# Really ??? DNR license rate hikes ???



## Jim in Michiana (Jul 18, 2012)

Way to go Michigan DNR....... 

As a non-resident, I've been paying up for fishing privleges in your fine State for the last 30+ years.......

Now you want to raise the rate for an annual license from $42 to $75 ???

You gotta be kidding me !!! 

Check out item #17
http://michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Hunting_FishingLicenseFeeProposal_411653_7.pdf


It was so cold this morning, I saw a politician with his hands in HIS OWN POCKETS !!!


----------



## quest32a (Sep 25, 2001)

Not that we are Alaska, but I think when I bought my license along with my king salmon stamp I spent upwards of $250 bucks. MI is pretty cheap overall if you ask me.


----------



## football12 (Dec 3, 2009)

quest32a said:


> Not that we are Alaska, but I think when I bought my license along with my king salmon stamp I spent upwards of $250 bucks. MI is pretty cheap overall if you ask me.


Agreed do a check of other states for hunting and fishing, we have had it really good for a long time.


----------



## Jim in Michiana (Jul 18, 2012)

Checked some other States.......

All Non-resident Annual licenses.........

Illinois $38
Ohio $40
Minnesota $45
Indiana $46
Wisconsin $50

MICHIGAN $ 75

Really ????????????????


----------



## ArrowFlinger (Sep 18, 2000)

The biggest problem with the DNR is they don't learn or use common sense. Everytime they want to raise the fees, it is by a huge %-age increase. They then get a lot of complaints and don't raise it. Repeat the cycle every few years. If they would just raise the fees $1/lic./yr., I don't think anyone would have complained and we would be on par with most other states.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

True that Michigan would be the most expensive, but also, IMO, has the most to offer. 

Also Wisconsin, for an apples to apples comparison is actually $70.00 for All Species (adding $10 each for trout/salmon stamps) which is what you will get in MI for $75.00. Of the midwest states Wisconsin is probably the closest comparable to MI in terms of opportunities to fish for those species. 

In the grand scheme of things a $33.00 increase is not a huge amount and long over due. Fees haven't changed since the 90's - while everything else got more expensive. 

One tank of gas for my truck is around $80.00, an entire year of recreation (fishing) is $75.00 - heck of a deal. 

Don


----------



## GuppyII (Sep 14, 2008)

I wish they would raise the rates higher! Put more COs in the field, triple the fines and make that money go back to the dept, and pay our COs better. For all the a.s.s.holes they have to deal with on a daily basis they deserve better. 
If you can't handle paying the rates you should be at work...not fishing or hunting.


----------



## 45williams (Jan 9, 2011)

GuppyII said:


> I wish they would raise the rates higher! Put more COs in the field, triple the fines and make that money go back to the dept, and pay our COs better. For all the a.s.s.holes they have to deal with on a daily basis they deserve better.
> If you can't handle paying the rates you should be at work...not fishing or hunting.


Agree 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Tiarafied (Nov 12, 2012)

GuppyII said:


> I wish they would raise the rates higher! Put more COs in the field, triple the fines and make that money go back to the dept, and pay our COs better. For all the a.s.s.holes they have to deal with on a daily basis they deserve better.
> If you can't handle paying the rates you should be at work...not fishing or hunting.


Also agree. 

Also agree that $70 is nothing compared to all the other expenses that goes along with it. If you can afford to come here and fish you can afford the license. Quit being cheap and whining about the cheapest expense. 

Canadian license and sportcard will run you about $100. I will buy that before I buy my Michigan license. And, if I skip out on spring salmon fishing I don't even buy a MI license. And I fish, a lot. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Jim in Michiana said:


> Checked some other States.......
> 
> All Non-resident Annual licenses.........
> 
> ...


Yes, really. Do Illinois, Ohio, Minn or Indiana have the level of a fishery as Michigan? The diversity of species? The diversity of opportinities? This much Great Lakes coastline? The same level of public land to patrol? Not often do I hear of Michigan people going to Illinois or Indiana to fish or vacation, but I sure see alot of those people coming to Michigan. And as was pointed out, you are talking a 33$ per year increase. Yes, it is a large percentage increase, but how often do you fish Michigan? 10 times? So $3.30 more per trip? More than that? Then it costs less per trip.

You wanna complain, look at Florida. Non resident annual salt $47, non resident annual freshwater $47. Snook stamp $10. 
Heck, just for the 7day licenses it is $30 for salt, $30 for fresh, and still $10 for the snook stamp.


----------



## Jim in Michiana (Jul 18, 2012)

Maybe it's the shock of such a LARGE increase when I don't see a corresponding increase in stocking, public launches, or habitat development that has me upset... :sad:

I think MANY people will think twice before coughing up $15 for a one day license when considering a day trip to Michigan.... I would even venture to say that there's enough idiots out there that many will fish without licenses and take their chances....

Might end up costing Michigan some tourism dollars....... But might generate more cashflow via DNR enforcement !!! 

From the Michigan DNR website....
"Proposal assumes 7% decline in license sales due to resistance to license fee changes."

Now, if that 7% decrease in license fees translates into 7% less fishermen, It would be logical that there will be a decrease of 7% in boat sales, tackle sales, hotel occupancy by fishermen, local services required by fishermen, and the list is endless.... I wonder if Michigan's legislators have thought this through ??? Michigan's economy doesn't need the "hit", and the strangest part is that it's self-inflicted !!!.... Eventually, it all rolls downhill....


U.S. president Gerald Ford told Congress in 1974: &#8220;A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.&#8221;


----------



## Tiarafied (Nov 12, 2012)

Bet you have no problem coughing up $15 for a 12 pack. Right?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Jim in Michiana (Jul 18, 2012)

Tiarafied said:


> Bet you have no problem coughing up $15 for a 12 pack. Right?
> 
> 
> Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


 
I don't drink, and have nothing against those who do, but at least there's something tangible in my hand..... If the price of a 12 pack went from $15 up to $25 for no other reason than the State takes the difference, I'd be just as upset about that.

Let the State show me why such a huge increase is necessary (with the greatest burden being placed on non-residents), and I'll gladly crawl back under my rock and be quiet.

If I remember correctly, as the State/Feds raised the cigarette taxes to where a pack now costs $5-$7 per pack, many people quit smoking altogether......... Are "they" trying to get me to quit fishing ???


----------



## 1ludman (Jun 26, 2012)

Jim in Michiana said:


> I don't drink, and have nothing against those who do, but at least there's something tangible in my hand..... If the price of a 12 pack went from $15 up to $25 for no other reason than the State takes the difference, I'd be just as upset about that.
> 
> Let the State show me why such a huge increase is necessary (with the greatest burden being placed on non-residents), and I'll gladly crawl back under my rock and be quiet.
> 
> If I remember correctly, as the State/Feds raised the cigarette taxes to where a pack now costs $5-$7 per pack, many people quit smoking altogether......... Are "they" trying to get me to quit fishing ???


If you go to your favorite restraunt and they have increased the cost on thier menu do you stay or go ? My point if you don't like the price of the menu you can always go someplace else, you get what you pay for.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Jim in Michiana said:


> From the Michigan DNR website....
> "Proposal assumes 7% decline in license sales due to resistance to license fee changes."
> 
> Now, if that 7% decrease in license fees translates into 7% less fishermen, It would be logical that there will be a decrease of 7% in boat sales, tackle sales, hotel occupancy by fishermen, local services required by fishermen, and the list is endless....


 If the increase in the cost of a license is enough to make them stop fishing, I doubt that they were serious about it enough to be going on big fishing trips, buying boats, etc. Those that might not buy are likely the guy buying a license for his wife, grandpa, things like that. I do not see the price increase making a big difference in the number of people fishing. How many people said they would NEVER buy gas if it got over $3/gallon? Or $4/gallon? Did they still buy it at those prices? Of course. They beeched about it a bit, but they still bought it.


----------



## GuppyII (Sep 14, 2008)

Hmmmmm........a 7% decline in sales...........
Wonder how much we need to raise it for about a 40-50% decline 
Heck, we get rid of 40-50% and I might fish the flies only again..lol


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

Jim in Michiana said:


> Maybe it's the shock of such a LARGE increase when I don't see a corresponding increase in stocking, public launches, or habitat development that has me upset... :sad:
> 
> I think MANY people will think twice before coughing up $15 for a one day license when considering a day trip to Michigan.... I would even venture to say that there's enough idiots out there that many will fish without licenses and take their chances....
> 
> ...


The increase in funding is slated to do all the things you just highlighted. Increase stocking, enforcement, habitat development and public access.


----------



## bawplank (Dec 19, 2004)

wartfroggy said:


> If the increase in the cost of a license is enough to make them stop fishing, I doubt that they were serious about it enough to be going on big fishing trips, buying boats, etc. Those that might not buy are likely the guy buying a license for his wife, grandpa, things like that. I do not see the price increase making a big difference in the number of people fishing. How many people said they would NEVER buy gas if it got over $3/gallon? Or $4/gallon? Did they still buy it at those prices? Of course. They beeched about it a bit, but they still bought it.


 never heard anyone say they would stop buying gas if it got over 3-4, but i know alot of people who seriously cut back or even bought a different car. If a guy only fishes a couple times a year this will help them to stop all togather or maybe just fish every other year.


----------



## Dave Lyons (Jun 28, 2002)

I personally think a resident lic. Should be 75 bucks. So few places in the USA have what Michigan has to offer. The miles of streams and rivers, 1000's of lakes all for pennies on the dollar. I work for 3 of the states hatcheries. They need major improvements to produce more fish cheaper. I say the price is to low. But everyone has an opinion I guess.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Scout 2 (Dec 31, 2004)

fishinDon said:


> The increase in funding is slated to do all the things you just highlighted. Increase stocking, enforcement, habitat development and public access.


 Do you actually believe that is where the money will go?


----------

