# Managed Waterfowl Hunt Area Planning Effort Begins



## dankoustas (Sep 18, 2007)

Saw this press release from the DNR the other day. All of us who hunt and love the managed areas need to be involved once public input is needed. We really need to make sure that kayakers and bird watchers don't get too much say in how the managed units get run. My understanding is that hunting license fees pay for the managed areas and I'm sure that will come up, as hunting license revenue is down. If others have skin in the game (say a "Use Fee" or something like that for kayaks, etc...) then what we now take for granted might just become the past. More to come, but very important to be involved.

*Managed waterfowl hunt area planning effort begins*
_Opportunities for engagement and stakeholder input will be announced as they are scheduled._
A new planning effort will look to set habitat and hunting management goals and objectives for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources' seven managed waterfowl hunt areas in southern Michigan – Fennville Farm Unit of Allegan State Game Area (Allegan County), Fish Point State Wildlife Area (Tuscola County), Harsens Island Unit of St. Clair Flats State Wildlife Area (St. Clair County), Muskegon County Wastewater (Muskegon County), Nayanquing Point State Wildlife Area (Bay County), Pointe Mouillee State Game Area (Monroe and Wayne counties) and Shiawassee River State Game Area (Saginaw County). 
A workgroup, comprised of DNR Wildlife Division staff, is charged with developing two interrelated managed waterfowl hunt area plans – one for managed hunting operations and one for habitat management. The purpose of these plans will be to provide direction for short- and long-term decision-making processes, define priorities, recognize the importance of these areas to a diversity of wildlife and wildlife-related recreation, identify how the areas contribute to the Wildlife Division strategic plan and provide consistency between areas while still recognizing their uniqueness.
These managed waterfowl hunt area plans are needed to address declining hunter numbers and identify how these areas and associated habitats contribute to regional and statewide habitat goals, climate resiliency and local community plans. The plans will also address updated goals and objectives in the Wildlife Division strategic plan, including managing habitats and wildlife for a diverse set of values and working with communities to improve conservation outcomes.
Over the next several months, the workgroup will focus on evaluation and assessment of current managed waterfowl hunting. During the spring and summer of 2022, the workgroup will conduct a structured decision-making process to develop objectives and alternatives for managed hunting operations. The workgroup expects to have a complete 10-year managed hunting plan, with implementation beginning in August of 2023. 
The plan for the development of a 10-year managed waterfowl hunt area habitat plan will use a similar structured process beginning in 2023, with implementation expected in August of 2024.
A formal process will be used to set objectives and develop plans that are science-based, transparent and inclusive. There will be multiple opportunities for stakeholders to provide input and feedback during the development of the plans. Stakeholder input is valued and necessary for success, and the workgroup will seek a diversity of perspectives. A variety of management alternatives will be identified and evaluated with stakeholder input.
Future opportunities for engagement and stakeholder input will likely include opportunities for online input, structured in-person meetings and surveys. These opportunities for input and participation in the planning process will be announced as they are scheduled.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Hmm, troubling for sure. Are numbers down at managed areas? They sure seem popular. I'm not at all clear how they would increase revenue by allowing birders or paddlers in during hunting season, those folks are used to everything being free at point of use and it seems unlikely they would want to sit in a zone while their neighbors are shooting. Nothing to prevent them from doing that now. Or how much of each WMA would be of interest to them during the off season. Standing corn and beans aren't a rare commodities in most of southern Michigan. The press release is way too vague and the meetings will bear watching.


----------



## Take'm (Dec 6, 2011)

There is a Michigan Bird Watchers Facebook page that has already been scrutinizing these managed areas, especially Shiawassee. The bird watchers certainly have a feeling of entitlement to visit these areas yet pay nothing to do so (in our off-season especially). They criticize the water levels, management practices, etc. The clear point we all need to emphasize is indeed that it is hunter monies (and excessive volunteer time) from us that make these places viable. Without that money and time, the bird watchers, kayakers, hikers, etc. would have no place to go. Start citing them "pay to play" fees and I imagine their voice may be a bit more rationale.


----------



## dankoustas (Sep 18, 2007)

Hi kzoofisher, on September 1st -Dec 15 you need a Waterfowl license to enter the managed area that I live near. Right now a birder or paddler doesn't really have a leg to stand on to argue this policy, after all it's hunting licenses that pay for the area. My point is if a birder or paddler starts paying to access the area then they could make a case that they should be able to walk the dikes, bird watch, etc... during the Sept 1-Dec 15 timeframe. I want to do everything possible to stop that from happening.
Dan


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

We are all guests on county land at Muskegon and must tread carefully. Make too much noise and the county may push back.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Hey Dan, I agree that allowing non-hunters in during the season would cause a lot of conflicts. They already get quite a bit of use out of the areas in the spring watching birds migrate north, quite a bit more than they paid for for, for sure. I've also been fearful for a while that if birders, bikers and paddlers start to pay they'll have to be given more seats at the table and have a much stronger voice. So far they don't seem to want to pay. I mean, what is stopping them from buying licenses and getting out there now? But if it comes down to money I don't mind paying more. Raise the waterfowl license to $24 for all I care. I can shoot that much worth of shells, not hit a thing and not be bothered a bit. 😂


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

license revenue is not down. we sold more last year than pretty much any year in my life.

funding was cut prior....and holes were filled by pitman robertson funds which is ********. they been pulling the shell game with dnr funds for years and widdling away our funding...then replacing it with hunter moneys...telling us every year its not enough.

i'm too lazy to pull out the stats, but last year we sold a record number of licenses which generated some massive money.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

if you really want to see a funding fiasco...go back in years and look how much the DNR was funded in the 80's from the general fund. then look today where that funding comes from. They have literally put the dnr funding on the backs of the hunter/fisherman more than ever....meanwhile telling everyone we need more money. lol. reason why they will never go back to 1 buck tag as they would lose massive funds in process. most decisions are not made thru science....a lot are purely by $$$ signs.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

General fund money for '85 was $85 million. This year was 50 million. I don't know what the total DNR budget was that year but I'n sure it was a lot less than the $470 million it is this year.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

kzoofisher said:


> General fund money for '85 was $85 million. This year was 50 million. I don't know what the total DNR budget was that year but I'n sure it was a lot less than the $470 million it is this year.


what was the % funding out of the general fund for the dnr budget that year? vs. what it is now?


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

percent of funding received from the general fund is the key here. it was cut drastically since.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I didn't find that in my quick search but 1984-85 was 50+% more constant dollars allocated than 2020-21 and I'm sure the total DNR budget was much lower then. So, 40% give or take compared to 11% today? If you adjust for inflation those mid '80s $85 million would be almost $217 today. $217 million down to $50 million is a whale of a budget cut. Be sure to call your elected officials and thank them.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

thanks for diggin that info up. i'm terrible at it.

the key here is they keep pushing more funding on US...while everyone else who enjoys it and wants to make decisions on how its used....doesn't pay for it.  thats why "stake holders" needs to be US.....as much as we can make it.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

I wouldn’t worry too much about this. I was told before the season they were creating this to better figure out how to increase quality at these areas, expand access to non-locals and better run them. Hunter numbers are on the decline. Yes, last year they were way up due to the whole Covid garbage but that was an anomaly.

“Duck bingo” has a bad rap to many that simply just here the bad stuff about them. That needs to be fixed. Then again, you can’t fix slob hunters. Increase the quality of hunting while still maintaining fair access and all will be alright.

I fully expect to see some version of an online type drawing in the future. The entire reason the 2nd reserved draw was to better help bring in people from far away who could have a guaranteed spot.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

kzoofisher said:


> Hmm, troubling for sure. Are numbers down at managed areas? They sure seem popular. I'm not at all clear how they would increase revenue by allowing birders or paddlers in during hunting season, those folks are used to everything being free at point of use and it seems unlikely they would want to sit in a zone while their neighbors are shooting. Nothing to prevent them from doing that now. Or how much of each WMA would be of interest to them during the off season. Standing corn and beans aren't a rare commodities in most of southern Michigan. The press release is way too vague and the meetings will bear watching.


Yes, overall hunter numbers are down and have been on the decline. There’s many reasons for this. I don’t believe all of the issues are entirely fixable. However, keep the quality of hint high and people will continue to come.


----------



## General Ottsc (Oct 5, 2017)

Birders, kayakers, and hikers get 9-10 months to use these areas. Hunters use them around 2 months AND foot the bill for the maintenance and upkeep. They have no room to talk. If they want to be able to use the area more, pay to play. And just them buying a recreation passport ain't gonna cut it either. If they'd like to match the funds hunters and anglers have put in over the years, which with inflation, is probably in the 100s of millions of dollars, then they should have more say. But if they don't want to pay, go somewhere else.


----------



## Divers Down (Mar 31, 2008)

General Ottsc said:


> Birders, kayakers, and hikers get 9-10 months to use these areas. Hunters use them around 2 months AND foot the bill for the maintenance and upkeep. They have no room to talk. If they want to be able to use the area more, pay to play. And just them buying a recreation passport ain't gonna cut it either. If they'd like to match the funds hunters and anglers have put in over the years, which with inflation, is probably in the 100s of millions of dollars, then they should have more say. But if they don't want to pay, go somewhere else.


There ya go using sense again.
In this whacky country right now, the clowns have a much bigger say, money or not.
They'll gladly give up funds to appease the mob.


----------



## Z on LSC (Jan 5, 2021)

Not intended to be inflamatory, but i already had a perfect wood duck shoot get ruined because someone in a bright red kayak decided to paddle/post 50-60 yards all around me and wave the oars at any ducks flying around. 

What needs to be done for more "voice" for us the duck hunter? I have never been involved, but have changed my tune.


----------



## General Ottsc (Oct 5, 2017)

Divers Down said:


> There ya go using sense again.
> In this whacky country right now, the clowns have a much bigger say, money or not.
> They'll gladly give up funds to appease the mob.


DNR must not like their jobs much then. Or they want to make their job easier by not having to deal with hunters/anglers, their bread and butter.

Let's hope these entitled folk start going back to work and we can get the woods and water back.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

Z on LSC said:


> Not intended to be inflamatory, but i already had a perfect wood duck shoot get ruined because someone in a bright red kayak decided to paddle/post 50-60 yards all around me and wave the oars at any ducks flying around.
> 
> What needs to be done for more "voice" for us the duck hunter? I have never been involved, but have changed my tune.


That’s hunter harassment and I would have lost my mind on them. Just for being a disrespectful miserable human.


----------



## cruiseplanner1 (Aug 6, 2012)

Shiawassee_Kid said:


> what was the % funding out of the general fund for the dnr budget that year? vs. what it is now?


About 5%


----------



## Z on LSC (Jan 5, 2021)

craigrh13 said:


> That’s hunter harassment and I would have lost my mind on them. Just for being a disrespectful miserable human.


I kept my cool and just felt bad for them. How miserable do you have to be, to ruin some one's hunt? But was pleased when my son said that she probably has no idea about conservation. 😎


----------



## Howitzer (Nov 1, 2004)

Stay on this guys, managed waterfowl was the pride and joy of Russ Mason and his successors do not share his ideas. The deputy director of the DNR Shannon Hanna has publicly said that she does not support managed hunting areas. Personally, I think MUCC is doing a great job fighting the headwind for us but based on my experience in the last few years it takes boots on the ground to keep the current administration in check.


----------



## Howitzer (Nov 1, 2004)

craigrh13 said:


> I wouldn’t worry too much about this. I was told before the season they were creating this to better figure out how to increase quality at these areas, expand access to non-locals and better run them. Hunter numbers are on the decline. Yes, last year they were way up due to the whole Covid garbage but that was an anomaly.
> 
> “Duck bingo” has a bad rap to many that simply just here the bad stuff about them. That needs to be fixed. Then again, you can’t fix slob hunters. Increase the quality of hunting while still maintaining fair access and all will be alright.
> 
> I fully expect to see some version of an online type drawing in the future. The entire reason the 2nd reserved draw was to better help bring in people from far away who could have a guaranteed spot.


The managers and people that work in the areas have high hopes but their bosses want to dismantle everything that Russ did in his tenure. It's up to us to make sure that we at least maintain status quo until there are changes at the top.


----------



## hmrx (May 4, 2012)

Don't have a problem with some bingo areas. Trouble is folks who don't live close don't use them much. We really need some work on alot of our many state marshes and floodings. Many are choked in with cattails and need some work. Not sure how the money is allocated but, seems DNR spends alot of money on bingo fields at the expense of other floodings and duck marshes. Finally did get the dam fixed at reedsburg took 2 years plus. That's the hurdle or quandary that alot of waterfowl hunters believe. Just my 2 cents.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

hmrx said:


> Don't have a problem with some bingo areas. Trouble is folks who don't live close don't use them much. We really need some work on alot of our many state marshes and floodings. Many are choked in with cattails and need some work. Not sure how the money is allocated but, seems DNR spends alot of money on bingo fields at the expense of other floodings and duck marshes. Finally did get the dam fixed at reedsburg took 2 years plus. That's the hurdle or quandary that alot of waterfowl hunters believe. Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Great point.


----------



## GRUNDY (Jun 18, 2005)

I dont think my brain can handle any more of how the gubmint mismanaged our tax money. Especially sportsman dollars.

Outdoorsmen are gum on the shoe of our representatives.

No stopping them until we stop voting for them...


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

I’ve talked to MUCC about advocating for a 1/8% sales tax that goes directly to conservation. Missouri has had it for quite sometime. It’s in their constitution that the money must go towards conservation. I would strongly support something like this. You wouldn’t even notice 1/8% in your daily life and it would be a huge gain for us.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

craigrh13 said:


> I’ve talked to MUCC about advocating for a 1/8% sales tax that goes directly to conservation. Missouri has had it for quite sometime. It’s in their constitution that the money must go towards conservation. I would strongly support something like this. You wouldn’t even notice 1/8% in your daily life and it would be a huge gain for us.


it sounds great. and mandating it goes to conservation. problem is our government (michigan) will see that money coming in and see it bringing relief to the budget....so they will cut the budget and re-allocate that budget to something else. That is the shell game i'm referring to. Everytime DNR sees a windfall for effort they put forth.....gov answers with yanking general funding to offset that windfall. 

i refuse to get in on any effort to raise more money only to have them jack more general fund from us.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

That’s why you make it constitutionally protected.
Last year was an anomaly but license sales have been decreasing for quite some time and will continue to do. As long as we are funded by license sales we will be screwed. Maybe not now but sometime in the future.


----------



## GRUNDY (Jun 18, 2005)

As long as land available to hunt continues to decline, so will licensed hunters.

That's just the facts. Look at all the wetlands that get lost to development each year. Or the number of properties that are already hunted, or getting leased due to the increase in population.


Changing the state constitution would at least guarantee money would be used for its specific intention.

My current stance is I will vote for NO tax increase what so ever. The gubmint has enough money as it it and they cant manage that. Giving them more wont help a thing.

Unless its in the constitution I suppose


----------



## charminultra (Feb 8, 2017)

Why do the ducks go to these places? Is it because of the specific location of the habitat or is just the habitat? I guess my question is if I just buy a bunch of corn fields and flood them would the duck go there?


----------



## charminultra (Feb 8, 2017)

Seems like anywhere in SE mi would be feasible to create waterfowl habitat. **** it floods every time it rains. Northern Ohio would be a good spot too


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

GRUNDY said:


> As long as land available to hunt continues to decline, so will licensed hunters.
> 
> That's just the facts. Look at all the wetlands that get lost to development each year. Or the number of properties that are already hunted, or getting leased due to the increase in population.
> 
> ...


Oh trust me. I’m all against tax increases too for the reasons you mentioned. However, when done right( like Missouri) it can absolutely work. It just has to be 100% protected and written so that the money cannot be siphoned off for some welfare per project or whatever other waste of **** they come up with.


----------



## Old Dad (Oct 25, 2002)

Where is Joe Robison on this stuff?


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

craigrh13 said:


> I’ve talked to MUCC about advocating for a 1/8% sales tax that goes directly to conservation. Missouri has had it for quite sometime. It’s in their constitution that the money must go towards conservation. I would strongly support something like this. You wouldn’t even notice 1/8% in your daily life and it would be a huge gain for us.


I get what you’re saying but what’s to stop the legislature from dropping the general fund contribution by what ever amount the 1/8 raises like SK says. Another issue is it makes the contribution from non-license holders more and gives them more leverage in proposals like the one this thread is about. If the DNR needs more money I’d rather pay it directly through license fees. Doesn’t stop the shell game, does increase our leverage.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

It works in Missouri with zero issues. A red state that strongly supports a tax.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

I see how Missouri does it now. They don’t get any money from the legislature, only from the constitutionally protected sales tax and other forms of dedicated funding. By my back of the envelope calculations for Michigan to match its current (pitiful) contribution from the general fund it would need to be a sales tax of 3/8 of a percent. To get up into the neighborhood where it would be doing the DNR some good would take a lot more. And the Legislature would lose a lot of power over the DNR when it loses control of the purse strings. I just don’t see the people who’ve been running the DNR into the ground for decades turning around and doing something good for it while giving up power. I like the idea though. Be happy to pay it myself.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

craigrh13 said:


> It works in Missouri with zero issues. A red state that strongly supports a tax.


we don't have the political makeup of missouri. you are comparing apples to oranges. trust me, if we raise money thru anything even if constitutionally protected will mean nothing to them. they will see it as funding relief.....and pull money and move it somewhere else.


if you can prove that 1.5% tax can totally support and fund the dnr alone with an increase of funding over what they have been given in the past....it might have merit. but you are talking about completely changing/overhauling the funding system they operated on for decades....good luck. this is really no different that guaranteeing them a percentage of budget money from the general fund....like they had pre-80's...hence my point in my original post. they figured out a way to rob that budget. they will figure out a way to exploit that incoming cash.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

also whats missouri's needs compared to ours...and i'm talking across the boards. our dnr responsibilities, size and resource management has got to be 10x size of missouri. whats our DNR budget/cost compared to theirs? 5 great lakes, boats, ramps....lakes....has to be gigantic compared to them.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Area of MO 59,000 sq mi, MI 96,000
Population MO 6 million, MI 10 million
Hunting license sales MO 500,000, MI 700,000
Fishing license MO 775,00, MI 1.1 million
Public land open to hunting MO 2.5 million acres, MI 7.3 million
DNR budget MO 288 million, MI 480 million 
I’m not going to even bother looking up the difference in water surface area

All this means is that Michigan needs more money than Missouri and a higher sales tax would do that. Could you sell the public on the idea? If you did and the public contribution went from 11% to 20% would it be worth the trade off in increased influence/increased services. Lots to think about.


----------



## craigrh13 (Oct 24, 2011)

Combination of a dedicated sales tax, license fees and the already user fees should be able to handle it. 

From what I was told some of the money has gone into the hiring and benefits of a large increase of CO’s. You would think that money would come out of fund that pays state employees…..not the money dedicated towards conservation/hunting/etc.


----------



## hmrx (May 4, 2012)

Your getting real close to the problem. All the outdoor activities that the dnr oversees including hunting and fishing and others brings people and money to communities all over the state. That benefit to the businesses and communities should be funded to some degree by the state but its not. All those benefiting should chip in. As was mentioned earlier it was in the years prior to the 90s.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## charminultra (Feb 8, 2017)

kzoofisher said:


> Area of MO 59,000 sq mi, MI 96,000
> Population MO 6 million, MI 10 million
> Hunting license sales MO 500,000, MI 700,000
> Fishing license MO 775,00, MI 1.1 million
> ...


If your numbers are right each state funds exactly the same amount per person to their DNR, $48 per resident. Michigan is $266 per sportsman and Missouri is $226 per sportsman. Seems pretty equal to me. I would like to know the breakdown of how the budgets are allocated to find where the true inequities are. The problems should revel themselves immediately, if we are saying Michigan has a problem and Missouri does not.


----------



## aphess223 (Aug 1, 2001)

Wasn't the money from the Oil and Gas Leases supposed to help fund the DNR and went
to a vote of the people to protect it from going to the general fund and keep the Legislators
hands off it.
also the recreational passport money, I don't feel the hunting community has seen any benefit
from that money.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

aphess223 said:


> Wasn't the money from the Oil and Gas Leases supposed to help fund the DNR and went
> to a vote of the people to protect it from going to the general fund and keep the Legislators
> hands off it.
> also the recreational passport money, I don't feel the hunting community has seen any benefit
> from that money.


sure. but soon as that money was realized...they just pull budget from dept and place it elsewhere. shell game. 

dedicating income doesn't really do much for something besides keeping it from mis-directed. nothing keeps them from stealing other funding to offset it....so in essence, nothing really changes except who is doing the funding.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

charminultra said:


> If your numbers are right each state funds exactly the same amount per person to their DNR, $48 per resident. Michigan is $266 per sportsman and Missouri is $226 per sportsman. Seems pretty equal to me. I would like to know the breakdown of how the budgets are allocated to find where the true inequities are. The problems should revel themselves immediately, if we are saying Michigan has a problem and Missouri does not.


I don't think counting the dollars spent per resident is an accurate way to look at it. The job of the DNR isn't managing people, it's managing resources. So let's look at what they manage. Missouri spends $115 per land acre and Michigan spends $65. Of course, you need to add in area of surface water, too. That brings Missouri up to 3.1 million acres and $93/acre expenditure. Michigan bumps up to 33 million acres and an expenditure of $15/acre. Our DNR is massively underfunded. Just to get back to the 1986 level we would have to quintuple the current General Fund contribution. Bottom line is there isn't a single elected official on the State level who gives a hoot about sportsmen. Plenty of lip service, no action.


----------



## Shiawassee_Kid (Nov 28, 2000)

kzoofisher said:


> I don't think counting the dollars spent per resident is an accurate way to look at it. The job of the DNR isn't managing people, it's managing resources. So let's look at what they manage. Missouri spends $115 per land acre and Michigan spends $65. Of course, you need to add in area of surface water, too. That brings Missouri up to 3.1 million acres and $93/acre expenditure. Michigan bumps up to 33 million acres and an expenditure of $15/acre. Our DNR is massively underfunded. Just to get back to the 1986 level we would have to quintuple the current General Fund contribution. Bottom line is there isn't a single elected official on the State level who gives a hoot about sportsmen. Plenty of lip service, no action.


bingo.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

aphess223 said:


> Wasn't the money from the Oil and Gas Leases supposed to help fund the DNR and went
> to a vote of the people to protect it from going to the general fund and keep the Legislators
> hands off it.
> also the recreational passport money, I don't feel the hunting community has seen any benefit
> from that money.


The recreation passport was created to support the State Park system and most of the people who buy one aren't hunters. All the money goes to the parks, recreation areas and access sites. Gotta admit that some of the access improvements have brought more people than I like to my old secret spots.


----------



## SCOTT12 (Dec 11, 2017)

I am sick to death of paying more and getting less. But it seems everyone's answer is "well let's add more taxes". The crooks in Lansing can't manage what they've got so why in the hell would anyone be in favor of giving them more. Kid is right, give them more and they'll just redirect it to somewhere else or piss it away on programs unrelated to natural resources or on deadbeats who won't work but expect the rest of us to take care of them. Show me that the funds intended for natural resources are ALL being used for natural resources and then and only then would I be open to discussing creating more funding sources to increase the DNR budget.


----------



## aphess223 (Aug 1, 2001)

kzoofisher said:


> The recreation passport was created to support the State Park system and most of the people who buy one aren't hunters. All the money goes to the parks, recreation areas and access sites. Gotta admit that some of the access improvements have brought more people than I like to my old secret spots.


I believe the Parks Money is managed under the DNR budget also.


----------



## aphess223 (Aug 1, 2001)

I have a real problem when I go to the State Game Areas to hunt and the access roads and parking lot
have pot holes that are 10 feet across that aren't maintained and we get the miles of Linear Parks
that are paved asphalt that in the future will need to be maintained and where that money will come from.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

aphess, that's true that the DNR manages the money. The law was passed dedicating the money to the Parks and that's what they're doing. Aren't people complaining that hunting money gets redirected AND complaining that other money doesn't? 

I don't trust any of them in Lansing but people keep voting for them and claiming Joe Blow is for sportsmen and Jim Blow isn't. Look at the failure of the commercial fishing bill last year. One guy held it up and he's suffered zero consequences from sportsmen or anyone else. Because they know the voters will get in line and keep voting for defunding the DNR so long as their candidate _says _he supports the outdoors. And whoever steps up to get the DNR more money or create the biggest economic impact is going to have more say in how things are managed. Right now that looks like it's the bikers and paddlers and birders and hikers.


----------

