# fees for public land



## wildcoy73 (Mar 2, 2004)

what would you all think of adding a license for non hunters to use public land?
As I see it alot of money is spent on trails and land improvements for non hunters to use this land, and they do park in public parking areas.
So why should they also not pitch in to improve our public lands. 
this would include all type of non hunting activities, hiking, bird watchers, gathers, and just nature lovers enjoying the public land.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

Kinda makes sense but by paying into it they would soon want full control .As hunters and fishermen we would be the losers in the end .


----------



## thundrst (Oct 7, 2007)

I think it is long overdue. We are already losing. A lot of money is spent on non-hunting & fishing objectives already.


----------



## wildcoy73 (Mar 2, 2004)

we have lost already, one of my best stands for years now have a freeway 72 yards from it. they cleaned up a nation wide trail system that was not being use two years ago.
now it is used heavily. 
and they started allow horse ridding right threw the middle of this section. unfortunately the hikers don't just stay on the main trails.
They are now using the minor trail systems left from the old logging days, so almost impossible to be even 200 yards from some form of human activity. 
I was still able to get a few deer last year, but my sighting was way down.


Thirty pointer said:


> Kinda makes sense but by paying into it they would soon want full control .As hunters and fishermen we would be the losers in the end .


Sent from my SM-N960U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## sgc (Oct 21, 2007)

2x what thirty pointer said. That was my first thought.


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

wildcoy73 said:


> we have lost already, one of my best stands for years now have a freeway 72 yards from it. they cleaned up a nation wide trail system that was not being use two years ago.
> now it is used heavily.
> and they started allow horse ridding right threw the middle of this section. unfortunately the hikers don't just stay on the main trails.
> They are now using the minor trail systems left from the old logging days, so almost impossible to be even 200 yards from some form of human activity.
> ...


So how much should this new fee be? I doubt it can be high enough to reroute an expressway or to keep all of these interlopers out of the woods. Sorry, but it really sounds like what you only want is to keep everyone away from your spot.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Lund Explorer said:


> So how much should this new fee be? I doubt it can be high enough to reroute an expressway or to keep all of these interlopers out of the woods. Sorry, but it really sounds like what you only want is to keep everyone away from your spot.


A minimum of $50, with NO entrance onto state game areas without a hunting license, except on certain visitor days.


----------



## Baybum (Jan 9, 2008)

X3. And public land is public land, other users are part of the game. The more public land gets used year round the better. Snowmobiles, orv's and horse riders are pay to play also. Ive got a peta loving in law who mountain bikes state land. Brings me great satisfaction telling her how her trails are paid for by hunters.


Thirty pointer said:


> Kinda makes sense but by paying into it they would soon want full control .As hunters and fishermen we would be the losers in the end .


Sent from my SM-A716U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

DecoySlayer said:


> A minimum of $50, with NO entrance onto state game areas without a hunting license, except on certain visitor days.


You might want to put a little more thought into your reply.

What about the guy who wants to ride his mountain bike, and buys a small game license?


----------



## jd4223 (Feb 12, 2012)

I used to hunt Dexter/Pinkney area state land. Ran into Ann Arbor Tree Huggers who were anti gun anti hunting and just about anti anything that didn't involve nature and environmental preservation. Tried to explain how my hunting/fishing license and money spent on these activities contributed to the preservation and increase in wild animal life.Of course being Liberals they couldn't connect the dots. Stopped hunting there and finally invested in private property.


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

jd4223 said:


> I used to hunt Dexter/Pinkney area state land. Ran into Ann Arbor Tree Huggers who were anti gun anti hunting and just about anti anything that didn't involve nature and environmental preservation. Tried to explain how my hunting/fishing license and money spent on these activities contributed to the preservation and increase in wild animal life.Of course being Liberals they couldn't connect the dots. Stopped hunting there and finally invested in private property.


One of the biggest anti-hunters I know is a dyed in the wool conservative. In the meantime, countless liberal union members love to hunt. Please keep your narrow minded biases to yourself.


----------



## jd4223 (Feb 12, 2012)

Lund Explorer said:


> One of the biggest anti-hunters I know is a dyed in the wool conservative. In the meantime, countless liberal union members love to hunt. Please keep your narrow minded biases to yourself.


Didn't mean to disparage you and your Liberal friends.


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

jd4223 said:


> Didn't mean to disparage you and your Liberal friends.


Didn't bother me, it just showed your poorly educated conservatism.


----------



## BumpRacerX (Dec 31, 2009)

Isn't that kinda what your rec passport gets you now? Are you saying that it should be mandatory to have the rec passport to access any state lands regardless of development?


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

BumpRacerX said:


> Isn't that kinda what your rec passport gets you now? Are you saying that it should be mandatory to have the rec passport to access any state lands regardless of development?


The rec passport is not even fully enforced. It's not even fully enforced in parking lots that require it. 

I can't even go back to where I used to hunt when I got my first deer. It's state land, state forest land, it now requires an additional ORV sticker to get back in to hunt. There are stop signs in the woods now! How sick is that?


----------



## wildcoy73 (Mar 2, 2004)

nope they can be in there too. 
But state game area was bought with hunters money.
we right now pay 11 for our base. so would that be fair?


Lund Explorer said:


> So how much should this new fee be? I doubt it can be high enough to reroute an expressway or to keep all of these interlopers out of the woods. Sorry, but it really sounds like what you only want is to keep everyone away from your spot.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

wildcoy73 said:


> nope they can be in there too.
> But state game area was bought with hunters money.
> we right now pay 11 for our base. so would that be fair?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


ONLY if it is used for habitat improvement. NO money on trails, race tracks, stop signs, etc etc. Restoration of native flora and fauna, ONLY. 

IF they want that other "stuff", put a 10% tax on the equipment they use on it.


----------



## Lund Explorer (Jan 23, 2011)

wildcoy73 said:


> nope they can be in there too.
> But state game area was bought with hunters money.
> we right now pay 11 for our base. so would that be fair?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


If you don't mind the hikers, bird watchers, and mountain bikers going past your tree stand, then why not. Your Post #4, in which you stated; "_They are now using the minor trail systems left from the old logging days, so almost impossible to be even 200 yards from some form of human activity."
_
So if they do pay, are you suggesting they have to stay on a single trail, or are they allowed to roam the entire woods like you are most likely doing?

Your suggestion for a use fee is a slippery slope. I'm still convinced that your main goal is to rid the woods of a large portion of society, no matter how much they pay.


----------



## wildcoy73 (Mar 2, 2004)

they are going everywhere now, they might as well pay a fee, as we do.
if I do not want to see people , I should only hunt my private property.
But if you are going to use state game area, that are provided by sportsman.
Than pay a user fee.
heck my one stand is in a swamp, and yep I have pictures of a lady and her dog walking threw the swamp.


Lund Explorer said:


> If you don't mind the hikers, bird watchers, and mountain bikers going past your tree stand, then why not. Your Post #4, in which you stated; "_They are now using the minor trail systems left from the old logging days, so almost impossible to be even 200 yards from some form of human activity."
> _
> So if they do pay, are you suggesting they have to stay on a single trail, or are they allowed to roam the entire woods like you are most likely doing?
> 
> Your suggestion for a use fee is a slippery slope. I'm still convinced that your main goal is to rid the woods of a large portion of society, no matter how much they pay.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

*‘A NEW NORMAL’: Declining sportsmen’s dollars upend funding model for nature conservation, outdoor recreation*

*https://mibiz.com/sections/economic...el-for-nature-conservation-outdoor-recreation*


----------

