# Fishing License Increases



## bradymsu (Mar 3, 2008)

Recently, there was a discussion on this thred: http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=309043&highlight=license+increase about fishing licenses increases and an additional voluntary Cold Water Species Fund.

Recognizing that a fee increase of the magnitude proposed in 2007 is very unlikely to be approved but that without an increase, stocking operations are soon going to be curtailed with a resulting negative impact on the economic contributions recreational fishing provides to the state, what are your thoughts about a proposal that would:

Provide a $3 increase in the residential restricted and a $6 increase in the residential all-species licenses with an additional voluntary $5 donation asked at the time of purchase for a Cold Water Species Improvement Fund dedicated to stocking and marketing recreational trout and salmon fisheries. The fee increases would remain in the Game and Fish Fund with the new Cold Water Species Improvement Fund being a sub-fund of that account.

As a seperate question, what are your thoughts about increasing the non-resident fees? My thoughts are that with most Michigan tax-payer general fund support to the DNR gone, we're now on a pay-to-play system with little justification for the higher non-resident fees. Michigan doesn't sell that many non-resident licenses and increasing non-resident fees send a wrong message to out-of-state tourists who are already spending a lot of money for food and lodging to fish in Michigan. We're probably better off not increasing the non-resident licenses.


----------



## Roosevelt (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't agree with an increase, but do agree that people who fish stocked fish should be the ones to pay for it.

I think the system should work on cutting waste rather than increasing revenue.


----------



## salmon_slayer06 (Mar 19, 2006)

If it improves the fishery, yes. If they can create a better stocking program for lake huron like taking down damns in rivers and improving spawning areas thats a good start. It doesn't matter though because theres never enough money for anything. Better off leaving whats here now going and improve existing hatcherys. Thats what I think.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Roosevelt said:


> I don't agree with an increase, but do agree that people who fish stocked fish should be the ones to pay for it.


 Might want to search the DNR website. There are alot of fish besides trout and salmon that are planted......


----------



## wetwork (Nov 21, 2009)

It's time for the state to learn to live within their budget. Do more, with less. Time to cut the fat in Lansing. No to license fee increases, the money always ends up in their general fund, and we get the stinky end...again!


----------



## Oldgrandman (Nov 16, 2004)

An increase is long over due for many reasons. Like the operating costs at facilities for example. Energy cost increases and the like only take away from the ability to maintain and raise fish for stocking. But I'll make it clear, I think it should not just be for trout and salmon but for fish like walleye and even things like habitat improvements are way up on my list.


----------



## Fishndude (Feb 22, 2003)

I tend to think I would agree to an increase in license fees, but with the continuing/growing problem of Zebra and Quagga Mussels, and the likely introduction of Asian Bighead and Silver Carp, I am not sure I want to spend any more money to plant fish than our State already pays. Do I want more Salmon, Trout, and Steelhead? Sure. Do I want bigger fish? Absolutely - who doesn't?!!! But I just am looking at the whole picture, and thinking we will soon be throwing good money after bad by planting fish at all. :rant::rant::rant:


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

I voted no! and one reason why is that all the salmon egg taking and stocking that used to go on in Lake Huron is for the most part done. The saginaw bay walleye in lake huron are thriving, thus no stocking there also. All those jobs are no more, the costs are gone. So where did those funds end up? I think the management thats going on, needs to be done in smarter ways to get the most bang for the buck. Like not planting steelhead when the cormmorants are on their northern migrations. Plant fish at night or in colder months. Many programs are gone that used to be funded with the current fees.JMO.


----------



## earl (Sep 7, 2007)

Thought they just tried to plant bunch of larger brown trout on the Huron side to increase survival. Thought I read local anglers were calling them "keeper size".


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

Yeah they did. There is also still some king planting going on, but nothing like it used to be. Should be plenty of money somewhere


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Yes, a license fee increase is long overdue.

As for non-resident fees, IF there was an increase, I would be in favor of exempting the non-resident who owns property in Michigan.

As for you naysayers whether you are in general or one of those "if it don't help me out then I'm against it" all I can say is.................well nothing it has been and will continue to be useless. The state has cut and cut and cut and still you want more to be cut until things meet your standards. You refuse to consider the fact that, concerning programs you'd like to see cut and deem them as waste, there are others who consider them to be needed.

A few years ago when that last effort to increase fees was put out............and the vast majority of those increases did NOT involve a "doubling" of license fees..........cuts in waste were demanded. I suggested that the coho plants be ceased due to:
Cohos are more expensive to raise to planting size than other salmonoids. The fishery, for the most part, only benefited those in the far SW part of the state. There were, comparitively, few coho salmon found in creel census reports from N. Lake Michigan.

Of course this brought howls of protest from those who demanded "cuts", but also took advantage of that fishery.

This state will continue to fall unless we begin to look to understand that there are services provided that, while it might not be my cup of tea, there are others who feel that it is there's.

For all the griping and moaning about how the DNR is all about money.......................of course some of it is. The services that we so readily use need to be paid for.


----------



## Fish Eye (Mar 30, 2007)

Whit1 said:


> Yes, a license fee increase is long overdue.
> 
> As for non-resident fees, IF there was an increase, I would be in favor of exempting the non-resident who owns property in Michigan.
> 
> ...


That's what I'm talking about!


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

Well, I still don't see why with so many cuts, why whats still being done can't make it. I personally think they should go to a lower liscence price and it should cover everything without having to buy seperate for trout and salmon. Then make up the difference another way like the state park system is doing. Lower costs will bring more people involved to the sport, and higher costs will keep away many that are not as apt to use it as often.


----------



## ChasinSprints (Dec 20, 2005)

An increase would not bother me at all. I feel I get a great bang for my buck with the fishing license. Not only can we fish anytime we want for the entire year, but also allows for the opportunity to spend quality time with family and friends. 

Compare the fishing license with that of hunting license where you have to buy a license for small game, deer, waterfowl, etc. and the one that really gets me is the application for permits that cost you just to apply with no guarantee or refund.

Quite possibly the occasional angler would balk at an increase but for those like me that fish often, no problem.


----------



## Roosevelt (Sep 21, 2007)

Whit1, it's not that we need cuts. We need people that work in the system to quit wasting our tax dollars. 

Taking 2 to 4 hour breaks and such. Being on the clock when they are actually sitting home, sleeping or online chatting. Driving around taking care of personal business with govt. vehicle on govt. time.

There's a lot of waste in the system and people are sick and tired of footing the bill so some folks can have a cake job with endless "fringe" benefits.

The only cuts we need to make are cutting the employees that are abusing the system. Does this mean every state employee abuses? No! But many do and it needs to stop.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Whit I think your post is spot on........as for state employees well as a retired 28 year state employee I wish I would have had one of those cake jobs with endless benefits.......

Funny how the cost of everything and I mean everything has almost tripled in the past 10 years yet the DNR's funds have not risen significantly for that long........its lucky they can do what they do now with bare bones funding........

I wouldn't have a problem in the least accepting a license increase...it's many many years overdue.


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

wally-eye said:


> Whit I think your post is spot on........as for state employees well as a retired 28 year state employee I wish I would have had one of those cake jobs with endless benefits.......
> 
> Funny how the cost of everything and I mean everything has almost tripled in the past 10 years yet the DNR's funds have not risen significantly for that long........its lucky they can do what they do now with bare bones funding........
> 
> I wouldn't have a problem in the least accepting a license increase...it's many many years overdue.


amen!

Its funny how a few bad apples spoil the whole bushel. State employees are one entity, state fisheries personel or hatcheries are a whole different thing. They have been cutting for over 5 yrs now. There is very little left to cut. Some of these good programs that were cut may never be funded again. You sportsmen who don't really know where the money comes from or goes, need to educate yourselves. The info is available to the public. You may be suprised or even embarrassed.


----------



## RDS-1025 (Dec 1, 2008)

Ralph Smith said:


> I personally think they should go to a lower liscence price and it should cover everything without having to buy seperate for trout and salmon.



That is ridiculously absurd.
I am not a huge fan of the spending habits of ANY state department, but to think that the price I pay, to fish all year long, is too much, is quite ridiculous.


----------



## Ralph Smith (Apr 1, 2003)

RDS-1025 said:


> That is ridiculously absurd.
> I am not a huge fan of the spending habits of ANY state department, but to think that the price I pay, to fish all year long, is too much, is quite ridiculous.


Wasn't talking about lowering it without making up the difference and then some......Look at what going to happen with the state parks, could do similar thing with fishing liscence.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

The thing that's ironic with michigan seems to be, if less people are doing something, we will simply make the ones that still want to do it pay more. They are digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole


----------

