# voluntary licenses



## samsteel (Oct 6, 2008)

A couple weeks ago the topic again came up in a thread of possibly raising the rates in fishing licenses to help support stocking programs and research (which I think many of us support if it will help our fishery) After speaking with our friend from the DNR, he mentioned to me that buying all species licenses is the best way to "donate" to our cause and that we can buy voluntary licenses for our children. I have fished in Michigan my whole life and was not aware we can buy kids voluntary licenses. I buy any friend from out of state who comes up and fishes with me a year long all species license, even if they only fish one day. If you have the means, purchase as many all species licenses as you can and encourage others to do so. So for anyone who was not aware of the voluntary license option, please consider buying your kids or other people's kids volunatary fishing licenses (if you have the means) and continue to support our fishery.


----------



## Alpha Buck (Jan 24, 2006)

I would donate if I knew that it was going to be put back into our COLD WATER fishery. I really do not feel like throwing my money away on catfish or library books though. Set aside a cold water species fund and I would definitely contribute.


----------



## samsteel (Oct 6, 2008)

I hear ya Alpha Buck, I wish there was a more deliberate route to get the money directly to the cold water fishery, but I can tell you that the part of the all species fee (trout stamp) goes directly to the cold water fishery management (stocking, research, etc) Hey by the way, thanks again for hooking me up with your buddy on that anchor last spring, it has come in handy.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Alpha Buck said:


> I would donate if I knew that it was going to be put back into our COLD WATER fishery. I really do not feel like throwing my money away on catfish or library books though. Set aside a cold water species fund and I would definitely contribute.


Ditto.


----------



## doctor's orders (Aug 25, 2009)

Alpha Buck said:


> I would donate if I knew that it was going to be put back into our COLD WATER fishery. I really do not feel like throwing my money away on catfish or library books though. Set aside a cold water species fund and I would definitely contribute.


Agree 100% with this statement. I would donate as well to a COLD WATER SPECIES FUND. However the donated money would have to be protected from various nonsense warm water programs like the ridiculously over planted walleye and soon to be musky programs on the horizon. If legislation was passed to protect the donated funds and allocate them SOLELY for SALMON/TROUT programs then I will donate as soon as that legislation is passed.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

doctor's orders said:


> However the donated money would have to be protected from various nonsense warm water programs like the ridiculously over planted walleye


Bingo...nail on the head...awesome freakin' post!


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

doctor's orders said:


> ridiculously over planted walleye.


How do you figure that? In 2009, Michigan DNR planted *twice* as many *chinook salmon *than they did *walleye*. In the essense of time, I didn't bother to include coho, steelhead, rainbows, browns, etc. Its safe to say, relative to the coldwater fish stocking, walleye are a much smaller percentage of fish stocked in Michigan than some of us are lead to believe. Not to say that I wouldn't like to see steelhead planted in numbers like OH/PA/NY does in the Lake Erie tribs. Or more coho plants relative to kings. Or a revisited, increased, and expanded summer (skamania) steelhead program. I just think if we are going to make broad statements, we should be aware of the statistics and data before we make them.

Can you elaborate on the "soon to be musky programs" because I haven't heard or read anything about them. Thanks!


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

doctor's orders said:


> Agree 100% with this statement. I would donate as well to a COLD WATER SPECIES FUND. However the donated money would have to be protected from various nonsense warm water programs like the ridiculously over planted walleye and soon to be musky programs on the horizon. If legislation was passed to protect the donated funds and allocate them SOLELY for SALMON/TROUT programs then I will donate as soon as that legislation is passed.


I'm not sure that would ever happen or would even be good to happen. I may be able to find numbers but I would imagine that a larger amount of money goes into the cold water fishery than the warm, and to pass legislation of that sort would probably cut the funding instead of increase it. 
I would also imagine that the ratio of regular fish license holders to all specie holders would be at least double, maybe even triple. Legislation of the sort you described would then take away a large amount of monies from the coldwater side of the funding.

at this time there is no future talk of raising license fees for fishing.


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

Spanky said:


> I'm not sure that would ever happen or would even be good to happen. I may be able to find numbers but I would imagine that a larger amount of money goes into the cold water fishery than the warm, and to pass legislation of that sort would probably cut the funding instead of increase it.


Dan, I would be more interested in seeing where the revenue from fishing/hunting licenses ends up? Is it all reallocated to the DNR/DEQ or does it go to the state general fund to be doled out by politicians? And are license revenues enough to support the DNR budget?


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

It is my understanding most of the sales go to the general fund. I would support an increase in license fees if the state would PROPERLY manage the fisheries. More research, stop poisoning productive streams, better planting practices (ex. the net pens), and rule changes to help manage natural reproducing fisheries etc etc. I could go on but it would take a long time.


----------



## doctor's orders (Aug 25, 2009)

Flyfisher said:


> How do you figure that, Mark? In 2009, Michigan DNR planted *twice* as many *chinook salmon *than they did *walleye*. In the essense of time, I didn't bother to include coho, steelhead, rainbows, browns, etc. Its safe to say, relative to the coldwater fish stocking, walleye are a much smaller percentage of fish stocked in Michigan than some of us are lead to believe. Not to say that I wouldn't like to see steelhead planted in numbers like OH/PA/NY does in the Lake Erie tribs. Or more coho plants relative to kings. Or a revisited, increased, and expanded summer (skamania) steelhead program. I just think if we are going to make broad statements, we should be aware of the statistics and data before we make them.
> 
> Can you elaborate on the "soon to be musky programs" because I haven't heard or read anything about them. Thanks!


Who is Mark,and who are you? So far all I have allocated from your profile is that you have a black short-haired dog named Pickle, your a Florida Gator fan and you have a fall chrome collage where your face is cut out. I have pictures of myself in my album. Where are the pictures of you? Are you maintaining anonymity for some reason? Possibly you are a just being what folks on various sites call a pot stirrer? 

Anyways back on subject. Prior to the VHS issues with the warm water hatchery rearing ponds of a couple years ago the Grand river alone was stocked with an average of 582,000 walleye at each stocking location: Portland, M-66, Saranac, and David HWY. Grand total thats well over 2 million walleye being stocked in one river system. That doesn't include the almost 500,000 walleye stocked in the AuGres or the 1.5 million stocked in Portage Lake. Couple that with over 2 million stocked in Morrow Lake and 250,000 stocked in Tawas Bay, I'd say thats more than double whats stocked chinook and coho wise in the state, and triple whats stocked in the great lakes for steelhead and lake run browns COMBINED. No what is stocked as resident trout in the Muskegon, PM, and Manistee can not be counted as migratory cold water fish. I can provide more stocking locations for walleye if you would like sir, as I've only provided a few. All this information is available in the fish stocking database at the DNR website. A general search for walleye stocked in the state between the years of 2003-2006 will give you all the information needed. Stocking numbers of warm water species after 2006 have been affected greatly by VHS. So to get a true number of where the programs were at numbers wise you would have to look at stocking numbers prior to VHS as a control to an opinion. I see you like to alter facts to support your opinions. Not very helpful in my opinion. I also see your trying to find a cure for ignorance, maybe you should remember to utilize a key ingredient: RESEARCH.

Thanks,

Joe


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

doctor's orders said:


> A general search for walleye stocked in the state between the years of 2003-2006 will give you all the information needed.


You didn't make it clear you were writing in "past tense". The present and immediate future of the walleye stocking in Michigan show it significantly less than the present stocking levels for chinook salmon, period. There does not appear to be an immediate plan to bring stocking levels back up to those of the time period you referenced so how is that currently relevant? And please fill us in the big FUTURE plans for the muskie program as well, will you please sir?

I am not trying to "stir the pot", just have a discussion on the CURRENT state of our fisheries. And stating that the state is CURRENTLY, or planning to in the immediate future, to stock obscene numbers of walleye is erroneous.

We also often ignore that walleye are a native species to Michigan waters, whereas salmon were planted to control the invasive alewife, something for which they and other invasive species seem to have done an excellent job. 

Having been on this site since 2002 and attended a good number of M-S events I am certainly less anonymous than your recent registration and 42 posts, Joe.


----------



## doctor's orders (Aug 25, 2009)

Flyfisher said:


> You didn't make it clear you were writing in "past tense". The present and immediate future of the walleye stocking in Michigan show it significantly less than the present stocking levels for chinook salmon, period. There does not appear to be an immediate plan to bring stocking levels back up to those of the time period you referenced so how is that currently relevant? And please fill us in the big FUTURE plans for the muskie program as well, will you please sir?
> 
> I am not trying to "stir the pot", just have a discussion on the CURRENT state of our fisheries. And stating that the state is CURRENTLY, or planning to in the immediate future, to stock obscene numbers of walleye is erroneous.
> 
> Having been on this site since 2002 and attended a good number of M-S events I am certainly less anonymous than your recent registration and 42 posts, Joe.


Just wait until VHS is under control. I suppose "time will tell"? As far as the muskie discussion, you could email your local DNR biologist about that subject as he could answer those questions more in detail for you. I am merely a "customer" to the DNR not an employee. As a customer I purchase more than just a Michigan DNR fishing liscense to support the Great Lakes Cold Water Fishery as much as possible. "CURRENTLY" other states have done much more with MUCH LESS funding wise. All I was saying is I want to make sure my money goes to the cold water fishery in Michigan NOT elsewhere LIKE "walleye" or "muskie" programs.

As far as internet credentials go, I don't feel the need to be an internet sensation/celebrity. Im here to talk about, discuss, and debate the past/present/future Great Lakes Fisheries. Maybe instead of trying to start arguments with people you should do the same.

Thanks again,

Joe


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Just so you know, all fishing and hunting license money goes to the Michigan Game and Fish Fund. These moneys can only be used to manage Michigan's fish and wildlife. It does not go to the general fund. This drives legislators nuts because they can't touch it. It is already protected by law. Also, the DNR does not get any general fund money other then some small amount to pay local units of government a payment rather than taxes on all the state land in Michigan. Michigan also gets federal money to help manage its natural resources. Part of the federal funding is based on how many licenses are sold in Michigan. 

Michigan has 6 hatcheries devoted to coldwater fish (brown trout, lake trout, steelhead, coho salmon, and chinook salmon). We have zero that are devoted to coolwater fish (walleye, northern pike, and muskellunge). Thompson and Wolf Lake hatcheries have the ability to hatch walleye, pike, and muskellunge eggs. The fry then have to go out to ponds. Wolf Lake Hatchery does have ponds used to raise muskellunge. However, most of the facility is set up for salmon and steelhead. 

Costs of fish (what is figured in Prescriptions for stocking or mgmt plans):

Spring Fingerling chinook salmon $0.12 a piece. 
Yearling coho salmon $0.73 a piece. 
Brown trout yearling $0.73.
Brown trout fall yearling $1.56.

walleye fry $0.0009
walleye spring fingerling $0.044
walleye fall fingerling $1.23

Muskellunge fall fingerling $2.60

Those big numbers of walleye in the Grand River were fry plants. Basically, they are stocked as soon as they are hatched, so there is no cost to feed them. The rest of our walleye stocking involves spring fingerlings that are raised for a month and a half in ponds throughout the state. 

Muskellunge are very expensive because they eat minnows, so there is a high cost to feed them. To put it in perspective, only 4,000 muskellunge were stocked in the state this year, so it still is not a very big chunk of the fish rearing budget. 

Coldwater fish stocking is by far the majority of stocking that takes place in Michigan. This is all made possible through the all species license and federal funds. 

Contact your local fisheries biologist if you want more specifics on fish stocking in your area.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

doctor's orders said:


> Who is Mark,and who are you? So far all I have allocated from your profile is that you have a black short-haired dog named Pickle, your a Florida Gator fan and you have a fall chrome collage where your face is cut out. I have pictures of myself in my album. Where are the pictures of you? Are you maintaining anonymity for some reason? Possibly you are a just being what folks on various sites call a pot stirrer?
> 
> Anyways back on subject. Prior to the VHS issues with the warm water hatchery rearing ponds of a couple years ago the Grand river alone was stocked with an average of 582,000 walleye at each stocking location: Portland, M-66, Saranac, and David HWY. Grand total thats well over 2 million walleye being stocked in one river system. That doesn't include the almost 500,000 walleye stocked in the AuGres or the 1.5 million stocked in Portage Lake. Couple that with over 2 million stocked in Morrow Lake and 250,000 stocked in Tawas Bay, I'd say thats more than double whats stocked chinook and coho wise in the state, and triple whats stocked in the great lakes for steelhead and lake run browns COMBINED. No what is stocked as resident trout in the Muskegon, PM, and Manistee can not be counted as migratory cold water fish. I can provide more stocking locations for walleye if you would like sir, as I've only provided a few. All this information is available in the fish stocking database at the DNR website. A general search for walleye stocked in the state between the years of 2003-2006 will give you all the information needed. Stocking numbers of warm water species after 2006 have been affected greatly by VHS. So to get a true number of where the programs were at numbers wise you would have to look at stocking numbers prior to VHS as a control to an opinion. I see you like to alter facts to support your opinions. Not very helpful in my opinion. I also see your trying to find a cure for ignorance, maybe you should remember to utilize a key ingredient: RESEARCH.
> 
> ...


The same song and dance we hear about steelhead, in particular, is that the DNR doesn't have the hatchery space to raise more. Granted, they use a different hatchery system to raise walleye vs. steelhead, but when any river system gets 500,000 walleye and only 50,000 steelhead, that's abhorrent, criminal, and/or any other profanity you'd like insert here.

Leave the damn restricted licenses alone, but raise the all species another $10 and allocate that extra $$ to more hatchery space for the right kinds of fish. 

Just my thought on that...


----------



## Flyfisher (Oct 1, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> they use a different hatchery system to raise walleye vs. steelhead, but when any river system gets 500,000 walleye and only 50,000 steelhead, that's abhorrent, criminal, and/or any other profanity you'd like insert here.


Hutch, I trust you were typing when Jay was posting? 

As you can probably figure out now with Jay's info, that walleye plant of 500,000 walleye fry cost the state $450.00. In contrast, a stocking of 50,000 brown trout would cost about $36,500. I am sure that the cost to raise a steelhead to stocking size is similar, or slightly more expensive, than a brown trout. 

I also feel that license fees could be increased as it seems like Michigan is a relative bargain compared to other states that don't offer as much, particularly in regards to the all-species license.

Jay-Thanks for chiming in and educating us!


----------



## Jay Wesley (Mar 2, 2009)

Thousandcasts,

I appreciate your opinion. 

You are missing the point. 

500,000 walleye fry can be raised in a jar for 7 days and then shipped to the Grand River in a box that you can carry in one hand. There is no feeding and very little cost. 

50,000 Yearling steelhead take up a hatchery raceway or two for 14 months and require 24 hrs of water pumping, raceway cleaning, feeding, and a semi-truck to haul for stocking. The cost and space needs are very different. 

Take a tour of the Wolf Lake Fish Hatchery or another hatchery near you to get an idea on how each fish species is raised.


----------



## Roosevelt (Sep 21, 2007)

I'd rather see my money spent on native fish. Although, I do buy an all species every year and rarely do I fish for trout/ salmon anymore.


----------



## doctor's orders (Aug 25, 2009)

Flyfisher said:


> I also feel that license fees could be increased as it seems like Michigan is a relative bargain compared to other states that *don't offer* as much, particularly in regards to the all-species license.


Which states would those be? 

Since we have Mr. Welsey in on this I would like to ask a question or two. Has the DNR done any studies on walleye predation of salmon and steelhead smolts? If they have and it is a negative affect, then the cost of walleye stocking programs would have to incur some of the cost of steelhead/salmon/trout stockings. As the walleye programs would in turn lower the survival rates of smolting migratory trout and salmon species. Thus making thus making cold water species "return" rates lower on specific systems where both "cool water" and "cold water" species are maintained. Also would a muskie program have the same effect on migratory fish stocking in the same river systems? Are there any studies done? If there have been studies done I would like to take a look at them, if they are available to the public. This is a major concern for some west michigan river systems as what little is left, may become fish food for other fish stocking programs. 

Thanks,

Joe


----------



## Spanky (Mar 21, 2001)

Thanks for the info Jay. Does the fed still pay into the fund per fishing license sold. Therefore it would also match the same for every volunteer license sold too. Seems like I remember a figure of 7-8 bucks per license?

and if the kids bought the volunteer tag for 1-2 bucks the fed still contributed the regular amount also.

Is that still going on?


How was that BBQ?


----------

