# Enjoy the last days of the game areas



## ducslayer2 (Sep 29, 2004)

*DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FUNDING CRISIS*​
General Fund reductions and depletion of several of our major restricted funds (Game and Fish Protection Fund, Forest Development Fund and Park Improvement Fund) will require additional and more severe budgetary measures than have been implemented to date. 
Since Fiscal Year 2005, DNR has reduced its programs by more than $20 million. These reductions were much more extensive than the list below, but to give you a few highlights, the cutbacks included: 

<LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">significant reduction of conservation officers with more than 50 vacant conservation officer positions, resulting in reduced effort in public safety and protecting natural resources, delays in responding to complaints, and little or no officer presence in certain areas of the state <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">a 60 percent decrease in production and planting of hatchery Coho for Lake Michigan, resulting in a negative impact on sportfishing and the charter boat industry <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">fewer wildlife population surveys and reduced bovine TB and CWD monitoring, compromising the Departments ability to manage wildlife populations and monitor for diseases, which increases the risk for a disease to become established and endanger wildlife populations <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">fewer fire officers and reduction in fire equipment replacement, jeopardizing wildfire protection <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1">a decrease in timber marking as a result of not filling vacant positions and decreased disease monitoring compromising the health of our forests 
decreased staffing and maintenance of facilities in our state parks and recreation areas and eliminating all non-emergency trail repairs 
Without the prospect of license fee adjustments to offset structural deficits in the Game and Fish Protection Fund projected at $2.5 million in Fiscal Year 2008 and $13 million in fiscal year 2009, or finding resolution to address additional deficits in the Forest Development and Park Improvement Funds, drastic reductions to programs and staff will occur. Listed below are the additional program cuts, by fund, that will be implemented beginning November 1, 2007. 

*General Fund*​
Reduction of $1.05 million
Reduction of 12 staff 
The Department will implement the following reductions: 

<LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo2">*Closure of state forest campgrounds, pathways, cross country ski trails*
This reduction will increase the number of closed state forest campgrounds from 20 to 22 and elimination of all pathways. These closures will result in a significant decrease in recreational opportunities which will impact local economies that depend on the tourism generated through these activities. <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l3 level1 lfo2">*Reduce disease surveillance for bovine tuberculosis*
This reduction would result in the loss of the TB accreditation level currently awarded the state. This will have a significant impact on the cattle industry. Monitoring for chronic wasting disease, avian influenza, West Nile, etc. will be greatly reduced increasing the health risks for wildlife and humans. 
*Elimination of general conservation law enforcement by conservation officers*
Conservation officers will not be allowed to address general conservation law violations which will degrade public lands such as game areas, state forests, state parks, etc. 
*Game and Fish Protection Fund*​
Reduction of $6.2 million
Reduction of 58 staff 

<LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">*Close 2 fish hatcheries*
Loss of 1.2 M coho, 1.9 M Chinook salmon, 845,000 brown trout, and 485,000 rainbow trout. The economic impact of these reductions will be monumental as fishing boosts the states economy by $2 billion annually. <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">*Eliminate remaining fish surveys (creel clerks) *
Angler harvest data will not be collected and is therefore not available to use to assist in the management of the states fisheries resources. This will also eliminate the ability to evaluate ports across the state for compliance with the 2000 Tribal Consent Decree. <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">*Close research station *
Eliminate the ability to evaluate and make management recommendations on inland coldwater fisheries including trout rivers streams and lakes negatively affecting fishing opportunities. <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">*Eliminate university research and reduce fish health activities*
Opportunities will be lost to respond to current disease issues. <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">*Eliminate use of Great Lakes research vessels*
Twenty five years of continuous data collection on harvest mortality and fish health would end compromising our ability to adjust harvest regulations and hatchery stocking programs. <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">*Reduce conservation officers*
This will result in increased illegal activity such as poaching, increased accidents and injuries due to violations of hunter safety regulations and reckless operations of ORV, boats, snowmobiles, etc. Remaining conservation officers will be at greater risk due to the lack of backup, increased response time, etc. <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">*Reduction in emergency dispatch for conservation law violations*
Emergency dispatch will not be available from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">*Closure of managed waterfowl areas*
Loss of over 28,300 acres of hunting areas. This equates to 300 days of lost hunting opportunity. Hunting alone annually brings in $1.3 billion to Michigans economy. <LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l2 level1 lfo3">*Translocation of nuisance animals*
Nuisance bear and geese will no longer be moved. Over 6,000 geese have been removed in Southeast Michigan resulting in greater wildlife-human conflict and disease concerns. 
*Office closures and elimination of presence in field offices*
*Forest** Development Fund*​
Reduction of $1 million
Reduction of 9 staff 
Additional reductions are necessary if $1 million is transferred to the Michigan Department of Agriculture for conservation districts. As these reductions are implemented and affect future revenue, the need for further reductions will compound. Fiscal Year 2008 reductions will be as follows: 

<LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l4 level1 lfo4">*Reduction in timber marking, regeneration, planning*
This will negatively impact the amount of timber that is marked, regenerations efforts, oil and gas reviews, use permits and leases, recreation, planning, forest certification and fire response, which will negatively affect tourism and a $13 billion timber industry in the state. 
*Elimination of natural features inventory reviews*
Loss of forest certification will likely negatively impact the states ability to sell timber reducing state revenues. 
*Park Improvement Fund*​
Reduction of 253 staff 
Infrastructure conditions continue to deteriorate. To address the structural deficit in the Park Improvement Fund, the Department will cease taking reservations in April 2008 for at least 37 state parks, which will close during Fiscal Year 2009. Reductions will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2009 as follows: 

<LI class=MsoNormal style="COLOR: black; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo5">*Closure of at least 37 state parks and recreation areas and scenic sites*
This reduction will affect millions of visitors annually, eliminating many opportunities for our customers to experience the outdoors through either day use or overnight stays. These closures will also negatively affect local communities who depend on the economic stimulus provided by the state parks. Visitors to our state parks contribute more than $580 million annually to Michigan. 
*Closure of 8 interpretative centers *
Closure of the interpretative centers will result in the loss of a critical educational opportunity to inform the public about conservation practices, stewardship, and natural resources management.


----------



## Duckdude (May 23, 2007)

unbelievable! lets cut the funding for the resources your state is known for. do these dumbasses realize how many people from both in state and out spend hundreds and even thousands on salmon/steelhead fishing and hunting in michigan? sure fixes the budget now but what the hell are they going to do 5 years down the road when ludington, mainistee, and st joe are ghost towns?


----------



## Duke (Oct 6, 2000)

Unfortunately, the DNR does know EXACTLY what they are doing. They are proposing cuts to precisely the places that will cause the most uproar, the most pain to the state. I personally think it is a bluff that the state is not prepared to have called by the legislature. The DNR is using these cuts as pawns in the game, but if they lose and do not get their funding, I don't think they can possibly choose these areas to make the cuts when it has to happen without doing irreparable damage to this state's economy.


----------



## BFG (Mar 4, 2005)

Boy...there are some definite political scare tactics at work in that document. 

I'd be screaming to the high Heavens if I lived in Michigan...hell, I'm screaming from Ohio!


BFG


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Duke said:


> t doing irreparable damage to this state's economy.


It is possible to hurt it any more?


----------



## jimmy johans (Feb 19, 2007)

who voted for her anyway?

jimmy


----------



## everlast1 (Nov 9, 2006)

You can thank the UAW and Se MI for jenny


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

How many times, and on how many websites, have I got to say this...hate the Governor all you want (she ain't my fav either), but the ones that can fix this are your legislators. They are the lame a#$%#$#$ that are afraid to put forward the legislation to change the DNR's budget, and/or raise fees. The Governor can't sign or veto something she hasn't seen. 

So for the umpteenth time, QUIT YOUR DAMN WHINING AND CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS, NOT THE GOVERNOR!


----------



## SuperBlackEagle2 (Nov 4, 2005)

I can verify that Just Ducky has actually posted this exact thing in at least 3 or 4 different threads, on at least 2 sites. And...he is right. 
This topic keeps getting posted as if this is new news. This has been on the table for a while now. There are at least 5 or 6 threads all about this.


----------



## everlast1 (Nov 9, 2006)

You are right. We need to get rid of 75% of the legislators along with the gov. Guess what. It isnt going to happen.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

everlast1 said:


> You are right. We need to get rid of 75% of the legislators along with the gov. Guess what. It isnt going to happen.


You're right that we probably won't get rid of them. But the squeaky wheel does get the grease so to speak, so we all need to bitch...LOUDLY! And bitching to the Gov. right now is pointless until there is some legislation on her desk. So don't stop bitching...just bitch to the right people...the legislators.


----------



## joefsu (Jan 9, 2005)

just ducky said:


> You're right that we probably won't get rid of them. But the squeaky wheel does get the grease so to speak, so we all need to bitch...LOUDLY! And bitching to the Gov. right now is pointless until there is some legislation on her desk. So don't stop bitching...just bitch to the right people...the legislators.


Well put.


----------



## everlast1 (Nov 9, 2006)

I'm with ya J D


----------



## GDLUCK (Dec 2, 2002)

everlast1 said:


> You are right. We need to get rid of 75% of the legislators along with the gov. Guess what. It isnt going to happen.


And replacing 75% of the legislators will only bring new players to the same game. 

Don't hate the player, hate the game.


----------



## Dead Bird (Oct 2, 2001)

just ducky said:


> How many times, and on how many websites, have I got to say this...hate the Governor all you want (she ain't my fav either), but the ones that can fix this are your legislators. They are the lame a#$%#$#$ that are afraid to put forward the legislation to change the DNR's budget, and/or raise fees. The Governor can't sign or veto something she hasn't seen.
> 
> So for the umpteenth time, QUIT YOUR DAMN WHINING AND CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS, NOT THE GOVERNOR!


duck normally I am with you... she is the one that would not allow cuts in state structure... she was very clear one the cuts that would be required... none of those cuts are staff or salary... she forced the issue... this is another dove bill that she wanted to look good to the general public but the details never gave us a chance... she is the puriest of govs that we have had in a long time....


----------



## Huntsman27 (Sep 29, 2004)

Shut down the bingos and all those guys will be out crowding in at any available spots. think the b****ings bad and arguing, oh boy is that going to be a proverbial headache.


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

Huntsman27 said:


> Shut down the bingos and all those guys will be out crowding in at any available spots. think the b****ings bad and arguing, oh boy is that going to be a proverbial headache.


I would at best be considered a casual user of these area's (went to one State Bingo this season) and cannot agree more with you. The state non-managed wetlands in my area anyways are usually being used at fairly high concentration levels.

I have not hunted open water layout in a few years because I have developed techniques that put me on the birds rather consistently on small water. I hunt by myself around 50 to 60% of the time, with these samll backwaters, marshes, sloughs and ditches being more suited to the single hunter who detests crowds.

However I feel the current pricing structure for these units is so far out of proportion that something must change. I have paid to hunt private fields and sloughs in lower MI and not once was the agreed upon price $14.00....

Let alone for a SEASON LONG hunt on some pretty nice real estate that is managed by a full and part time workforce primarily for waterfowlers 2 months out of the year.

Perhaps a $200.00 a year seasonal pass or $25.00 a day use permit would help these area's keep their heads above water? 

Shiawasse kid has posted here that revenue generated by these areas was $85,000.00:lol: I believe his numbers, but laugh thinking how many enjoyable man hours of hunting came for such a paltry amount of cash.

I would hate to see these areas close, as many guys and gals are primarily "dike draggers" who truly love this form of hunting. But maybe if they pony up some ethical dollars for using these areas. They could remain open for them to enjoy their style of chasing flatbills, and the hordes on the small non-managed units or bay shores will never show?

OR maybe these areas are just going away no matter what we do as the cash continues to dry up in MI and our hunter numbers decline?

I for one would gladly pay $200.00 just to have the opportunity to get on birds utilizing thousands of acres of prime habitat and flooded crop fields. A user fee that actually helps support these areas instead of a token gesture would drive some away I am sure. But as in mother nature, the strong will survive, and the weak will perish/move on...


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

or how about the 100.00 pass gets you in the top 10 picks 50.00, 10-15....25.00 15-20....15.00...the rest......alot of money is spent at these places for 60 days of hunting


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

ahartz said:


> or how about the 100.00 pass gets you in the top 10 picks 50.00, 10-15....25.00 15-20....15.00...the rest......alot of money is spent at these places for 60 days of hunting


balls in the vase at Shiawassee....


----------



## Huntsman27 (Sep 29, 2004)

money....youd better forget about it. Best go back to the old days of the Nash Buckingham duck club..........when you start throwing money like that its going to be laughable. 
Weve often held if we werent in the top 30 its time to peel off and find a better hole we arent paying for. Which is what most do if they arent picked. Now if you consider closing the Bingo fiascos, those guys are going straight for Quanicasee, Geiger Rd, and you get the point.
Plan on Scooter and company setting up 50 yards off you. I guess we will have to wait and see. Oh well, theres always next year. At least deer season was better than duck season.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

steelsetter said:


> ....Perhaps a $200.00 a year seasonal pass or $25.00 a day use permit would help these area's keep their heads above water?
> 
> Shiawasse kid has posted here that revenue generated by these areas was $85,000.00:lol: I believe his numbers, but laugh thinking how many enjoyable man hours of hunting came for such a paltry amount of cash...


I've been singing this song for at least three years now. What I've said is the managed areas, while not for everyone, definitely have their place in Michigan waterfowling. Especially for those who don't have access to private land, the gear to do big public areas like the bay, or who just don't have the time or dollars to do the scouting or travelling necessary to find private land to hunt. Let's face it...some guys have to work long and hard to make a living, and just can't take the time they'd like. Yet they are willing to spend some cash to hunt. So these areas provide a good opportunity at seeing and taking home birds, with a minimum amount of time or effort, however the fees are ridiculously low, and have been for years. As Shi Kid knows, the costs to make these places possible are enormous, and the current income is peanuts. By raising the fees much higher, you will obviously lose some people who do the bingo's. But those I described above who need a solid hunting opportunity without expending a lot of time or effort will pay the higher fees. The fundamental problem with this talk however is getting the legislators to approve this kind of an increase. Even if all of our organizations got behind it, chances are these lawmakers would waffle over such an increase. Look at the friggin' fiasco over raising business fees!

I only did the bingo 5 times this fall, but I'd be glad to pay a lot more for the annual permit just to have the opportunity. Maybe I'm unique, but I doubt it. I know enough waterfowlers, and their attitudes when it comes to donating cash for their sport through groups like DU, MDHA, Delta, SFCHA, Harsen's Flats, etc., etc., that the vast majority are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Will we price some out of the sport? Possibly. But think about the costs we all endure for gear, ammo, travel, food, etc. each fall...we're already one of the most cost prohibitive games in town! 

$200 for an annual Managed area fee??? In a heartbeat. Heck, I spend a lot more than that for food, gas and etc. on a weekend at the bay.


----------



## Dead Bird (Oct 2, 2001)

just ducky said:


> $200 for an annual Managed area fee??? In a heartbeat. Heck, I spend a lot more than that for food, gas and etc. on a weekend at the bay.


----------



## ahartz (Dec 28, 2000)

and the Michigan waterfowl endorsement is 5.00....I spned that THINKING about my next hunt...seriously...I likely have 3.00 into just the coffee in my thermos 5.00.....?????? lets start there........andy


----------



## GDLUCK (Dec 2, 2002)

???? looking for a few answers......

I understand our licenses are cheap as compaired to other states but how many licenses are sold as compared to other states? Voulme discount is all I'm thinking.....

where is DU in all this? I would think they would/should be concerned as this is waterfowl habitat.....


----------



## Sea Duck (Jul 9, 2001)

GDLUCK said:


> ???? looking for a few answers......
> 
> I understand our licenses are cheap as compaired to other states but how many licenses are sold as compared to other states? Voulme discount is all I'm thinking.....
> 
> where is DU in all this? I would think they would/should be concerned as this is waterfowl habitat.....


I'd guess that DU doesn't view flooded corn fields in the managed areas as waterfowl habitat. Clearly not nesting habitat, at least the planted corn isn't a critical component.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Sea Duck said:


> I'd guess that DU doesn't view flooded corn fields in the managed areas as waterfowl habitat. Clearly not nesting habitat, at least the planted corn isn't a critical component.


Yeah even though I've been a DU supporter for a long time, I would think MDHA would have a better fix on this.

As far as hunter numbers, the DNR website used to have posted somewhere a report from a year or two ago on hunter recruitment which included statistical data for all of the hunters in Michigan. When I get a minute, I'll try to search for it and post it...it was a good (but very looong, read).


----------



## thedude (Jul 20, 2004)

just to put things in perspective..... Indiana's bingos are free AND provide boats (most of them) and blinds. the duck stamp is 6.75 and resident license is 17$.

I'm not at all opposed to paying more to play at the bingos - i like it that those who use them the most are the one's paying... however -
the DNR has the same fiscal expertise as the rest of the state gov't, so i would guess that much of their funding is wasted in some fashion or another.


----------



## kaler9969 (Feb 25, 2005)

Duke said:


> Unfortunately, the DNR does know EXACTLY what they are doing. They are proposing cuts to precisely the places that will cause the most uproar, the most pain to the state.


This is not a DNR problem. This is the way we have accepted that our state should be run. We have allowed ourselves to being bullied by our elected officials into accepting their priorities by this very philosophy. Unless voters take an active interest in what our representitives are doing in Lansing, I see no change.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

Sea Duck said:


> I'd guess that DU doesn't view flooded corn fields in the managed areas as waterfowl habitat. Clearly not nesting habitat, at least the planted corn isn't a critical component.


educate yourself on state managed areas, spring and fall migration and our nesting habitats. That "flooded corn" becomes some major food in spring and provides great food/energy source for migrating fall mallards. DU is very involved with shiawassee and just finished working with us on a large project. One of a couple three that have been finished by DU in the last couple years.

During nesting in the spring, you wouldn't believe the amount of bachelor mallards that spin on north prior rd fields. If you ever get chance to sneak out there during nesting, go check it out. 59 and 60 are the hot spring fields.

I can't wait for the bitching to start when state managed areas close and then all you guys that don't like/support bingo wonder why all your non-managed honey holes have no birds.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

thedude said:


> just to put things in perspective..... Indiana's bingos are free AND provide boats (most of them) and blinds. the duck stamp is 6.75 and resident license is 17$.
> 
> I'm not at all opposed to paying more to play at the bingos - i like it that those who use them the most are the one's paying... however -
> the DNR has the same fiscal expertise as the rest of the state gov't, so i would guess that much of their funding is wasted in some fashion or another.


EXACTLY. I've been trying to drive this point home all year. For the love of god people.....quit thinking that the managed areas need to pay for themselves. They did just fine for 30 years......all of sudden theres a shortfall.....HOW ABOUT WE ASK WHY AND WHERE DID THE MONEY GO???????

It's not because we don't charge enough for licenses or annual uses permits, lol, come on. I'm not against raising the licenses with the price of inflation to accommodate rising costs of fuel, administration and/or any other things. But we are being led to believe that its WE hunters that need to pony up. We are being extorted in a major way and all anyone can think about is raising hunting fees for the fix. You really think raising the fees is gonna save the managed areas? To actually break even the annual would have to be near $500.00 (most likely more) not $25.00.


*edit: here is more evidence to what i'm trying to say.


----------



## GDLUCK (Dec 2, 2002)

By past history DU has funded work done in the managed areas pump projects, dike projects etc. 

while its not prarie grass I expect there are many mallards that used the areas as nesting sights. Thats why they put the tubes out there. Its also a resting area for migrating birds. It is important to the overall production of little ducks.

I'm willing to pay a little more but not all funding should be on the backs of the hunters. 

All the proposed cuts to the DNR include cross country ski trails, logging, etc. EVERYONE in the state benefits from our natural resources in one form or another. EVERYONE in the state needs to pony up!


----------



## woodie slayer (Feb 25, 2006)

just ducky said:


> How many times, and on how many websites, have I got to say this...hate the Governor all you want (she ain't my fav either), but the ones that can fix this are your legislators. They are the lame a#$%#$#$ that are afraid to put forward the legislation to change the DNR's budget, and/or raise fees. The Governor can't sign or veto something she hasn't seen.
> 
> So for the umpteenth time, QUIT YOUR DAMN WHINING AND CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS, NOT THE GOVERNOR!


i agree
most don't have a clue .they hear someone bit#$ about jenny and have to chime in.bet half the whinners didn't vote:lol:


----------



## BITE_ME_TOO (May 21, 2003)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> educate yourself on state managed areas, spring and fall migration and our nesting habitats. That "flooded corn" becomes some major food in spring and provides great food/energy source for migrating fall mallards.


Flooded Corn is a HUGE part of the migration as Shia-Kid points out. BUT, if you take it away even for 1 year- you will absolutely RUIN all that has been completed to date in all of the GMU's.

At Harsens, if there isn't corn then all you are going to get is MAYBE 1 year of habitual migrators in the area. After that, they will NOT come back. They will be in Canada as there is NO other food source in this Migration between Fish Point and Pointe Mouillee(sp?). Take away those managed areas and the MAJOR migration pattern will be on the east side of Huron with-out-a-doubt!

As I said in another thread- The St. Clair Flats Waterfowler's Inc has put in 100's of thousands into Harsens over the years and would HATE to see this go to waste!!!!!!!!!

I definitely agree with the annual and daily increase, but at this point not sure at the amount or percentage of what the increase should be.

Jeff-BMT


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> EXACTLY. I've been trying to drive this point home all year. For the love of god people.....quit thinking that the managed areas need to pay for themselves. They did just fine for 30 years......all of sudden theres a shortfall.....HOW ABOUT WE ASK WHY AND WHERE DID THE MONEY GO???????
> 
> It's not because we don't charge enough for licenses or annual uses permits, lol, come on. I'm not against raising the licenses with the price of inflation to accommodate rising costs of fuel, administration and/or any other things. But we are being led to believe that its WE hunters that need to pony up. We are being extorted in a major way and all anyone can think about is raising hunting fees for the fix. You really think raising the fees is gonna save the managed areas? To actually break even the annual would have to be near $500.00 (most likely more) not $25.00.
> 
> ...



SK-

You and I have discussed this until we're blue in the face, and I'm agreeing with you completely...in a perfect world. I would like nothing more than for our legislators to suddenly have a lightbulb go off in their heads, have a big change of heart, and realize that what has happened to the DNR funding stream over the years is downright criminal. But I'm just real pessimistic seeing what I see every day down here, and where the priorities are nowadays versus 20 years ago. My personal belief is that this stems from something we've also discussed before...that Michigan's general population could give a rip about hunting and fishing. Our ranks are falling each year, and as much as I'd like to see things change, the numbers will continue to fall. Therefore, the legislators listen to the masses, and go with the flow of the screaming masses. We hunters and fisherman are a small minority, and we just don't rate anymore, so the priorities in Lansing just aren't our priorities. 

Michigan has gradually become a "user pay" philosophy when it comes to funding in many programs, not just natural resources. This philosophy originally came from the Engler administration. Not sure how Indiana or any other states fund their programs, I can only speak of here. As I've said, unless we can somehow convince the powers that be (legislators) that there is a fundamental problem with the way we fund natural resource programs, we're sunk. 

God I hope I'm wrong on this, but I'm just being realistic.


----------



## everlast1 (Nov 9, 2006)

BITE_ME_TOO said:


> Flooded Corn is a HUGE part of the migration as Shia-Kid points out. BUT, if you take it away even for 1 year- you will absolutely RUIN all that has been completed to date in all of the GMU's.
> 
> At Harsens, if there isn't corn then all you are going to get is MAYBE 1 year of habitual migrators in the area. After that, they will NOT come back. They will be in Canada as there is NO other food source in this Migration between Fish Point and Pointe Mouillee(sp?). Take away those managed areas and the MAJOR migration pattern will be on the east side of Huron with-out-a-doubt!
> 
> ...


You are right. A couple years with no feed, the birds will change patterns and it will take years to get them back. The feds need to step in and set aside refuges on state, federal, and private clubs land. Let the private clubs pay for grain and labor for feeding during Nov. on their properties, and let DU or michigans local waterfowl groups pay for feeding the state refuges. The feds can handle their refuges. Since the feds and state lack the knowledge or the ability to control water levels (money) to manage for moist soil weeds such as wild millet, smartweed, etc. which is a higher source of energy for migrating birds, planting grain and flooding is the next best thing. If the state and feds cant afford to farm then the only other alterative is to set aside many acres between sag bay and maumee bay and feed it during migration. If you guys want birds to hunt you better start chirpin.


----------



## steelsetter (Dec 14, 2003)

"Michigan has gradually become a "user pay" philosophy when it comes to funding in many programs, not just natural resources. This philosophy originally came from the Engler administration. Not sure how Indiana or any other states fund their programs, I can only speak of here. As I've said, unless we can somehow convince the powers that be (legislators) that there is a fundamental problem with the way we fund natural resource programs, we're sunk." 

And hence the need to significantly raise revenue from within instead of expecting handouts or some magical change of heart in Lansing or John Q. Publics chest with your blindfold on.....

IF the DNR does not have the funding to run the bingo hunts whether it is from mismanagement, lack of grants/federal-state subsidies, etc. Guess what, if you want to hunt em, you are going to pay for em plain and simple. 

This State is in tough economic times right now, and I find it hard to believe that shooting ducks in flooded grain fields maintained by State employees is going to take precedence over feeding kids....

I hope I am wrong.

However I cannot believe that the guys who use these areas as frequently as some do. Can actually complain about a few hundred bucks a year if that would save them from extinction. Even if it was for 4 or 5 years until the State's luck changes (hopefully) and maybe fees could be reduced.

I would pay it and might not even hunt there just to help the ducks and fellow waterfowlers


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

steelsetter said:


> ...This State is in tough economic times right now, and I find it hard to believe that shooting ducks in flooded grain fields maintained by State employees is going to take precedence over feeding kids....
> 
> I hope I am wrong.
> 
> ...


Kind of in a nutshell what I was trying to say. John Q. Public couldn't give a rats ass if maybe 5000 (out of 50 or 60 k total waterfowlers) have managed areas to hunt. They don't understand, and never will. They want their welfare kids fed and clothed, their criminals locked up (and given damn good facilities by the way), etc., etc. Therefore the bozo's they (WE) elect don't care either.


----------



## Dahmer (Jan 22, 2007)

If the WMA close I can see duck harvests in those areas going done greatly along with duck hunter numbers. I buy annual permit every year. I didn't hunt the WMA this year due to having hunt fields in the surrond areas but those fields produced due to WMA holding the birds.


----------



## Ruff Rider (Jan 19, 2004)

I wonder if the migration patterns would be significantly altered on Saginaw Bay with the closure of Fish Point and Nayanquing Point. I think it might spread the birds out more throughout the bay, but it seems like all of the agricultural areas surrounding the bay would be more than sufficient food for them to stay in the area for a while. I'm not as familiar with Shiawassee, Harsen's, Pt. Moullie, or any of the other areas, so the case may not be the same there, as I don't think they are located directly on a huge body of water like Saginaw Bay. But the fact of the matter is, Fish Point and Nayanquing Point (for it's relative size) hold a high concentration of birds, both in the fall, and in the spring, and it is because of the maintenance put into the areas. The birds are obviously there because their needs, whether it be food, cover, nesting areas, sanctuary, etc., are fulfilled in these areas. If they close, waterfowl and other animals will be forced into less "prime" conditions, and will suffer because of it. Just my opinion.


----------



## duckman#1 (Sep 22, 2002)

I've seen it said several times that Mich has one of the cheapest hunting/fishing fees in the country. I just did some checking on the internet of some other states by random. Most that I'm seeing are cheaper than Mich!
Many states offer hunting/fishing combo packages for well under $40/yr, most I have seen offer lifetime licenses, big senior discounts, some have husband/wife deals (like mich used to). I'm talking resident fees, not Non Res.
Why did Mich drop the lifetime licenses? and most other states still offer it??


----------

