# tapping maples on state land



## joe allen (Dec 23, 2008)

are you allowed to tap maples on state land?


----------



## Treehopper (Aug 18, 2007)

...I don't see why not-then in the fall you could use your taps to climb up into your treestand:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## glassman (Dec 27, 2007)

i would say probably not. your not allowed to penetrate the cambion layer with tree steps. with that said though, i would call the local co and ask him or her, they will be the one with the ticket book.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

You're not supposed to cut firewood on state land without a permit, and it's illegal to use tree steps, which damages the tree's timber value-since tapping a tree also creates a scar, thereby leaving damage, I would think it's also illegal...that and you're stealing the sap that belongs to the state. I don't know how a CO would view it, but you could be in really big trouble. I wouldn't think it would be worth it.


----------



## glassman (Dec 27, 2007)

if that is stealing then would rabbit hunting be stealing also? i am sure the reason would be more the "damage" to the tree. tapping doesnt adversly effect the tree and in no way the value of the lumber.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

No, rabbit hunting would be poaching, without a license. Once you have a license, the state has given you permission to rabbit hunt...


----------



## Shotgun (Jun 10, 2000)

glassman said:


> if that is stealing then would rabbit hunting be stealing also? i am sure the reason would be more the "damage" to the tree. tapping doesnt adversly effect the tree *and in no way the value of the lumber.*


Wrong. Ask any forester, logger, sawyer, woodworker.


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

There's another thread on this in the legal section:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2545822#post2545822


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

So I suppose blueberry picking is ok.

This is the kind of thing that the DNR has needed for years-an extra source of revenue. License berry pickers, tree tappers, bird watchers, mushroomers and Im sure this group can come up with 20 more things.

Lets see em.


----------



## glassman (Dec 27, 2007)

you got it cl


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

CL-Lewiston said:


> So I suppose blueberry picking is ok.
> This is the kind of thing that the DNR has needed for years-an extra source of revenue. License berry pickers, tree tappers, bird watchers, mushroomers and Im sure this group can come up with 20 more things.
> Lets see em.


I COULD NOT agree more and I've been saying something similar for a while now.

Only 8.8% of the DNR funding comes from the general fund. Most of it is from permit and license fees via the restricted fund. In addition to your 3 groups who could contribute: 

Walkers, dog walkers, joggers, bicyclists, campers, kayakers, canoers, tubers, backpackers/hikers, horsepack riders, other wildlife and plant enthusiasts, photographers, cross country skiers, dog sleds to name a few. 

10 million people in this state and you can't tell me there's not millions in those groups who could be helping shoulder the financial burden of what they enjoy as much as the hunters and fisherman...yet don't pay any type of permit or license fees to partake in their recreational activity.


----------



## chinamigarden (Oct 21, 2005)

Are you suggesting that if I pull out a pair of binoculars and watch birds in my yard I should have a license? If I want to do this in a state park I need a permit to enter, but where else, in your thoughts should my hobby be taxed? And what of the states resources have I taken for my own when I bird watch? Its not like fishing or hunting where an animal, owned by the state becomes my possession. How is my watching birds equal to this?


----------



## mi duckdown (Jul 1, 2006)

CL/M1/China. These Lands were bought with hunters money. Pittman/Robertsen?SP? funds. As hunters we have the right to enjoy these lands 99% of the time.
The last thing you want to do, is to license hunting and Non hunting, Berry, Mushroom pickers, bird watchers etc.
Then those people that are non hunters, fisherman, etc. that pay a fee will want a say in want happens on those lands. Let it Go


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

Each Sate Land area may have specific regs when it comes to harvesting berries etc.
Always check with the State Person in charge of the specific area.

FWIW I believe mushrooms are exempt from the picking laws.

I doubt harvesting sap is legal, but that's my gut feeling not fact.


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

chinamigarden said:


> Are you suggesting that if I pull out a pair of binoculars and watch birds in my yard I should have a license? If I want to do this in a state park I need a permit to enter, but where else, in your thoughts should my hobby be taxed? And what of the states resources have I taken for my own when I bird watch? Its not like fishing or hunting where an animal, owned by the state becomes my possession. How is my watching birds equal to this?


No, not at all. Your property is your property to do as you please. However when you're on state lands, no you're not taking anything but you are enjoying those resources just as much as the hunter or fisherman or someone who had to buy a permit. FY 2007-2008 budget for the DNR was $290 million. Most is from state restricted funds (licence and permit fees). Millions more than just hunters, fisherman and others who have to buy permits enjoy the resource so why not have them also shoulder some of the financial burden?


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

mi duckdown said:


> CL/M1/China. These Lands were bought with hunters money. Pittman/Robertsen?SP? funds. As hunters we have the right to enjoy these lands 99% of the time.
> The last thing you want to do, is to license hunting and Non hunting, Berry, Mushroom pickers, bird watchers etc.
> Then those people that are non hunters, fisherman, etc. that pay a fee will want a say in want happens on those lands. Let it Go


 
No, not all these lands were bought with monies from Pittman/Robertson. And really...do hunters have any more say on public lands than hikers? Campers? Not really. I buy a permit to cut wood on state land and it costs me $20. So why wouldn't a berry or mushroom picker have to buy a permit? You pay boat fees yet a kayaker doesn't? Isn't he enjoying the resource too? A snowmobiler has to pay their fees yet a dog sledder can run up their groomed trails in the UP and not pay anything? I can pick up a camping reg card for free and use it anywhere as long as I'm not within a mile of a state campground. Why not charge $5 for them? 

Obviously a lot of details that would need to be worked out but my point is that millions of people in this state enjoy these resources as much as the hunters, fishermen and permit buyers, yet they don't help with the financial burden? They enjoy it too and it costs money to maintain...


----------

