# Need for more Conservation Officers



## hda31 (Nov 21, 2006)

If you want more COs and need money for it why don't the legislators stop one of their stupid social programs that do not work and put it towards good use like some COs, I'm tired of the solution just being "raise taxes, or raise prices"


----------



## Hackman (Aug 13, 2008)

With the way the economy is in Michigan extra state spending to hire more CO's is out of the question. The person who started this thread is very ignorant to economics or just wanted to get people buzzed up. We need to cut back all state spending and just fund what is mandated and go from there.


----------



## North wind (Oct 19, 2009)

I'm fine with it as long as it's only fishing licenses.


----------



## JWICKLUND (Feb 13, 2005)

As a CO I see the shortage of officers every day. On the Western end of the U.P. (Iron, Gogebic and Ontonagon counties) where I do most of my patrolling, we have 4 officers covering 3,500 square miles (not counting the water). In those 3,500 square miles, 40,000 people live and work. So using simple math, each officer is responsible for 850 square miles and 10,000 people. Throw in the influx of hunting, fishing and ORV/Snowmobile usergroups, the number of people we are responsible for grows rather quickly.
Gogebic and Ontonagon Counties both have 1 officer, and Iron County has 2. Throw in days off, long weekends, and vacations/holidays and we don't always have the coverage to respond to complaints in progress in a timely manner. I always hate when I get a call from RAP telling me about a good complaint only to find out it will be at least an hour drive for me to get there.
The bottom line is we are short handed but so are the MSP and Sheriff Departments. To help offset the shortage of officers, we depend on sportsman/sportswomen to take an active role in curtailing illegal activities. If you witness a violation, don't try to intervene, but try to gather as much information as you can so that when we do respond, we can utilize that information to help us in making arrests. Remember, we maybe coming from great distances and what you see and tell us will go a long way in protecting the resource.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Thank you Jason for that explanation as I believe it will go a long way in describing the problems that CO's have in this state.....thank you for your service........




.


----------



## Frantz (Dec 9, 2003)

I think that anyone who walks into state owned forest should have to pay, not just sportsman. I agree that we probably, and I say probably need more CO's because I can only go by what I see and know, but as it was said earlier, someone besides the sportsman need to start helping to flip the bill.

Mushroom hunters, leek hunters, wild flower photographers, hikers, all these people and many more enjoy our outdoors, let them pay a "fee"to do so. What about the bikers that use the old rails to trails, I mean pedal bikes? At $1-$2 for those who use these resources, including and not limited to sportsman, there is probably another 1-2 million $$$$ right there Not sure exactly HOW you would do it, but there has to be a better way then hitting us with higher "fee's" and taxes.


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

hda31 said:


> If you want more COs and need money for it why don't the legislators stop one of their stupid social programs that do not work and put it towards good use like some COs, I'm tired of the solution just being "raise taxes, or raise prices"


Maybe I will go out on a limb here but I thinks there are more voters on social programs than hunters who actually work and pay for the programs the others sit on thier a(*& and collect money, So as a re-electable "legislator" who do you think the legislator is going to let put thier hand up his a(* and make his mouth move,,, ???? the largest number of voters = social program recipiants. how do you think levin has stayed in office so long??? sorry ranting:xzicon_sm:xzicon_sm


----------



## Roosevelt (Sep 21, 2007)

Rather than cut spending or increase taxes maybe we should be encouraging the government body to be more efficient.

Everyone is being asked to do more for less. Why don't we ask them for the same?


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE (Apr 13, 2001)

Roosevelt said:


> Rather than cut spending or increase taxes maybe we should be encouraging the government body to be more efficient.
> 
> Everyone is being asked to do more for less. Why don't we ask them for the same?


Great idea but its something thats unheard of these days within the Government body because damn near every Government body around has their own special interest or agenda's that is surrounded by greed, and where there is greed, money is almost always the culprit.

Back when this country was founded,your idea was proper and sound. Sure would be nice to be able to go back to the days when Government was selected BY the people and actually worked FOR the people.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

I'll jump into this one.

*Quote:* _ "I agree we need more. How about increasing fines for poaching, illegal baiting, etc. to pay for it? Kill two birds with one stone. Makes too much sense I guess."_

You need to understand where the money for fines, etc. goes. Most of it doesn't go to the state.

*First:* It is the legislature that determines the amount that could be fined including any loss of license penalty, not the DNR.

*Second: *It is the local prosecutor who decides whether or not to bring a case to court, not the DNR.

*Third: *It is the judge who decides the amount of the fine as per the law (see #1 above), not the DNR.

*Fourth and Here's the Facts about Who Gets the Money: *As for the fines it has been stated numerous times on these boards that the DNR does not collect anything in fines. All the fine money goes to the county where the violation was committed. There is a conservation fee and restitution that does go to the *Fish & Game Protection Fund*. These amounts are a $10 conservation fee for each hunting or fishing ticket and restitution for fish and game that the law provides for. Any marine, snowmobile, ORV etc., ticket the state gets zero. For example:

Hunting over illegal bait in Barry County, total fines and costs, which is entirely up to the judge in that county within the minimum ($50) and maximum ($500) by law. Say amount "fined" is a total of $100 including a $70 fine + $30 court costs. The F & G fund would get $10, Barry County gets the rest.

If anyone would like to read more about fines do a search and you will see discussions about where fines go all the way back to the year 2000 and the facts haven't changed since.


*Quote:* "_Our activities are consumptive. If your activity does not consume natural resources you shouldn't have to pay in the same way a consumer does. This is called equity."_

It is a filter down process. There are many ways a nonconsumer of natural resources benefits from those that do. Those offering sevices such as motels, groceries, gasoline, sporting goods, food service, etc. all receive a benefit even though they don't "consume" as an angler and hunter might. 

With your "our activities are consumptive" comment you seem to be only looking at hunters and anglers. There is much more to the DNR than that. Michigan, for instance has more public land property than any state east of the Mississippi and that is by far.

Q*uote*: _"Rather than cut spending or increase taxes maybe we should be encouraging the government body to be more efficient._

_Everyone is being asked to do more for less. Why don't we ask them for the same?"_

That hasn't happened in the state for the past fifteen years? Where have you been? We've been hearing of cuts for many years and that includes back to John Engler in the '90s.


*Quote:* _"And why do we need more??"_

If you have to ask that question you wouldn't understand let alone agree with any response that would be given.

For you anti-government types who constantly harp on the evils and harken back to the days of yor are you consumers of government services? I assume that you do drive on public roads for instance.

Good times or bad whenever fee/tax increases are brought up howls of protests come out of the woodwork, rockwork, etc. Yet if the truth be known most of us, in one way or another benefit from many government programs even those "social" ones. That benefit may not be direct, but somewhere down the line it gets to each of us. This may not be true of many and not the majority of them, but some of them. Just because one receives no direct benefit from a program does not mean that it is evil.

To say that, "Before I support more money for the DNR the state needs to get rid of _________________ (fill in the blank). That arguement can go on ad infinitum and, quite frankly, I doubt very much that those of you who beat that particular drum with vigor would agree to a fee increase even if...........which will never happen.......every "social" and/or other other state run program with which you disagree were eliminated.

As for paying for the operation of the DNR, and that involves more than just hunting and fishing issues, something needs to be done.

Regarding the need for more COs just read through the rivers and deer hunting forums and you'll see the need. Threads and posts about snagging, poaching of game, tresspass, baiting complaints, to name just a few, abound. It is impossible for COs to do the job with which they are tasked. Poachers love this and will shout to the heavens about any attempt to increase DNR funding. Additional COs would make the game poachers play.......and it is, in part, a game to them.......more difficult to execute.

Right now Manistee County is lucky. We have two COs. Take a look at the size of the area and........salmon and steelheads in the streams, bowhunting going on, firearms deer hunting soon to follow, small game hunting, oil and gas drilling issues that come up, the thousands of acres of both state and federal property that is found here and the list can go on and I haven't mentioned tresspass and baiting complaints.

As for the comment about the attitude of COs being in need of adjustment keep in mind that COs deal with people who may well be armed.........probably guarenteed when it involves a hunting situation .........and may also have been consuming alcoholic beverages which can cloud judgement, at least when the intake of said beverages is by the sportsman.

Also on this topic (the need for an attitude revamp) read through these boards and some of the off-the-wall comments made by MS members. How would you like to deal with them day after day? I would hazzard to guess that you would be in need of an attitude adjustment as well......:lol:

Paying for the DNR:
Increase license fees to put them in line with the surrounding states. Michigan has a long history of offering, for the most part, the cheapest license fees in the Midwest. I've done the research guys and gals. Yes, I know certain states have some interesting "add-ons". For instance in Ohio owners of private land who only deer hunt on that land do not have to purchase a deer hunting license. Every state, including MI, has little twists.

How much of an increase? The report of the NRC workgroup that was tasked a few years ago to look into the issue was sound. Before some of you wags may howl about how those suggestions "doubled" the cost of hunting and fishing licenses you need to take a closer look at the report. If memory serves me correctly some of them were indeed doubled, the major one involving deer hunting, but the number of license fees that were doubled was about 1/4 (perhaps a 1/3rd) and two or three of those were stamps involving less than $20.

Depending on license fee increases will not do the job and, quite frankly, it isn't equitable. In some way shape or form every citizen receives a benefit from Michigan's natural resources.........remember it's called the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (at least for now).......and that department needs funding. Implementing some sort of cut from sales tax (ala Missouri and other states) would be a way to spread the cost of supporting the DNR's work to everyone, both resident and nonresident alike.

Speaking of nonresidents I would also suggest that if a nonresident is a property owner in the state they are already paying property taxes and that should qualify them for resident fishing and hunting licences.

In reality, given the state of the state's (country's) economy, all of this is an exercise in futility. It'll never happen.

Fire Away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE (Apr 13, 2001)

QUOTE*
As for the comment about the attitude of COs being in need of adjustment keep in mind that COs deal with people who may well be armed.........probably guarenteed when it involves a hunting situation .........and may also have been consuming alcoholic beverages which can cloud judgement, at least when the intake of said beverages is by the sportsman.

Also on this topic (the need for an attitude revamp) read through these boards and some of the off-the-wall comments made by MS members. How would you like to deal with them day after day? I would hazzard to guess that you would be in need of an attitude adjustment as well......:lol:
END QUOTE

I respect the fact that the DNR officers face many hazardous situations and must always be on the alert,however, I cant respect the fact of arrogancy from any officer,regardless of their duties,especially when the person they are dealing with is a respectful indivdule.Now im NOT laying EVERY DNR officer into this arrogancy catogorie, however, in my 52 years of life and my dealing of 1000s of differant ORV families thought the years, I've heard of more distrust and dislike for the DNR than any other group of officers in the State of Michigan. The fact that this DNR group is one of the smallest group of LEO officers in Michigan and the least respected of them all, speaks volumes of what many citizens in Michigan think of them.

Far too many situations that involve ORVing where trails are mismarked and the user honestly gets off the trail and gets stopped, the officer treats the ORVer like he/she just robbed a bank. I could write a book about this from the numerous stories I've been told thru the years from folks who have taken ORV safety classes from me. Instead of the officer wanting to help this person, he/she writes a citation and tells the user that regardless of the improper and/or often mismarked trail, its the user's responsibility to know where they are at. Many times, the officer who writes the citation, wont even help the user find the right way back to the trail.

This does a few things,

*This user will never want to ride his/her ORV in this area again, thus bringing down an already poor economy for this area

*Puts a very bad taste in the mouth of the ORVer about DNR officers

*These users will never support an increase in ORV user fee's

And as far as some of the comments made in here by some of the MS members? Yah, I've read a few, but I've also learned that many people are fed-up with the DNR in the State of Michigan,from ORVing, to CWD, to all a sudden ''finding'' 10 million bucks in the bank, ect ect ect.


----------



## JWICKLUND (Feb 13, 2005)

Excellent post Whit. Now if we could only get you into the NRC. 
The "conservation fee" which is the money that goes into the fish and game fund needs to be looked at and adjusted. 20-30 years ago $10 for fish and game crimes was reasonable when fines were under $100. In my county, not wearing orange costs you $200. 
What Whit told you about ORV/Snowmobile/Marine costs are true. These 3 user groups make up the vast majority of tickets a CO will write each year yet we get nothing back from them. It always amazes me when I take bond from a snowmobiler and they tell me they budgeted "dnr tickets" into their trip spending. They hand over $100 with out so much as a whimper. The DNR isn't going to get rich off of the usergroups we serve, and I am not saying that we need to stick it to those that are out enjoying our resource. I do think the system needs to be "modernized" and those that choose to use our resources as their personal playground without regard for laws, need to pay for the "extra attention" they deserve.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

JWICKLUND said:


> Excellent post Whit. Now if we could only get you into the NRC.
> The "conservation fee" which is the money that goes into the fish and game fund needs to be looked at and adjusted. 20-30 years ago $10 for fish and game crimes was reasonable when fines were under $100. In my county, not wearing orange costs you $200.
> What Whit told you about ORV/Snowmobile/Marine costs are true. These 3 user groups make up the vast majority of tickets a CO will write each year yet we get nothing back from them. It always amazes me when I take bond from a snowmobiler and they tell me they budgeted "dnr tickets" into their trip spending. They hand over $100 with out so much as a whimper. The DNR isn't going to get rich off of the usergroups we serve, and I am not saying that we need to stick it to those that are out enjoying our resource. I do think the system needs to be "modernized" and those that choose to use our resources as their personal playground without regard for laws, need to pay for the "extra attention" they deserve.


By chance do you have the numbers indicating how many of these tickets are issued to the ORV/Snowmobile/Marine violators and do you feel that what I suggested earlier(post #12) in the way of a "responsibility fee" would be an adequate source of increased revenue to justify it's implementation?


----------



## JWICKLUND (Feb 13, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> By chance do you have the numbers indicating how many of these tickets are issued to the ORV/Snowmobile/Marine violators and do you feel that what I suggested earlier(post #12) in the way of a "responsibility fee" would be an adequate source of increased revenue to justify it's implementation?


I can only go by what I have seen and what I have done. I know of CO's that write upwards of 50-100 snowmobile tickets alone in snow belt regions of the state. Now throw in marine violations (no pfd's, registration, fire extinguisher, etc) and ORV violations, you see where I am going. 
ORV/Snowmobile number are higher because the contacts with those usergroups are higher. I can sit on a snowmobile trail during a holiday weekend and check a couple hundred snowmobiles. It would take me several months to find a couple hundred hunters to check or a couple hundred boats. Same thing with ORV's. ORV rallies are becoming more and more common and once again, I can work a rally and check 100 ORV's in a single day. 
I agree with you post and think that these usergroups should have to "pay to play". The DNR and its Conservation Officers spend a great deal of time dealing with ORV's, Snowmobiles, and Boats and hunters and fisherman foot the bill through license sales.....that just doesn't seem to make sense.


----------



## john warren (Jan 25, 2005)

sounds good,,,,BUT! 
if you have payed any attention to politics over, oh,,, say...the last 50 or 60 years.... you know that these sort of earmarked taxes almost never end up going to what they were designed for. and then of course later, when the state becomes flush, (yeah...right) those taxes never go away.
so no new taxes are needed.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

I''m looking at the Driver Responsibility Fee law http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(z0...g.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-732a and see that the revenue is earmarked for the Fire Protection Fund. Using this law as a guideline I'm quite sure a bill could easily be worked up for the DNR that would implement a "Natural Resource Responsibility Fee" for certain crimes associated with the 3 user groups JWicklund mentioned. The revenue from this fee could be appropriated for CO hiring and training.


----------



## dmavdmav (Jan 17, 2005)

UPHuntr said:


> I don't believe it should come from license fees. I am sick of the sportsman just getting the bill for all Michigan has to offer. Everyone in this stae has the right to share in the beauty and natural resources of the state yet the non sportsman gets none of the responsibiliy finacially. I believe that Michigan should do similar to Missouri and add a $.01 sales tax to all goods purchased that currently fall into the sales tax catagory. This way everyone in the state has a hand in paying for Michigans natural resources.


I agree, well put


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

I am getting a education....earmarks would have to be untouchable! We have problems. I think most of the posts bring up great points. Bottom line is the MDNR and the citizens need some more CO's. Constructive idea's that could happen go a long way. I agree that taxpayers and other users need to contribute to MDNR funds....One point that was brought up and its true....we have bargain basement prices on our licenses....so why do we expect top shelf management?? I know that the fee that I pay for my licenses is my smallest expense....Would it really hurt any of us to pay an 5 bucks more for something that we work all year to enjoy....if the law would read that it could never be absorbed by the general fund or any other division of the MDNR...a review in three years


----------



## Michigander1 (Apr 5, 2006)

Well heres some well spent money :rant: http://www.thenewsherald.com/articles/2009/10/23/news/doc4ae0bf04d2564463968436.txt What a joke


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

How about some good idea's....I think we are getting quite a few. 130 CO's in the state???? We can't earmark a few bucks for a good cause....I agree the ramp was a waste of money. That should be addressed. This is something(license increase) we all can afford.....in fact we can't afford not to do it! A sportsmen's group(s) motivated bill is what we need.....


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE (Apr 13, 2001)

This has NOTHING to do with ANYBODY not being able to afford another 5 bucks to support their sport.

I dont think there is an ORVer in the State of Michigan that would oppose this new 30.50 ORV sticker IF we knew that our dollars were not being mis-used/mismanaged and abused by our very own DNR for years now.

Im sick and tired of the abuse of ORV funds that goes to the DNR, and though I dont hunt very much any more, I know there are hunters that go thru the exact same thing as we ORV users do.

Simple put, its not the license increase that we oppose here. Its the complete mismanagement of our funds with NO ACCOUNTABLILTY.

Prove to me/us that our user funds are going EXACTLY where they are suppose to go. 

Allow USER groups to appoint/elect who they want on specific committees regarding their sport [ Advisory Boards ect ], and not picked by the DNR Director or Governor. By allowing the DNR Director or the Governor to select WHO will represent us is like me collecting my pay check from my boss every Friday, and him dictating to me where/how I can spend my check.


----------



## devilsbite (Oct 15, 2007)

I'm a relative newby to the woods, started hunting in 06. I'm nearly 40 and plenty cynical of the way the body politic spends my money. With that in mind I'd fully support license fee increases.

Do I like the idea? Not really. Should the DNR be better funded by the state at large (general fund)? Heck yes! But if it falls on the shoulders of sportsmen, so be it.

Must be that concept of personal responsibility that I was raised with.



Spartan88 said:


> I havent read all the posts here. Why not have an opportunity to donate to a law enforcement fund like we can for 'hunters for the hungry' at license retailers?


This is an interesting idea. I know that my dad & I would throw an extra $10 at a voluntary RAP donation program if one were available at the license point of sale. If the state really needs our financial help (and they do!) it might be surprising what can be raised by simply asking.


----------



## Roosevelt (Sep 21, 2007)

It's not a question of spending 5 or even 10 dollars more to protect what we love. it's a question of spending 5 or 10 more to see it get wasted just like the greater part of the last 200 I spent this year.

Hunters and fishers have been the path of least resistance for a long time and that likely won't change.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Ole Spike said:


> I agree we need more. How about increasing fines for poaching, illegal baiting.


And a food plot tax, and tax food plot seed. 


.


----------



## bigdoedown (May 29, 2009)

We dont need more license increases, our DNR do nothing for the deer herd, never have and never will.... And doe permit went up 5 bucks a tag and yet nothing goes into the deer herd.Sportsmen,:rant:especially people involved in coopertives for deer management and the QDMA have done more for our deer herd in the last 15 yeard than the DNR has done in the last 50......


----------



## commonsense (Oct 26, 2009)

It takes 106,000 to put a CO in the field per the last budget I looked at. So to make a significant difference like doubling the number of COs will require almost 14 million, which is significant funding. Raising license fees a couple bucks won't do it. And there is no sense in raising the fines for baiting and other criminal offenses if the goal is to raise money for COs since the fine money goes back to the county of jurisdiction. And will it really help? There is less than 2 COs per county now, so will having 3 or 4 COs per county really matter that much? They would still be overwelmed like there are now. Read some of the posts on this thread.


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE (Apr 13, 2001)

Instead of going thru the expense of hiring more DNR Officers,I think we could more efficiently use some of the ones we now have.

Instead of having so many costly/wasteful Divisions within the DNR in Michigan, why not install differant Divisions within the Sheriffs Department of each needed County, that could takeover a few of the same duties that some of our current over priced DNR Officers are doing?

Who needs a DNR Officer to patrol an ORV or Snowmobile trail when a job like that does not require the expertise of a DNR Officer? This job could be done for alot less $$ by a few of the local Sheriff LEO's. This would also allow the ''so called'' under staffed DNR Officer to get back into a DNR field where he/she is really needed.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

Of course a couple more CO's will help. Without accountability(earmarks) I agree. No increase. I think it may be time to "fix the problem" not say its broke so screw it! If we knew our money went to right place...who would mind? The CO's just do as they are told. If they are told to be traffic cops and fish cops...that is what they do. In my area it would be cheaper not to buy a license(s). I never got checked this hunting season...once during the dog training season...but I was being "political" again! In the last ten years I was checked once while running my bear hounds....and I do it every chance I get. I am ethical...I do not intentionally break the law...Really if you want to break the law in Michigan, you most likely will get away it. Maybe the past abuse of funds(and current) should be addressed and fixed....


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

stagliano said:


> What I'm saying is that it's not realistic to expect that non-consumptive users should have to carry the same load as consumptive users. Hunting and fishing are not the only consumptive use. User fees are associated with many types of outdoor activities (backpacking, state park use, boat launches ) are a few examples. If you are bear hunting or squirrel hunting you are still consuming resources and therefore are responsible for having an input to conservation.


Same load? I could name ten recreational groups that carry virtually no load whatsoever but enjoy the resource as much as any other group who is carrying the load. And backpackers? I backpack and there's no user fee. Regardless, it is public property open to anyone and being so, it should also be supported by everyone. And if you want to talk about consumptive users, what about the mushroom or berry pickers?

Anyway, back to the topic, yes we need many more CO's. That's a fact. How to finance it could be a variety of ways.


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

How about figuring out how to make them not cost 106,000!!


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

how much of a problem are game violations? i dont think it's very great. i was in law enforcementt and didnt see or hear our local co except the first couple days of firearm deer season or when officers found a violation on patrol and called him out to TOT.

it would be interesting to see tthe stats for calls handled, arrests- felony and misdemeanors and tickets issued.

i'm skeptical that there is a need for more co's. it has always appeared to me as mostly PR. at least relating to hunting. fishing may be anotther situation


----------



## foxriver6 (Oct 23, 2007)

I'm sure the statistics you mention would be easy to obtain with a FOIA request. You could ask for a state total or breakdown by county. You may or may not be surprised by the number of arrests, citations and complaints taken.

Also someone mentioned that a CO costs $106,000. I would imagine that if that figure is true, it would take into account pay, benefits, equipment, training and administration costs. I would guess that $106,000 is quite resonable when compared to other agencies. There are probably dozens of LE agencies in Michigan where road officers make $10,000 or $20,000 more in anual salary (not counting overtime) than field COs. 

While somewhat unrelated, 73 Pontiac Firefighters made over $100K last year in pay and benefits. http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2009/10/27/news/local_news/doc4ae6c00e4ba85506631207.txt


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

foxriver6 said:


> I'm sure the statistics you mention would be easy to obtain with a FOIA request. You could ask for a state total or breakdown by county. You may or may not be surprised by the number of arrests, citations and complaints taken.
> 
> Also someone mentioned that a CO costs $106,000. I would imagine that if that figure is true, it would take into account pay, benefits, equipment, training and administration costs. I would guess that $106,000 is quite resonable when compared to other agencies. There are probably dozens of LE agencies in Michigan where road officers make $10,000 or $20,000 more in anual salary (not counting overtime) than field COs.
> 
> While somewhat unrelated, 73 Pontiac Firefighters made over $100K last year in pay and benefits. http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2009/10/27/news/local_news/doc4ae6c00e4ba85506631207.txt


$106,000 is not alot for a FTE. Over a third of that is going to benefits. ie healthcare etc. Also monies for pensions. The rest being salary. Which of course is taxed. I think everyone would like to see more COs. Especially in the area's where they are stretched too thin to be effective. 

As for the Firemen in pontiac. The earn it!


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

i've seen them firsthand. it's mostly a PR tool. a their stats should be listed under the Mich State Police UCR reports. but i sure cant find them. or they should be available on the DNR website, they arent or if they are they are buried.

you guys might give this some thought. almost all their calls are misdemeanors. that's a fairly large agency to just handle misdemeanors. and no man/hour eating situations like fatal accidents, homidcides, barricaded gunmen, etc.

personally, i think itt would be best to discontinue the law enforcemnt ddivision and roll it into the MSP. i think you would get more services for the dollar. or they could be rolled into the county sheriffs departments. and even better idea. like all government, you see the most for the dollar from local agencies.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

foxriver6 said:


> Also someone mentioned that a CO costs $106,000. I would imagine that if that figure is true, it would take into account pay, benefits, equipment, training and administration costs. I would guess that $106,000 is quite resonable when compared to other agencies. There are probably dozens of LE agencies in Michigan where road officers make $10,000 or $20,000 more in anual salary (not counting overtime) than field COs.
> 
> While somewhat unrelated, 73 Pontiac Firefighters made over $100K last year in pay and benefits. http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2009/10/27/news/local_news/doc4ae6c00e4ba85506631207.txt


You would be correct when you say that figure of $106,000 inlcudes other costs that might be called administrative. Three (?) ago when the NRC's workgroup looked at license fee increases there was a list of various DNR positions and their cost. Many of the skeptics in here immediately jumped on those figures like a fly on a melon. Of course they looked at the figures and deduced that the cost per position was the salary. I emailed Mary D., of the DNR, and asked about the figures and whether or not they were an all inclusive total that covered much more than the salary. He response was that indeed the figure given took into account all of the costs of the position.


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE (Apr 13, 2001)

dogwhistle said:


> Personally, I think it would be best to discontinue the Law Enforcement Division and roll it into the MSP. I think you would get more services for the dollar. Or they could be rolled into the County Sheriffs Departments. A even better idea. Like all Government, you see the most for the dollar from local agencies.


I agree,

No sense on paying the high expense of a DNR Officer when the same job could be done for far less from the local Sheriffs Department.

I'll bet there area SEVERAL area's within the DNR that could be sent to the local Sheriffs department for revamping that would greatly cut costs.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

The bottom line is money, something this state is lacking. Michigan will soon rank in the 10 most impoverished states in the US. More CO's aren't happening.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> The bottom line is money, something this state is lacking. Michigan will soon rank in the 10 most impoverished states in the US. More CO's aren't happening.


 
And that, sadly is indeed the bottom line. :sad:


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

dogwhistle said:


> i've seen them firsthand. it's mostly a PR tool. a their stats should be listed under the Mich State Police UCR reports. but i sure cant find them. or they should be available on the DNR website, they arent or if they are they are buried.
> 
> you guys might give this some thought. almost all their calls are misdemeanors. that's a fairly large agency to just handle misdemeanors. and no man/hour eating situations like fatal accidents, homidcides, barricaded gunmen, etc.
> 
> personally, i think itt would be best to discontinue the law enforcemnt ddivision and roll it into the MSP. i think you would get more services for the dollar. or they could be rolled into the county sheriffs departments. and even better idea. like all government, you see the most for the dollar from local agencies.


interesting idea to train up a couple of sheriff,s deputys per county ad let them enforce the game laws, money from fines goes into the countys anyway, they do the county marine patrol and ORV patrols, why not the fish and game laws while out there? plus handle trespassing compllaints, poaching ect, better working relationship with all local officers on the same team? give them a DNR rating to get the extra search and seizure rules applied for warrentless DNR areas,,


----------



## Hackman (Aug 13, 2008)

I have not read the last 4 pages of this thread and do not intend to. The idea of people discussing hiring more CO's with Michigans economy in the hole is a waste of time and stupid.. The Moderater needs his head examine for letting this go on. He must have a hidden agenda. Most of the time they will close a thread if they do not agree with it or they are trying to get people to support something.


----------



## foxriver6 (Oct 23, 2007)

dogwhistle said:


> i've seen them firsthand. it's mostly a PR tool. a their stats should be listed under the Mich State Police UCR reports. but i sure cant find them. or they should be available on the DNR website, they arent or if they are they are buried.
> 
> you guys might give this some thought. almost all their calls are misdemeanors. that's a fairly large agency to just handle misdemeanors. and no man/hour eating situations like fatal accidents, homidcides, barricaded gunmen, etc.
> 
> personally, i think itt would be best to discontinue the law enforcemnt ddivision and roll it into the MSP. i think you would get more services for the dollar. or they could be rolled into the county sheriffs departments. and even better idea. like all government, you see the most for the dollar from local agencies.


Reference your statement about the UCR. UCR are the uniform crime reports that every agency including the DNR Law Enforcement Division must compile on specific criminal offenses. Homicide and sexual offenses are included in some of the crimes that the federal government requires to be reported. Fish poaching and reckless snowmobiles are not required to be reported nor would they be included in Michigan's or the FBI's UCR. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

As far as giving the DNR Law Enforcement responsibilities to the Michigan State Police like Alaska does...Roll Conservation Officers into MSP, pay them more money and given them a much better retirement. Troopers make more per hour than Conservation Officers. Troopers have a 25 year and out pension whereas Conservation Officers must do 30 years for a 401K. 

As far as Sheriff Offices taking over the responsibilities, in some counties there might be savings, other counties there would not be savings. The LEO would still need a four wheel drive truck, boats, snowmobiles, a quad and other equipment to do the job. There are first class sheriff offices throughout the state that use snowmobile, marine and orv money appropriately. Other sheriff offices take the money, allocate a body but go an entire season without issuing a citation. While citations should not be the primary means of evaluating a program for effectiveness, going an entire season without a single citation is a program that is not serving the public in a law enforcement capacity.

If you have time, here is a good document that takes an exhaustive look at the role of the Michigan Conservation Officer. How the pay/benefits along with officers per population compare to other states, look through pages 59-65 http://www.mcoaonline.net/sites/default/files/CO Informational Document.pdf


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE (Apr 13, 2001)

foxriver6 said:


> As far as Sheriff Offices taking over the responsibilities, in some counties there might be savings, other counties there would not be savings. The LEO would still need a four wheel drive truck, boats, snowmobiles, a quad and other equipment to do the job. There are first class sheriff offices throughout the state that use snowmobile, marine and orv money appropriately. Other sheriff offices take the money, allocate a body but go an entire season without issuing a citation. While citations should not be the primary means of evaluating a program for effectiveness, going an entire season without a single citation is a program that is not serving the public in a law enforcement capacity.
> END QUOTE
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

solohunter said:


> interesting idea to train up a couple of sheriff,s deputys per county ad let them enforce the game laws, money from fines goes into the countys anyway, they do the county marine patrol and ORV patrols, why not the fish and game laws while out there? plus handle trespassing compllaints, poaching ect, better working relationship with all local officers on the same team? *give them a DNR rating to get the extra search and seizure rules applied for warrentless DNR areas*,,


To clear up a perpetual urban legend, CO's do not have any more search authority than any other LEO, the same laws and exceptions to the search warrant rule apply to them as they do to other officers.


----------



## commonsense (Oct 26, 2009)

MuskyDan said:


> How about figuring out how to make them not cost 106,000!!


Since you feel that 106k is too much to put a CO in the field, you must be someone in a position to manage budgets and would know how much it should cost to put someone in that position in the field with all the tools needed to properly do the job. Please keep in mind that the salary portion is less than 50k of that amount, but you probably already knew that. A CO needs salary and benefits, a vehicle, access to various types of boats and other vehicles at certain times, as well as office space and other equipment like firearms, flashlights, etc. So please enlighten us. By the way, what do you do for a living? Do you run a company?


----------



## JWICKLUND (Feb 13, 2005)

foxriver6 said:


> As far as Sheriff Offices taking over the responsibilities, in some counties there might be savings, other counties there would not be savings. The LEO would still need a four wheel drive truck, boats, snowmobiles, a quad and other equipment to do the job. There are first class sheriff offices throughout the state that use snowmobile, marine and orv money appropriately. Other sheriff offices take the money, allocate a body but go an entire season without issuing a citation. While citations should not be the primary means of evaluating a program for effectiveness, going an entire season without a single citation is a program that is not serving the public in a law enforcement capacity.


Well said. You are exactly right. I am fortunate that our Marine/ORV officer for the sheriff department is a retired DNR Law Supervisor who retired from Iron County a few years ago. He not only knows the area and its people, but he is always out patrolling the water and trails. He is an asset to the county and because of him, I don't have to spend all my time patrolling on my ORV as much.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

That also is well said. I had to deal with a sheriff deputy that does not hunt or fish. He is good officer and a friend. This was a game violation. He just had very little knowledge of the outdoors and what's involved in the sport. A specialist is needed to enforce special laws. I often have disagreements with the department. The CO's on the other hand just try to do their jobs. It has to be getting tough. I observe several minor violations throughout the season(s). I am sure serious violations are also occuring. Some how I just can't see a better way to spend 106,000 within the MDNR. Maybe you think its money well spent collaring a bunch of bear, wolves, coyotes, and bobcats to see if any eat fawns? I bet they all do!:help:


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

There has been so much discussion on the topics mentioned in this thread over the years on this site and I feel the need to touch on a few things but you can find more detail by doing a search on this site.

The number of CO's needs increased regardelss of how many more will make a difference in our opinions. The few hired might not make a difference to each of you individually but as a whole and to some it will. There will never be enough COs to do the job. The will never be enough that will be seen like one sees by local police, most, not all, sheriff departments and most other law enforcement agencies.

One must come up with some type of a compromise in how many CO's are needed. My thoughts are that the state needs at least two field officers per county which means, 166 field officers minimum. With field officers the state needs one Field Sgt., for every three counties and on Lt., for each District. One has to realize that even with two per county that still only gives you an average of 4 days a week with only one CO for 8 hours. Now that is minimum and that number could be higher depending on the particular COs in the particular county and when the Sgt may be in the particular county. That number is figured on a 40 hour work week because I doubt they are getting much overtime in these economic times. Even in good times COs got less than 200 hours of overtime for the entire year. That gets ate up fast for holidays alone throughout the year.

I had to laugh at some posts about never seeing a CO out of their truck. If they are on foot then your complaining about private property, or harrassment when checking your license unless they do it on the road. So it's a no win there but just take a look at the weekly reports and there is the obvious that everything isn't done by driving around.

Think about this perspective. A CO gets some decent info that a deer poacher is poaching in just one section, one square mile of completely wooded land. How long would any of you take to scout for hunting in one square mile that you had full access to? Just one complaint like that may take days, if a little luck is with the CO, to catch the poacher. One township has 36 of those sections in it. A normal size county has about 576 of thes sections in it. Many counties are not normal size, many are bigger, especially in the UP and even in the LP. Does this make one think at all of why they don't see a CO that much? 

Funding? Funding is always a problem. There is funding for everything and whoever said that marine, ORV, and snowmobile doesn't provide funding is wrong. Money does come from those activities and users of those activities. Agreed, not as much that comes from hunting and fishing but funding is there. For example, one mentioned grants, that is where most marine enforcement funding comes from, federal grants.

From ticket fines. Bad, terrible idea. Funding for law enforcement should NEVER be a direct result of fines. That would just cause corruption and bad things. As Whit pointed out earlier the DNR, or I should say the Fish & Game protection Fund, does receive some money from poaching. That is on most fish & game tickets only, $10 per ticket and the fund receives restitution for the fish & game. Many but not all hunting and fishing violations gets the $10 conservation fee though. All other violations, snowmobile, marine, anything else the fund receives zip, nada, zero.

Combining COs with other agencies, this has also been previously discussed. If you want more COs putting them with sheriff departments, state police, you might get more bodies but you will have less enforcement, less fish & game patrol. Catching poachers isn't like sitting out there with radar and running traffic and a person really has to be into sitting in the brush, getting all wet, freezing, getting bite up by misquitoes to catch poachers. I know because I've done both, I've been a city cop and my life choice which everyone knows. Not all, because I don't want to use a broad brush here but again, even on this site, there have been posts about trespassing complaints where the trespasser supposedly was back in the woods and a deputy, brown uniform, wouldn't go into the woods.

Yes, funding is a problem, it usually is the problem on any topic. Can law divsion cut back on some things, yes, most definitely, even now. And yes in my opinion they can do some cutting without hurting services overall to the public. To LEDs credit they have done some but they can do more, especially in these times.

Some wanted to see types of violations. I believe by doing a search you will find some information about that on this site too as this too has been discussed. Many threads on this site talk about who one would turn in and who one wouldn't turn in. That topic is about a controversal as abortion and I think turning in poachers..........naw I'll just leave that topic alone, the indivdual has that choice to make.

Just my 2 cents based on a lot of experience on all three sides, the field, management and outside.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

According to a man that seems to know...We need 36 more CO's. My information is that there are 130 currently(could be a bit off as it was casual conversation with a MDNR official). 36 x 106,000 = $3,816,000. Now we have a target amount of CO's and the cost. For those who want services cut....take a look at the budjet and trim 4 million a year. Or how can the state generate an extra 4 million a year. Looking at things from a simplistic point of view. How many licenses do we sell total. How much do we have to increase fees per license. Trimming the fat could be done to to help the department as a whole. Perhaps sportsmen driven legislation with earmarked funding would help us all out.


----------



## solohunter (Jan 2, 2006)

In the age of state cutbacks and agency blending, why propose more DNR officers? Lets train up some county dep,s to fill in the gaps, not like they done know the poeple, the area, or the targets. and I dont think birk ever got bit by a skeater or cold in his life  
come on the states looking at ways to save money, not spend more.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Bearboy said:


> According to a man that seems to know...We need 36 more CO's.


I'm certain I said at least 2 per county. not just 2 per county. As I also stated, especially in the UP you have bigger than normal size counties but when the state gets to at least, it will be an improvement and good for sportsmen.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

solohunter said:


> In the age of state cutbacks and agency blending, why propose more DNR officers? Lets train up some county dep,s to fill in the gaps, not like they done know the poeple, the area, or the targets. and I dont think birk ever got bit by a skeater or cold in his life
> come on the states looking at ways to save money, not spend more.


If your going to have deputies enforcing fish and game you better be ready to pay the county too. Just like county marine officers, they only do it when they get money from the state to do it. No money no marine officer.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

personally, i would likke to see the money spent for habitat enhancement. i dont think poaching and game law violations are much of a problem nor would more dnr officers have much effect.

increasing dnr offficers when many counties and municipalities arre lookingg at law enforcement cutbacks isnt going to win much support.


----------



## Bearboy (Feb 4, 2009)

At least two....all I know is 130 is not enough. Not everyone may like the idea of a license increase. I have not read any other reasonable alternatives. I think it is the only way. We may need some habitat improvement...ideas without funding...pointless!


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

I have to laugh at some of these posts regarding the CO's that don't get outa the truck...In the past 7 years I have had a CO walk up either while I was fishing or coming out of the woods hunting at least 5 times over the past 7 years. The same young man C(O)stopped by back to back years at deer camp. We chatted and said "Yep, he's still baiting by the truck loads" and the CO said, yeah, we are watching his property...small **** chat. If funding wasn't an issue, I'd love to see 5 CO's per county. There may be some variation based on the hunting and fishing access in the counties as some obviously have more or less and activities vary through the years..ie salmon snagging etc.

I also never saw the point of view of the fines going to the issuing agency to fund hiring more officers...the point of corruption that boehr brought up, never came to mind, but that's a perfect explanation.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

TrekJeff said:


> I have to laugh at some of these posts regarding the CO's that don't get outa the truck...In the past 7 years I have had a CO walk up either while I was fishing or coming out of the woods hunting at least 5 times over the past 7 years. The same young man C(O)stopped by back to back years at deer camp. We chatted and said "Yep, he's still baiting by the truck loads" and the CO said, yeah, we are watching his property...small **** chat. If funding wasn't an issue, I'd love to see 5 CO's per county. There may be some variation based on the hunting and fishing access in the counties as some obviously have more or less and activities vary through the years..ie salmon snagging etc.


I'd say that is an unusual experience.

I've been fishing since 1980, and hunting since 1987.

I've never once, in that entire time, spoken to a CO anywhere in the field. I've never even seen one.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

pescadero said:


> I'd say that is an unusual experience.
> 
> I've been fishing since 1980, and hunting since 1987.
> 
> I've never once, in that entire time, spoken to a CO anywhere in the field. I've never even seen one.


But that doesn't mean they have not seen you. Maybe they watched you and could tell you did everything right so no need to check you, and maybe not. But there have been hundreds I watched over the years that never knew I was there.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

boehr said:


> But there have been hundreds I watched over the years that never knew I was there.


FREAK!

Actually I did see a DNR CO out in the field once. He was stuck in the mud up to his axles. My cousin and I went over to see if he needed a hand. He said no, and checked our licenses.:lol:


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Mickey Finn said:


> FREAK!
> 
> Actually I did see a DNR CO out in the field once. He was stuck in the mud up to his axles. My cousin and I went over to see if he needed a hand. He said no, and checked our licenses.:lol:


Yep, I've been stuck before too, hard to get stuck if you never leave the main road.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

boehr said:


> But that doesn't mean they have not seen you. Maybe they watched you and could tell you did everything right so no need to check you, and maybe not. But there have been hundreds I watched over the years that never knew I was there.


Oh, that wouldn't surprise me - I'm not always the most observant fellow. :lol:

...but I've sure never been checked by one, or spoken to one in the field - in over 20 years of hunting. That right there tells me we need significantly more COs.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

i've had 3 encounters in 35 years, all while i was walking down the road.

we're overpopulated with deer, a little poaching doesnt concern me. i see conservations officers as mainly serving a PR function.

lets raise the money-$4 milliion, and spend it on habitat where it will do some real good.

if we doubled the number of co's, i would see 6 in the next 35 years. and not much law enforcement gets done by wandering around in the woods. i bet therre is a lot of man hours spent for a single violation.

this isnt going to happen, at any rate. just not viable, especially in todays economy.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

I got a cheap and effective way to solve all these CO problems. Abide by the law


----------



## wadevb1 (Mar 25, 2008)

I suspect the DNR is top heavy with too many chiefs and not enough indians which governments never seem to correct. I would pay even more if it went towards the enforcement end.


----------



## TrekJeff (Sep 7, 2007)

boehr said:


> But that doesn't mean they have not seen you. Maybe they watched you and could tell you did everything right so no need to check you, and maybe not. But there have been hundreds I watched over the years that never knew I was there.



LMAO...so what are you saying about me...lol Maybe I need to be sneakier:lol:


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

TrekJeff said:


> LMAO...so what are you saying about me...lol Maybe I need to be sneakier:lol:


I guess your the only one that can answer that. Pretty soon you'll be trying to be so sneaky you won't have no time for hunting.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

dogwhistle said:


> i've had 3 encounters in 35 years, all while i was walking down the road.


You would probably be one that would be screaming that your being harrassed for no reason if they checked you at your hunting spot.


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

stagliano said:


> Our activities are consumptive. If your activity does not consume natural resources you shouldn't have to pay in the same way a consumer does. This is called equity.


 :yikes: Believe it or not almost all of the people of this state and visitors use some sort of revenue from the fish and game funds, parks, bicycle paths and hiking trails to name a few. Remind You I said almost!


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

Whit1 said:


> I'll jump into this one.
> 
> *Quote:* _"I agree we need more. How about increasing fines for poaching, illegal baiting, etc. to pay for it? Kill two birds with one stone. Makes too much sense I guess."_
> 
> ...


 I have been checked by CO's several times over the years and I found most to be curtious and observant to the fact that most people during hunting season have firearms. I also know most of them were actually humorus.


----------



## MUDDY4LIFE (Apr 13, 2001)

There's alot of folks in Michigan who do not trust the DNR anymore, and in many cases, rightfully so.I mean, it was'nt me who ''found'' 10 million bucks in the bank a few years ago :lol:

The list of mismanagement from this Administration is redicules. The DNR's practice of pointing a finger at an officer within their Administration, and within minutes, this officer now '' specializes '' in a field they have little/no training in, is unprofessional and demoralizing to the hard working citizens of Michigan who pay to play.

And now to say that we should have an increase in license fee's to help assist more of this mismanagement and corruption is just plain redicules.

Address whats wrong first and fix it before asking for more.


----------

