Michigan Licences Doubling in price across the board

[Niteowl]

Our License fees are more than doubling on Deer Tags from $30 for the combo to $75...Fishing are going from $15 for the standard license to $25,then you add your different species stamps for additional fees. The seniors are now only getting a 20% discount instead of a fixed price, our young and first time hunters are gonna pay also,almost the same as the senior hunters. The DNR says its because of at the current rate we are losing hunters and fisherman in the state,that by the year 2010 our resources will be $45,000,000 in the red. I just don't see where this is going to do any good,the seniors are on a fixed income,they cannot afford $60 for a license,specially with the way our deer numbers are down in the state,contrary to what the DNR and Insurance companies say. Your every day hunter will now take a chance on hunting without a license,and if he gets lucky enough to harvest one,he will rush out to buy a license. I will continue to buy mine,but I work full time and have very little chance of losing my income due to pull outs or cut backs....but what about all my neighbors and others that only work about 8 months out of the year because of layoffs,or the other 200 workers locally who lost their jobs because the company went to Canada? It seems to me that we voted on something a couple years ago about keeping "other" hands out of our natural resources fund. Thats why the fund now is depleted. I just think its a load of hog slop.....Thank You GOV. JENNIFER GRANHOLM!!!!

[Rocky Raab]

Just remember, all who voted Democrat to teach Bush and the Republicans a lesson. Well, this is what you got.

[multibeard]

Rocky

We already had a Democratic Governor (female Canadian born to boot) before last falls election. Of course she won by a land side over her opponent. You have to remember that Detroit (auto industry/ labor union/democrat) runs this state.

As far as how bad the increases in license fees will actually be we will have to wait and see. The legislature is the one that has to pass the new fees. Most licenses are supposed go on sale on March 1. I doubt that the legislature can get ans increase passed by that time. If they don't I doubt that we will see any increases before next year. Just don't hold me too that statement.

The new fees are only a recommended change. I know that if the legislature passes the recommended changes I will buy fewer licenses and give up something like trout fishing that I may do once or twice a year as the fee will go from 15 bucks to 30. That is what I would pay for just a warm water license if the recommendations go through.

[BILLY D.]

Amen to Rockys reply.

This is just another attempt to price the average guy out of the market and stop hinting and fishing as we know it.

Hey, if Joe Six Pack can't afford to hunt he doesn't NEED those guns anymore so lets get them out of the countryside and off the streets.

Meanwhile Richie Rich can afford his canned and guided hunts. But they have an answer to that also, it's called registration and taxation. Can't happen here? Say bet. Look at Europe. Lots? of hunters and firearms owners. Now check what economic class they are in. Buy the way in the future all hunts will be guided. It will be on set aside basis, lands usually leased to the guides.

But thats ok, if you make less than $80K a year you need to be getting an education so you can make more money to buy cheap Chinese crap to improve your quality of life.

But we will have the sporting journals to remind us of times past, fishing, hunting and times spent in the outdoors. Isn't life grand? Like I told my kids years ago, board up your butts. And I'm glad I'm old cause I don't have to put up with this crap much longer.

Sorry for a less than stellar post but it's just the way I feel.

Best wishes, Bill

[wrenchman]

I was reading that the nrc wont be getting what they want, but they will be getting a increase of about 4%.
there is lots of screaming over what they want. they are on crack for even asking for double the rate we have now.

[Rocky Raab]

Whether past, present or future, if you elect liberals, the result is higher taxes, higher fees, more laws, more welfare and more crime.

But to balance that off, you also get fewer businesses to hire anyone, fewer chances to waste your money on hunting, fewer choices of supposedly dangerous products like guns to buy, and less of any part of your life not governed by a benevolent bureaucracy.

[Ol` Joe]

Much as I`d like to blame the Dem Governor it`s the NRC that is asking for the increase and the state legislature that set licence fees. Here`s a artical on it.

http://www.michiganoutdoornews.com/articles/2007/01/29/news/news3.txt

[drummer]

LOL at hunters complaining any time they have to give something back. One of these days, when there are nine billion people on earth, you're going to want a place to hunt and some game that isn't going to be in a pen.And there won't be any. But it will be somebody else's fault.

[Dan Morris]

Gonna go with Rocky on this one. I haven't seen Colorado new data yet.......probably gonna be about the same.
Dan

[gd357]

The biggest problems with Michigan IMHO are Detroit, and Flint with a few other areas. Take away those spots, and you've got a state that is a resoundingly republican demographic that can't out-vote the major cities. If nonresident licenses go up by that margin, they've lost another out-of-state hunter that was already paying way too much for deer tags.

gd

[Niteowl]

GD, go the DNR home page www.michigan.gov/dnr...they are "suggesting" out of state hunters fees will go up to a minium of $130 for a deer tag. I see us going down really fast and really hard. The amount of residual income for food,lodging,ammo,entertainment,ect will drop considerably from this hike. Its no wonder why our young people are leaving this state by the droves. Right now 2 out of 3 young people are leaving for other permanent places. Its not just the hunting / fishing fees going up,its the fact that our Jobs are leaving left and right. Yamaha Guitars in Grand Rapids just announced yesterday that 120 people will lose their jobs because they are moving to Canada!...I say if our American companies move out of the country,the import taxes should be so high that they can not afford to sell their product back to the USA. And "WE" can thank this Illustrious Democrap Govenor that our people so willingly re-voted another 4 years....she will tax and cut us into total insolvency.:(

[gd357]

Niteowl,

last fall nonresident fees were $138 for a single buck permit, and $100 for a doe tag. We were able to use block permits for several of the farms we hunt, but you still have to have a nonresident tag in order to use block permits. After looking at the proposal, they are wanting to raise the rates on the buck permits to $165.:rolleyes: In Virginia, for example, I can get 4 deer tags, 3 turkey tags, and a bear permit with a nonresident hunting license(required) for the cost of one deer permit in Michigan. I'm losing incentive really quick to keep hunting our usual spots. To make matter worse, deer numbers are down significantly because they've had several early doe seasons in the county we hunt, and decimated the population(it needed thinned out, but they may have went a bit too far). I never thought I'd go up there, and come home empty-handed, but I did that this past fall. If I'm gonna spend that kind of money on tags, I'd better be able to put some meat in the freezer.

gd

[Rocky Raab]

One of the hidden results of very high tag prices is illegal killing - especially for out-of-staters.

When you have to really pay through the nose for a tag, the thought process is "I'm gonna get SOMETHING for all that money, no matter what." Nonresidents in particular may be tempted to shoot the first animal he sees, legal or not. Then throw it in the trunk and scoot for the state line and home.

[drummer]

More people+Fewer hunters+Less land+ rising fuel and mainetenence costs = ?

Using the illegal kill argument cuts both way. If there were fewer poachers, your license costs wouldn't be so high. People are responsible for their actions and passing the blame onto somebody else doesn't get it done. Hopefully the fine is much more expensive than the license though. In time we will have to do a more thorough job of weeding out the dead beets.:D

It costs about $70 to fill up your truck and 4 wheeler, but the license breaks you? Unfortunately the entitlement attitude of the hunting communtiy is similar to that of the inner city.

Look, with overpopulation and urban development, the pie is getting smaller. In order to preserve hunting for future generations, we are all going to have to work a little harder and make more sacrifices, be it license increases, or volunteering time and money to conservation groups.

Right now in my state, we are working on a "place to hunt program" (that is, those of us who want to give back to the sport and the wildlife; probably the minority.)

It offers tax breaks to landowners who allow walk in hunting, and smaller tax breaks to those that agree not to develop their land.Unfortunately, the program will probably fall apart because some "hunter" will disrespect the land in some way. Our COs are stretched out thinner than piss on a hot rock.In order to try to prevent that, we are going to need more conservation officers. How is that going to be feasible? A license increase. Guess who's going to complain? If more money becomes earmarked for land acquisistion, I will support a license increase.

Somebody has to pay for this. To my knowledge, only Arkansas and Missouri receive a portion of the state sales tax. Most wildilfe agencies do not want other sources of revenue; be it taxes or nonhunting WMA access permits, becuase when somebody pays $$$, they want a say in policy making. In this way the hunters have a better degree of control.And despite large urban areas, Michigan is a hunting state.

Also, you will recieve 3 dollars from the feds for every one dollar Michigan generates thanks to the Pittman Robertson act.That money goes straight to wildlife management and education.

Think about it.

;)

[BILLY D.]

Originally posted by drummer
LOL at hunters complaining any time they have to give something back. One of these days, when there are nine billion people on earth, you're going to want a place to hunt and some game that isn't going to be in a pen.And there won't be any. But it will be somebody else's fault.


HUH!

Drummer please 'splain to me how I can give back what I never had? I don't own any land per se, don't own any deer, antelope or such.

Is this like the gun buy back programs? If it is, I don't recall buying any firearms from any city dept. or any other group. I got all mine in sporting goods stores or from friends. How can somebody buy back what they didn't sell to you?

For your edification the latest population forecast models forcast a world population of 9 Billion sometime between 2045 and 2050.

Best wishes, Bill

[drummer]

You don't own any land, deer or antelope, but you can go harvest them on land open to the public, much of which was purchased and maintained by revernue from license sales.When I say giving back, I mean giving back to nature and to the wilidlife from which we draw pleasure. No that's not a green concept- it's a conservationist concept that all true sportsman believe in.

I know this is a heavily conservative board and ideas contrary to the existing paradigms are met with suspicion and oftentimes downright hostility, but I'll give it a go.

The animals on your land do not belong to you, until you legally place your tag on it. The game and the nongame belong to all of us if to any of us and we have to work as a team to keep things going.

We live in a world full of people, most of which grow up in an urban/suburban lifestyle rather than a rural/ wilderness setting these days. That's a pretty recent development. Yes times are a changing. For thoses of you in deep west Texas or Wyoming, that hasn't reached you yet, but it will.

Anyway, alot of people are indifferent to hunting, but alot of people are against it. It takes very little to turn a nonhunter into an antihunter. It takes a little more effort to turn a nonhunter into a prohunter. I cannot help but belive as more people are born into a lifestyle removed from the land, they will have a hard time empathizing with hunters as a group and hunting as a past time. They might say something like"It isn't necessary to hunt to survive anymore" or "with so few natural places left, how can allowing hunting be a good thing?"

Ask yourself objectively if possible, "What do hunters contribute to society?" Ideally we contribute to the restoration and conservation of nature and wildlife. I'm not blowing my own horn, because my accomplishments are meager compared to many folks I know. However, I have been somewhat successful in winning over hunting skeptics by talking up the land stewardship aspect. Most open minded non hunters cannot dispute the positive effects of hunters working to save wetlands, restoring American chestnuts and native prairies. But you have to be sincere and be willing to back up your words with action.

Hunting is in a rather precarious position right now in our country's history, for several reasons. Hunters on internet message boards and at the sporting good stores might like to rant and moan about PETA and the Democrats, but one of Huntchat's members, Ward Clark, said that the biggest threat to hunting in America is the hunters (the irresponsible ones, who are much much more prevalent than we like to admit.) Therefore, we have a great responsisbilty, which is growing as the cards are stacked against us. We have to shoulder that responsisbility without complaint.

Despite the immanent threat of overpopulation and overdevelopment ( and its there regardless of what the neo con pundits say), we are living in a great time to be sportsmen, when whitetailed deer, wild turkeys, elk and bear are returning to the former ranges.Those restorations were done via sportsmen's license dollars and P-R money from excise taxes. In order to ensure that they stay there, putting a pricetag on them makes sense: For those who accuse me of being green/liberal, that idea of economic value is pretty fiscally conservative I'd say. License sales do the job. With fewer people going afield (because they have fewer places to hunt) those of us that stick with must shoulder the load.

I didn't mean to knock anybody on here. It wasn't my initial intention, but I guess my communicative skills are somewhat lacking.I'm just passionate about wildlife management, and there's so much more we could do with a bit more money.

BTW 2045 isn't all that far away in reality. If you want your grandchildren to have the opportunity to see an elephant or maybe shoot some real wild bobwhite quail, you better be doing something about it now.

[Aim to maim]

Excellent post, drummer.

[bigkevmorgan]

reminds me of good ole indiana when it really comes dwn to it it's cheaper to buy beef!!

[LoneWolf]

Sorry Drummer, I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't know of anyone complaining about paying for their license now in Michigan. You are absolutely right that it is hunters who have born the majority of the cost of conserving our widlife resources.
However, I think if you look, Michigan has one of the highest, if not the highest number of hunting licenses sold in the country. Especially for Whitetail deer. Our state agency is talking of doubling or more than doubling the costs of these permits. Explain to me what the costs of maintaining public lands are?
We are not feeding the deer. The state charges for timber to be harvested and requires replanting after the harvest. Ok, we have dock sites for fishing... we have to buy a state parks permit for that privelege.
This argument is the same as any government related one. Never enough money, so raise the taxes. How about spending the money efficiently to start with? I just for the life of me can't understand anyone who believes by throwing money at it, a problem is solved. (if there is a probelm):rolleyes: I'd be very interested in just how much money was spent to investigate this proposed increase.:eek:
BTW, I haven't spoken to one outdoorsman who has a problem paying a little more for their permits... but double is plain stupid. Unfortunately, as already stated, this state is in for alot more heartache than this after the idiotic public re-elected our governor.

Below are statistics from 1998 license sales:



Of the Top Ten, or "core," hunting states, five showed increases (Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and North Carolina), and five showed decreases (Pennsylvania, New York, Tennessee, Minnesota and Missouri).

Pennsylvania, the largest core state and the only state with over a million license holders, had 1,066,032 license holders, a drop of 2 percent. Texas, which attracted attention by falling below one million in '97, rebounded to 975,943, a 3.5 percent increase, to regain its second-place ranking. Michigan, although it had a one-half percent increase, fell to third place with 957,264 license holders.


According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 14,891,855 hunting licenses were purchased in 1998, a number only slightly less than the 14,906,826 million reported in 1997. (For statistical purposes, a "paid license holder" represents one hunter, regardless of how many types of licenses the hunter purchased.) While the falloff was slight, it was nevertheless a decline, so hunting license sales have now fallen in nine of the last 10 years. The last time there was an increase was in 1992.

States with the largest increases were Wyoming with a 16,858-hunter (14.7%) increase, Kansas with a 21,916-hunter (12%) increase, North Carolina with a 30,667-hunter (8.6%) increase, New Mexico with an 8,648-hunter (8%) increase, and Arizona with a 9,304-hunter (5.1%) increase.



Unfortunately Drummer, you haven't told us what state you live in. so I don't know where your numbers compare. I'm sure these figures haven't changed drastically since 1998. My main point is, a $5 increase on each license would give the state a huge increase in their revenue, without choking out the hunters. I don't buy the argument that $70 is chicken feed, and if your going to ***** don't hunt. Only two things will happen if this goes through...
1. poaching WILL increase
2. Hunter numbers will decline, and new hunters will nearly cease.

[gd357]

I guess I should rephrase somewhat. I don't mean to say that I'd have to shoot something in order to make the trip worthwhile, that's just icing on the cake, so to speak. The fact that I didn't take anything was my choice, just a bit of a shock to see the difference in population densities over the last decade, the last few years in particular. Also, there are no antler restrictions, and doe permits are readily available, so you're able to shoot pretty much anything you want. It also seems that there have been regular increases in license costs in the past, with minimal effect on hunter numbers. So I don't get why they are increasing the costs if they are maintaining revenues at reasonable levels.:confused:

gd

[wrenchman]

After they have robbed our dnr funds and there is now a short fall they want our lic to double.
we just voted this past election to stop them frome stealing the money i think the general fund should have to replace what was taken before they think of raiseing the cost.
If jenny on the block would have past the dove bill in its original form they would have the money frome the dove stamps to go in the dnr funds.
we also need to do numbers 70 dollers for the deer lic 30 for doe
inflation is a lot less then 100%
Many states land owners dont pay for a lic if they reside there.
Many states senior lic is free or next to nuthing .
Many states wifes hunt or fish on a husbands lic.
we get poked many ways here in mich and we keep takeing it.

[Niteowl]

Now that there has been such a "HUGE" BI$CH about the fees going up so much...now the DNR says they are considering increasing the fees over a period of years until they get to the desired fee cap. We would not be in this pickle if our state coffers would have kept their friggin mitts out of the Natural Resources funds,we even voted to have those fees locked into the natural resources fund where nobody could get their hands on it. Obviously the peoples voice dosen't count as much as one would have thought.:(

[deermeister]

In reality, the problem lies with the NRC. I torture myself by going to their meetings, reading the agendas, minutes, etc., and have even volunteered my services for free as a scientist ( I accidentally got a biology degree in college... funny story).

The DNR biologist is a fairly intelligent guy, but he's handcuffed by the NRC, which consists of a bunch of narrow minded individuals (like Bob Garner) who constistently make decisions based on emotion rather than scientific fact.

At the meetings, if you attempt to express an opinion contrary to what they have decided upon beforehand, you are pretty much shot down.

So, until they decide to add a tree-hugging license or bird-watching permit to their licenses, I the hunting taxpayer will continue to bear the burden, costwise, of keeping lands and waters open to hunting and fishing (and I STILL have to drive to Indiana to dove hunt!)

[Niteowl]

Well the DNR web site say's that the fee increase is all but law and they encourage sportsman/women to get their licences early as they are asking our "lawmakers" to make the increase right now and are not asking for the graduated increments,they want full prices immediately. So I purchased my E-Licence's before the fees went up. Combo deer,small game,and all species fish for a total of $70,so I am good till 3/08. I can only Imagine what it be next year