Michigan Licences Doubling in price across the board

[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) 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.

[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.

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