|
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | 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. | |
| | |
| I was totally against the increase at first, but after some thought, I'm for it. It's a minor expense for me fishing all year, but I think they should keep one day and senior licenses low, so it doesn't effect part-time participation and those with limited income. With budget cuts and VHS expenses, they need every penny they can get. My only gripe is that I just voted for the referendum so 100% of the DNR income would stay within the agency and couldn't be porked out. What happened with all those extra funds?
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 701
Location: upper michigan | there is no doubt we can stand a fee increas but it is hard to swallow the amount they where trying to throw at us all at once. If they raised the fee 3dollers per license this year than 2 dollers each the next 2 years they would get what they want just a little slower. I know that if the fee increases went as they proposed I would not buy all the license I normally would. I would not buy the trout and salomon because 1 or 2 trips a year are not woth it. I would not buy the small game because the 0 to 5 grouse I shoot a year are not worth what I would pay. I would only buy 1 deer license because doe tags are cheap. they would loose more than they would gain if they passed the proposed package they need to rethink it there is a better way than what they had. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Terror - 4/14/2007 6:53 PM
I was totally against the increase at first, but after some thought, I'm for it. It's a minor expense for me fishing all year, but I think they should keep one day and senior licenses low, so it doesn't effect part-time participation and those with limited income. With budget cuts and VHS expenses, they need every penny they can get. My only gripe is that I just voted for the referendum so 100% of the DNR income would stay within the agency and couldn't be porked out. What happened with all those extra funds?
Good point Terror about VHS expenses. And I think the referendum monies is going to take some time to kick in. But the concerns about this new foreign Virus invader seem to be serious to non-exsistant among the fishing segment of our society. This is one plague that has the potential to devistate our fisheries no matter what we might do. But we cannot afford to do nothing. And on top of that, the new news is that the foreign shipping companies that brought that Virus and virtually all the other invasives in, is suing and trying to reverse the States that inacted the new bilge water rules and laws that try to stem any further invaders. Which reminds me I have to check with my lawyer about the law suit I have pending against McDonalds and Burger King for making me fat.
Edited by walleye express 4/15/2007 6:38 AM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Linked to this same subject 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 starts 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. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 57
| Dan I have no problem with increases for licenses when needed but I believe others that enjoy the same outdoors as we hunters and fishermen do should have to pull there weight as well. It seems everytime there is a need for more money they come after our licenses fees. Until I see some other ideas for generating revenue for the DNR I am against the fee increase. What about a increase in boat launch fees run by the DNR, how about fees for state park and camping facilities run by the DNR, how about registration for non-motorized boats that use the same waters as us, parking fee increases for stateland run by the DNR. Thaere are alot of out of "out of the box" thinking that can happen. I for one will oppose any license increases until I see everyone who can use the great resources of this state start kicking in. It is just to easy for the DNR to say we need more money raise license fees, com on it isd time for everyone to help not justthe hunters and fisherman. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Taildancer.
I respect your views and decision on the issue. And even though they obviously don't reflect mine, I encourage you to send them in their entirety to your legislator to help him/her make an informed choice on this issue. I'm positive your views are better thought out and offer more alternative choices then the simple (anger induced) "YES or "NO's" they're receiving now.
Edited by walleye express 4/15/2007 10:30 AM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 701
Location: upper michigan | We need to look at the whole picture because you may gain revenue by increasing the fee but you are going to loose revenue in total sales. I would cut my total license purchase by half. Now if 1/2 the people that buy license in Michigan do the same you are allready down 1/4 of your proposed gain. Gradual increases are the ticket raise them 3 dollers across the board reident and 6 or 10 non resident. You will impact total sales very little and be on the way to makeing back what you need. Then like I said raise your fees 2 or 3 dollers a year after that so it isnt such a slap in the face. I know that the DNR needs the money but they arent gonna make it buy discouraging people from hunting and fishing with a giant price increase. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Butch.
You to have some good ideas. Send them along, it can't hurt.  | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 701
Location: upper michigan | I did and i also sent an eamil to everyone in the district 2 walleye club. I made the letter nuetral and asked them to voice there opinion. Dan I am sorry if I have come off as confrentaional on this subject. It means alot to me as it does to you. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 377
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.I would have to agree with the smaller increase.As you may have some that don't buy as much. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 31
| Here's one that really got my attention. When a person is busted for fish and game violations, where do you suppose the money from any fines they receive goes? According to a recent article in the "Michigan Outdoor News," $10 from every judgement goes to the DNR, the rest goes to the state library fund! I don't know how much revenue is generated by these fines, but it easily has to be in the tens of thousands, if not more. That's money that SHOULD be going back to the DNR, not libraries! As the author of the article said, "If that's the case, the DNR should get the money from all the over due book fines."
This money surely wouldn't fix the DNR's shortfall, but it would be a step in the right direction. If they raise license fees as drastically as some of the plans call for, there will be a lot more tickets issued for fishing/hunting without a license. If this situation isn't changed, the libraries are going to make out like bandits! | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | Butch.
We may be getting the new increases the way you suggested via a new Bill.
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.
Edited by walleye express 4/18/2007 2:44 PM
| |
| | |
| are tough monies short. I say lay off and cut expenses like any other company in the state has had to do. Reality is they need more DNR down south, or overseas that is where the funds went along with those people and jobs that used to support the states infrastructure.
It's too bad but that is reality. The gloves need to come off. You expect me to pay more when I watch half of the hatchery fingerlings getting dumped in a local river get eaten by commorants, because some do gooder likes to watch the black fish death from above through binoculars or on animal planet videography at the expense of true outdoor stewards...give me a friggin break...
TB, CWD, VHS, SEA LAMPHREY...etc,etc. but the ships keep bringing more invasives in day by day...and another big game disease of the week is going to be discovered....c'mon
WAKE UP! | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 591
Location: in the boat off the east shore somewhere | All i want to say is.. Follow the money... why the fishing and hunting fees are used to fund every project put forth is beond my comprehention... other than a few park stickers what other source is there. as for invasive critters go.. if i transport a zebra muscle or milfoil into one of my smaller local lakes god knows what my financial responsibuilty would be. we here stories of run off problems from septic huge penalties for soil from a project on a lake front home getting to the shoreline in a rain storm ... if there are problems with ships tanks and contamination from other parts of the world than the cargo should be dropped at the docks and transfered to another ship used for fresh water travel only... or eliminate most of the shipping to the great lakes all togather ... for what reason does a ship from china need to be in a harbor in milwaukee anyway? what kind of cargo are we dealing with... #1 no ships allowd from international waters into our fresh water suply .#2 we wont need to keep draining the great lakes to keep the water levels up in the ship cannals as these huge ocean size ships wont be let threw. #3 STOP the dnr fee funds for what they were intended for .. and not to pay for some unrelated budget problem our state decides we need before we dicide how to pay for it.! in the state of wisconsin there is consideration of reopening a lock system to give boaters from the bay of green bay access to lake winnabaggo ... yet all i see at every boat ramp is clean your boat ... weeds fish bugs zebras ..bait.. ect. telling me its my fault and i will be responsible if i violate. now we have a virus that has the potential to do who knows what? and we have states using this horrible threat to tell you we need another ten bux a permit. yet no changes to shipping we can still open locks we can still drain lake michigan so the intercoastal shipping can navigate, just frustraiting .. no the extra fee increase wont affect me much.. ill skip going to michigan fishing next time im near the border. oh well. or maybe ill pay it .. i dont know. i just think the fee increase should be justified with a more truthfull explanation... like we want to increase our state employees we want to buy more land for public use? we want to start a new agency to inforce or regulate this or that. just tell it like it is.. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | 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.”
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. | |
| |
|
Mich. License fee increases languish at what cost?