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)
I'd be very interested in just how much money was spent to investigate this proposed increase.
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.