# Michigan Proposes New Licenese Fees



## 88luneke (Jan 13, 2009)

http://www.freep.com/article/201302...-calls-increased-hunting-fishing-license-fees


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Just read that over lunch. Personally, I feel that this is long over due and will be a good thing for the future, but I know there will be no shortage of people complaining about having to pay a little more for a fishing license or deer tag.


----------



## 88luneke (Jan 13, 2009)

^^ Agreed.

We all want more areas to hunt, more habitat for birds, more COs to patrol, more fish to catch, etc. All that stuff costs money and I don't mind paying an extra $20 a year for that. I'm kinda surprised that the raise proposals weren't more than what they are.


----------



## Burksee (Jan 15, 2003)

Considering what I have pay per year ($45.00 X 3) for a manditory "trail permit" for my snowmobiles that dont see these "groomed trail systems" 99% of time I think even with the proposed increases hunting and fishing for residents of Michigan is an excellent value! 

Now, can anyone tell me for sure that all the money collected for these licences get used 100% for and by the DNR in direct relation to what the licences cover and are not/cannot be "high-jacked" for other un-related programs?


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Mr. Snyder must have gotten my e-mail. All that I can say is that it's about time. Had a good talk with MR. VanDyke the MDNR's legislative leaison at the last NRC meeting about this very subject.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

I agree overdue. Not that being said I really hope we get value for the increase money we send. I am very skeptical of how they money gets spent. ....


----------



## swampbuck62 (Sep 11, 2006)

Been a while since I lived and bouth a license in MI. Does MI have a one size fits all game and fish license? 

GA has what they call a yearly sportsman's license for $55 that covers all fish and game inclu migratory birds.. the trapping license is an additional $30...


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

swampbuck62 said:


> Been a while since I lived and bouth a license in MI. Does MI have a one size fits all game and fish license?
> 
> GA has what they call a yearly sportsman's license for $55 that covers all fish and game inclu migratory birds.. the trapping license is an additional $30...


We used to, but it has been quite a while since MI offered a sportsmans license. More recently, they have offered a discount when purchasing multiple licenses at the same time. I didn't see any mention if that would continue or change in the article.


----------



## 88luneke (Jan 13, 2009)

At the bottom of the PDF within the article - where they list all the prices proposed - it said that the proposal did not include the 15% discount. I don't know if that means they will keep it but not include it in the budget, or if it means there'll no longer be the 15% discount.


----------



## 454casull (Jan 6, 2005)

No problems as long as the funds are *used for what they were intended* and not bled off for some other BS or to subsidize a budget shortfall. Most of us want value for our hard earned dollars!


----------



## brdhntr (Oct 1, 2003)

Burksee said:


> Now, can anyone tell me for sure that all the money collected for these licences get used 100% for and by the DNR in direct relation to what the licences cover and are not/cannot be "high-jacked" for other un-related programs?



It sure will, just like the DRIP funds from deer licenses went to deer (Kirkland Warbler) habitat. 

Nothing like throwing more money at the government, despite the complete lack of ability to spend it where it is supposed to be spent.


----------



## 1ludman (Jun 26, 2012)

I don't understan why the DNR doesn't have a guides license or outfitter fee as do most other states. People who are taking resources for personal gain should pay a higher fee.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I would only support license fee increases if there is also a mandated, minimum general fund, funding level set to go along with the package. Otherwise, if the license fees go up, then the state will just reduce the general fund support and there will be no net gain and it would be just another useless tax increase.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

1ludman said:


> I don't understan why the DNR doesn't have a guides license or outfitter fee as do most other states. People who are taking resources for personal gain should pay a higher fee.


I'm not sure about hunting guides, but as a licensed charter captain, I already pay fees to the state to operate here.


----------



## 1ludman (Jun 26, 2012)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I'm not sure about hunting guides, but as a licensed charter captain, I already pay fees to the state to operate here.


 Your correct I should of stated hunting guides, charter boats are well regulated.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

1ludman said:


> I don't understan why the DNR doesn't have a guides license or outfitter fee as do most other states. People who are taking resources for personal gain should pay a higher fee.


In the works.

Griff


----------



## gregretlewski (Jun 24, 2012)

Like I said years ago when they tried to raise fees "show me value" . As long as the APRs go threw I say its warrants the increase. But as the statics qoe shoot any bucks then no thank you. The fees we currently have are high. 

Ill admit I would love to double the number of C.O.s in this state but I doubt thats where the money will go. 

I think the DNR needs to take and redo the way licenses are sold (refer to many of the threads on this forum site ,many good Ideas. ) 

I say bring back the :yikes: LIFE TIME LICENSE. :yikes:


----------



## DRHUNTER (Sep 15, 2002)

I support the license increase's its been long overdue in my opinion. Especially if it means we get those extra CO's in the field.


----------



## IamI (Sep 28, 2011)

heard on a radio show that some of the reps think the money for public land up keep sould be spent elsewhere, that these lands are costing to much anyway and may be even reduse the amont of land, been waiting to hear more on the subject:sad:


----------



## michhutr (Jan 16, 2009)

Hunters and fishermen have in the past supported increased fees for the outdoors and continue to do so. As a group I think we are very committed to supporting our sport. 

However, as you get older you cannot forget all the times in the past that promises have been made and not followed up on. Fees being increased and then seeing general fund dollars reduced to the DNR. Promises for habitat improvement on state land for grouse, turkey and deer that are soon forgotten. Dedicated funds diverted for other programs or general fund use all have been attempted or done. 

Politicians have a way of making me question anything they say when it comes to wanting more money. I can only hope that this time is different.


----------



## Chuck (Sep 24, 2000)

Do they need more money to plant more jack pine in the UP after the fire burned threw?

Im all for this if the money is spent on habitat improvements and more CO's but with more CO's we need much higher fines for poaching deer and trespassing. Look at what western states do in this regard. Course then we would need judges that gave a crap too.


----------



## sullyxlh (Oct 28, 2004)

gregretlewski said:


> Ill admit I would love to double the number of C.O.s in this state but I doubt thats where the money will go.





> "The number of conservation officers would increase by 24%, to 214 from 173"


Lol out of those numbers how many CO's per county??...

And out of those 
how many will actually be in the field working enforcement reducing game law violations 
and how many will become bureaucratic pencil pushers??.....

But hey in the mean time he's going to spend over $21 million dredging harbors.............WT....F??????????

Dredging harbors??? in lieu of hiring more CO's????
And I'm supposed to believe our idiot Governor as to what money is going to where????
No freak'n way.



> Creagh said the department has support for the increases *from groups representing outdoors enthusiasts*, based on the departments promises to use the money primarily to improve wildlife habitat, outreach* and public safety. *


"Public Safety"??
The only thing I see with that statement is our fees will increase and Snyder willl take that money and spend it on "public safety" for that sh_thole Detroit.

Public safety is just too broad of a statement.

"Department promises" don't mean crap when the politicians have control of said departments.

I do not believe the money will go toward hunting and fishing issues.

"Wildlife habitat" is interpreted to me as they'll take that money from increased fees 
and shut down "hunting land" and make it non hunting "wildlife habitat" land.

And "outdoors enthusiasts"?? Whats that?

_outdoors enthusiasts_ as in someone that hunts and fishes and wants that money to go towards those issues

Or _outdoors enthusiasts_ as in college town tree huggers that don't hunt or fish
but wants that money to go towards developing "wildlife habitiat" meaning shutting down hunting land.
or thinks that the state has to spend 21 mil so they can get there 1/2mil boat,
that has never seen a fishing pole, into a slip at the expense of the pauper?

I sure as hell don't like the thought of fee increases to cover displaced wetlands for Snyders bridge project
or any other of his unsung pet projects.

Snyder is the most non trusting governor this state has ever had.


----------



## 88luneke (Jan 13, 2009)

sullyxlh said:


> Lol out of those numbers how many CO's per county??...


Considering there are counties without a single CO that patrol just THAT county, I'd say it's a step in the right direction. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

88luneke said:


> Considering there are counties without a single CO that patrol just THAT county, I'd say it's a step in the right direction.
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Source for that info ? Not saying that it isn't true, but it was just a few years ago that I read that each county had at least 1 CO assigned per county. Around 120-125 field COs is what I remember so about 1 1/2 COs per county if they were evenly assigned. Working 40-48 weeks one can quickly figure how little coverage we actually have from COs when it can easily take them 30 minutes sometimes to travel from call-to-call.

L & O


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

How else is he going to raise the money for his freakin bridge ? Lets see all I herd was raise this, raise that.I dont mind higher lic fees,if they are used for the right things.But common he wants to up the gas tax and registration fees for vehicles ( for road repairs,there is that bridge again)Some how I think our lic money is going to get lost in the shuffel.But then , I dont trust ANY pollition. Sorry for my spelling,thank you detroit schools.


----------



## lodge lounger (Sep 16, 2005)

License fees are the least of my economic worries.


----------



## 88luneke (Jan 13, 2009)

Liver and Onions said:


> Source for that info ? Not saying that it isn't true, but it was just a few years ago that I read that each county had at least 1 CO assigned per county. Around 120-125 field COs is what I remember so about 1 1/2 COs per county if they were evenly assigned. Working 40-48 weeks one can quickly figure how little coverage we actually have from COs when it can easily take them 30 sometimes to travel from call-to-call.
> 
> L & O


Other than talking to COs no. I guess I assumed that stat from a conversation I had with a CO in NE Montcalm County. He said him and one other guy patrolled Montcalm, Isabella, Gratiot, and Midland. This was a couple years ago and I may have heard him wrong as far as whole counties or parts of. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## football12 (Dec 3, 2009)

Overdue and in favor of this.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

$15 for a one day fishing license? That will result in a lot fewer one day licenses being sold.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Trophy Specialist said:


> $15 for a one day fishing license? That will result in a lot fewer one day licenses being sold.


 I doubt that it will make much difference. Alot of those licenses are sold to people who only fish 1 or maybe 2 times a year, whether it be on a charter or with a friend taking them. If someone is going to spend $500-600 on a charter for the day, I really doubt that the $8 price increase is going to stop them. It may, however, push people who had bought 2-3 daily licenses in a year to just break down and buy the annual license.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Please educate yourself before making comments on this development. These are proposed funding packages and need to be approved by the legislature. The license package would provided more than $28 million in new revenue enableing the Department to hire 41 additional CO's. We currently have only 173. With this increase to hunters and fisherpersons, he is requesting a 57% increase in General Fund revenues to the DNR (how much goes to the wildlife division?) or about $10 million. BTW, offroad vehicle permits will go up $10 to $26.25. None of this money can go to the new bridge. All these new monies will stay in the Departments budget. I hope that 10% of the deer license increase will go to the DRIP fund, making it $2.00 per license. 

Some of you people need to read more. :lol:


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

Can anyone tell me why the DNR gives grant money to cities to build a paved walking path in the city. the City of hudson just last week said they got more money from the dnr to help build a trail.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Miruss, it probably came from the Natural Resource Trust Fund that comes from oil, gas and timber leases. A portion of this revenue has to go to local units for improvements to outdoor uses. I think this Trust is a good thing but fear some abuses are taking place through the use of unscrupulous appraisers. Kinda hard to prove. Plus the legistature is talking about robbing this fund for road improvements. I don't think they can without voter approval. I hope my facts are right.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Do you really think that General Fund contributions will remain at 9% or go down just like they have for along time. From the DNR's website.


> *Facts You Should Know
> *
> One of every six Michigan residents hunt or fish.
> 
> ...


----------



## IamI (Sep 28, 2011)

i have yet to see a complete proposal anywhere i have look to keep track of the crap that happens at the capital a88 kissing parties for money exchange and appelknocker some of your sentiment statements are flip flopy is your pot black or blue. i think a website with an itimized complete props would ease my mind and thats whats left of it maybe a little.


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)




----------



## brdhntr (Oct 1, 2003)

da Appleknocker said:


> Please educate yourself before making comments on this development. These are proposed funding packages and need to be approved by the legislature. The license package would provided more than $28 million in new revenue enableing the Department to hire 41 additional CO's. We currently have only 173. With this increase to hunters and fisherpersons, he is requesting a 57% increase in General Fund revenues to the DNR (how much goes to the wildlife division?) or about $10 million. BTW, offroad vehicle permits will go up $10 to $26.25. None of this money can go to the new bridge. All these new monies will stay in the Departments budget. I hope that 10% of the deer license increase will go to the DRIP fund, making it $2.00 per license.
> 
> Some of you people need to read more. :lol:


Please educate yourself on how the DRIP funds have been used in the past.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

88luneke said:


> Other than talking to COs no. I guess I assumed that stat from a conversation I had with a CO in NE Montcalm County. He said him and one other guy patrolled Montcalm, Isabella, Gratiot, and Midland. This was a couple years ago and I may have heard him wrong as far as whole counties or parts of.
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


 
Was it Ken Lowell?

..........Ken has told me the same things.......I believe it is him and Vicki Gross (Sp?) who cover those counties.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

brdhntr said:


> Please educate yourself on how the DRIP funds have been used in the past.


 
Bingo!!!


----------



## 88luneke (Jan 13, 2009)

bucksnbows said:


> Was it Ken Lowell?
> 
> ..........Ken has told me the same things.......I believe it is him and Vicki Gross (Sp?) who cover those counties.


Not sure of his name. Probably 6' 1" and huskier built guy. Nice dude to talk to, even gave me some insight on areas I had never scouted. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## IamI (Sep 28, 2011)

da Appleknocker said:


>


can't read huh! that be yourself


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

brdhntr, I know how DRIP funds have been abused in the past and currently but that doesn't mean we do not need to be improving our public lands for deer hunting. In the UP they are currently giving $50,000.00 a year for private land improvements and NOBODY seems to care. Our State land has gone to hell as far as deer habitat and nobody seems to care. By the way the warbler money was returned to the fund. What have YOU done to protest these abuses?


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

By the way I forgot to mention that the DNR siphons off an excessive amount of the DRIP fund money for milage, vehicle, labor and office expenditures.


----------



## aquanator (Dec 1, 2005)

I'm all for the increases, and our governor and DNR are doing a great job these days, esp considering the issues they've had to deal with. We need more CO's in the field, and our fishing & hunting license are really quite cheap imo.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

wartfroggy said:


> I doubt that it will make much difference. Alot of those licenses are sold to people who only fish 1 or maybe 2 times a year, whether it be on a charter or with a friend taking them. If someone is going to spend $500-600 on a charter for the day, I really doubt that the $8 price increase is going to stop them. It may, however, push people who had bought 2-3 daily licenses in a year to just break down and buy the annual license.


I disagree with some of what you say. Sure for some people the extra money will not make any difference, but for many it certainly will, especially the non-resident anglers, which we are trying to attract, not price out of the market. You also have to look at how they are raising the fee for a non-resident seasonal license, which will also hurt tourism in this state. Many other states do not require a fishing license on charters, which will make it a tougher sell here. Another thing to consider is that Michigan gets federal money back for every licensed angler in the state. The daily license fee increase will certainly have a negative impact on that funding as well. This proposed license fee increase will impact out of state tourism for both fishing and hunting.


----------



## KGDPD (Nov 8, 2011)

Are non- hunters or fishers going to contribute in any way? I thought I read about hiking trails and bike trails were part of this fee increase? Any clarification would help me draw an opinion. Thanks


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

da Appleknocker said:


> Miruss, it probably came from the Natural Resource Trust Fund that comes from oil, gas and timber leases. A portion of this revenue has to go to local units for improvements to outdoor uses. I think this Trust is a good thing but fear some abuses are taking place through the use of unscrupulous appraisers. Kinda hard to prove. Plus the legistature is talking about robbing this fund for road improvements. I don't think they can without voter approval. I hope my facts are right.


The MNRTF was approved by voters and it was a Constitutional Amendment. 



da Appleknocker said:


> By the way the warbler money was returned to the fund.


Appleknocker, Have you seen any evidence that this was done ?


The last time a license increase was proposed, There was a demand for financial transparency/accountabilty by the House Natural Resource Committee. Of course thats when the MDNR discovered those Millions that they didnt know they had, and the proposal was withdrawn.

I dont have a problem with an increase, IF there is financial accountability, There is a detailed report of expenditures made available to the public, And a financial audit of the depatment for the last 5 years or so,


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Swampbuck, I think I remember right after they admitted it at an NRC meeting they showed or at least said the money was reimbursed to the drip fund. I'm not positive but will try to look it up. I'm sure if it hadn't there would have been a big deal made out of it until it was. Thanks.


----------



## 19rabbit52 (Jul 15, 2007)

I don't trust anything Gov. Snydlee Whiplash does. He loves to raise taxes on working class people and fees are taxes. I don't hunt or fish enough to be worth buying a license and an increase will probably cause me to quit.


----------



## IamI (Sep 28, 2011)

swampbuck said:


> The MNRTF was approved by voters and it was a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
financial accountability, may be a concept the apple-k is not educated on:idea::idea:


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

iami, some comments just don't deserve a response. Where have you been for the last two years? oops, your ignorance is showing. :sad:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

da Appleknocker said:


> Please educate yourself before making comments on this development.


Amen, here's some reading you can catch up on.
Page B-58 paragraph 4.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/budget/1_410735_7.pdf




> The governor recommends replacing the current hunting and fishing license fee structure with
> a model that is simple to utilize, fairly priced for all customers, and efficient for the department
> to administer. The new structure will include a base hunting license that will allow hunters to
> hunt small game and waterfowl. Tags can be added for deer, turkey, bear, elk, and fur bearing
> ...





> Department to hire 41 additional CO's.


oops! Just 16 new officers. 



> Some of you people need to read more. :lol:


You sure do!:lol::lol:


----------



## john warren (Jan 25, 2005)

KGDPD said:


> Are non- hunters or fishers going to contribute in any way? I thought I read about hiking trails and bike trails were part of this fee increase? Any clarification would help me draw an opinion. Thanks


 most of them contribute in the form of park passes. though i would be quite happy to pay for a bike sticker for our bikes, as i love riding trails in the forests and parks. anything i can do that will help maintain and improve our parks systems i do with great pleasure.
aside form the vehicle park pass not sure how you could apply another fee to people walking. but i bet folks that enjoy walking trails and paths would be glad to chip in.


----------



## john warren (Jan 25, 2005)

QDMAMAN said:


> Amen, here's some reading you can catch up on.
> Page B-58 paragraph 4.
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/budget/1_410735_7.pdf
> 
> ...


 there will be other personel highered as needed too, things like park rangers, summer labor, and other staff besides leo's


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Tony, I stand by my numbers as they were confirmed at Saturdays meeting by the MUCC and the Safari Club.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

da Appleknocker said:


> Tony, I stand by my numbers as they were confirmed at Saturdays meeting by the MUCC and the Safari Club.


 
Will the legislators be consulting with MUCC and SCI before they vote on the Gov's budget proposal?


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

QDMAMAN said:


> Will the legislators be consulting with MUCC and SCI before they vote on the Gov's budget proposal?


I would wager that MUCC and SCI will be making significant efforts to contact and consult with all Michigan legislators concerning this issue.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

john warren said:


> there will be other personel highered as needed too, things like park rangers, summer labor, and other staff besides leo's


Hunting license sales have nothing to do with State parks.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

RoadDog said:


> I would wager that MUCC and SCI will be making significant efforts to contact and consult with all Michigan legislators concerning this issue.


I don't disagree. However, the effort will be expended by MUCC and SCI, not the legislators, IMO.


----------



## Brownbear (Feb 20, 2004)

I will probably take a lot of heat for this statement, but I feel the senior discounted licenses are to cheap. 
I currently work with those that are getting ready to retire or are retired. I find that paying full price for a license comes much easier for MOST retirees compared to younger people with families.
Seniors are becoming a larger part of our population as the baby-boom generation retires and they have more time to enjoy our natural resources.
I do not see why senior licenses could'nt be $10 or $15. This would raise a lot of funds for the DNR. $15 a year = 4 cents a day


----------



## brdhntr (Oct 1, 2003)

da Appleknocker said:


> brdhntr, I know how DRIP funds have been abused in the past and currently but that doesn't mean we do not need to be improving our public lands for deer hunting. In the UP they are currently giving $50,000.00 a year for private land improvements and NOBODY seems to care. Our State land has gone to hell as far as deer habitat and nobody seems to care. By the way the warbler money was returned to the fund. What have YOU done to protest these abuses?


I have spent many years working with and running conservation groups that have tried to work with the MDNR. I still keep in contact with a few of the MDNR biologists. Had a nice long talk with one in early January regarding management of the Sharonville State Game area. I am not as active as I once was, because I've learned it doesn't really get you anywhere in the long run. I'm very comfortably happy with what I've put back into hunting, and continue to do. 

I still don't support giving more money with the promise that it will be used wisely given the record of the agency. Start putting the money they are getting now into better use, and then come to me asking for more with results to show they can be trusted.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

da Appleknocker said:


> Our State land has gone to hell as far as deer habitat and nobody seems to care.


Why should they? I fail to see where enhancing public lands for the purpose of a single, abundant, wildlife species is a legitimate use of license fees paid primarily by those that hunt private lands. I'm all for a license fee increase, as it's long overdue (a 1971 buck tag would have to be priced at over 40 bucks today to keep up with the CPI over the last 41 years), but it's time to get rid of that unjust and wasteful DRIP fund.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

I am fine with an increase in fishing liscenses but feel I get no return on an increase in hunting liscense fees. As farmer deer already cost me enough money!


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

farmlegend said:


> Why should they? I fail to see where enhancing public lands for the purpose of a single, abundant, wildlife species is a legitimate use of license fees paid primarily by those that hunt private lands. I'm all for a license fee increase, as it's long overdue (a 1971 buck tag would have to be priced at over 40 bucks today to keep up with the CPI over the last 41 years), but it's time to get rid of that unjust and wasteful DRIP fund.


What's really needed on public lands is just to manage timber stands according to sound forestry practices which would benefit deer and a host of other flora and fauna and the state and feds would also make money in the process. As for that "unjust" DRIP fund, it's just a drop in the bucket when you look at all the money available for private land owners to assist them with habitat projects. I almost feel a little guilty when I look at all the money I have gotten from the government for my habitat improvement projects. How about you FL, have you ever taken advantage of CRP or other "unjust" public payout programs on your land?


----------



## S.B. Walleyes&Waterfowl (Jan 10, 2012)

Burksee said:


> Considering what I have pay per year ($45.00 X 3) for a manditory "trail permit" for my snowmobiles that dont see these "groomed trail systems" 99% of time I think even with the proposed increases hunting and fishing for residents of Michigan is an excellent value!
> 
> Now, can anyone tell me for sure that all the money collected for these licences get used 100% for and by the DNR in direct relation to what the licences cover and are not/cannot be "high-jacked" for other un-related programs?


That's what I'm saying. There is no way we will see any of these increased liscense fees actually going into improving our hunting lands or fisheries. I'd love to eat my words but we'll see what happens....

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## gregretlewski (Jun 24, 2012)

Here's a Idea to throw around. Since they are talking about raising licenses. Why don't we sell a all season buck tag, say around 25$. And for those who still want to buy a second buck tag and keep hunting, Why not make it a earn a second tag by bringing in your first buck or maybe a doe to be checked. They could either sell you a second tag on the spot or give you a slip to buy it at another location. They could probably sell the second tag at a cheaper rate. 

This will lean a little more to the one buck rule. They are still having the rates raised. It will bring more deer to be counted and those that only want to buy one tag for the whole season will be happy. 
So what does everybody think

OH and still have APRs with all this


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

gregretlewski said:


> Here's a Idea to throw around. Since they are talking about raising licenses. Why don't we sell a all season buck tag, say around 25$. And for those who still want to buy a second buck tag and keep hunting, Why not make it a earn a second tag by bringing in your first buck or maybe a doe to be checked. They could either sell you a second tag on the spot or give you a slip to buy it at another location. They could probably sell the second tag at a cheaper rate.
> 
> This will lean a little more to the one buck rule. They are still having the rates raised. It will bring more deer to be counted and those that only want to buy one tag for the whole season will be happy.
> So what does everybody think
> ...


Who will man these check stations that are convenient in all three zones from the early September hunts through Jan. 1? That is not a feasible plan.

The second tag could be printed as restricted if the new computer system is capable of handling it. It could be purchased at any time with the obvious requirement that the deer it is used on be shot after the purchase date. I thinks this could be a practical approach to handling the one tag versus two tag issue that seems to be on the burners as of late. As they are general tags, it would seem that the tags could be used in any season. As soon as two antlered tags are used, antlered deer could no longer be taken that year. That seems like an easy direct approach to me.


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

There are currently counties that because of attrition (retirements) and transfers are vacant (no "assigned" CO) and are patrolled by officers of adjoining counties. That is why, although frustrating, many people experience the long delay in response times and call backs.

Remember too that the numbers quoted often contain the total number of commissioned personnel. That includes the Chief, Asst Chief, Captains, Lt's, and Sgts, not just "Conservation Officers".

This will be a welcome addition to the department.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

dead short said:


> There are currently counties that because of attrition (retirements) and transfers are vacant (no "assigned" CO) and are patrolled by officers of adjoining counties. That is why, although frustrating, many people experience the long delay in response times and call backs.
> 
> Remember too that the numbers quoted often contain the total number of commissioned personnel. That includes the Chief, Asst Chief, Captains, Lt's, and Sgts, not just "Conservation Officers".
> 
> This will be a welcome addition to the department.


 

Good to hear.
Has there been any speculating as to how many officers this might bring to your ranks, DS?


----------



## dead short (Sep 15, 2009)

bucksnbows said:


> Was it Ken Lowell?
> 
> ..........Ken has told me the same things.......I believe it is him and Vicki Gross (Sp?) who cover those counties.


Montcalm would be Ken L, Vicki G has retired (another lost and not replaced).

41 is a number that I have heard but it would not be all at once I'm sure. It would also be very dependent on whether or not the license package is approved. It's sometimes better to space them out consistantly over time to prevent mass retirements.


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

A license fee increase is a scam and Snyder is a tool for bringing it up again! General fund monies need to go to resources at a higher rate.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

A license fee increase is a scam and Snyder is a tool for bringing it up again! General fund monies need to go to resources at a higher rate.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> MuskyDan said:
> 
> 
> > A license fee increase is a scam and Snyder is a tool for bringing it up again! General fund monies need to go to resources at a higher rate.
> ...


I bet you're a blast at a party.:lol:


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

ridgewalker said:


> Who will man these check stations that are convenient in all three zones from the early September hunts through Jan. 1? That is not a feasible plan.


Correctomundo. Someone that kills a deer over by Camden/Montgomery, for example, has about an hour drive, ONE WAY, to the nearest check station. Not agonna happen.


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

QDMAMAN said:


> I bet you're a blast at a party.:lol:


Why would you say that? Michigan hunters and fisherman already fund the DNR and the resources in this great state. Michigan is a destination state because of its resources, not just hunting and fishing but Michigan in general and it is high time that the Snyder starts acting like it. Why not take all of the buisness tax breaks and throw them at the resources. The buisnesses are profiting off of the resources.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

An increase is due and has been for many years. It doesnt go far enough though, there should be a 10% tax on every bag of bait sold. We'd have 80 new CO's on the road in no time...


----------



## Bonz 54 (Apr 17, 2005)

I have no problem with a rate increase as long as not one red cent gets sponged into General Fund.:rant: FRANK


----------



## A.M. General (May 3, 2001)

I hate the nerd but i'll save $10 on my licenses. Still doesnt make up for the $300 per paycheck that bastard has screwed me on.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

dead short said:


> 41 is a number that I have heard but it would not be all at once I'm sure. It would also be very dependent on whether or not the license package is approved. It's sometimes better to space them out consistantly over time to prevent mass retirements.


 
I am all for the license package even if that number falls short of 41.
It would be nice to see your ranks grow here in the near future.


----------



## Huntfish247 (Dec 13, 2005)

Hate to see small game tags go up. That's where the next generation is coming from.


----------



## Tron322 (Oct 29, 2011)

Spartan88 said:


> An increase is due and has been for many years. It doesnt go far enough though, there should be a 10% tax on every bag of bait sold. We'd have 80 new CO's on the road in no time...


 
nope, all would go to the general fund i am sure....unless lobbiest and voters work for a couple decades to change a rule and have bait proceeds go to paying CO's.

Then the CO's get laid off when guys learn how well artificials work under the ice, I think your plan will not work, and I won't vote for a spartan.


----------



## A.M. General (May 3, 2001)

[QUOTE Hate to see small game tags go up. That's where the next generation is coming from.[/QUOTE]

There is no small game license in the proposal. From what I understand, it will be part of the "base" hunting license sold for $10.


----------



## PWood (Aug 6, 2004)

A.M. General said:


> [QUOTE Hate to see small game tags go up. That's where the next generation is coming from.


 There is no small game license in the proposal. From what I understand, it will be part of the "base" hunting license sold for $10.[/QUOTE]

Which also covers waterfowl.


----------



## PWood (Aug 6, 2004)

Tron322 said:


> nope, all would go to the general fund i am sure....unless lobbiest and voters work for a couple decades to change a rule and have bait proceeds go to paying CO's.
> 
> Then the CO's get laid off when guys learn how well artificials work under the ice, I think your plan will not work, and I won't vote for a spartan.


I'm pretty sure he was talking about deer bait, since he mentioned "*bag* of bait."


----------



## dwarneroutdoorswriter (Apr 17, 2008)

I'm doing a story for the Battle Creek Enquirer, and I'm hoping to get a couple quotes from any of you that hunt or live near Battle Creek. My questions are:

1. Do you support the fee increases? Why or why not? 

2. Do you think the DNR is doing a better job of managing deer since the last time deer license fees were increased (1996)? Why or why not? 

If you want to talk instead, call me at (517) 290-6471.

Thanks.

Darren


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

Tron322 said:


> nope, all would go to the general fund i am sure....unless lobbiest and voters work for a couple decades to change a rule and have bait proceeds go to paying CO's.
> 
> Then the CO's get laid off when guys learn how well artificials work under the ice, I think your plan will not work, and I won't vote for a spartan.


Son, are you drinkin' again?


----------



## A.M. General (May 3, 2001)

Spartan88 said:


> Son, are you drinkin' again?


Yes, yes he is since he had to root for a spartan victory for the walmart wolverines to have any chance at a shared big ten basketball title!

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Huntfish247 (Dec 13, 2005)

A.M. General said:


> [QUOTE Hate to see small game tags go up. That's where the next generation is coming from.


 There is no small game license in the proposal. From what I understand, it will be part of the "base" hunting license sold for $10.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the correction. 

That is a positive thing for the future of sportsman. The bad part is that the deer tag increase will affect those who are feeding their family through legal harvest of deer.


----------



## jjlrrw (May 1, 2006)

LANSING  Gov. Rick Snyders 2013-14 budget proposes double-digit hikes to Michigans hunting and fishing license fees as part of a *plan to hire more conservation officers* and* improve the states habitat for fish and game.

*Seems all politicians in this state find out where the minority spend their money then goes after them because it an easy sell. Problem... these are the ones supporting many small business throughout the state, Snowmobile trail permits increase, Proposed ORV increase, Proposed hunting & fishing increase, Land use fees (we own the land) look at the cost increase of camping over the years. (try and find a detailed up to date balance sheet in one place to support any of these activities). If you think everything is okay and increases without real numbers is helping just look at all the mom and pop shops closing throughout our state.

How about Keith Creagh proposal for "Opt-Out" of the state parks passport 

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/02/michigan_dnr_director_pushes_r.html

His hope is to fool residents of Michigan to buy something they don't want or need. Generating more revenue, where does the greed stop? 

Like it or not these are tax increases, how about adding taxes to areas really hurting our natural resources? How about a hefty tax on dry cleaning? A tax on Fast food, eating out, going to the movies, going to a mall, limo services, Using an excessive amount of electricity, NG, LP, gasoline? These are very difficult areas as they involve a large percentage of the public


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

jjlrrw, ssshhhhhhhhhh.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

jjlrrw said:


> How about a hefty tax on dry cleaning? A tax on Fast food, eating out, going to the movies, going to a mall, limo services, Using an excessive amount of electricity, NG, LP, gasoline?


No doubt an Obama supporter and tax the rich drummer!


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Dang I cant wait for warmer weather, turkey hunting, trout fishing and people without cabin fever wanting to kill each other on a website forum!:help:

Ganzer


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

Based on information I received today MDNR plans on giving away free State Land Use Permits for guiding on state land again this year. If the information is correct this will be the 4th year MDNR waived the permit fee for guides.


----------



## IamI (Sep 28, 2011)

more i heard crap


----------



## Huntfish247 (Dec 13, 2005)

Will there be a corresponding increase in fines and penalties for violators?


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Nov 5, 2007)

The information I posted regarding another year of free state land use permits for guides came from one of the elk guide's that called MDNR in Gaylord asking when he can renew his state land permit. Didn't see any reason to post this individuals name to make my point. Apparently, my post offended you. Sorry about that. But, I am offended folks making money off our natural resources are not required to pay their fair share during a time when there is such need for an increase in license fees. According to federal law, guides operating in all 3 national forests in Michigan have to apply for a Special Use Permit, pay a fee for the permit, and 3% of the revenue they receive from their business goes back to USFS....but, apparently our DNR is feeling generous toward outfitter/guiding operations. Matter of fact, the DNR even waived the liability insurance requirement for guides operating on state land. That too is really generous considering federal law requires guides operating in any of the 3 national forests in Michigan carry $500,000 in liability insurance naming USFS as co-insured.

Huntfish247, reportedly there was an actual citation given to an elk guide in the Gaylord area this year.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

I'll try and get this thread back on track. After doing some research I say MUCC/NRC has to demand transparency from the DNR before we jump on license increases. The DNR has a huge budget already. I would really like to see where the money goes before agreeing to pay more. 

They basically admit to offering nothing in return for the money we give them now. 

There's very few CO's. 

Very little in the way of studies

Tiny amount of habitat improvement

So what exactly are we spending the money on now?


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

I laugh when I hear many hunters use the term, "more transparency". What do you think, the DNR needs to come to your door and show you the books? The transparency IS there, you just have to do your homework. Look it up online. If you can't find what you want, go to an NRC meeting or make a phone call. Anything you want is available, look for it.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

da Appleknocker said:


> I laugh when I hear many hunters use the term, "more transparency". What do you think, the DNR needs to come to your door and show you the books? The transparency IS there, you just have to do your homework. Look it up online. If you can't find what you want, go to an NRC meeting or make a phone call. Anything you want is available, look for it.


Where? I have looked and asked. In fact one time I was sent the budget power point. Nothing but very basic information in that. Saying I make 150k a year and spend 160k a year doesn't make me transparent. 

Saying they spend 2 million on access doesn't mean anything. To whom what or where did the 2 million go?


----------



## boomer_x7 (Dec 19, 2008)

Lumberman said:


> I'll try and get this thread back on track. After doing some research I say MUCC/NRC has to demand transparency from the DNR before we jump on license increases. The DNR has a huge budget already. I would really like to see where the money goes before agreeing to pay more.
> 
> *They basically admit to offering nothing in return for the money we give them now.*
> 
> ...


Exactly!!! I wouldnt have an issue if the money went back to what brought it in!


----------



## stelmon (Sep 21, 2000)

1ludman said:


> Your correct I should of stated hunting guides, charter boats are well regulated.


They do pay more...Look it up rather then make a un-educated statement.


----------



## jasonvanorder (Feb 23, 2009)

Edit never mind already a thread on it. thats what i get for not paying attention.


----------

