Mi. License increase languishes.

[Walleye Express]

Michigan's DNR programs and budget needs that run and keep vital programs going are in serious trouble. There will be a program shortfall in the millions this year. Blame anybody or everybody you want, but the fact is additional funds (via license fees) are needed to keep the most vital resource programs alive. The Natural Resource Commission (NRC) voted to raise both the Hunting and Fishing Licence for this 2007 season to keep the most important of these alive . But for lack of support from the public it may languish, not be voted on or die in comity. Legislators have received many more (NO) letters and E-mails then (YES). And it is not my intention here to solicit a yes vote or chastise a no vote. But please, whatever your opinion on the matter let your legislators know. When things start being cut or changed because of these results one way or the other. Know at least you voiced your honest opinion.

[Bob's Outdoors]

It would be real nice if real issues got discussed by serious people and well thought out reasonable solutions to the real problems were worked out reasonably.

Instead you have alarmists, greedy bureaucrats and spineless politicians running the show.

There are some real issues. DNR land is entirely paid for by fees, yet all citizens can use it. You do have to balance an increase against the number of licenses you will lose with an increase. At some point an increase will lose you money.

I have a problem with the whole "pay as you go" idea. Sounds good, but the world is much more complex. A charter in Ludington brings in an average of over $700 spent in the community, NOT INCLUDING THE CHARTER AND THE LICENSES. So the whole rest of the economy benefits from that charter. I know a significant amount of my money has been spent in Ludington and South Haven outside of the marina and tackle stores. So every single person in Ludington, (even your card carrying vegan PETA youknowwhat) benefits from Salmon stocking.

On the other hand, it is pretty clear something has to be done. Someone has to step up to the issues. MUCC came out supporting an increase and was immediately trashed for it, with whole clubs threatening to resign. I spoke out on my website and received a couple of nasty emails.

It's not like I like the idea of lifting another couple of bucks out of your wallet (you could be buying tackle with that money) but I think the reality is some increase must take place or some programs we need will be cut. I don't like it, or even agree that is the way things should work, but that is the reality.

[Walleye Express]

Linked to this same subject Bob, is an E-mail I recieved this morning from the Michigan Charter Boat Association (MCBA).

MCBA, Board, port Captains

Due primarily to budget issues the DNR has suspended Charter Boat inspections for the year 2007.

The attached adobe file contains the letter prepared to mail Charter Boat owners.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, if a License fee package is not in place by October you may expect more cuts in hunting and fishing programs.

I have attempted through meetings, and email the importance of contacting your Legislators in support of the Hunting and Fishing License package, unfortunately Legislators are not hearing enough from supporters only from opponents.

Capt. Denny Grinold

MCBA State Affairs Officer

Now, this decrelation does not effect anybody who fishes tournaments or for fun in our state. And there's always been debate between us (MCBA) Charter captains and the DNR about both the cost and man power used to conduct these inspections. We as charter captains pay $150.00 to $250.00 every two years to have our vessels DNR inspected both at Dry Dock or at Dock Side in alternate years. Of course when DNR officers are inspecting charter boats they cannot be doing other things. And with close to 500 registered charter boats in Michigan, the man power argument is persuasive.

And you would think I would be happy about this news, being able to save both some preparation time for the inspection and some fee money because of it's postponement this year. On the surface of course I am, but wonder about what new laws or rules will have to be enacted to make sure and keep my/all charter boats safe and sea worthy in the future, if this temporary fix becomes the norm. These inspections have kept our clients safe and liability insurance costs down lower then most other states that have no such inspection laws. And if independents are brought in there will be no set fast rules, guidelines or reliability tests for individual inspections. This is just part of what can happen and might, to the general publics operating rules, laws and regulations if money constraints force unpopular decisions and cuts.

It's my personal view that the cost of gas has been as much to blame for the unpopular license fee increase as anything has. I think the last time licenses fees were raised gas was about $1.19 a gallon. I just spent $49.00 to fill my truck up last time I did. This weekly rage I feel every time I fill up (excuse the punn) fuels and spills over to anything I see as taking extra money out of my pocket. But the alternative stinks just as bad in my view.

[huntingfool43]

IMO one of the major issues with the increase is that it is a bandaid. Give the icrease now and it will fix the current problem, but what happens next? If they would get off their asses and work on a plan to fund the DNR from here on out I don't think people would be so negative. This short fall didn't happen over night, they should have been working on this years ago. With the licence sales dropping every year, to think they can raise fees to keep up is just plain out of the question. Why isn't there something like a 1/2 or 1 percent sales tax put on that would go straight to the DNR budget? There has to be a better way to fix the problem, if they expect the sportsman to foot the whole bill we will end up like France and a few other where only the rich can enjoy the sport. Once they come up with a better solution then increase fees and do things like habitat improvements on state land etc..

[Walleye Express]

IMO one of the major issues with the increase is that it is a bandaid. Give the icrease now and it will fix the current problem, but what happens next? If they would get off their asses and work on a plan to fund the DNR from here on out I don't think people would be so negative. This short fall didn't happen over night, they should have been working on this years ago. With the licence sales dropping every year, to think they can raise fees to keep up is just plain out of the question. Why isn't there something like a 1/2 or 1 percent sales tax put on that would go straight to the DNR budget? There has to be a better way to fix the problem, if they expect the sportsman to foot the whole bill we will end up like France and a few other where only the rich can enjoy the sport. Once they come up with a better solution then increase fees and do things like habitat improvements on state land etc..

I agree Steve.

And hopefully the new referendum on sporting equipment we voted in in November will start supplying some or most of the monies needed in the next few years. But we need to stop the bleeding as soon as we can now before the wound gets to infected to heal. If it does heal and comes back again because of mis-managment and pork barrel programs, I to will become part of the silent majority.

[Lion Den]

Here are a couple of issues that I have with the increases.

1. I don't mind some increase, but the most rescent plan is to double the fees over 3 years. Part of the problem is a decreasing number of participants. Doubling fees will reduce the number of participants, therefore decrease the amount of expected money. You aren't going to double fees and double revenue. As an example. I purchased my deer combos last year. I hunted 2 days during bow season. I won't spend the money if liscences double.In the long run by decreasing participants, you will increase the power of the anti hunter/fisherman. That is my biggest fear. At the same time we increase fees we will be decreasing officers. Do you think there will be any illegal activity?

2. The State, Feds, Schools whatever can't manage the money they have. Give them more and it will dissapear then some. Then in a few years we need to raise something again. We passed a law last year the reinforces the fact that licence money can't be moved to other budget items. But here is a fact. That money can be moved at will with the correct verbage. As an example. School Foodservice revenue can only be used for school foodservice by law. This law has existed a long time. However, by justifiying a connection to foodservice that money can be moved to buy other things. As an example, they can move foodservice money to pave a parking lot or driveway and justify it by saying they need a paved lot for food delivery. I can give you dozens of scenerios like this.

Daniel

[Priority1]

Another problem with the proposed increase, is the Sr. License. For yrs. the Seniors payed next to nothing. I get close to this mark and what happens? The way the original proposal was, the senior license would bear the biggest percentage increase. I'm not able to buy that license yet, but we will all be there some day. The seniors of today and in the future will NOT get the breaks like we gave to our fathers. The government failed to project, and set a little of our money aside. The Senior issue goes much deeper than just fishing licenses. The big problem is that our money was used to supplement a wide range of social programs. Now there is greater percentage of retirees to workers, so the government says "Let's cut some of the programs for seniors". It has been slowly happening for the last ten years. The value of my pension dollar has eroded to the point that I can't tolerate any increases. For years we paid the piper, but now they don't want us to dance.

[Walleye Express]

Heres something to consider. I took this posted answer to my post off another board.

Posted 4/16/2007 7:01 AM (#54436 - in reply to #54366)

Subject: RE: Mich. License fee increases languish at what cost?

Member

Posts: 362

Location: Neenah Wi.

I'm not a Mich resident but a cheesehead from Wisc.I just bought my license and my resident wisc was as much as my non-resident Mich.I cant believe it has not gone up.It is a small price to pay for all the days I spend on the water.I purchase 3 yearly state licenses and they are all around 30-35 if I remember right.

[Lion Den]

That is true. We must be one of the lowest non-resident places to hunt/fish. To priority1's point, my 10 year old son duck/goose,squirrel, rabbit hunts all fall and winter for $1. I like paying a $1, but frankly I would pay $15.

[GLF]

Everyone uses state land for free. Why should the fisherman and hunters pay the bill? Why not slap a $1.00 fee on everyones license/ID?

[Walleye Express]

Bills seek phased-in fee hikes to hunt, fish

Without the increase, DNR is headed for a funding shortfall that is expected to keep rising.

James Prichard / Associated Press

LANSING -- It may soon cost more to bag a buck or to reel in a big one in Michigan.

Two state lawmakers have written bills that seek significant, phased-in price increases in the state's hunting and fishing licenses.

Some license fees would go up two or three times, or more.

Sen. Liz Brater, D-Ann Arbor, introduced her fishing fees bill in the Senate on Tuesday, while Rep. Matt Gillard, D-Alpena, was likely to introduce his companion hunting fees bill in the House today, their offices said.

If the bills are passed, fees could go up immediately, said Mary Dettloff, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, who had not seen the actual language of the bills. Full increases would be phased in over a four-year period, with an additional 5 percent increases in years five and six.

Hunting and fishing license fees have not gone up since 1996, she said. Without legislative approval of the proposed fee increases, the DNR is headed for a funding shortfall that is expected to rise from $9 million next year to as much as $46 million by the 2009-10 fiscal year.

The cost of a firearm or archery deer license would double from $15 to $30 for Michigan residents during the next four years and rise from $138 to $165 for out-of-state deer hunters.

[CaptLevi]

It's all a load of u no what. They could raise fees by 1000% and it wouldn't be enough. There would be too much money so Lansing would funnel it off to somewhere more "needing" (like raises for themselves and staff) and still would try to justify more cuts in services.

Let Lansing cut the fat first. Layoff or fire the majority of personal staff and excessive office workers before officers and field workers, or closing hatcheries. Lansing operates like a manufacturing plant gone crazy.......hire 200 office workers to manage paperwork and have meetings but layoff all but 10 manufacturing employees due to no working capitol, and sell the raw products and machinery to cut costs. They may as well close the doors and declare bancruptcy.

When the people lose jobs, Lansing loses tax revenue. The answer is smaller government, not higher tax burdens for our remaining workforce.

Wake up people! Stop electing lawyers and judges to be polititians. They don't have a clue. Elect business managers and we will see some different results.

[Walleye Express]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 19, 2007

CONTACT: Mary Dettloff 517-335-3014

Legislation Introduced to Incrementally Increase Hunting and Fishing License Fees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other significant highlights of the legislation include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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