MI - Action Alert - Huge Hunting Fee Increases - Hearing Tomorrow.

[Barbara]

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Natural Resources will hold a
hearing on Wednesday, December 6, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. on a DNR
Workgroup Study proposal to increase Michigan hunting license fees, in the House Appropriations Room at the Michigan Capitol.

Department of Natural Resources (Appropriations SubCommittee.
Chair, Howard Walker 517-373-1766.
Maj. VC: Darwin Booher, 517-373-1747.
Min. VC: Carl Williams 517-373-0152.

Or contact your State Representative via phone or email:
http://house.michigan.gov/replist.asp

Proposed New Fees (first $ amount is current cost, second $ amount is
proposed cost.)

Applications (restricted licenses) $4 $5
Bear $15 $50
Firearm or archery deer $15 $30
Combo deer $30 $75
Elk $100 $200
Antlerless deer $15 $30
Small game $15 $20
Turkey $15 $30
Fur harvester, trap only $15 $20
Waterfowl $5 $10
Restricted fish $15 $20
All species fish $28 $40
One-day fish $7 $15
Three-day fish all species NA $36
Senior firearms or archery deer $6 $24
Junior firearms or archery deer $7.50 $15
Senior small game $6 $16
Junior small game $1 $10
Senior fur harvester, trap $6 $16
Junior fur harvester, trap $7.50 $10
Senior restricted fish $6 $16
Senior all-species fish $11.20 $32
Junior all species fish $2* $2*
Nonresident deer $138 $165
Nonresident bear $150 $300
Nonresident combo deer $276 $330
Nonresident restricted fish $34 $40
Nonresident all-species fish $42 $80
Nonresident small game $69 $100
Nonresident 3-day small game $30 $40
Nonresident turkey $69 $140
Daily area use waterfowl $4 $7
Annual are use waterfowl $13 $20

 

[Clipper]

No problem with that...

...Costs go up. Wages go up. It's been quite a while since the DNR has asked for an increase, and I see no reason to complain about this one...

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Nonresident deer

It seems to me . . .

If you're going to shoot a "Nonresident deer" you'd better have one hell of a rifle. Maybe one with wheels.

 

[Barbara]

A 100% increase??? A 10-fold increase in the cost of a child's small game license??

Sheesh. With our employment levels here in Michigan, its going to hurt a lot of people. Hunters already carry the load in a lot of ways for animal and land conservation..to double fees is ridiculous. And when people stop taking their kids out to hunt anymore, we're going to end up hurting even more.

 

[Dan from MI]

NO NEW TAXES!!!

 

[Kim]

Goodness why all the different licences. Surely there is a general hunting amd fishing licence. If not the State of MI is nuts. 35.00 covers everything in AR for a year. You really have to buy all those different things. That is crazy.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Kim, you think thats bad, you should head to a state where game is even more scarce.

 

[Declaration Day]

NO NEW TAXES!!!

It's not a tax, it's a user fee, as it should be. I won't complain about this one. If the Michigan DNR needs more funding, so be it.

 

[Barbara]

Hunting rabbits on one's own property isn't exactly the definition of user fee. These aren't fees being charged for state game areas or use of state or public resources. They're increases in fees across the board.

Right now, a retired guy on a fixed income can take his 3 grandkids out back for some bunny hunting and it will cost him $9.00. Under this proposal, it will cost him $46.00. And fewer kids will hunt, fewer young people will be involved in shooting sports, and we'll all pay.

I'm sure the insurance companies are thrilled about this one..they pay enough in claims for car-deer accidents as it is.

 

[Grey54956]

Just when was the last time they changed the rates?

A Junior Small Game license is just a buck at the current rate. Seems that MI probably needs to raise the rates. Seriously, a $10 fee isn't high at all, but a $1 fee is ridiculously low.

Right now a retired guy can take his 3 grand kids out bunny hunting for $9. Well, now it will probably cost $46, so he will have to take the kids out more to get his money's worth. But, the DNR might actually get some much needed funding so it can enforce game laws, like putting the smack down on some guys with the cooler full of undersize or too many fish, the guys who shine for deer, and the folks taking game out of season.

Right now, the DNR in almost any state is critically underfunded, resulting in poor enforcement of game laws, poor camping services, park closures and so forth. The Feds have been cutting funding for years and leaving it to the states to make it up, which is impossible in today's political climate unless there is an increase in funds, i.e. licensing fees.

Remember, there is a slippery slope for DNR lands. First, services decline, then people stop going, followed by developers pushing politicians to sell off public lands because low attendance shows that they really aren't necessary to an already burdened state. Next thing you know, condos.

 

[Clipper]

...Read an issue of 'Michigan Out-of-Doors' magazine and what do you see in the 'DNR On Patrol' page? the same handfull of officers and their adventures in law enforcement. Why? Because there are only a pitiful handfull of DNR field officers! But there's plenty of editorials whining about poachers, Native American tribes abusing treaty fishing & hunting rights, oil lease enforcement and managing the wildlife population of the state, not to mention everyone seems to think Michigan must single-handedly maintain the water quality of the great lakes, stop the Zebra Mussel, bring back the ailwife, stock trout, salmon and muskie...But somehow do all this without funding. I don't think this goes far enough, actually. Non-resident hunters get a pretty good deal here. I'd like to see the bounty restored on Coyotes...I haven't seen a snowshoe hare in the Huron National forrest, where I used to hunt them, in 20 years. Maybe with a little incentive for those not interested in pelts, and kids looking for a bit of extra cash, we wouldn't be overrun with the darn things, decimating the small game & birds.

 

[ksnecktieman]

It looks like a tax to me. Call it user fee, license, permit, tag, inspection fee, hatchery fee, waterfowl stamp, or donation if you like. I will consider it a tax.
I am in Kansas, so it will not involve me, but the grandpa and three grandkids thing hits close to home. My daughter is married to a soldier, and they are presently in Germany with my three grandkids. When they come home for three weeks, I hope to get a day to take the kids to shoot or hunt. I would consider it prohibitive to pay 46 dollars to do it. ten dollars would not concern me, and twenty might even be reasonable.

I do understand that someone in the 50,000$ income range would consider this trivial, but a lot of our citizens are existing on wages from Walmart and similar paying jobs. That means the difference in one hour and four hours pay to them. Can any of us justify a half days pay to take the kids hunting once?

 

[Barbara]

You know, the thing is, no one is really objecting to an increase in fees..but come on? Suddenly, they need to be increased by more than 100%?

Maybe this is the part where we're being blown away, huh?

Cripes, folks..one of the few remaining reasons to live in this state is the hunting.

 

[50caliber123]

did the hikes in licenses pass?

 

[Manedwolf]

It's not a tax, it's a user fee, as it should be. I won't complain about this one. If the Michigan DNR needs more funding, so be it.

I was not aware that all the deer belonged to the government. In what part of the Constitution is this specified?

Man, Americans ARE completely brainwashed that TAXES ARE PART OF LIFE...

THINK, people, THINK!

 

[Hofstet]

An opinion regarding license fees

Being a northern Mi. resident I think it would be a great idea to license our annual influx of Morel Hunters, Bike Riders, Birders, etc that invade the northern lower and the UP from lower Mi, Ohio and Indiana. They certainly enjoy the benefits of our beautiful state w/o the obligation of helping to pay for the maintenance which is mostly paid for by the hunters and fishermen.
Just an opinion.

 

[redneckdan]

I'm a michigan born college student, studying at MTU. Licence prices are already pretty hard to fit into my budget, this increase if passed honestly would probably end my hunting until after college.

 

[Marshall]

The amount of the increase is too much, an increase is fine however.

The different lisences are more than likely "tags". You buy an annual hunting lisence and must buy tags for each of the listed game you plan to hunt. Notice that not all game require tags.

 

[Juna]

While I understand that the DNR needs more money, didn't we just pass the proposal that said that all licensing fees go to the DNR now? They didn't used to. They used to be spread around to the state budget. So I think in light of the passage of that proposal, it seems a bit excessive to jack the prices up that much.

 

[50caliber123]

Juna has a point. I myself voted for the proposal to give more funds to the DNR by keeping money that is supposed to belong to the DNR theirs. And I can understand an increase. But 100% or more is bogus on all accounts. This just hurts our state even more.

 

[Declaration Day]

I was not aware that all the deer belonged to the government. In what part of the Constitution is this specified?

Man, Americans ARE completely brainwashed that TAXES ARE PART OF LIFE...

THINK, people, THINK!

It's not an issue of the deer belonging to the government. Hunting licenses fund conservation. Since I don't devote my time and efforts towards that end, I don't mind paying someone else to do it, so that I, and my children / grandchildren can enjoy the Michigan parks and wildlife.

Furthermore, while some of the proposed increases seem excessive, I wonder how long the current rates have been in effect, and what they would be if they had been adjusted for inflation each year since their inception.

For the record, I am not brainwashed, I do plenty of thinking, and I never vote for higher taxes, no matter who or what they will supposedly benefit.

I will reiterate that hunting licenses are indeed a user fee, paid only by the people who choose to hunt. That is much better than dipping into everyone's pockets, in the form of a tax. Complain if you will. When you start volunteering much of your time to aid wildlife conservation efforts, I will agree that you should not have to pay a user fee.

 

[ArmedBear]

Some of those fees are not at all high.

A tag for rabbit, though?

Here, there are tags for big game (e.g. $22 for first deer tag, resident) but not for rabbits.

Perhaps that would be a better option.

 

[50caliber123]

If these higher license fees go into effect, I'll most likely boycott by giving up on hunting or attending any DNR camprgound/shooting range/etc. I cannot afford to pay those premiums on deer kill tags. If a lot of people follow suit, then the price of the licenses will have to go down. Otherwise the DNR will lose money, and big time.

 

[Declaration Day]

If that's your plan, make sure you write to them and tell them why you will not be buying any more hunting licenses.

 

[Clipper]

...Tough talk. You know and I know that come next year you'll be in the woods, if only so you can gripe to your buddies about how badly the DNR is screwing the poor hunter. Between the gas, hunting clothes, lodging, pub crawling, new guns and gear, missing work, etc. the extra license money is a drop in the bucket and you know it. If the extra fees are enough to stop you from hunting, you weren't very dedicated to it to begin with. So the DNR gets all the license funds...That means they only have 15 or so years of thievery by the legislature to make up for... :banghead: