# 2013-2017 Fisheries Division Strategic Plan



## DReihl9896 (Nov 20, 2012)

The final draft of the five year plan is available now. I haven't had a chance to review it yet to see if there were any significant changes from the draft released earlier. Also available to view are public comments and concerns and how they are addressed within the plan along with the pre-draft survey results and the phone survey of angler group reps. Here is the link if anybody is interested. 

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364-297509--,00.html?source=govdelivery

I know this is broader than gear restrictions, but I still figured this is the section of the boards most concerned with fisheries management (form the MichiganTroutStreams.com section).


----------



## DReihl9896 (Nov 20, 2012)

REG said:


> On page 15, the draft states:
> 
> Objective 2: Create or enhance fishing opportunities.
> 
> ...


More to the point about Gear Restrictions, the above quoted text from REG is from the derailed and closed thread regarding the initial draft of this plan. Anyway, looking through the public comment disposition table, the response to comment #26 would seem to confirm that Gear Restrictions are indeed incorporated into the five year or at least that language of Objective 2: Strategy 3 could be interpreted to include them.


​Comment / suggestion
Allocate the remainder of the "Special Regs" mileage available for Michigan trout streams.

Response
Relevant to Goal 2, Objective 2, Strategy 3, "Implement fishing regulations expressly designed to create special or unique fishing opportunities."

There are actually quite a few comments concerning special regs on one side or the other, so that link might be worth checking out for those concerned about the issue. Anybody following this section of the forums will probably recognize a few opinions expressed. The responses all pretty much point back to the objective mentioned above and that they will continue to monitor shifting attitudes regarding the issue.


----------



## REG (Oct 25, 2002)

Thanks for posting that up. I guess the million dollar question from here is what defines the metrics and goals for this strategy? Also, what feedback mechanisms are utilized to maintain said strategy? Ominous to me is that by including it in their plan through 2017, the DNR is implying "more". 

There's more, but I'll get to it later.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

If so, they seem to belive that this would bolster license sales and the use of the resource, when in actuallity it drives people from using both the water and it's resources. Sad.


----------



## broncbuster2 (Apr 15, 2000)

Sad Indeed
And they are changing the license structure
to get more money..
Seems to me that if they didn't restrict the use of rivers 
those of us that they are restricting would buy license's
i won't buy one as long as they continue to do so.

Instead for some reason they think that the out of state persons will fill that void.....
I doubt that


----------



## swampswede (Jun 6, 2010)

Regarding proposed license increases, I stumbled upon this information this morning on the Gates Lodge website. Looks like Anglers of the Au Sable along with FFF are making a strong push for an increase to $40 for resident all species licenses. I am not necessarily against this as I think that more money is needed specifically for protecting _our _waters. but it's just one more way these groups are trying to bully their ways and philosophies in to the DNR. If bait and artificial/ fly guys are paying the same amount for licenses, then we need equal opportunities regardless of preferred method. 

My stance : I spin fish almost exclusively, (preferred method) but am not at all opposed to fly fishing or bait fishing.I practice catch and release but am not against those who carry a creel. I think "flies only" is complete BS. I pay 28 bucks for my license. 

Taken from Gates Au Sable Lodge website: 

*FEE INCREASE PROPOSAL UPDATE* -- from the Anglers of the Au Sable

The governor proposed an across-the-board fishing license fee of $25 for Michigan residents and $75 for out-of-state anglers. This plan would raise several million dollars annually to help implement the DNRs new fisheries strategic plan, aid fisheries research and add conservation officers.

Anglers of the Au Sable and FFF responded by: 1) Applauding the governors call for a fee increase: 2) Raising fairness concerns because the $25 flat fee is a decrease for trout anglers from $28 currently  a tax cut we didnt request and dont want; and 3) Advocating a higher all-species of $40 for in-state anglers because the DNR needs to funds and $40 is consistent with what our other trout peer states charge for in-state licenses.

In Late March, a Michigan House of Representatives subcommittee passed a lousy alternative. The House Appropriations Natural Resources Subcommittee approved the governors fishing license fee changes. But the committee: 1) Ignored all of our groups recommendations; 2) Stripped $18 million in general funds from the DNR budget; 3) Stripped funding for 25 new conservation officers, an invasive species specialist and a new fisheries research vessel. In effect, the subcommittee vote eliminated most of the improvements the governor called for while shifting more of the DNR budget to the backs of license holders, with very little general fund support. In other words, under the subcommittee plan, many anglers pay more for less  less fisheries support, less research, less conservation/protection.

Next, the fishing license fee plan adopted by the House subcommittee goes to the full House Appropriations Committee for a vote while the Senate works its own plan concurrently. 

It is crucial that anglers respond this week by contacting key legislators!

SIMPLE MESSAGE POINTS

In all cases, when contacting legislators, it is important to be quick, on-point, and respectful. Being argumentative is the easiest way to kill whatever remaining chance we have to put a solid fee package in place.

Respectfully, the message points below are most pertinent to Anglers and FFF positions on the fee package. TU and MUCC may have slightly different, though complimentary, messages

The governors plan  while imperfect  is a good start. It supports fisheries. These are the first fee increases since the mid-1990s and theyre perfectly in line with what other states charge to maintain fisheries. Our fisheries are world-class, provide a major economic impact, and need the investment.

The House subcommittee alternative is a very bad alternative. Go back to the governors plan, which has wide support in the fishing and conservation communities.

Our members vote. Please consider our sensible alternative  higher trout fishing fees out of fairness and out of the need for more revenues to execute the Fisheries Divisions new strategic plan.


WHO TO CONTACT

Your local representative or senator is NOT the top priority. The fishing license fee proposal will be decided by a small number of legislators who actually hold the purse strings.

Also, regardless of your political persuasion, it doesnt do much good to reach Democrats in the House and Senate on this right now. Theyre generally supportive of the fee increase, but they do not have power to do much about this in either chamber. Also, dont bother with DNR appropriations subcommittee chair Jon Bumstead who has already shown hes not listening to our concerns.

Here are the key people who need to hear from the angling community

In the House

Appropriations Chairman Joe Haveman. This is the number one person to reach in the House. Hes from Holland and fishing licenses are far from his top concern  until a lot of anglers contact him. Phone.. 517-373-0830. Email [email protected]. 

Cadillac Representative Phil Potvin. Member of the full Appropriations Committee which holds the purse strings. One of the closest local reps to river concerns. Phone 517-373-1747. Email [email protected]. 
Northern Michigan Representative Greg MacMaster. Represents the Jordan and Big Water Au Sable regions as well as Pigeon River Country. Member of the full Appropriations Committee which holds the purse strings. One of the closest local reps to river concerns. Phone 517-373-0829. Email [email protected]. 

In the Senate

Appropriations Chairman Roger Kahn. This is the number one person to reach in the Senate. Hes from Saginaw. He has much, much bigger fish to fry than these license fees. But hes one of the few people who can actually make this happen. Phone 517-373-1760. Email [email protected]. 
Natural Resources Appropriations Chairman Mike Green. This is Bumsteads subcommittee peer in the Senate. He is in closest position in the Senate to most immediately put the governors proposal back into play. Phone 517-373-1777.

Natural Resources Appropriations Vice Chairman Howard Walker. Traverse City senator. One of the closest senators to river country while also sitting on appropriations subcommittees and the full committee. Phone 517-373-2413. Email [email protected]. 

Appropriations Committee Member John Moolenaar. From Midland, and represents large swaths of River Country, including Otsego, Crawford, and Oscoda counties Phone 517-373-7946.


Others

The best real reason to contact your local representative or senator on this is if they sit on the full Appropriations committees Heres the full House Appropriations roster http://house.michigan.gov/MHRPublic/CommitteeInfo.aspx?comkey=221. Heres the full Senate Appropriations roster http://www.senate.michigan.gov/committee/approps.shtm.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Wonder who will pay for future research if the bill passes as is? It's in everyones best interest to have the Gov's version over this one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DReihl9896 (Nov 20, 2012)

kzoofisher said:


> Wonder who will pay for future research if the bill passes as is? It's in everyones best interest to have the Gov's version over this one.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Agreed. It seems the changes defeat the original purpose of the plan. I'm not sure I would also think that the $40 all species also goes against the simplification component of the original purpose as well, though I would admit to that part being of less importance that revenue and where that revenue goes to. I don't really like the Anglers of the Au Sable's plan, but agree that I also don't like appears to be happening to the governor's proposal. I'd agree with all of their SIMPLE MESSAGE POINTS save for maybe the last one. That said, I never really looked at the two tiered license structure as a problem either. The knee jerk reaction of many might be to discount the document in it's entirety simply because of it's point of origin (Gate's Au Sable Lodge). Others who have supported the original fee increase proposal by the governor have raised concerns about what is happening to it in committee (http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=460966). Please take a look and make your own conclusions. If you don't approve, voice your concern to your legislators. 



> SIMPLE MESSAGE POINTS
> 
> In all cases, when contacting legislators, it is important to be quick, on-point, and respectful. Being argumentative is the easiest way to kill whatever remaining chance we have to put a solid fee package in place.
> 
> ...





> WHO TO CONTACT
> 
> Your local representative or senator is NOT the top priority. The fishing license fee proposal will be decided by a small number of legislators who actually hold the purse strings.
> 
> ...


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

kzoofisher said:


> Wonder who will pay for future research if the bill passes as is? It's in everyones best interest to have the Gov's version over this one.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
I agree.
I have no idea what the house sub committee was thinking when they revised something that was being supported and backed.
I would like to know what there reasoning would be for changin it up.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Heard that the bill might move quickly so emails should get sent ASAP.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

I am all for an increase in license fees but only if the money is hands off to all non fish and game animals. Also the money must be hands off to any govermental and special interest groups who want to grab it just because there is a surplus of funds. The DNR must also be more involved in protecting great lakes water levels and do what they can to halt all dredging until water levels go back up. Sportsmen support the DNR and the fish and wildlife of the state. It seems as though the DNR and politicians of this state would rather listen to the special interest groups like the wolf protection society of Michigan, fly fishermen unlimited, or save a dove. Why are we buying licenses if the DNR does not have what it takes to back its supporters. I for one do not think that I am being represented well if a bunch of idiots from other states can come to Michigan and get the potential wolf season shut down and the dove season. Next they will target fishing and they will be successful because the DNR listens to people who do not pay their wages. They have to have open door meetings and the recordings of these meetings are available to politicians who are supported by special interest groups.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

RH, at one time, up to about 12 years ago or so, there was a Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund that was set up not to be touched by the state for anything other than fish and wildlife issues. The legislature, headed by Dave Mead at the time, drafted a bill that allowed this trust fund to be transferred to the general dnr trust fund, and poof, the money pretty much disappeared. The general fund was "raidable" by the state to help balance the budget, suppossedly. What needs to happen is for that little bill to be repealed.


----------



## broncbuster2 (Apr 15, 2000)

Yup...
Makes sense to me...
Restrict 75% of the fishermen 
and raise the licenses fee by $12.00..
What's Next?
I am really glad that I am not 
buying a licenses.
Got to love how they take and take....
How many more CO's can they let go?


----------

