# Your thoughts on SB0188



## DReihl9896

Just curious as to forum member thoughts on Senate Bill 0188 (includes new license fee package) in it's now voted on and passed in the Senate form. Here is the link to the bill.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(45...g.aspx?page=getObject&objectname=2013-SB-0188 
It still has to go through the House, so there is still time to contact the appropriate reps and voice your opinion.

Here is the link to follow its progress in the House (House Bill 4668). 
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dt...g.aspx?page=getObject&objectname=2013-HB-4668


----------



## swampbuck

I wish they would give more detail. From a local perspective, I see that they have restored funding for the South Higgins lake state park, to finish that project which has been started already.

The thing that we should all be most concerned with is the recent bill waiting the Governors signature, That turns control of fishery's over to the NRC. We are facing a special interest nightmare, as we have already seen with hunting. Unqualified political appointee's will now be making the decisions.


----------



## DReihl9896

swampbuck said:


> The thing that we should all be most concerned with is the recent bill waiting the Governors signature, That turns control of fishery's over to the NRC. We are facing a special interest nightmare, as we have already seen with hunting. Unqualified political appointee's will now be making the decisions.


Looks like that one was signed today. http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-53480_56420-302348--,00.html



> Sec. 48703a. The commission has the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of fish in this state. The commission
> shall, to the greatest extent practicable, utilize principles of sound scientific management in making decisions regarding
> the taking of fish. The commission shall issue orders regarding the taking of fish following a public meeting and an
> opportunity for public input. Not less than 30 days before issuing an order, the commission shall provide a copy of the
> order to each of the following:
> (a) Each member of each standing committee of the senate or house of representatives that considers legislation
> pertaining to conservation, the environment, natural resources, recreation, tourism, or agriculture.
> (b) The chairperson of the senate appropriations committee and the chairperson of the house of representatives
> appropriations committee.
> (c) The members of the subcommittee of the senate appropriations committee and the subcommittee of the house of
> representatives appropriations committee that consider the budget of the department of natural resources.


----------



## ridgewalker

I disagree with the following:

a) requiring that all fishermen pay the unrestricted fishing license fee (many of us do not or can not fish for the trout or salmon species, the trout fishermen seem to be the only persons not assessed an increase)

b) requiring the payment of an additional $1 to license fees for the dnr to do marketing, etc., the increase should be enough without adding this unnecessary expense, the dnr should learn to live within a budget just like the rest of the state


----------



## fishinDon

ridgewalker said:


> I disagree with the following:
> 
> a) requiring that all fishermen pay the unrestricted fishing license fee (many of us do not or can not fish for the trout or salmon species, the trout fishermen seem to be the only persons not assessed an increase)
> 
> b) requiring the payment of an additional $1 to license fees for the dnr to do marketing, etc., the increase should be enough without adding this unnecessary expense, the dnr should learn to live within a budget just like the rest of the state


The Coldwater Steering Committee also disagreed with paying less for trout/salmon, however the attractiveness of having one fishing license won over the different price points and additional revenue.

In addition, there's never actually been a "separate pot of money" for trout/salmon. Those dollars all got lumped together in fish/game fund, so in reality the extra money that was paid for trout/salmon endoresments over the years never specifically went to trout/salmon management. In some ways, if there's no separate money, I can see how one fishing license makes sense. Otherwise I can make the argument that I don't fish Walleye or Bass, so I shouldn't have to pay the "warm-water" fee. Or I could make the arguement that I don't fish Pike, so I think I should pay 2 dollar less. That line of thinking could lead to a separate license for every species. I think we're better off this way in the long run with one license for everything and I don't care if it costs double. 

Don


----------



## toto

This part is probably more unique to me, but $75 for non resident all species fishing license is a little steep, it's from $48 to $75. I guess I really don't have a big problem with it, IF the money gets spent properly. What concerns me most is this: Will the State raid this money for budgetary reasons? In other words, if this money is earmarked for one particular purpose, what is to say it will stay there, and be used for that purpose? I've seen them do this before with the two trust funds, other than that, I guess I don't have a big problem with it.

BTW,on the NRC thing, I'm not sure how to feel about that as I suppose someone needs to have that authority, who that should be is immaterial to me, what the real point is is using biological science to determine regulations. Having said that, which party is less likely to be beholden to outside interests? That's the real question here to me.


----------



## TSS Caddis

toto said:


> This part is probably more unique to me, but $75 for non resident all species fishing license is a little steep, it's from $48 to $75. I guess I really don't have a big problem with it, IF the money gets spent properly. What concerns me most is this: Will the State raid this money for budgetary reasons? In other words, if this money is earmarked for one particular purpose, what is to say it will stay there, and be used for that purpose? I've seen them do this before with the two trust funds, other than that, I guess I don't have a big problem with it.
> 
> BTW,on the NRC thing, I'm not sure how to feel about that as I suppose someone needs to have that authority, who that should be is immaterial to me, what the real point is is using biological science to determine regulations. Having said that, which party is less likely to be beholden to outside interests? That's the real question here to me.


I'd imagine $75 is cheap compared to most states, I know at least for hunting it is. Just dropped about $250 in license fees to turkey hunt in Montana, approx $100 for Missouri.


----------



## LakeEffectMDHA

Will be spending $100 to fly fish colorado for 6 days, thats not a FULL SEASON cost and I would take Michigan's fishing over Colorado any day of the week.

Ryan


----------



## toto

Here is the part of the bill that I do really like:
"This action helps ensure sound scientific and biological principles guide decisions about management of game in Michigan," Snyder said. "Scientifically managed hunts are essential to successful wildlife management and bolstering abundant, healthy and thriving populations

On the license charges thing, I don't have a problem with it, don't misunderstand what I said, I guess I'm spoiled due to living Florida where fishing from the shore, at least in the salt, I don't "technically" need a license. It's weird here, they say on one hand you don't need a license if you are a Florida resident, but then they say you have to get a license, but they don't charge you for it. At least that's the way it was last year, but I digress. Just to clarify my previous point, I have no problem at all paying $75 for a non resident license, I just would like to make sure the money goes where it's supposed to go.


----------



## swampbuck

toto said:


> Here is the part of the bill that I do really like:
> "This action helps ensure sound scientific and biological principles guide decisions about management of game in Michigan," Snyder said. "Scientifically managed hunts are essential to successful wildlife management and bolstering abundant, healthy and thriving populations


Sadly the NRC opperates on social science, not biological


----------



## DReihl9896

swampbuck said:


> Sadly the NRC opperates on social science, not biological


Examples?


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## broncbuster2

fishinDon said:


> The Coldwater Steering Committee also disagreed with paying less for trout/salmon, however the attractiveness of having one fishing license won over the different price points and additional revenue.
> 
> In addition, there's never actually been a "separate pot of money" for trout/salmon. Those dollars all got lumped together in fish/game fund, so in reality the extra money that was paid for trout/salmon endoresments over the years never specifically went to trout/salmon management. In some ways, if there's no separate money, I can see how one fishing license makes sense. Otherwise I can make the argument that I don't fish Walleye or Bass, so I shouldn't have to pay the "warm-water" fee. Or I could make the arguement that I don't fish Pike, so I think I should pay 2 dollar less. That line of thinking could lead to a separate license for every species. I think we're better off this way in the long run with one license for everything and I don't care if it costs double.
> 
> Don


Seems Don, that that is the problem....
You don't care if it costs Double....
But we still have to move downstream to fish the way some of us want.... I don't think you are really looking out for our best interests...When is the Next meeting, I will come and ask the questions that a lot of people want the answers to......When are the gear regulations going to end...You are either with us or you are against us... And I see where you are at.


----------



## REG

broncbuster2 said:


> Seems Don, that that is the problem....
> You don't care if it costs Double....
> But we still have to move downstream to fish the way some of us want.... I don't think you are really looking out for our best interests...When is the Next meeting, I will come and ask the questions that a lot of people want the answers to......When are the gear regulations going to end...You are either with us or you are against us... And I see where you are at.


Previous to you deciding on your own to "call out" Don publically on these pages, he had organized cleanups and the only open meeting the GLFSA had to date, was the only one who provided consistent updates on the CWSC meetings (kzoo provided minutes from one also..hmmm), and in general tried to keep everyone abreast with gathering and communicating info on emails. Since then, what has happened?

If you are trying to fractionalize those opposed to gear regs....keep at it.
I will stop here.


----------



## J-Lee

broncbuster, I think it is good you are going to get involved, but Don HAS been involved to try to foster change. If you go into a group like the Coldwater Steering Committee and act like a bull in a china shop, not many will listen. I will take an intelligent, well informed, rational person like Don in a New York minute over someone who can yell the loudest, or piss the most people off.


----------



## DReihl9896

Found this on the MUCC blog regarding HB4668. Here is the link and the text. http://www.mucc.org/2013/05/hunting-and-fishing-license-bill-up-in-committee/



> *Hunting and Fishing License Bill Up in Committee*
> 
> May 14th, 2013
> The implementation bill for the license fee restructuring and simplification has finally been introduced. House Bill 4668 was introduced two weeks ago by Rep. Jon Bumstead, chair of the House Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee, and a committee hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, May 8 where they took testimony.
> To recap, the House and Senate have approved the budget with money from a license fee increase incorporated into the plan. These appropriations bills (SB 188 and HB 4328) still must be approved by the opposite chamber and likely go to conference committee to work out the differences. The Governor put the deadline for this as June 1.
> Next comes the details, which we have been waiting to see in print for 3 months now. HB 4668 incorporates a revised fee schedule, with some changes incorporated into it from what the Governor proposed back in February. This new proposal would raise approximately $19.7 million once fully implemented and includes a 5-year sunset, which allows us to evaluate the intended and unintended consequences and outcomes of this additional funding.
> Among the major changes and additions are:
> 
> 24-hour Fishing license now $10, and 72-Hour for $30 (resident or non-resident)
> Limited Small Game Non-resident (7-day)-$80 (Non-resident Base license ($150) not required for this unless other species will be hunted as well)
> Waterfowl hunting license reinstated for $12 (includes entry to Managed Waterfowl Areas)
> Reinstated the bear participation license (no kill tag) for $15
> Free Survey Tags (for certain furbearing species)
> Change in the Mentored Youth license from issuing a combination deer license to a single deer license as part of the license package.
> Creation of a Combination Hunt and Fish License package, which would include a base license, combination deer license, and all-species fishing license, $75 for a resident, $265 for non-resident.
> Creation of a $1 surcharge on base, fishing, and Combination Hunt and Fish licenses that would be reserved specifically for marketing, education, and outreach activities. This was modeled off of a Colorado program that has shown significant improvement in non-hunters acceptance and support of hunting.
> Our concerns include some items that were not retained in the new legislation, including:
> 
> Elimination of the voluntary $2 youth angler license for youth 10-16, which can be used to count youth as anglers for purposes of federal Dingell-Johnson funding_we have recently learned that only about 120 of these licenses were regularly sold annually and agree the elimination of this license makes sense_;
> Across the board discounts for youth ages 10-16 (Junior) hunting licenses. Junior hunters currently pay only $15 for a junior combination deer license, $7.50 for a junior fur harvesters, and $1 for junior small game. Under the new proposal, they have a discounted $5 base license, but then would pay full price for the additional tags. For small game, fur harvesters, and a combo deer licenses (those currently discounted) this amounts to a 255% increase (from $23.50 to $60).
> We recommended adding a Combination Hunt and Fish Junior License for $30 (a 60% discount from an adult Combination Hunt and Fish license) and asked the DNR to consider the feasibility to allow juniors to purchase additional licenses at the senior price. This would strike a middle ground between the current and proposed license price for juniors and encourage families to continue their outdoor traditions promoted by the Mentored Youth Hunting Program.
> However, the DNR states that making the junior discount match the senior discounted items would lose $1.2 million of the proposed funding increase and adds complication to the system. In doing some background research, we have learned that nearly every other state surrounding Michigan has junior discounted licenses. While the results of Responsive Managements (Mark Damian Duda) evaluation of hunter recruitment and retention programs indicates that cost does not rank as a leading factor in barriers to hunter recruitment (lack of time, mentors, and access rank much higher), it is mentioned.
> What do you think?
> Should we acknowledge that getting kids outdoors is at least as important as giving seniors their discount too? Does Michigan want to be a leader in making kids (or more accurately their parents) pay the full price of admission? Maybe everyone should pay even more than proposed because funding for natural resources is that critical. If you are a parent, does this license fee increase impact your plans for hunting with your family? Share your stories and thoughts below.


----------



## fishinDon

broncbuster2 said:


> Seems Don, that that is the problem....
> You don't care if it costs Double....
> But we still have to move downstream to fish the way some of us want.... I don't think you are really looking out for our best interests...When is the Next meeting, I will come and ask the questions that a lot of people want the answers to......When are the gear regulations going to end...You are either with us or you are against us... And I see where you are at.


October 7th in Grayling. See you there.
Don


----------



## toto

This isn't a thought per se, but I do wonder: If you look at HB 4668 pdf in the second link at the beginning of this thread, I noticed that in every instance the word person was crossed out, and individual was inserted. Seems sorta weird to me, anyone know why that is??


----------



## DReihl9896

toto said:


> This isn't a thought per se, but I do wonder: If you look at HB 4668 pdf in the second link at the beginning of this thread, I noticed that in every instance the word person was crossed out, and individual was inserted. Seems sorta weird to me, anyone know why that is??


I would assume it's just nuanced word choice. Maybe "individual" sounds and reads more formal and appropriate for a legal document than "person". Then again, maybe they were looking for a broader term than just "person" so that Democrats wouldn't feel left out.


----------



## rcleofly

Really? Wow your wrong.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## rcleofly

broncbuster2 said:


> Seems Don, that that is the problem....
> You don't care if it costs Double....
> But we still have to move downstream to fish the way some of us want.... I don't think you are really looking out for our best interests...When is the Next meeting, I will come and ask the questions that a lot of people want the answers to......When are the gear regulations going to end...You are either with us or you are against us... And I see where you are at.


This is what I'm commenting on in previous comment.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## DReihl9896

rcleofly said:


> This is what I'm commenting on in previous comment.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I was going to say that I didn't expect my remark to be taken that seriously. I think now I should probably clarify that it shouldn't. I don't wish for my inbox to fill up with hate mail for suggesting that those on the left might not qualify as people.


----------



## toto

Not exactly sure why they would do that, just thought it a little odd, but maybe not.


----------



## DReihl9896

toto said:


> Not exactly sure why they would do that, just thought it a little odd, but maybe not.


I really don't know either. Maybe somebody didn't have a whole lot of substance to contribute to the bill, so they thought they'd play wordsmith instead. I can't see how it really changes anything. To me it just sounds more formal. 

Really I have a hard time from how it's written, getting to what the practical changes are that have been made to it since it was introduced. Concerns were posted earlier somewhere on this forum about whether this was actually going to decrease the fishing budget because changes made in the Senate committee made it such that money earmarked for fisheries from the license increase was more than offset by reductions in moneys received from the general fund. Also, I thought initially, a certain amount was supposed to be earmarked toward the hiring of additional Conservation Officers. Is that still in? I can't tell (I'm not accustomed to reading and comprehending this type of legislation. Just now trying to pay more attention). Seems like that was a key component of Snyder's original plan that the community seemed to really support.


----------



## Ranger Ray

The word "individual" carries a big stick when it comes to rights. It is, what it is.


----------



## broncbuster2

REG
You have a message on the GLFSA site


----------



## REG

broncbuster2 said:


> REG
> You have a message on the GLFSA site


You have a response there also.


----------



## DReihl9896

HB 4668 of 2013 was passed by the House on 6/5 by a vote of 77 to 32. It has failed to pass in the Senate each of the last two days ( 19 to 19, and 19 to 18 with 1 senator abstaining) and a vote to reconsider it for a third vote has currently been postponed.


----------

