# Legislation Introduced to Incrementally Increase Hunting and Fishing License Fees



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 19, 2007

CONTACT: Mary Dettloff 517-335-3014

Legislation Introduced to Incrementally Increase Hunting and Fishing License Fees

Legislation has been introduced in the Michigan Legislature that would incrementally increase fees for hunting and fishing licenses in Michigan over the next six years.

The proposed increases for hunting contained in House Bill 4624 begin in 2007 and would be phased in gradually over four years until 2010, and the proposed increases for fishing contained in Senate Bill 406 begin in 2008 and would be phased in gradually over four years until 2011. The legislation also authorizes a 5 percent inflationary increase in license fees for 2012 and 2013.

In both bills, the current 60 percent discount that hunters and anglers age 65 and older receive remains at that rate until 2010, when the amount of the discount is reduced by 5 percent each year until 2013, at which time senior licenses will be 40 percent of the corresponding resident license.

The current license fee structure was signed into law in 1996, at a time when the Department of Natural Resources was provided more General Fund support in the state budget. Today, the DNR receives only 9 percent of its budget from the General Fund, and one half of those funds are for payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) that pass through the agency and go directly to local units of government. Approximately 76 percent of the DNRs budget is restricted funds, which are limited by law as to how they can be spent.

As General Fund support for the department has been reduced over the last several years, we have been forced to look at license fee increases so that we can continue the work we do to provide high quality hunting and fishing experiences that hunters and anglers have come to expect in Michigan, said DNR Director Rebecca Humphries. These increases will allow the DNR to maintain its current level of service.

Revenues raised from license fee sales goes to the Game and Fish Protection Fund, a restricted fund that is used for the DNRs wildlife and fish conservation work in the state. The fund pays for conservation officers, wildlife and fish habitat projects and field biologists, among other expenditures.

Without a license fee increase, the DNR will face an $8 million projected shortfall in the Game and Fish Protection Fund in 2008. The deficit increases to more than $40 million by 2010, which would result in significant cuts in staff and programs for the department.

Other significant highlights of the legislation include:

* Junior licenses for those ages 10-16 will be discounted 50 percent over the cost of regular licenses;

* The Natural Resources Commission will have the authority to discount any license;

* Nonresident license increases will take full effect the first year of the license package and will not be phased in like the Michigan resident licenses;

* The age at which an angler would be required to have a fishing license drops from age 17 to 16;

* A deer combination license will be offered that allows the holder to take two deer in compliance with that years rules. The price of the combination license in the first year of the license package is the sum of the price of a resident firearm deer license plus the cost of a second resident bow and arrow license;

* A new 72-hour or 3-day all-species fishing license will be offered to residents and non-residents. This will allow infrequent or visiting anglers to fish over a three-day period, such as a holiday weekend, without purchasing multiple licenses at a cost below what three, 1-day licenses would cost and below the cost of an annual all-species license. All-species licenses allow anglers to fish for all species, including salmon and trout;

* Youth anglers would be required to have a youth fishing license if they plan on keeping the fish that they catch. However, if accompanied by one or more licensed adult anglers, an unlicensed youth can keep the fish they catch as part of the limit of one or more of the adult anglers they are with.

Hunters and anglers who already purchased a 2007 license will not be made to retroactively pay for an increase, should the legislation be approved and signed into law by the Governor.

For more information on the hunting and fishing license package development and the DNRs budget, please visit the DNR Web site at www.michigan.gov/dnr.

The DNR is committed to the conservation, protection, management, use and enjoyment of the state's natural resources for current and future generations.

###


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Note this is the legislation as proposed. Keep the comments civil and sweet or they will be removed.


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

Hamilton Reef said:


> * Youth anglers would be required to have a youth fishing license if they plan on keeping the fish that they catch. However, if accompanied by one or more licensed adult anglers, an unlicensed youth can keep the fish they catch as part of the limit of one or more of the adult anglers they are with.


I realize we're talking about a change in fishing regulations here....but this idea is just plain dumb. It has never been legal for an unlicensed individual to utilize someone elses license/kill tag. Why start now? What next- why not allow a junior hunter to fill his Dad's deer kill tag?


----------



## theeyes (Mar 20, 2004)

* Youth anglers would be required to have a youth fishing license if they plan on keeping the fish that they catch. However, if accompanied by one or more licensed adult anglers, an unlicensed youth can keep the fish they catch as part of the limit of one or more of the adult anglers they are with.

Who would have ever guessed that a 5 year old would be forced to buy a fishing license, before he could catch and keep his first bluegill.

I can't wait to see the CO write the first ticket to the 8 year old for not having his fishing license and keeping his first 14" Bass.

This is so sad!!!!


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

theeyes said:


> * Youth anglers would be required to have a youth fishing license if they plan on keeping the fish that they catch. However, if accompanied by one or more licensed adult anglers, an unlicensed youth can keep the fish they catch as part of the limit of one or more of the adult anglers they are with.
> 
> Who would have ever guessed that a 5 year old would be forced to buy a fishing license, before he could catch and keep his first bluegill.
> 
> ...


Agreed! 100% I will have to buy 4 licenses this year 3 of whish for kids 9 and under!!!!! And who will have to keep track of them? ME in my wallet so they are not lost. When I was a kid I fished daily in the summer with friends there is no way I woould have remembered to have my license Very sad and to give seniors a discount is ridiculous as well this is an aging population so we are setting up future losses

Ganzer


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

So up tll now there was a "youth" fishing license. Those under 17 were 'allowed' to buy. It allowed the state to tap into the Pittman-Robinson funds cause it was a license bought but cost was (is) I believe $2. Sounds like that is gone??


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

sweet and civil??? I am going to try! Why would you offer a 3 day license to people who are basically just taking from the resource. Shouldn't those people be the revenue source? I mean it is like the NRA begging it's members for donations, get the money from the outside. Like people that are coming from out of state to fish on a charter, why should those people get a deal??


----------



## twodogsphil (Apr 16, 2002)

The legislative increase/expansion in youth fishing license fees and in youth hunting license fees is in direct contradiction of the MDNR's goal of increasing youth involvement in outdoor activities.

Consider that in 1986 MDNR's Hunting and Fishing Heritage Task Force reported:

"Studies have proven that there is a noticeable decline in the percentage of the population taking part in hunting and fishing in this state and that similar trends are mirrored in other parts of the country. ...today, large segments of Michigan's citizenry are "missing out" on opportunities to develop long-term involvement with our state's hunting and fishing resources and heritage."

The Task Force went on to report that:

"Researchers at Michigan State University and elsewhere have observed just how important early exposure is in motivating people toward involvement with the resource. For example, 45 percent of Michigan's most involved, most active anglers reported that their first fishing experience occurred before age 5! Most of these anglers had their initial exposure to fishing with family members serving as mentors."

The Task Force went on to make many and various recommendations to increase and/or maintain youth involvement including that:

"The MDNR should retain the current age for fishing licenses."

So why is MDNR now giving tacit approval of a measure that changes the licensing age structure in a way that is detrimental to the promotion of youth fishing activities? 

$! $! $! $$! $$$!


----------



## Rusher (Jan 6, 2006)

Only Michigan would increase the fees and provide a warning "don't eat the fish":lol:


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

The current license fee structure was signed into law in 1996. Remember back in 1996 which party was in control at that time Gov, Senate, and House. The general Fund support in the state budget was suppost to be 60%. Today, the DNR receives only 9 percent of its budget from the General Fund, and one half of those funds are for payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) that pass through the agency and go directly to local units of government.

1. General Fund support in the state budget was suppost to be 60%. The legislators never maintained the 60% support. You can decide who lied in 1996 and later?

2. Michigan is the only state in the union that uses DNR funds for payment in lieu of taxes (PILT). This was done by the legislature to deliberately shaft the DNR. You decide who shafted the DNR?

3. Today your legislators still refuse to support the DNR. You got what you voted for. Now you can decide if you want to pay up.


----------



## UPJerry (Dec 14, 2006)

CL-Lewiston said:


> So up tll now there was a "youth" fishing license. Those under 17 were 'allowed' to buy. It allowed the state to tap into the Pittman-Robinson funds cause it was a license bought but cost was (is) I believe $2. Sounds like that is gone??


No, the state still gets federal funding (I believe $8) for each youth license sold. That is probably why the DNR wants to mandate the youth license for harvesting fish. In a sense it is still "optional," though, because it is not required for catch and release. There probably are many kids out there who don't care whether they keep fish or not--they just like to catch them. But overall I think this part of the bill is a bad idea. Leave the youth licenses how they are.



MuskyDan said:


> sweet and civil??? I am going to try! Why would you offer a 3 day license to people who are basically just taking from the resource. Shouldn't those people be the revenue source? I mean it is like the NRA begging it's members for donations, get the money from the outside. Like people that are coming from out of state to fish on a charter, why should those people get a deal??


I see what you are saying, but if I am going to go to another state to fish for a couple of days (which I will be this summer), I darn well want to be able to buy a short-term license for less than the cost of an annual license. Forcing tourists to pay the same for three days that they would for an entire year of fishing could well discourage them from coming here at all. Besides, most if not all states have short term licenses available at a lower cost than annual licenses.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

lang49 knows Gov Granholm was not around in 1996 when the last increase went in, lang49 legislators cut the general funding before Granholm ever came to office in 2002, and lang49 knows Gov Granholm was controlled by Republicans in senate and house until 2006. lang49 and the voters got what they asked for and the DNR, hunters, fishers, and environment suffered. lang49 and will have to pay much more now for past mistakes and mismanagement.


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

Hamilton Reef said:


> lang49 knows Gov Granholm was not around in 1996 when the last increase went in, lang49 legislators cut the general funding before Granholm ever came to office in 2002, and lang49 knows Gov Granholm was controlled by Republicans in senate and house until 2006. lang49 and the voters got what they asked for and the DNR, hunters, fishers, and environment suffered. lang49 and will have to pay much more now for past mistakes and mismanagement.


So much for sweet and civil...and from a moderator no less... 

There is nothing like sensoring a forum so that it reflects only one side of the story. Your post makes no sense without my post prior to it. The people reading this forum who didn't have an opportunity to previously read my post don't have any clue why you're singling me out...But I guess that's the liberal way.



Hamilton Reef said:


> lang49 knows Gov Granholm was controlled by Republicans in senate and house until 2006.


lang49 knows the Gov has had 4+ years to offer viable solutions to a number of problems. She simply has not lead.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Lang49's post was removed because he didn't tell the truth and was trying to distrupt and misdirect this thread with his personal rant to distort Michigan history. Lang49 knows better and is welcome to continue posting by staying on topic truthfully.


----------



## quix20 (Jan 14, 2001)

i for one think the youth license is a good idea. i am sick of seeing a dad with 3 kids keeping 20 trout out of a stream just because his kids dont need a license and their catch doesnt count against anything.

if the dad or uncle or grandpa or whomever, wants the fish, then it will either count against his total if they dont have a license, or pony up and spend the few extra dollars for a youth license. 

the youth license wont cost near as much as an adult license, or at least it shouldnt. and you know what, if it does, i will purchase one for my son, if we need too. but we dont usually keep a full one person limit of fish anyways, so it wouldnt matter either way.


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

UPJerry said:


> No, the state still gets federal funding (I believe $8) for each youth license sold. That is probably why the DNR wants to mandate the youth license for harvesting fish. In a sense it is still "optional," though, because it is not required for catch and release. There probably are many kids out there who don't care whether they keep fish or not--they just like to catch them. But overall I think this part of the bill is a bad idea. Leave the youth licenses how they are.
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying, but if I am going to go to another state to fish for a couple of days (which I will be this summer), I darn well want to be able to buy a short-term license for less than the cost of an annual license. Forcing tourists to pay the same for three days that they would for an entire year of fishing could well discourage them from coming here at all. Besides, most if not all states have short term licenses available at a lower cost than annual licenses.



0ne day, seven day, or annual and everyone has to buy a trout stamp, period. No non-resident trout stamp just the same one everyone else has to buy.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Pay now or pay dearly

It's a reasonable plan that will get the department out of a deep financial hole. If significant fee increases don't pass soon, the DNR will have a budget deficit of $10 million next year and $40 million by 2010. That's going to result in decreases in DNR services that will further infuriate those people who oppose the fee increases because they say the agency isn't doing enough for hunters and anglers now.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070422/SPORTS10/704220658/1058


----------



## MuskyDan (Dec 27, 2001)

I hope that the Legislature passes the fee increases, especially since the Legislature has to bear a fair amount of responsibility for putting the DNR in its present bind. But this time around, we need to keep a close eye on how the new money is used to ensure that it keeps the DNR solvent and provides improved services for the people who are footing the bill.

Sharp is an idiot!!!

If the DNR costs that much and they do that poor of a job maybe we should outsource the job. I would bet officials from Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio and Indiana could do a bunch more with the money the DNR already gets from our fee's.


----------



## UPJerry (Dec 14, 2006)

quix20 said:


> i for one think the youth license is a good idea. i am sick of seeing a dad with 3 kids keeping 20 trout out of a stream just because his kids dont need a license and their catch doesnt count against anything.
> 
> if the dad or uncle or grandpa or whomever, wants the fish, then it will either count against his total if they dont have a license, or pony up and spend the few extra dollars for a youth license.


That's a good point. I am sure that is something that happens. But how do you separate that scenario from the kid or group of kids who walk to the local pond by themselves to catch and keep a couple of fish? Should they have to pay? How do you differentiate the two? Hmm...

And I guess it wouldn't make sense to require the license _only if_ the kid _is _fishing with a parent.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Conservationists thinking outside box regarding natural resources funding problems

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/statewide/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/1178664006237000.xml&coll=1

05/12/07 By Bob Gwizdz

Three months after conservation leaders staged a ground-breaking, day-long summit to look at the problems of funding natural resources programs in Michigan, a handful of them gathered to look at just how bleak the situation is. 

It's worse than anyone thought. 

Michigan ranks 12th among states in total natural resources spending, not bad, it seems, until you dig a little deeper into the numbers. On a per capita basis, Michigan ranks 47th.

It gets worse from there. When natural resources attributes are factored into the equation, Michigan is clearly neglecting its resources. Given that this state has the most coastal management responsibility, the most square miles of water under its jurisdiction, fourth most wetlands and ranks 10th in state park acres, Michigan is dead last in the amount it spends based on those resources, some $32 million less than average compared to other states, based on a study by Michigan State University's Land Policy Institute. 

The proposed hunting and fishing license fee increases, which appear to be in real trouble in the Legislature, won't even dent that discrepancy. 

On a per capita basis, Michigan is spending about a dollar less for natural resources protection and programs than the 49th ranked state, Indiana. 

Our other neighbors? Wisconsin ranks 19th. Ohio is 31st. 

A study by the Heart of the Hills Center for Land Conservation Policy that identified potential tax options to improve conservation funding ran through a variety of options and found two that were possibilities. Of those, the option preferred by many isn't about to happen anytime soon. 

Most conservationists point to what's known as the Missouri Model, a dedication of one-eighth of a cent of sales tax revenue to conservation. Although the program has been in effect in the Show Me State for more than 20 years, Missouri ranks 45th in the Land Policy Institute study of appropriate conservation spending. (Believe it or not, Wyoming is No. 1.) 

But the Missouri Model would face major hurdles here. To start with, Michigan is projecting a 2007 budget shortfall of $700 million. We've got to find that, just to keep the ship afloat, before we start digging further into sales tax revenues. Raising sales taxes, which has been proposed to fix the budget crisis, appears to be a non-starter. 

So citizens would have to put a tax proposal on the ballot. That's an expensive proposition (even the forces who put the dove hunting ban on the ballot had to resort to professional signature gathering), costing in the neighborhood of $800,000 just to get the signatures. And then you have to fund a campaign to get it passed, at a time when even local park millages are going down to defeat. 

Compounding the problem is that anytime anyone tries to designate funds for specific purposes, every other interest group that looks to those funds immediately lines up in opposition. 

So that leaves Plan B -- taxing extractive industries, such as sand, gravel, salt and, maybe, even water. 

That idea has caught the eye of a number of conservation groups, including Michigan United Conservation Clubs. Acting director Donna Stine said taxing extractive industries could generate between $100 million and $300 million, not only solving the funding crisis, but serving conservation. 

"Most of those products are leaving the state," Stine said. "It's a non-renewable resource." 

Best yet, recent polling data indicates that 58 percent of voters support the idea. And why not? Except for those involved directly in the industry, it appears to be the ideal tax -- i.e., one paid by someone else. 

Will it fly? We'll see. But at least the conservation community is looking for answers, thinking outside the box during times that demand exactly that.


----------

