Did you hear about this?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article.../611120675/1058

Yes, I support this completely. We are long overdue for a bump of these costs. We spend $30 in gas to drive to our hunting area but only have to spend $15 each to fund the administration of the deer herd. I am quite willing to support this raise in fees as we get a tremendous amount of quality recreational time over the course of a season and have been paying about the same price to go watch some overpriced Hollywood star perform some BS on the wide silver screen. We think nothing of spending $15 to watch that trash but many will balk at this raise.

Guys, think about it. This should not be an issue. Support this fee upgrade.

I am definitely in support of it, 200 bucks(ish) for my year round licenses is nothing but we really need it. I was just curious on if anyone knows if it passed or not, or when they are supposed to vote for it?

PaPaBob
your right on your opinion BUT if Mi politicians are anything like the ones here in IL very little if any of this extra $$$$ will even go to help &/OR improve Mi's wildlife/habitat/hunting etc.

I dont think many hunters no matter what state they are in would have a problem paying a little more for license/permit's etc if the money went where it should, back into what is earning the money.
This is all just IMO.

Well said Silbow

We have it good in Missouri. The Department of Conservation is completely seperate from the legislature. MDC sets the rules and prices and gets all the money. We actually have a 1/8% state wide sales tax that goes to the MDC in addition to the license fees. It is a great system.

Someone else from Mo has told me about that before, dont remember who.
It sounds like a great system.

These fees are set by the legislature as earmarked directly for the DNR to improve habitat, administer the programs, and fund law enforcement. This money will go directly who needs it.

Who needs it or who should be getting it ?


Thats who is screwing it up here (again IMO)legislatures.
It started going down hill fast about 4 years ago and continues to get worse. Somebody somewhere found a loop hole and they just keep abusing it.
Being used for everything but what it was meant for.

As you know the N/R fees have gone up and continue to go up yet there are fewer and fewer CPO's and DNR folks to take of the state parks, etc.

Senior firearms or archery deer $6 $24

thats cause this is your price Bob not much of an increase. just kidding Bob

but no for real, i support it, i would pay anything to get into the great outdoors. the only problem is i think we would lose alot of hunters that could not afford it or there will be alot of people hunting illegally

I have already brought this up to people and they brought up a good point that some people are just going to go hunting and if they kill a deer, they will buy a license but if they dont, they wont buy one..which im sure isnt the case with most people but it is just one drawback of it...Its not helping bring new hunters in even tho alot of us are in favor of it

Let me give you a little more insight regarding the license package and the use of the $$in Michigan. As someone who worked for MDNR Wildlife for 32 years, and also bought more than a dozen licenses last year,
( all at the regular price by the way) I support the package and here's why. Hopefully I won't make this too big of a soap box.

Michigan Deer hunters are getting one heck of a deal on license fees now and have been since the first licenses were established in 1895.

All of the License $$ is earmarked specifically for use for fiheries and wildlife management and fish and game law enforcement. This is protected by both state and federal legislation. It can not be spent for any other purposes.

Funds for the fish, wildlife and law enforcement programs has remained stable or slightly reduced, while prices and costs continue to increase. The economy is tough in Michigan, but hunting licenses are still one heck of a bargin. I'm sure others on the forum will tell you that $15 for a license to hunt deer is a real deal.

The present administration of the DNR will do what is right with any additional $$. The license hike is planned to provide excess$$ for a few years. These excess funds, since they can not be used for anything but game/fish/law programs,are actually planned to be put in a trust fund which will provide additional funding in later years when the costs of operations increase. The proposed package will provide "temporary" funding help for probably the next 8-9 years. There really needs to be a long term solution to the funding of fish/wildlife/natural resource law enforcement programs since they are what make this state and many others a great place to live, and recreate.
A little light on why there is a problem with the game/ fish fund and how it is tied to and used by the legislature.

Over the past 10 years, the legislature has slowly eliminated general fund $$ that the DNR used to use for operations. These funde used to make up over 25% of the DNR budget. That is now reduced to less than 10%. Those general funds were specifically provided to the DNR budget for many purposes, but the largest amounts were for two items. 1). Payment of taxes on state owned lands, and 2). reimbursement to the game and fish fund for the senior citizens license discounts.

The state of michigan has a tremendous acreage of publicly owned lands. We have the largest state forest and wildlife area acreage in the U.S.Couple that with the national Forests in this state, and Michigan has more public lands available than any other state in the nation. These lands are open to all residents for outdoor recreation. BUT,to save general fund $$,the legislature removed general fund $$ from the budget,thus forcing the DNR to pay these taxes from the game and fish $$. (at about $10.0 million per year) Doesn't seem fair that the hunters and anglers are the only users of these lands that pay for that use while all others do it for free. Unfortunately very few people understand this.

When the present license package was passed in 1994, the legislation provided that general fund $$ would be used t oreimbures the game an fish fund for the discounted cost of the senior citizen licenses. They get a 90% discount here in Michigan. Since this discount was promoted as a social welfare program within the legislature(sorry old guys)it was passed, and the language added t oallow for the 90% discount with the discount identified to be paid back to the game and fish fund each year. Unfortunately since the law was passed, this reimbursement has happened only once and for only a portion of the difference. This approx $2-3 million per year.

This is not a perfect package, and has a long way to go before it is passed by the legislature. The package has not been passed and a bill actually has not been drawn up yet. A bill will not be drawn up until after Jan 1, 2007 when the new legislature begins session. Keep in mind also, this is a new legislature with a majority of brand spanking new legislators. ( most of whom do not hunt or fish) It will probably not be passed until late into the 2007 budget year, thus probably resulting in the cutting of programs and personnel.
If you guys are in Michigan or hunt here you should let a local legislator know your thoughts on this package in the next few months.
Sorry

Well, finally. I have been waiting for a posting from you on this one. I figured you would have the straight skinny on just what was happening and this certainly clears it up. I will personally be making a phone call tomorrow in support of this legislation. The rest of you Michigan guys should also.

Captiveone]
I'm not saying your wrong but here is one example of how ear marking things gets done, at least around here.






Rod is the current gov. was just re-elected.



The Pittman-Robertson Act imposes a tax on hunting equipment that you never even see. This money is collected by the Federal government and dispersed to the states based on the number of license sales, etc. This money is earmarked for wildlife habitat and associated costs of managing it. However, it also can be used for day-to-day operations by the state natural resource agencies. Now the IL DNR has been getting their budget cut for a long time but this money couldn't be touched. Well ol' Rod couldnt stand not being able to raid it, so he figured out a way. See the DNR used to own just about all of their buildings. In other words it cost them nothing to keep their office space, etc. Well Rod decided to transfer all of the DNR's buildings to ownership by an agency called Central Management Services (CMS). So the DNR no longer owns their buildings and now has to actually PAY RENT on them. The DNR Region 5 office in Benton costs the DNR $40,000/yr now when it used to cost them nothing. Imagine what this has done to the DNR statewide. Where do you think that money comes from? That's right....YOUR federal wildlife funds that are supposed to be for managing and purchasing wildlife habitat and public use opportunities.

This happened right under our noses....imagine what else we don't know about.

SI, You are right. That is exactly what I was getting at regarding the taxes and senior citizens discount repayment here in Michigan. It is the same at the building reltals. Same reason for happening also. The hunters and anglers ARE NOT keeping close track of what THEIR legislative reps are doing for / TO them.

There is language in Federal PR law as well as state statute that guards against these types of funding shifts, especially for buildings or other identified property. IF those building were purchased or utilities maintainence/ repairs were made on those buildings with Game/ Fish or PR$$ in the past, OR if the land those buildings is located on was purchased with PR $$ the Feds would definitely like to know. They do have a hammer to force/ pursuade state legislatures to abide by the PR regulations or lose ALL PR $$ until they come back into compliance wit hthe law. If the situation gets bad enough,the potential to lose ALL federal funds due to what they call diversion of federal funds for illegal purposes comes into play. Needless to say, when a state legislature is faced with the loss of federal matching $$they usually sit up and listen. In Michigan, in the past,organized sports groups have pointed this out to the PR folks and asked for a program audit to show just where the $$ is being spent. That really gets the state budget folks in a yank, and usually results in the state restructuring expenditures to fit the legal requirements of the PR law. You might want to ask someone in the Ill DNR when the last PR program audit was.

Thanks for the reply, Captiveone.

Unfortunately, despite being accurate with all the previous postings, MI DNR has bungled this again, by mis-management.

They complained that they were $10,000,000 in the red, and when the legislature said NO to the bill, all of a sudden, there was a SURPLUS os $10,000,000, so in reality, they wer off by $20,000,000 ???????

I support the men in the field, but feel that it is a sad story when the politics get involved and events like this one occur.

Before people jump on the band wagon, thinking that I am anti-dnr, let me say that I have volunteered for 20+ years with the local DNR, worked with the Ms Humphries late husband, also with John Lerg from the goose farm, etc.

I have a problem with the management of the DNR, they are in my opinion un-accountable. I hope that somehow, the situation I described is resolved so that it never occurs again.

-bubba