75 Gremlin w/genuine Levi seats. 253 1 barrel if I remember right. The price of gas really didn't matter as I only put in about $3 each time. :chillin:


----------



## QuackCocaine (Nov 14, 2010)

Made about 10 trips to managed areas last season in Michigan, don't think I'll fork out nearly double the money for that next season. 

With just the price of gas these days...Phew, a trip to Harsens would cost a good $100 with the boat being towed.

At least we've been having decent seasons in Ohio the past couple of years, and our season dates actually make sense :lol:. 

Just seems like bad timing, to finally raise the fees in a recession (no matter how many times B.O. says it's over, it's still here).


----------



## Ferris_StateHunter (Apr 24, 2006)

coyoteman34 said:


> raise the fee are you nuts???? I left mi in 96. i am over 50 % disabled due to chem from the war. i come home home in oct to hunt for a week. 85.00 for a non res for myself. my son dennis will reqire the same this year. and some knuckle heads say raise it to 150.00 dude bite me and my sons butt:yikes: I already spend over 2 grand for a week to come home and hunt with my dad and brother. how about this take all the money from duck hunting related and put it where it belongs. sue englers sorry behind for the money that was taken and not used for waterfowl like it was supposed to. then to hell with hireing more wardens get the waterfowl habitat and funds where they should be first.hell for the amount of money i spend and the lack of water and the dnr letting hunting habitat go to ruins i could go some where else where there is water and huge numbers of ducks:lol: you certainly wont attract new hunters which generate money to mi by raising fees.look at all the people who go to miss or ark or neb and the dakotas the non resises will not pay that for mi birds. besides I dedicated 12 yrs of my life and defended the country when needed i get no liscense brake on fees so sbII kiss my duck call as needed what a dick !!!***&%.



I went to Illinois a few years ago on a bowhunting trip. Cost me 400 bucks for 2 tags. It was worth it because the hunting was much better where we were at (actually saw a 200+" deer taken during that time) than any opportunity I had in MI. 

I dont think the increase was aimed at keeping people out of this state, its just the reality of things. as for the raping of funds, yes the state did indeed raid the coffers for many years because the funds came in every year, and mismanagement within the DNR has not helped our situation, but hopefully we can right this ship, and a fee increase is a good step in this direction IMO


----------



## wavie (Feb 2, 2004)

For non-residents, you have a choice, pay to play, that is our only choice. Since when should a person not living/paying taxes/voting in MI get the same advantage/luxury as a resident? It does suck if you live on a bordering state, even if you come back to hunt one wk a year. At least you have that option (for now) to do so. If the funds are used appropriately i am all for it. Its hunting, no guarantees. We spend ungodly amounts on our equipment, yet the licence is probably the cheapest yearly investment, unless you buy a year pass at a managed area. That wont even get you two beers at Comerica.

I dont think this proposal was just slapped together overnight to tick off non residents.


----------



## QuackCocaine (Nov 14, 2010)

wavie said:


> I dont think this proposal was just slapped together overnight to tick off non residents.


I agree, but I think it's bad timing. 
Either way, like you said, we have a choice: Pay it and hunt in Michigan, or don't. Personally I feel the hunting isn't that much better to justify paying double what we did last year, so I probably won't hunt in Michigan. 

I think some of the points being made here are that you will not only be losing out on license fees from hunters like myself, but also all of the other money I (or my hunting buddies) would spend on food, gas, lodging, etc.. Fine line on what to do, but the decision has been made and we'll see how it goes I guess.


----------



## SBE II (Jan 13, 2009)

QuackCocaine said:


> I agree, but I think it's bad timing.
> Either way, like you said, we have a choice: Pay it and hunt in Michigan, or don't. Personally I feel the hunting isn't that much better to justify paying double what we did last year, so I probably won't hunt in Michigan.
> 
> I think some of the points being made here are that you will not only be losing out on license fees from hunters like myself, but also all of the other money I (or my hunting buddies) would spend on food, gas, lodging, etc.. Fine line on what to do, but the decision has been made and we'll see how it goes I guess.


The past decade, gasoline has tripled, why do you still choose to pay that to travel? None of the resident have complained about an increase but yet a non resident is...Do you not value the states resources enough?


----------



## fishnchics (Jan 28, 2012)

Now I live in toledo,FYI I do pay over 3grand in property taxes a year in Michigan and state income tax...does it suck sure but I pay it..really what I save by living right accross the state line.I will gladly pay it..was like 256.00 for 2 tags... I will gladly pay 300 hundred before I'm stuck hunting shot gun only in ohio

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## QuackCocaine (Nov 14, 2010)

fishnchics said:


> Now I live in toledo,FYI I do pay over 3grand in property taxes a year in Michigan and state income tax...does it suck sure but I pay it..really what I save by living right accross the state line.I will gladly pay it..was like 256.00 for 2 tags... I will gladly pay 300 hundred before I'm stuck hunting shot gun only in ohio
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


That's fine if you want to pay 300 to hunt deer in Michigan. Your choice.
Paying $150 to hunt a handful of times for ducks isn't worth it in my book.


----------

