# User Fee ????



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Been a number of posts about raising hunting/fishing license fees for more biologists, CO's, habitat etc. I wouldn't mind a slight increase but I believe in something else too. Non-hunters in Michigan out number hunters 9 to 1. A modest number for fishermen I think is about 9 to 2, that means out of over 9 million people in Michigan only 2 million fish. We all know and I would hope agree that sportsmen are the ones that foot the bill for not only the things that we enjoy but for some of the same things that others who pay nothing enjoy.

Just my opinion and if you want to add comments go for it. I haven't completely thought this out but I have commented on this type of idea in a few other posts.

If you are 17 or older (doesn't apply to anyone under 17 for any changes) and you have at least one of any type of the following; hunting, fishing, ORV registration, snowmobile trail permit, you would also have to do nothing. Boat registrations, state park stickers don't count. If you want to use public land for any type of recreation activity, hiking, bird watching cross country skiing, whatever and you don't have one of the licenses listed above you must obtain a user pass which would be the same price as a fishing or small game license.

Go ahead and add opinions/ideas to this. Maybe we can really get something going or maybe we will discover that it's not a good idea. Let's have a debate, talk about the different ideas, why some ideas would be good, why some ideas would not be good, let's just keep it civil. Whacha think???


----------



## Magnet (Mar 2, 2001)

Boehr, in reference to the user fee discussion.

I have a question.

As an average joe trout fisherman, I enjoy floating the AuSable river in my row boat. In order to do this my friend and I have to drive two vehicles. One vehicle is parked at the end of the drift and one is parked at the beginning of the drift. One of the vehicles is required to pay a usage fee in order to park. We have also previously purchased all species fishing licenses.

On the other hand.

We have to share the river with a bunch of canoeists that out number us about 30 to 1. The canoeists have not purchased fishing licenses (they are not fishing). They also have not paid a usage fee for parking (the canoe livery provides their transportation). They are 30 times more apt to leave trash during the extent of their journey down the river. (I am not stating that they have less respect for the resource than we do, I am just working the numbers - 30:1).

Does the livery charge the canoeists a usage fee on behalf of the state?

Does the state charge the livery a usage fee based on the number of canoeists?

Is this system fair?

Pleases enlighten me.

Magnet


----------



## Winterover (Jan 22, 2001)

I have long thought they should have some type of a license for harvesting foodstuffs from state land. If you go out in the woods in the spring they are loaded with people hunting mushrooms. You also have your raspberry harvesters etc.... 
Just think if all the canoeists & mountainbikers had to pay a user fee how much better shape our state parks would be in.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2002)

Not sure either.
One one hand, i'm pretty anti-tax/user fee. I figure i've already paid my taxes to the state, why pay more.
But I can see what Boehr is getting at with this one and I agree with it.


----------



## Eastern Yooper (Nov 12, 2000)

I get an 'error' message everytime I have tried to vote on a poll for the last month or so.

Anyways.... I am 110% of favor of this. My proposal would be the following: 

#1) A 'Harvesters' permit for the berry picker, mushroom hunter, etc.

#2) A 'Recreation' permit for the hiker, biker, canoeist, etc.

I'd say a modest fee of $15 would be fair.

Reasonable boundaries and limitations need to be established, tho: I can't see charging folks for simply driving-thru looking for wildlife, taking a color tour, or bird watching.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Complex, for sure. That's one of the reasons for the post, ideas. We, all of us, already do pay taxes of some sort for certain things. Again, the reason to get ideas and thoughts. I myself, and I'm sure many of you hear PETA people talking about how they help animals so much but all their money is put forth to fight "us" and the money they use is never used for the resources. Equal for all, that make use of resources, hunters/fishermen etc., and those who do not pay to use the resources.

I really don't know where I'm heading in detail, that's the reason for the post, ideas and thoughts, both good or bad.

Some of my thoughts to the posts so far though....I agree, it's a tax but I guess my thoughts are about public lands, not waters which is the reason for my post on boat registrations not counting but also no user fee for just using the water either, because of boat registrations...some thoughts about canoeists though, didn't think about that aspect. As far as boat livery, sheriff's departments make those inspections and counties get the money as part of their marine budgets, I think. CO's do not do boat livery inspections and the inspection fee is pretty minimal, based on the number of boats/canoes they have not customers or the number of times vessels used. All of those vessels would have to be registered though.

My thoughts on driving down a county road on a color tour, observing wildlife from you vehicle etc., user fee for the use of the road again is already been made in the license plates for the vehicle. I don't think another user fee would be proper in that regard but if they went walking though the woods, it would.

Again, my thoughts on age, 17, same as fishing license. This would give a non-hunting juvenile plenty of opportunity to see if they want to become a user. Kids 12 and older already buying a hunting license have already made the decision and paying in the hunting license fee even though it's a reduce cost for junior license.

Think of anti-hunting people now having to pay a fee to come and harass you before they get arrested too. As far as them saying they have paid their user fee, they can come bird watch now on opening day and pay nothing.

I also think that monies for a fee like this should also be written right into the law where, how, when etc., the money would be used. A percentage of monies could be for youth education. Other percentages for other thinks. There is no doubt in my mind that if, and thats a big if, something like this ever came about it would be an up hill battle.

God given right to look at the wildife, I can agree with that but, who's money made the purchase of the property and maintains that wildlife there for the person who doesn't pay, to see was used? Also, again my thoughts are for example, if you bought a fishing/hunting license for the year, you don't have to pay any more, that is your user fee, something that many of us have supported for many years if not all of our lives.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Also for the record, this is a personal though only, no hidden agenda. Right now I am pro "user fee" but, also I'm going into this with an open mind that could be changed. Back in the 70's in southern Michigan we did have a thing called a "hunter access stamp". If you hunted in southern Michigan you also had to have a hunter access stamp in addition to your license. At the time is was used for paying for hunter access lands (on private property). That was done away with, rightfully so in my opinion because it caused hunters, not users pay more. Now we have a trail permit for snowmobiles, in addition to the snowmobile registration. That money for trail permits mostly goes to snowmobiles clubs for trail grooming and getting more land for snowmobile trails. A good cause as trails have became better groomed, there are more trails and groomers are not cheap but still, clubs that clear trails in the warm months that prepare these areas for snowmobiles could/are still being used by hikers without any type of payment.


----------



## H2OFowl'er (Oct 26, 2001)

I think it is a great idea, i thought alot of the state parks require a vehicle permit?? dont know as I havent been to a park in sometime. But, I think that one thing that hunters have in their corner when it comes to fighting the anti's is that it is their money that goes to support not only their own cause, but allows many other non-hunters enjoy the resource. I guess what Im trying to say is that if we keep it the way it is now, then we as hunters can be considered giving the non-hunters (some anti's) a gift....I hope im making sense here, having a hard time putting into words what im thinking...


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Isn`t a fee required to take fire wood or cut a Christmas tree from State land? So why not a fee for taking mushrooms?


----------



## PrtyMolusk (Aug 13, 2000)

Howdy-
ray, I had to vote no. While I understand where you are coming from (and agree, to a certain extent) I feel the ensuing miasma of rules and regulations would just become unworkable and unenforceable. Do we charge people to go out and gather leaves for kindergarten projects? Do we charge classes for nature walks?
Lets come up with a more reasonable way to raise revenue....
Les


----------



## The Nailer (Feb 7, 2000)

My first reaction was yes this is a good idea, but the cost was too high. Maybe the price of a day sticker at a state park instead ($4.00). Then as I read the others comments and the more thought I gave it I'm not so sure. I think it would be just another unenforcable law. And being that I am somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to the government and taxes, I'm not sure you could control where the money is being used. I still remember the promisies made when they introduced the lottery. 

I do remember a couple of years ago when they were trying to attach an excise tax on firearms and ammo and I thought if they get away with that then golfballs, basenballs and every other damn thing should be taxed too.

One thing for sure this should open the door for some very thought provoking discussions.


----------



## outdooralex (Jan 7, 2002)

I agree with the idea Boehr. Remember the old public access stamps for small game hunting. Why couldn't they reinstate that but this time enforce it for what it says "Public Access". Any outdoor activity using public access,you would need this permit. There would have to be alot of definition to this, but its a good concept. I never could figure out why they got rid of that stamp to begin with. I was very young when they had this in effect and only hunted a couple of years when they phased it out. Sounds like it could work.


----------



## Lyle Trudell (Nov 20, 2001)

I voted yes in concept, in that I think you are headed in the right direction.


----------



## butrunt (Nov 22, 2001)

There was legislation being considered a few years back to put an additional tax on outdoor equipment (camping, optics etc.) similar to the taxes that are put on hunting and fishing gear. This legislation didn't get passed, but it would have generated extra money for use on state and federal lands at the additional expense of the nonhunting sector. I was all in favor of this and wish that the legislation would have passed. I think this was fair to all user groups.


----------



## Bow_Hunter (Jan 18, 2000)

Why pass a law and try to collect fees when it will not be able to be enforced?

Who is going to go out there and make sure people have the right pass or paper work?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

If CO's are checking hunting, fishing, snowmobile, fur harvester, ORV's, etc., I don't see a big problem with the enforcement, would guess CO's could check those licenses/permits too, since they are already out there. We are talking recreational users. We are also only talking public lands, not private lands.


----------



## Heavy duty (Jun 8, 2001)

In way a fee is already charged. If you park on state land you need a state park sticker. Maybe just change that to include public road right of ways when parking where bordering state/fed land. And incress the sticker fee. or have two stickers. One for park entry only and one for park entry and recreational use??


----------



## treeclimber24359 (Jan 4, 2002)

I agree that something has to be taxed or payed. But is it the sportsman. I hunt alot of state land that has bike trails and hiking trails. I am definatly out numberd by those people on trails. they should have to pay something even though alot come from the surrounding areas. And thus not have to pay for parking. also the recreational boater. How many times have you been on a good school of fish and had someone blow by on a jet ski or in a boat. and as a result spooked the fish. We are definatly out numberd. And as for the orv stickers any idea of how much if any of that money goes to good use on land and water uses. Been on state land and seen alot of people get stopped for stickers on quads and snowmobiles. But never on there vehicles. A tax or access permit is an excellent idea but you have to get people with common sense and ethical background to meet and talk through all the pros and cons and thus a better natural resources office and officers.


----------



## Ebowhunter (Apr 5, 2000)

Haven't read any comments other than Boehr's opening...

I think a user fee is a good idea. I do believe it should be low cost though.

The price of a small game license is less than the Federal Gov is asking to use their parking areas (Hoist Lakes, Whirlpool) for a year. It is also very reasonable as compared to the National Parks (I believe Isle Royale was $4/day in 2000).

I also wouldn't mind seeing some consolidation of fees. By the time I get done with State Parks, National Parks, National areas, etc., the bill gets to be quite large.


----------



## Bow_Hunter (Jan 18, 2000)

In all of my many years of hunting and fishing I have only been stopped and checked once.

I am not saying that it can not work or will not work. I am just saying that things are not geting checked enough now and this would just be more to do.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Well, I guess I'm surprised at the early results. I would have thought that hunters, fishers and recreational users etc., would want others that pay nothing and reep the benefits that hunters, fishers and rereational users pay for would have thought that those others should help but when you combine the large population that don't hunt etc., guess that will never happen when the group already footing the bill doesn't want it. Oh well, it was just a thought.

Bow Hunter - but you don't know how many times you have been watched.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2002)

It's a good thought Boehr, and I see your point.

I voted for the fee (lord forgive me), but also have concerns as to what benefit would come from the additional funds.

John(let's tax the internet) would just dump it into his billion dollar shortfall budget, and what would improve? I'm afraid nothing.

No knock on you or your field people, just once again, your bosses.


----------



## Bow_Hunter (Jan 18, 2000)

I never know who is watching me nor how many times I have been watched. So, I guess in order to get stopped or asked I must break the rules first?

That would mean if I never buy a license, but follow the rules so as not to draw attention to myself ........ you see where I am going with this.

I think you know what I am saying.

I think that your idea of charging more fees has merit, I just do not know how it could be enforced when things already are not enforced enough.

If you can not get the current job done, do not add more work to the list.


----------



## fishinlk (Apr 14, 2000)

I really can't come up a solid yes or no for this and if pushed I'd have to vote no. One question. On the Ohio tax returns we have two different catagories available to donate a portion of your return towards wildlife and scenic areas. Does MI have this on your forms? If so, then I would think that should be sufficient and it would be hard to enforce anyway. If not, maybe they should put this on the form, Ohio generates some good $$ this way and its available to anyone.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

There is no such thing as law enforcement, any type of law enforcement, catching or stopping all illegal activities. We as a society live day to day with the knowledge that a very large percentage of people will obey the laws.

Bow Hunter...I also believe that if you never bought a license you would act differently, maybe without even realizing it. Experience tells me that there is a good chance that it is true. Then again maybe you are 100% right, I don't know for sure, unfortunately there is no way to know for sure. Unless you want to quit buying licenses and see if you get caught. 

Actually, I can understand where everyone is coming from that says no to a user fee, don't agree, but I do understand. I do know I don't mind buying someone lunch but don't want to do it all the time either.


----------



## Eastern Yooper (Nov 12, 2000)

I think it would simplify things if there was one license sold as a "Harvest/Recreation" permit.

We could go on and on about it being an enforecement nightmare, etc. but the fact remains that LE is never going to be able to catch all the lawbreakers.

I think we need to keep in mind that the majority of citizens venturing afield would purchase this permit, and this in-turn would generate one HELL of alot of extra revenue.

As for the cost: Hey.... filling-up the gas tank costs $30; a twelve-pack of beer costs $10; PIZZA-PIZZA! costs $15; taking your significant other to the movie costs about $25... and so-on. We hunters and fishers pay for the privilage of taking fish and game, or riding ATV's, or snowmobiles.... why shouldn't those who pick morels or mountain bike?

Besides: If you have already purchased some other type of license you would be exempt.

I support the idea that everyone pays.


----------



## Randy Kidd (Apr 21, 2001)

I agree that there is a problem with the number and work load within the DNR. Not enough officers to enforce the laws that we do have. And I agree that money must be found somewhere to address this problem. But having said that I wonder if creating more laws that are the DNR"s responsibility to enforce is the way to go. I mean if you made more laws to get more money, then you would need to make more laws to get still more money to enforce the new laws you just created. ad nauseum, ad nauseum. This is a slippery slope down a hill of a bottomless pit. I believe that the money should come from a program that does not mandate DNR control. Personally I would not mind having an increase in taxes that was equivalent to say five bucks per tax-payer per year. But legislation would have to be enacted to ensure that the money actually went to the DNR and not into some politician's ( I asked my wife the correct spelling of politician and she spelled it out for me L-I-A-R She is a school teacher.) War chest. It's just an Idea.


----------



## Youper (Jul 8, 2001)

Those you impose user fees on(non-hunters)will rightfully want a greater say in how our hunting resources are managed. This is why I believe the user fee is a bad idea.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2002)

But Youper, they already want a say, and pay nothing now.


----------



## Dangler (Mar 24, 2000)

No pay, no play. That's how it should be. To go on public land to harvest a squirrel, you must have purchased a license. Why should someone who uses that same piece of public land to harvest a morel or watch birds be given a free pass? If they don't want to pay for the access, they have the right to stay on private land and do the same activity for free. Hunters don't get the "free pass" option on private land, they still have to pay.

As far as enforcement, there will always be violators, but by and large, the majority of people wanting access to public land would pay the reasonable fee because most people are law abiding. The end result is more dollars in the coffers to maintain the public land. That's a good thing, right?


----------



## stevebrandle (Jan 23, 2000)

Well, this might not apply to this post, but I read something about the DNR today that surprised me. Saginaw Township is building a new public building that will have an indoor running track, meeting rooms and I don't remember what all. The Michigan DNR has given a grant for $750,000 to fund this 3.2 million dollar project under a "Clean Up Michigan" (or something close to that), program. When I read that, all I could think was, huh? 

Now, I know that today's DNR covers many areas that don't have anything to do with hunting, fishing, etc. But, where is that money coming from? Will a Michigan resident from "anywhere else than Saginaw" gain any benifit from this grant?

Long story short; I'm tired of sending $$ to Washington, Lansing, my labor union, etc. etc., and watching the money go down the tubes or into someones pocket. You might call me cynical, but I think I'm just sick of paying.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

I gotta say no way.

I just can't imagine someone not being able to walk through the woods without having a license.

There are somethings that just shouldn't be taxed.

The only time I ever truly feel free is when I am in the bush.

I just cringe to think about the old woman who walks through the field picking daisies and counting blessing's only to hear "Madame, your papers please!"

The intentions are good, but freedoms are nontaxable.

Hunting and fishing are different, I feel like my license fee goes toward the state to sustain the animals I am removing. 

shrug

Hunt


----------



## broncbuster2 (Apr 15, 2000)

I voted yes:
*IF* the fee's are used for what they are intended, *NOT* to be moved or used for anything else!


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2002)

Steve Brandle, Any possibility of providing a link, regarding the grant from the DNR to build Saginaw Township a Club Med?

I've searched the DNR's web-site and searched Saginaw Township's and Saginaw's web-sites and couldn't find any info.

Forgive me I found it.

http://www.saginawtownship.org/Manager/home page Main Frame.htm


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2002)

Here's why the money is being spent on that rec center with this money.

Investing in Recreation
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI)?
The CMI is a $100 million bond program initiated with the approval of Proposal C on the November 3, 1998 ballot. The program provides $50 million in grants to local units of government for the development and renovation of public recreation facilities, and $50 million for extensive State park renovations.


----------



## Dangler (Mar 24, 2000)

I wonder how much of that $100 million will be used to clean up the trash on public hunting areas that gets left behind by bikers, hikers, bird watchers, flower pickers and others with free access.


----------



## bhntr (Feb 13, 2001)

I vote no! If you want to open the door for more regulations this would be it. you would be competeing against new user groups for time in the woods. Also just another way of making it a rich mans sport. If some of this money was used where it was supposed to be instead of getting lost. we wouldnt have such a shortage.


----------



## fishinlk (Apr 14, 2000)

Just to stir up the kettle abit. How about when the bird watchers want to close portions of a wildlife area to deer hunting or duck hunting because the want to be in the woods at that time to watch a certain type of bird that happens to migrate through at that time of year and requires a certain habitat. They'll have the rights to do it because they're paying for the area too. It wouldn't be out of the question.


----------



## Dangler (Mar 24, 2000)

The public land where I spend some time, Waterloo, has signs all over it that say "Firearms prohibited April 1 through Sept. 14" or words to that effect. So that area is already off limits to ground hog hunters, plinkers, etc. for almost half the year. I can't speak for other areas. I don't know of any areas that say "Off limits to non-hunters Sept. 15 through March 31".

Maybe that's a compromise that will keep the non-hunters from closing down public hunting areas during the major hunting seasons. Let's not forget, this discussion is only about public areas that can be hunted. The non-hunters can still do their thing year-round on private land, as well as on state parks off limits to hunting.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Why does anyone think that a bird watcher - non hunter/fisher, for example, has any less say now when they don't pay anything, than they would if they had paid a user fee. They have just as much say now, can you say "dove"?

Again, this was just a thought. At some point there will be another license increase and we will be paying more and "they" will still not be paying. As far as fishing licenses going up, that will never effect me, I purchase a lifetime license years ago. That will be good and won't cost me a penny more for the rest of my life.


----------



## fishinlk (Apr 14, 2000)

True enough on the dove thing. One thing, peoples perception of their rights change drastically when $$ enters the picture. I would be willing to bet that once all of these people that currently use state resources for the little things such as hiking and bird watching have to PAY for it, they will be much more vocal in there views and uses because they will feel more of a sense of ownership. Would this be a good thing? maybe maybe not, I would do an awful lot of studies into the MI publics view on hunting and fishing before I would go there.


----------



## rick (Dec 3, 2000)

It sounds like a good idea to me. When I go to a metro park I pay a user fee either by the day or the year. Same goes for state parks so shouln't we all pay to to use puplic land.
My question is if you allready pay for a hunting licence or an orv licence should you pay twice. How about a user fee that includes your hunting, fishing or orv licence be it by the day or the year? How much more should a bird shooter have to pay than a bird watcher? Also many hunters hunt without taking any game so should they pay more to carry a gun instead of a camera?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

In my first post that started this thread was my thoughts on your questions. A hunting, fishing license, etc., would exempt that person from a user fee because a portion of those license monies already go to different things that provide money for the natural resources, habitat, biologishts, CO's etc., etc. User fees should go into the same fund as licenses, the Fish & Game Protection Fund.


----------



## Bow_Hunter (Jan 18, 2000)

Use the money only in the area in which the fee was paid for.

that only makes sense! Oh, that explains it.


----------



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

We already have a userr fee for State Managed Areas. Enforcement would be the key! A group of us placing nesting boxes out in the early spring at a State Managed Area when a group of about 40 birders showed up. I mentioned to the man to collect the fee. $3.00 per day. WHAT A LOOK I GOT! A fee for an area that is maintained, toilets, refuse containers, paths etc... is fine, but to require a permit for shroomers or berry pickers is going a little far. God put those bounties there the state didn't. Next we'll be driving through the state forest and have to pay a TAX on the "clean air" we breath.


----------



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

I do believe that has already taken place. The monies generated by license fees and any excise tax placed on the equipment already go into the GF. Supports whatever The Gov. desires! Not just hunting, fishing. If I remember that move really straped the (Natural Resource Commission) pre DNR.


----------



## Sailor (Jan 2, 2002)

I'm with Big Frank 25 ! Lansing has raided every fund, misused the sportsmen's money, and done a lousy job of managing our resources! I for one don't trust them with the money the're collecting now.


----------



## cireofmi (Feb 13, 2001)

I dont know. It seems like there are pros/cons for both sides. I just dont see it being enforceable on every piece of state land. Yes, we need more money for our Natural Resources. I would have to say that charging new fees are not the answer. Why not trying enforcing state lands that require fees more. How about just creating a slight increase in the fees to access state lands that already have fees to use?


----------



## Chuck (Sep 24, 2000)

When I ride my ountain bike on the Kalhaven trail I have to buy a day pass or a yearly pass. I get a sticker to put on my bike.

Why not a mountain bike liscence to ride any state or federal lands that are open to it? Maybe a hiking trails permit that also allows you to camp & hike on any state lands? Same thing with cross country skieing? If you r a jet skear you should be charged 10,000.00 for life time pass this should cover most of the violations you will comit and not get cought for!

In the city of St. Joe you have to buy a permit to ride your bicycle on the road! No matter how old you are if you dont they take your bike away till you buy one!!!

Same thing with recreational boating like canoes. Maybe a yearly pass to allow you to use any public water way? Unless you have a fishing liscence? 

Maybe charge to park on any state land? If your a hunter when you buy your liscence you get a one year pass/sticker included in the price of your liscence?? this way a hunter dosne tpay twice. It would be easy to enforce you drive by and see if a vehical has a permit if not they get a parking ticket.

If im not a hunter I can go into the woods now at any time of the year. I dont remeber seeing anything in the rule book that says i have to have a hunting liscence to be on state land during hunting season. These people have the right to be there already. The only thing I can think of is in Allegan state game area the horse trails are closed durin g gun season Duh!! that makes sense. Some hunters are to stupid to tell the difference between a horse and rider and a deer.

In the allegan state game area there are already areas that you cant hunt. They are refuges that you cant go into. But you can watch the birds from a distance.

The only thing I would worry about is how much of this money would disapear? Maybe we should have laws in effect that if you work for the state its a federal offense to waste tax money punishable with a 20 year federal prison sentence?? Plus restitution fines???

I think it could be done but as a hunter I dont want to end up paying more or being double charged. Will I have to get a hiking permit to scout state land in the offf season or will i have to buy my liscence in jan? Then the dnr cahnges the rules and im screwed cuz i bought my liscence before the changes took place?

Do we charge those damn ice skaters too!!???LOL


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I pay for a $6.00 habitat stamp in Illinois every year. Everyone that hunts there does. I don't see a problem. We recently had a bit of a war up here on the Pere Marquette because of user fees. It's $20.00 a year to use federal accesses. At first, everyone including our store bitched. Then the USFS closed a boat access claiming lack of funding. It was a popular access. Now very few bitch because we don't want more accesses closed. It's my feeling that the fed's will start something like this before the state. I think in a few years the USFS will start charging people to use federal lands, regardless of whether they have a state hunting license. Is this a good or bad thing? I don't know. I think it's unstoppable and the future. I would like to see a $5.00 MDNR law enforcement tag. I think everyone that hunts or fishes should have to have one in possession. The only thing is that money would have to be in addition to whatever the current budget is now. The law couldn't allow for the budget to get cut the same amount as was raised by that tag. We want MORE enforcement, not the same amount.


----------



## omerjim (Feb 19, 2002)

Well I read all the current posts before casting my vote. While I would dearly love to get some of the anti's money to help our resourses, I had to vote no. It seems to me that if we try to tax or attach a fee to everything we have as state or public property it may be seen a another case of people with available recreational money trying to keep the less fortunate out. As it stands, I personaly know single mothers on assistance that pick mushrooms, berrys, and just plain walks in the woods to entertain and feed their children. Also many seniors that no longer fish and hunt still take up these activities. It may cost us more in the future, but I belive a little more public awareness of what the money that Michigan sportspeople put out to improve and maintain our natural resources, can only help our image with the general public. Stop and think of the controversy reguarding fish plants. Already we have the big boats vs small boats,shore angler issues and thats just amoung ourselves.


----------



## MGV (Jan 22, 2002)

I agree in a rise in cost to the others that don't buy fishing/hunting licenses.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Seems too far fetched. We already pay fees for our boats and canoes, or for our trailers and ATV's. Who should pay more? Maybe the question is "Who should pay less". If you want to charge for all harvesting or user activities that you can, you should have to pay a fee for each that you participate in ... period. Right now I have to buy a fishing license, small game license, archery license, firearms license, fishing license, boat registration, trailer registration, state park stickers...etc..etc. 

Oh heck, i just can't rationalize charging people any more. Let the old lady pick mushrooms or watch birds. I think we already have 99% of outdoor activities generating funds. <----<<<


----------



## dene49939 (Jan 20, 2002)

i voted yes. parking permits are paid but i think mountain bikers and skiers and such should pay more they do get marked and cleared trails taking away resource money.i got to disagree with harvesting any foods, especially berries and acorns that should remain illegal. Even dead wood provides for the critters.

i also think insurance companies should pay out some of the 450 million a year they will pocket back for wiping out deer numbers.

t .b my a//$$ always been here always will be. i wish i had a picture of my insurance guys face when i asked how he liked the doe tags going out. it looked alot like $$$$$$


----------



## SA ULTRA MAG (Nov 7, 2001)

First off I hunt and fish and buy all licenses to do so, I also mountain bike and canoe. I do not have a problem with people being in the woods on hikes or birdwatching.

Here's where I have a problem, I work with some great guys that mountain bike too but what burns me is when they complain about the Cannonsburg State Game (near Grand Rapids) area being closed to mountain bikers from Sept 15th until March 30th (I believe). They do not pay a penny to use these trails but the hunters do through license fees. I don't dirt bike anymore but I use to have to have an ORV then why don't they need an ORV. Aren't mountain bikes "off road vehicles" ? I would not complain about having to buy one for myself and son.

Another thing....why are the mountain bikers allowed to ride on state lands during the deer gun season. Yes they wear orange but I'm not allowed to ride my snowmobile on trails during the season, during the day. Lets make these rules fair to everyone.

A short while ago (for a year I think) there was a law that canoes had to have a registration like a boat but that didn't last long. You only have to have a registration if you put a motor on a canoe now. As many people that canoe and kayak in Michigan now and they are doing it for free, alot of out-of-state too. I can't figure that one out either.......sorry just some thoughts I had.


----------



## Al L (Mar 22, 2001)

My nickle say,s Every moutian bike, every ridden horse, every x country skier and snow shoer on land belonging to the state of Michigan or lands leased with sports persons money (snowmobile trails) should produce a permit stateing they have paid for the right to be there enjoying their sport just as every hunter must, as every fisher man must, as campers must, as snowmobilers must. As for the shroon hunters, bird watchers and berry picker types why not a day fee for parking. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch in the U.S.A. any more. I recently& in the past ran in to x country skiers, that think any place with a track, or packed path is open to them. Most of those people pay nothing.


----------



## J-Lee (Jul 11, 2000)

There is an article in this months Field and Stream that talks about this very subject titled "Storm Warnings Part 2. It deals with how Missouri and Arkansas has dealt with this, some more food for thought. It is worth reading,it can be found on their website http://www.fieldandstream.com


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

I'm a bit nervous with the long term conequences. I agree that we pay our share and I'm at first tempted by having the other nonconsumptive users pay their share. Boher mentions that we are out numbered about 9:1. That's what makes me nervous.

Suppose the other nonconsumptive users simply pay $1.00 as the smallest token. Believe me when I say they will be demand something for that $1.00. If they are 9:1, they will demanding more restrictions and competing for special use 'space & activities' of our already limited resources. They will demand 9:1 to our legislators looking for votes and money that they get more than that $1.00 actually paid for.

The legislation to transfer control of our game management has not been passed and is branded the 'anti-dove bill'. The 9:1 wants the legislators to manage the wildlife, not science wildlife managers. If they pay even $1.00, they will have more ammunition to demand more anti hunting restrictions. That makes me nervous.


----------



## Banditto (Jun 9, 2000)

Well my main concern is if there was a surplus of taxes the federal government would likely take it and stick that money in the general fund. 

So my usage fee would go to some obscure program that would have no benefit to me, or more likely it would have no benefit to anybody...


----------



## Shoes (Apr 12, 2000)

Please, no more fees(taxes). We seem to be sliding into a mentality that nothing in the 'land of the free' really is. I don't buy that. There needs to remain some things people can do to enjoy our great outdoors without having to dig into their pockets.

Of course there are a lot of activities that need to be regulated, and the people who engage in those activities should pay for them. For the most part, I think there are legitimate reasons why we should pay for many of them, and most of us do. I for one, however, believe that you never never never never volunteer to give money to a state, federal or local government. It goes into a big black hole, and more often than not, doesn't get spent for its intended purpose. Plus, you create the need to hire more bureaucrats to administer the fee and/or program.

I guess what goes around, comes around. Those who came to this country fought a war to get away from the king's taxes and fees that were imposed on every part of their existence. Well it seems today that we are getting close to having gone just about full circle. A birdwatching fee, hiking fee, biking fee, hunting fee, fishing fee, parking fee, camping fee, RV fee, metro park fee, state park fee, special ammo fee, firearms fee, boating fee, cross-country fee....etc, etc, and so on endlessly.

"Let the user pay" may have a nice ring to it, but I believe in the long run the greater damage will be done by feeding the monster, a more and bigger government that becomes more powerful and is able to exert a greater influence on our everyday lives with each and every fee, tax or law. 

There are already a lot of non-hunters and non-fishermen who pay to support our outdoor resources. I don't support something that will penalize people just because they want to take a walk in the woods. I will continue to pick and eat those tasty wintergreen berries I enjoy while hunting every deer season.....and I don't intend to buy a wintergreen berry permit.


----------



## omerjim (Feb 19, 2002)

Shoes--- AMEN


----------



## toots (Dec 8, 2001)

I voted against it because of the complex issue. I think it would drive a wedge in the user groups. The hunters and fishers would be blamed for causing the fee. I also feel there are many long time hunters who paid for years and are now just picking and looking. If any picker wants to help they can pick a license and buy it. toots


----------



## wildcoy73 (Mar 2, 2004)

yes cxharge all. i can use the state land and water ways at no charge. the dnr can still ticket me for this use, but i pay no fees for this. now as a hunter i do pay. lets say on your state taxes we have a $5.00 fee for kepping up or wildlife for all to use 5x9 45mill not much but it shall help with the bugdet. but keep the gov away from this money it is made for the rec. and that is where it should be used


----------



## Rudi's Dad (May 4, 2004)

I hope you consider all the posts. I beleive fisher/hunter folks should pay/buy an additional Habitat Stamp. Why? So the State HAS to build more boat launches, buy hunting/fishing land in the State with that money. Fellas, one of these days, the Paper company in the U.P. is going to sell off their holdings. You think its unlimited access in the U.P. and it is now. Wait till every holding is posted and roads gated. (like it is in the lower) Some time in the near future, the State must go to bat for us. Sportsmen always pay their way and more. Maybe thru habitat stamps for small game, deer, and whatever, a permanent agreement could be reached with the paper mill to keep the lands (in perpetual CFR). By the way with State budget shortfalls, look for them to sell off State land to raise money. Lets try to stop ANY loss of State land, and talk about increasing the holdings. Am I paranoid? Maybe but in Mason/Manistee County, a paper mill had over 7000 acres of great CFR land. They got money hungry, it is GONE forever. The folks who bought it either were real estate companies, or folks from down in Southern Michigan who had deep pockets and let me just say the lands are all posted now. Give some thought to developing a way to not just save all the land we have now, but increase the holdings.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

We already have fees everytime we turn around if it is not for hunting/fishing Licenses it is for boat registration or ammo taxes or state parks passses. The solution is put the money from hunters and fishermen where they want it afterall they paid for it!!! :rant:


----------



## Michigan Birdhunter (Nov 5, 2003)

I believe that anyone that uses and enjoys the outdoors should participate in the stewardship in taking care of it and that includes the monetary costs also. The way it is now it is like taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Everyone benefits from the revenue but only a few pay. Not right or fair. If I didn't hunt and fish and buy licenses for that and I wanted to hunt mushrooms, I wouldn't have a problem with paying a fee to do that but then I've been paying fees all my life to enjoy what I do. As far as enforcement is concerned, a lot of us are not checked when we hunt and fish but we still buy the licenses. I don't think enforcement is that big of a deal. If the people know they need a license, most of them will comply.


----------



## spuds (Dec 21, 2003)

The problem I have with this is the native americans won't have to buy this permit. That would be as bad as me only using 2 tipups and they can use 10. No way.


----------



## Dave Lyons (Jun 28, 2002)

Well I vote for the user fee. 

But I believe it is also time for Law Enforcement to be able to charge BIG Fines on law breakers. Deer Poaching min. fine should be around $100,000. To many fish $500.00 a pound.

One more thing I don't have a problem with the state raising lic. fee either.

Dave


----------



## victor mi pro bowhunter (Feb 12, 2001)

i"m not sure... 
I think there sould be a small fee maybe 5 dollor all year outdoor pass i mean why not.If you moutain bike fourwheel hike whatever then you are enjoying the great outdoors.But then agian thats just that the great outdoors should you really pay to be in gods country.if you are hiking then you are just out there enjoying the outdoors it can't even be put in the same row as hunting Licenses with a hunting License you cant take a anamal its no where near the same.hiking' fourwheeling' moutainbiking you are not taking anything

so thats why i'm not sure


----------



## JO_EZ (May 25, 2004)

I agree that some people seem to be getting a free ride, but... Money is control. If we require non-hunting users to pay to use public land, then they will want to have more of a say in how it is used. I fear that eventually our State Game Areas will become State Wildlife Viewing Areas and we will all be reduced to spectators. 

Instead, I say let us hunters and fishermen pay the toll, keep controll and be gracious hosts to those who just want to come and have a look around.

JO_EZ


----------



## DRHUNTER (Sep 15, 2002)

I am in favor of a user fee. However I see it as somewhat unenforcable. How many times have most of us been stopped by a CO or for that matter even see one in the woods. Heck a lot of people don't even bother purchasing hunting or fishing licenses. It would come down to the honest Joe paying again and the violator getting away with a free ride. If we want to generate more money let's hire more CO's and INCREASE the mandatory fines for violations as some others mentioned. I bet Granholm would be all for that!!The increase in fines would offset the increase in law enforcment personal. A little PR wouldn't hurt either. What would it take to advertise to the public who really pays for the resource thru license sales? This might make the public more appreciative of sports people. Right, there I go thinking that will ever happen. Good post Boehr


----------



## reddog719 (Dec 22, 2002)

I think that people should pay to use the state land and public lakes. But like with most questions there are certain exceptions, schools and any outdoor teaching that teaches children (birth to 16 yrs) should be exempt from paying. every one else should have to pay some kind of user fee ie: hunting or fishing licence. what ever the fee it should cost as much as the lowest cost licence.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

This is a complex issue, I beleive in people paying their way but, as I understand it was hunters and fishermen who initiated the liscenesing of their sports, hence a greater acceptance. All tax payers support state and federal lands in many ways, removal from tax roles ect. I beleive the state has a responsibility to its citizens to maintain a certain amount of oppurtunities for its citizens.


----------

