# Sheltrown Introduces Wildlife and Fisheries Ballot Proposal



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Contact: Joel Sheltrown
Toll-free: 1-888-347-8103

Sheltrown Proposes Amendments to Natural Resources Trust Fund
Proposal would fund state hunting and fishing programs without need for fee increases 

(LANSING) State Representative Joel Sheltrown (D-West Branch) today introduced legislation to place an issue before voters that would allow a portion of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund to be used for wildlife and fisheries habitat improvement and management. The measure would also increase the amount of revenue available annually from the fund.

"Despite the importance hunting and fishing has in Michigan and its impact on the state's economy, Michigan is near the bottom nationally in support of its conservation programs," Sheltrown said. "An increase in state general fund revenue is unrealistic given the state's continued budget deficits. Imposing new fees or increasing existing fees above the rate of inflation to make up shortfalls is counterproductive to the long-term viability of hunting and fishing programs. There has to be a different solution."

Sheltrown's solution would create a ballot proposal to dedicate half of Michigan Natural Resource Trust Fund annual expenditures for the development and management of habitat for game and sport fisheries including the stocking of game and fish. The remaining half would continue to fund the acquisition of land and development of public recreation facilities. Currently, three-quarters of the fund is used for acquisition purposes and one quarter is used for development.

The ballot proposal drafted by Sheltrown would also increase the amount of money available annually from one third of revenue deposited into the Trust Fund each year to one half of the money deposited. It would continue to allow the full amount of annual interest and other earnings to be spent. Based on 2008 spending, Sheltrown's ballot proposal would provide $36 million for wildlife and fisheries habitat and management and $18 million each for land acquisition and public recreational facility development. Last year, approximately $12 million was spent for development and $36 million was spent on acquisition of new state lands.

"I understand there may be some concerns about reducing funding for the acquisition of new state land," Sheltrown explained. "But local governments are complaining already about the DNR's inability to meet its Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) obligations on the land it already owns. The upside is that this proposal would increase recreational development funding of existing public land by 50% and most importantly would fully fund wildlife and fisheries programs without the need for new fee increases."

Based on 2008 figures, the Sheltrown proposal would provide wildlife and fisheries habitat funding at an amount equal to 58% of the total budget for the DNR's Wildlife and Fisheries divisions. This surpasses the amount currently contributed by hunting and fishing license fee revenue and is seventeen times the amount currently contributed to those two divisions through the state's general fund.

"The Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund has been a triumph of smart government. Since its implementation in 1976, the fund has contributed nearly $700 million in grant funding for land acquisition and recreational development," Sheltrown said. "As the fund now nears its statutory maturity, the resources are available to expand on its success by guaranteeing a perpetual source of revenue for Michigan hunting and fishing programs long into the future. If this ballot issue is approved by voters in November 2010, it will make Michigan a national leader in conservation programs without the need for new fee increases."

###


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

we already have more state land (3.9 million acres) than any other state in the union. i have reservations about using funds for stocking wildlife, but overall it seems a reasonable proposal.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

sound like a good proposal in these economic times.

Rep Sheltrown and Brady have spent an incredible amount of time and effort to protect access to public waters. If someone is blocking that access I would suggest you contact him.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

I don't know yet what to think of this proposal. I have been a critic of Rep. Sheltrown over his advocacy for the continuence of deer baiting along with his criticism of the efforts to address CWD. However, his assistant, the "_BradyMSU"_ who posts occasionally on these forums is articulate, an able debater, and does earnest work in presenting their side of issues. My ambivalence is more about the motives of the sponsor than the bill.

The bill sounds like it has merit. Efforts to create, protect, and enhance habitat should have a significant claim on such funds. We do have a lot of public land.....certainly in the NLP & UP. And what public lands that should be bought should be what one could qualify as 'legacy' or 'trophy' parcels......those rare features that form a keystone or signature landform, (or water) that ALL citizens --not just the hookn'bullet crowd--can enjoy for generations.
.........................

As an aside: Does the language used in this text signal that the good Representative can see fit to not obstruct and increase in licensing?

For exampl, the language of this press release states: " Imposing new fees or increasing existing fees above the rate of inflation to make up shortfalls is counterproductive to the long-term viability of hunting and fishing programs. There has to be a different solution."

Is Mr.Shelrown informing that increases within the range of 'inflation' are acceptable?

If that is, in fact, what he is attempting to communicate....well, I'd be quite favorably impressed.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

As long as you trust the DNR to use the money appropriately, and not to simply identify this as another open checkbook, then the proposal has merit.

If the DNR wouldn't have found that extra $10 million laying around last year that they forgot about, I'd be more in favor. But it will certainly take some persuasion. I just don't trust the DNR (or any government agency for that matter) to efficiently spend money. It's not the nature of the beast. I think that you'd all get a good laugh about where your Clean Michigan Inititive bond funds have been spent along the way. A few good projects, but some real clunkers too.

At least the trust fund expenditures, in their current form , are used for acquiring properties that become public, without respect to whether or not we already have enough land. I'd like to see some more details...I don't want this to simply become another way to fund staff and pet projects under the guise of "habitat improvement". I guess that I've just seen too much waste and mismanagement by the DNR to not be skeptical.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Brady,

Can you post a copy of the proposal ?

edit..I see that I already have it, looks good. The proposal does not address license fees, It would however provide a secure scource of funding for habitat and wildlife/fish management. I think this would be a great improvement!


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Just curious; would the funding from the trust fund be offset by reductions in payment from the general fund similar to what happened when lottery funds were introduced? The net value to schools didn't increase like many of the voters were led to believe.


----------



## EdB (Feb 28, 2002)

I have reservations about diverting funds from the trust fund to other purposes like this. There are lot of opportunities to increase state land holdings in southern Michigan where the majority of residents can use it and there are still plenty of jewel tracks up north that should be protected. Why not put up a ballot initiative to give voters an option to dedicate 1% of our current sales tax or some other revenue generating measure to adequately fund the DNR. Put it out there and let the voters decide.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

mrbreeze said:


> As long as you trust the DNR to use the money appropriately, and not to simply identify this as another open checkbook, then the proposal has merit.
> 
> If the DNR wouldn't have found that extra $10 million laying around last year that they forgot about, I'd be more in favor. But it will certainly take some persuasion. I just don't trust the DNR (or any government agency for that matter) to efficiently spend money. It's not the nature of the beast. I think that you'd all get a good laugh about where your Clean Michigan Inititive bond funds have been spent along the way. A few good projects, but some real clunkers too.
> 
> At least the trust fund expenditures, in their current form , are used for acquiring properties that become public, without respect to whether or not we already have enough land. I'd like to see some more details...I don't want this to simply become another way to fund staff and pet projects under the guise of "habitat improvement". I guess that I've just seen too much waste and mismanagement by the DNR to not be skeptical.


i think that's a valid point. but this isnt an additional revenue source, it just shifts where the money is spent, more for habitat improvement, something that is severely lacking, and less for acquisition. i see no point in acquiring more land when we cant begin to keep up on habitat improvements on the state forest we have. we currently have a 6-8,000 acre a year shorfall in clearcutting aspen.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Just curious; would the funding from the trust fund be offset by reductions in payment from the general fund similar to what happened when lottery funds were introduced? The net value to schools didn't increase like many of the voters were led to believe.


This is a very legitimate concern given the past behavior by state government. Unfortunately, there have been so many cuts to general fund support of the DNR over the past 15 years that there isn't much general fund support left. The state's general fund this fiscal year is only contributing $10.6 million to the entire DNR budget of $285.4 million. As noted in the press release, Sheltrown's proposal would contribute 17 times the amount of funding to fishereies and wildlife currently being contributed by the state's general fund.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

EdB said:


> I have reservations about diverting funds from the trust fund to other purposes like this. There are lot of opportunities to increase state land holdings in southern Michigan where the majority of residents can use it and there are still plenty of jewel tracks up north that should be protected. Why not put up a ballot initiative to give voters an option to dedicate 1% of our current sales tax or some other revenue generating measure to adequately fund the DNR. Put it out there and let the voters decide.


This is the approach Sheltrown took in his 2007 proposal to direct a portion of the sales tax charged on certain sporting goods to the DNR. The problem with this approach is that it takes money away from the state's general fund already facing big deficit problems and anticipated cuts to higher education, corrections and community health programs. Voters could approve an increase in the state sales tax from 6% to 6.25%, for example, to fully fund the DNR. But that would open the door to a long line of other spending interests doing the same thing. And given the state's business climate and unemployment rate, this would be a very bad time to increase the most regressive tax we have.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

mrbreeze said:


> As long as you trust the DNR to use the money appropriately, and not to simply identify this as another open checkbook, then the proposal has merit.


Again, this is a very reasonable concern given recent and not so recent history. Keep in mind though that these funds would continue to be distributed by the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board. Its process of distributing money is very transparent and I am not aware of any complaints about that board.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

fairfax1 said:


> I don't know yet what to think of this proposal. I have been a critic of Rep. Sheltrown over his advocacy for the continuence of deer baiting along with his criticism of the efforts to address CWD. However, his assistant, the "_BradyMSU"_ who posts occasionally on these forums is articulate, an able debater, and does earnest work in presenting their side of issues. My ambivalence is more about the motives of the sponsor than the bill.


Fairfax, it's not the elimination of baiting Sheltrown had a problem with. There are a number of legitimate arguments based on sound scientific management to eliminate baiting. But instead of listening to those arguments and making a decision on baiting, the NRC used CWD as an excuse to dodge that discussion. What Sheltrown objected to was eliminating baiting for the 2008 season in September of last year with mature bait crops in the fields and already at market based on the appearance of 1 CWD deer at an enclosed facility where all the other deer had tested negative. This cost Michigan businesses an estimated $50-$80 million dollars, with no available compensation. Of course, those people saying this was an unfortunate but necessary step to protect the health of the state's deer herd aren't the ones paying for it.

In terms of fee increases, Sheltrown generally doesn't object to fee increases at or below the rate of inflation. The problem is that it's very rare to see a fee proposal that is that restrained. And it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to increase fees when the customer base is declining. When businesses do that, their loss of customers accelerates. It's Microeconomics 101. Fee increases are probably the absolute worst way to fund the DNR given the state's current economic climate and the problems we're facing with hunter retention and recruitment.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

bradymsu said:


> Again, this is a very reasonable concern given recent and not so recent history. Keep in mind though that these funds would continue to be distributed by the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board. Its process of distributing money is very transparent and I am not aware of any complaints about that board.


If that is the case then I can possibly see this as a good thing. Right now, only local governments and the DNR are eligible to apply to the trust fund. Would local governments (or subdivisions of local governments) be able to also apply for habitat projects under the new proposal or would these funds only be dedicated to DNR projects? I'd like to see the DNR have some competition to get these funds....I think it keeps their pencils sharper.

And somebody mentioned that this is not a "new" source of revenue. I'd argue that for the DNR it is, indeed, a new source of revenue.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

mrbreeze said:


> If that is the case then I can possibly see this as a good thing. Right now, only local governments and the DNR are eligible to apply to the trust fund. Would local governments (or subdivisions of local governments) be able to also apply for habitat projects under the new proposal or would these funds only be dedicated to DNR projects? I'd like to see the DNR have some competition to get these funds....I think it keeps their pencils sharper.
> 
> And somebody mentioned that this is not a "new" source of revenue. I'd argue that for the DNR it is, indeed, a new source of revenue.


Under the proposal, local governments could apply for habitat projects as well as the DNR. You are correct in stating that this is a new source of revenue for the DNR. I think what was meant with the comment about this not being new revenue is that the state wouldn't be digging deeper into your pockets like it would with a fee increase or an increase in the state sales tax.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

The problem is that some of the best intended legislation or voter proposals have unintended consequences. This is especially dangerous when it goes to a vote of the people. Term limits are a good example, I know lots of folks that think that they are a bad idea, but trying to get the momentum together to take it back to another vote of the people is very difficult.

I just see something like this happening...DNR needs funds to plant fish, then they need a truck to tranport the fish, and then they need a new parking lot so that the truck doesn't get stuck, and then law enforcement needs to borrow the truck to transport something, and then we need a new garage to store the truck, and we might as well build it with a couple of additional bays to store "other vehicles" etc, etc. I'm just not sure how to control "budget/grant creep". All of this, of course, under the guise of habitat improvement. Maybe I'm just skeptical, but if the funding is really needed (has there been an analysis done that says we need more habitat/fisheries funds and how much for which projects?) then I'd frankly rather see it come out of license fees (assuming they don't pull another missing $10M out of the bottom drawer) and leave the trust fund alone. There are very few states that have anything like the trust fund and it should be protected and only used for the purpose for which it was designed. If the communities have problems with the payment-in-lieu of taxes program, then the trust fund should simply suspend making grants for a while, or say that all new projects from this point forward will be exempt from payment-in-lieus. Seems like I recall the boater license fees being raided (they "borrowed the money") during the Engler administration to balance the state general fund. I'm not sure that we ever got that money back. I just see this as being a slope that is too slippery for us to travel down.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

i think you are wise to be skeptical. i've seen enough real life abuses to make me feel the same way. it's no longer the conservation dept, it's the dnr, and their is a large difference.

but i'm a realist, i dont see the advantage of buying up more land when we cant or wont maintain what we have. and trying to nail a government agency down on how they spend the money is virtually impossible. fitting your pet project under the umbrella is an art.

so, unless i hear a compelling reason not to, i think it's better to divert the money to habitat improvement and hope some of that is used for the purpose intended.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

I like the idea. I see a issue that bothers me though.


> "But local governments are complaining already about the DNR's inability to meet its Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) obligations on the land it already owns.


I have a problem with spending money on anything when current obligations are not being met, no matter how much I am for it. Maybe we should make sure PILT obligations are paid before we talk about spending elsewhere.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

fairfax1 said:


> As an aside: Does the language used in this text signal that the good Representative can see fit to not obstruct and increase in licensing?
> 
> For exampl, the language of this press release states: " Imposing new fees or increasing existing fees above the rate of inflation to make up shortfalls is counterproductive to the long-term viability of hunting and fishing programs. There has to be a different solution."
> 
> ...


Fairfax, I'm going to pick on you a minute. Sheltrown has been hammered several times in this forum for not supporting hunting and fishing license fee increases. Heck, he's even been blamed for killing the last proposed fee increase. It's true that Sheltrown thinks a fee increase is the very last thing that should be considered to fund the DNR. The reason is that during a period of reduced demand, a fee increase will provide increased revenue in the very short term (say 1 or 2 years) but makes the long term problem even worse. It's a bit like drinking a pint of whiskey to combat depression.










In economics, the image above is called a demand curve. The basic truth behind the demand curve is that as the price "P" for an item increases, the quantity of good demanded "Q" decreases. Demands curves can also shift to the right (increased overall demand) or to the left (decreased overall demand). We know with hunting and fishing fees, that overall demand is shifting to the left because the number of people purchasing licenses each year is decreasing even as prices remain steady.

As the demand curve shifts left and the same time prices are increased, it's easy to see why fee increases are so harmful. The revenue from fees isn't just dependent on the level of the fee. It's also dependent on the number of people purchasing them. REVENUE = price x quantity. Increasing fees during a period of decreasing demand will result in a decrease in the quantity of licenses demanded. In the short term, this could result in increased revenue as long as the price increase is reasonable enough that it doesn't result in an immediate falloff in customers. But as less licenses are sold, the customer base decreases at an even faster rate shifting that demand curve even more quickly to the left.

The final component of the picture is elasticity. For some goods like gasoline, an increase from $2 to $5 may result in a 10% decrease in quantity demanded (inelastic). For another good, like bananas, an increase from $2 to $5 may result in a 70% decrease in quantity demanded (elastic). Supporters of a fee increases are banking on the fact that hunting and fishing license sales are much more like gasoline than bananas.

A license costing $15 is a good value. Increasing the cost of that license from $15 to $30 may not seem like much of a sacrifice to a single purchaser with a steady income or a retiree with a stable income. But Michigan currently has the highest unemployment rate in the country. And unemployment in rural areas of the state, such as northern and central Michigan, is much higher even than the state average. These areas tend to have a higher than average number of license customers. In an economic downturn like the current recession, a good like gasoline which is generally inelastic becomes much more elastic as families are forced to sacrifice items they never would have considered giving up before.

This is why it is so important, now more than ever, that we look at alternatives to fee increases, even fee increases within the rate of inflation, to fully fund the DNR. While this latest proposal from Sheltrown may not be perfect in that it decreases the amount of Trust Fund revenue available for new purchases of state land, it at least is fiscally responsible in both the short-term and long-term. We have yet to see any other proposals put forward that doesn't rely on tax or fee increases.


----------



## mrbreeze (Aug 13, 2008)

You also have to keep in mind that the trust fund is not just for the DNR's use. Many, many local governments have used the MNRTF to fund their own acquisitions of scenic areas, parkland, and other properties. Knowing full well, of course, that those properties would come off the tax rolls. So, while the PILT issue presents a valid argument, keep in mind that it is perhaps not the main driver behind this issue. It will be interesting to see how the local government associations in the state will react to this proposal. I remain on the fence, with a strong lean toward the "it's not a good idea" side.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Hamilton Reef said:


> I was just curious if MUCC's Director Muchmore was supporting the developers over the 'Public Trust' by raiding the MNRTF. After all, MUCC supported Muchmore's wife to violate the 'Public Trust' with Nestle's privatization Great Lakes water diversion scam.


Can you provide me with a primary source internet link that supports your claim that MUCC supported a request by Nestle for water diversion from the Great Lakes?


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Sure, I'd be happy to, but I have to ask him first. In the meantime, it's public knowledge what Antrim County has done for forestry management of their public lands. 

In the meantime, can you try to get us some kind of answer about the DRIP and earmarked turkey funds...millions and millions of dollars over the past 15 years or so. Something specific is what I'd like to see. Not pie charts with huge portions of it marked off for "miscellaneous"...what a joke that is. 


As for the state land sales, have they been able to sell enough larger parcels to even make up for what they've spent on it? I haven't heard of more than 40 acres that was landlocked being sold, and they GAVE that away. 

As for transferring forestry responsibility to the conservation districts, that's a cop-out. 

Most of what was once 83 CD's are now storefronts only, with no budget, no personnel, and no money...Antrim County is a RARE exception, only because the county government has stepped up where the state backed out. Most of the other districts, including Grand Traverse, have lost 90% of their funding, which at one time all came from the states. It started disappearing with Engler, Jenny finished them off. As a result, most are helpless to do anything any more. Especially in the UP from what I've heard. You might want to talk to Rory...I forgot his last name...UP Whitetails. He was an executive director of a district up there, and seemed to head up a lot of them as a spokesperson. Don't know if he still has anything to do with any CDs or not any more. 

And any efforts to ask the Antrim CD to take over forest management of state lands in Antrim County would be laughed at by the county-unless we also got the profits from the timber cuts, all of them, or the deeds to the lands.


----------



## michhutr (Jan 16, 2009)

Most of my concerns regarding have already been stated. Just my final thoughts.

After 40 years of listening to politicians, DNR and other Outdoor groups who want our support I've learned it's best to read the fine print. The legislature always seems to find some loop hold to screw us. They promise us something in one hand and take away much more in the other. 

After years of broken promises I've become very gun shy. I don't trust them when it comes to Money. Someone will see this as an opportunity to grab Trust fund monies that in the past has been off limits to them. It may take a few years but it will happen if we open the door...


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

*HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION H*


February 5, 2009, Introduced by Reps. Sheltrown, Melton and Dean and referred to the Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources.

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the state 

constitution of 1963, by amending section 35 of article IX, to 

modify the allowable expenditures from the Michigan natural 

resources trust fund and to provide for the uses of money in the 

trust fund to include the management of land and water resources 

for recreational uses, including the development and management of 

habitat for game and sport fisheries.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 

state of Michigan, That the following amendment to the state 

constitution of 1963, to modify the allowable expenditures from the 

Michigan natural resources trust fund and to provide for the uses 

of money in the trust fund to include the management of land and 

water resources for recreational uses, including the development 

and management of habitat for game and sport fisheries, is 



proposed, agreed to, and submitted to the people of the state:

ARTICLE IX​​ Sec. 35. There is hereby established the Michigan natural 

resources trust fund. The trust fund shall consist of all bonuses, 

rentals, delayed rentals, and royalties collected or reserved by 

the state under provisions of leases for the extraction of 

nonrenewable resources from state owned lands, except such revenues 

accruing under leases of state owned lands acquired with money from 

state or federal game and fish protection funds or revenues 

accruing from lands purchased with such revenues. The trust fund 

may receive appropriations, money, or other things of value. The 

assets of the trust fund shall be invested as provided by law.

Until the trust fund reaches an accumulated principal of 

$500,000,000.00, $10,000,000.00 of the revenues from bonuses, 

rentals, delayed rentals, and royalties described in this section 

otherwise dedicated to the trust fund that are received by the 

state each state fiscal year shall be deposited into the Michigan 

state parks endowment fund. However, until the trust fund reaches 

an accumulated principal of $500,000,000.00, in any state fiscal 

year, not more than 50 percent of the total revenues from bonuses, 

rentals, delayed rentals, and royalties described in this section 

otherwise dedicated to the trust fund that are received by the 

state each state fiscal year shall be deposited into the Michigan 

state parks endowment fund.

The amount accumulated in the trust fund in any state fiscal 

year shall not exceed $500,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and 

earnings and amounts authorized for expenditure pursuant to this 




section. When the accumulated principal of the trust fund reaches 

$500,000,000.00, all revenue from bonuses, rentals, delayed 

rentals, and royalties described in this section that would be 

received by the trust fund but for this limitation shall be 

deposited into the Michigan state parks endowment fund until the 

Michigan state parks endowment fund reaches an accumulated 

principal of $800,000,000.00. When the Michigan state parks 

endowment fund reaches an accumulated principal of $800,000,000.00, 

all revenues from bonuses, rentals, delayed rentals, and royalties 

described in this section shall be distributed as provided by law.

The interest and earnings of the trust fund shall be expended 

for the acquisition of land or rights in land for recreational uses 

or protection of the land because of its environmental importance 

or its scenic beauty, for the management of land and water 

resources for recreational uses, for the development of public 

recreation facilities, and for the administration of the trust 

fund, which may include payments in lieu of taxes on state owned 

land purchased through the trust fund. The trust fund may provide 

grants to units of local government or public authorities which 

shall be used for the purposes of this section. The legislature 

shall provide that a portion of the cost of a project funded by 

such grants be provided by the local unit of government or public 

authority.

Until the trust fund reaches an accumulated principal of 

$500,000,000.00, the legislature may provide, in addition to the 

expenditure of interest and earnings authorized by this section, 

that a portion, not to exceed 33-1/3 50 percent, of the revenues 




from bonuses, rentals, delayed rentals, and royalties described in 

this section received by the trust fund during each state fiscal 

year may be expended during subsequent state fiscal years for the 

purposes of this section.

Not less than 25 50 percent of the total amounts made 

available for expenditure from the trust fund from any state fiscal 

year shall be expended for the development and management of 

habitat for game and sport fisheries, including the stocking of 

game and fish; not more than 25 percent of the total amounts made 

available for expenditure from the trust fund from any state fiscal 

year shall be expended for the acquisition of land and rights in 

land; and not more than 25 percent of the total amounts made 

available for expenditure from the trust fund from any state fiscal 

year shall be expended for the development of public recreation 

facilities.

The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of 

a trust fund board within the department of natural resources. The 

trust fund board shall recommend the projects to be funded. The 

board shall submit its recommendations to the governor who shall 

submit the board's recommendations to the legislature in an 

appropriations bill.

The legislature shall provide by law for the implementation of 

this section.

Resolved further, That the foregoing amendment shall be 

submitted to the people of the state at the next general election 

in the manner provided by law.

http://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/jointresolutionintroduced/House/htm/2009-HIJR-H.htm


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> *HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION H*
> 
> 
> February 5, 2009, Introduced by Reps. Sheltrown, Melton and Dean and referred to the Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources.
> ...


Have another beer:corkysm55


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

bradymsu said:


> A license costing $15 is a good value. Increasing the cost of that license from $15 to $30 may not seem like much of a sacrifice to a single purchaser with a steady income or a retiree with a stable income.


No - a license costing $15 dollars is ridiculously cheap. Cheaper than basically any other state in the country. 

Wisconsin - $24
Ohio - $43

In 1971 a Michigan deer tag cost $36 (2006 dollars), in 2008 a Michigan deer tag cost $14 (2006 dollars).

-- 
lp


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

pescadero said:


> No - a license costing $15 dollars is ridiculously cheap. Cheaper than basically any other state in the country.
> 
> Wisconsin - $24
> Ohio - $43
> ...


 
Two years ago when a study group considering license fee increases here in MI gave their "Final Report" I did some research looking into license fees in the Great Lake States. MI's, by far were the cheapest on any neighboring states. Yes, some states had "special provisions", but so did MI and, especially when fishing was considered, what MI offered far outshown anything available in other states.

One problem with the fees recommended in the Final Report is that the tag, "license fees to double" was quickly placed on the proposal. This was a myth to a large extent with the most outstanding "truth" was found in the combo license and other "doublings" being an increase in fees that were quite low, say from $5 for a certain stamp to $10.


----------



## michhutr (Jan 16, 2009)

I live to hunt. I'll pay the going rate. I'll suport the programs the DNR need to improve hunting and fishing in Michigan. The DNR and the legislature know that the hunting community pay their own way. 

I for one though am tired of paying the way through my license fee's for those that don't contribute anything for their outdoor activities. As our fees have increased over the years the general fund outlays have decreased. We are asked to pay more with no true accounting of how the money is used. Lets have a guarantee that any increase in fees also means full disclosure.

NO to indexing fees to inflation. Let the politicians come to the voters and explain why they need the money. Why give them a tax increase without oversight....JMO


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

Whit1 said:


> Two years ago when a study group considering license fee increases here in MI gave their "Final Report" I did some research looking into license fees in the Great Lake States. MI's, by far were the cheapest on any neighboring states. Yes, some states had "special provisions", but so did MI and, especially when fishing was considered, what MI offered far outshown anything available in other states.
> 
> One problem with the fees recommended in the Final Report is that the tag, "license fees to double" was quickly placed on the proposal. This was a myth to a large extent with the most outstanding "truth" was found in the combo license and other "doublings" being an increase in fees that were quite low, say from $5 for a certain stamp to $10.



It is not about comparing what we pay for licenses it is about how much revenue they generate. Would you rather have Michigans revenue or Iowa's?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

bentduck said:


> It is not about comparing what we pay for licenses it is about how much revenue they generate. Would you rather have Michigans revenue or Iowa's?


 I don't know without taking "everything" into consideration. Opportunities in all types of hunting and fishing. Size of the state overall, population, hunter and fishermen numbers. Many other things too. So would you say a Michgan hunter or fishermen comes out better over all than an Iowa hunter or fishermen? If a Michgander has more opportunities then normally doesn't one get what they pay for when taking everything into account? I don't know I haven't figured everything out but just wondering since it was your question/comment.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

I predict the hunters, anglers, and trappers in Michigan are going to get exactly what they asked and paid for. 



NOTHING


----------



## 12970 (Apr 19, 2005)

Why can't the state use something similar to the college education license plates. Have one for Deer, another for Elk, a Bear, and maybe a game bird like a Pheasant and Duck as well as Pike, Salmon, Trout & Bass on Plates and have a minimum fee like 25.00 added to the plate fee to start to get one and then each year after until the plates are required to be replaced you can add to the renewal cost of 10.00 to 25.00 as a option fee / donation each year to assist with the DNR's budget woes. Being there are many hunters in the state and the can show there support for the game they prefer being that it could be a means to help out being the state budget is strained. Being the colleges and universities do this as well as other state agencies do why can't the DNR be one.

Seems to be a way to help the DNR. Seems that trying to change something that has been around might take a bit more to do.

Just a thought... might want to contact your state reps and senators and suggest it could not hurt these days...

Newaygo1


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

boehr said:


> I don't know without taking "everything" into consideration. Opportunities in all types of hunting and fishing. Size of the state overall, population, hunter and fishermen numbers. Many other things too. So would you say a Michgan hunter or fishermen comes out better over all than an Iowa hunter or fishermen? If a Michgander has more opportunities then normally doesn't one get what they pay for when taking everything into account? I don't know I haven't figured everything out but just wondering since it was your question/comment.


I think the tax base or (license fee's) should be "just enough" to efficiently fund the services they are collected for. No more no less. I don't know the exact number either but we can't compare Michigan with other states who have so few hunters and in some cases, just as much (or more) land and resources to manage.

If you consider what houses cost in California and compare that with what we pay in Michigan, I would suggest we are getting a great deal. It is all "market driven" and the same can be said (at least in part) on how we set hunting license fee's. 

If the DNR is working as efficiently as possible and they are under funded, we may need to bump the fee's up but we should never do it just because other states charge more. It's apples and oranges in my opinion.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

bentduck said:


> I think the tax base or (license fee's) should be "just enough" to efficiently fund the services they are collected for. No more no less. I don't know the exact number either but we can't compare Michigan with other states who have so few hunters and in some cases, just as much (or more) land and resources to manage.
> 
> If you consider what houses cost in California and compare that with what we pay in Michigan, I would suggest we are getting a great deal. It is all "market driven" and the same can be said (at least in part) on how we set hunting license fee's.
> 
> If the DNR is working as efficiently as possible and they are under funded, we may need to bump the fee's up but we should never do it just because other states charge more. It's apples and oranges in my opinion.


I agree, Michigan shouldn't just because other states do but I don't believe anyone ever said we should "just" because they do. I think the comparison was made as just one point from many.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

bentduck said:


> and in some cases, just as much (or more) land and resources to manage..


 



MI has far more public land to manage than any other Midwest state. That's something else that I looked into two years ago. This is counting both state and national forest lands.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Whit1 said:


> MI has far more public land to manage than any other Midwest state. That's something else that I looked into two years ago. This is counting both state and national forest lands.


Actually, Michigan has more public land than any state east of the Mississippi.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Tom Morang said:


> Actually, Michigan has more public land than any state east of the Mississippi.


You're right Tom and no other state is even close. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

Michigan has more state forest than any state in the nation and more public land (state and national forest) than any state east of the Mississiippi. 

i think that raising revenue for the dnr will be like the lotto for the school systems. the money just disappears with no net improvement. a great deal of money is already being spent by that department in highly questionable ways.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I dont have a lot of faith in how the dnr manages their money either, But at least with this proposal there are several layers of protection to keep the fund from being misused. I dont think any other Govt. expenditures are subject to the scrutiny that this would.

..........."The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of 

a trust fund board within the department of natural resources. The 

trust fund board shall recommend the projects to be funded. The 

board shall submit its recommendations to the governor who shall 

submit the board's recommendations to the legislature in an 

appropriations bill."................


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

i agree. as i understand it, the money would have to be spent on habitat.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

dogwhistle said:


> the state police patrol the whole state. i've tried to look up the dnr's stats but they are apparently not reported on the UCR.
> 
> the point is any one police or sheriffs dept of any size, 50 man or up, handles for more complaints than the entire dnr law enforcement division.
> 
> ...


Yep they do handle more complaints which include barking dog complaints and such. Yep divide the money up and see what priority that the sheriff departments have, it won't be fish and game. I could give countless examples but I am not going to start bashing other departments because they do assist COs and vice versa. Yep, PR operation with about 20,000 arrests per year. As far a privatize, private companies do things for profit so I promise you would get less bang for your buck and you would be paying a heck of a lot more. Your thought make so much sense that there are so many states that do it that way.:yikes: But as far as arguing your opinion anymore, for me, it doesn't make sense because it will never happen. It's like arguing that I won millions in the lotto when I didn't.


----------



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

boehr said:


> Yep they do handle more complaints which include barking dog complaints and such. Yep divide the money up and see what priority that the sheriff departments have, it won't be fish and game.


I agree with Boehr. It is important to continue to maintain law enforcement focused on conservation issues. This would disapper if MDNR's LED was transferred to local police. While I agree there are functions that can be transerred to local governments or even privatized, this is not one of them.

That's why we continue to pursue the lonely and thankless job of attempting to find an economically responsible, stable, long-term funding source for the DNR. So far the answers have been fee increases, tapping current sales tax revenue, restoring general fund support, and the Trust Fund. All are problematic to various degrees and for various reasons. Any new ideas are most welcome.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

you guys arent making 20,000 arrests a year. you might write 20,000 tickets and call them arrests. not physical arrests. no way. and releasing someone and requesting a warrant isnt an arrest either. 

a number of years ago, our dept took over the weighmaster duties and handle it quite nicely. they could easily do the same with conservation law. in fact, many violations were found by officers on patrol and just handed to the CO.

and they dont ever handle the things that take a great deal of manpower in other departments; fatal accidents, barricaded gunman/hostage situations, homicide investigations etc. as i said at the outset, it's almost all misdemeanors.
this is just another case of government waste by overlapping duties.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

TC-fisherman said:


> This is what the MNRTF did last year.
> http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/edopps/TFRecommendations.pdf
> 
> How much of the stuff they already do you think isn't worthwhile?
> ...


 I was just researching a property on this list, and spoke to the trust fund office. These are requests. They have been approved by the senate and are in the house. They may or may not be approved. and then require funding to be available........far from a done deal.


----------

