Proposed fishing/hunting license fee increase

[YpsiBass]

http://www.freep.com/article/20130207/NEWS15/130207030/Gov-Snyder-calls-increased-hunting-fishing-license-fees

Thoughts? I can't tell if they'll be doing away with the restricted license altogether.

[gmetime24]

I would say this wont stop the majority of people to not hunt or fish but maybe those who only go out a few times a year won't buy a liscense. Also will the extra money really be put to good use by our state, I don't know if I really trust them to make good use of it.  Right now we have this closed season where there needs to be much improvement made. If they opened the C&R season much earlier then a liscense fee increase would be no problem. I know a couple guys last year who called the DNR on boats bass fishing in march. They were told the DNR would show up in less than 30 mins because an officer was close. The guy watched these men catch smallies all day long and DNR never showed so what's the point for laws if they aren't going to act on them?

[thedude]

don't like the proposed "simplification" of the resident annual fishing license. One of the reasons we have trout/salmon stamps is that the majority of they type of fishing is put and take - those species in most cases don't sustain their own populations and require much more stocking and management than natives.

Snyder is all about user fees, i'd like to see walleye, muskie, salmon etc as add-on user fees to whatever license fee we have to pay. i'm for upping the price in general - that's fine. I don't want to see a general fund for all fisheries management raided by the salmon charters or the handful of muskie guys because now the whole thing is up for grabs.

[Waterfoul]

I would pay more, no problem.  But like thedude said, I'd like my additional money to be spent on new ramps, more officers, and the general fishing public instead of all the stocking programs that should, in my opinion and many others be paid for with "special" permits, like our current trout "stamp" for example.  I think it's time for the walleye and musky guys to pay their share as well.  Second and third most stocked fish in the state.

[Waterfoul]

I'm also kind of wondering who these so called "groups representing outdoors enthusiasts" are.  They didn't ask us here at GLB and we're one of the larger groups of outdoor enthusiasts.  Lowering the resident fishing license when to a man we've all said we would pay MORE.  Leads me to believe Snyder is being fed false information by someone who has no idea who he/she should really be asking.

[Got Fish??]

Let's not single out  certain fishermen or species of fish, that we think should pickup the  costs. We all use the ramps and the  parks to lunch our boats. That money gos for much more then that.  We are all  fishing  sportsmen. We need to stick together, to fight against the state and those who are to blame. There is strength in numbers.

[fiker]

I don't mind paying for a license increase.  The cost of a license is pretty low compared to all the other money I spend to fish for the season.  Simplifying licensing sounds like a good idea, on the surface anyway.  But I need more particulars before I can decide whether I think it's a good idea or not.

Not that I'm opposed to change, I'm not.  But if they need more money, (and I'm sure they do) then just increasing the current fees is fine with me.  Because when I don't understand something because I don't have enough information, then I'm not supportive of the idea. 

Often when there are changes like this introduced Peter gets robbed to pay Paul.

I'm all for bettering all of our fisheries.  I'm not in favor of depleting resources of one in order to boost another. 

If they increase the fees and use the money to improve ramps wonderful.  If increases means more CO's to enforce laws, great.   If it means just planting another 70,000 Walleyes in a lake that already has 4 times the number of Walleyes compared to Bass them I'm not for that at all.

[thedude]

Let's not single out  certain fishermen or species of fish, that we think should pickup the  costs. We all use the ramps and the  parks to lunch our boats. That money gos for much more then that.  We are all  fishing  sportsmen. We need to stick together, to fight against the state and those who are to blame. There is strength in numbers.

i'm not trying to single out anyone. Fact of the matter remains that certain fisheries are virtually unsustainable without stocking. Some of those fisheries prop up economic industries like charters and guides (trout, salmon, steelhead, and walleye especially).

My concern is that with a single, general fund and loss of the stamps - we'll see more money going to salmon/trout stocking programs to help said industries. I feel if those industries require stocking programs to stay viable, they should bear most of the burden to support it.  Same with walleye and muskie.

They way i look at it is we have naturally sustainable fisheries which survive and thrive based on regulation alone and we have fisheries that are artificially created and maintained through biological/ecological manipulation.  As with anything, we have to justify the cost of those efforts based on available funds and perceived value. With the stamp program there was a finite budget based almost entirely on those who utilized the resource.  If 10,000 users paid 10$ and the cost was 1 million dollars, (100,000$ budget vs 1,000,000 operating cost) then the solution is to raise the user fee to 100$ or make the necessary cuts because the value isn't there.

I would like to see the DNR take action on the bass seasons. That costs money, but if we had a bass stamp for instance - we'd have a budget paid for by the stakeholders to draw from and the DNR would would have to listen to the bass fishing community on how to use it.

My opinion - raise the general license fee, put it towards ramps, access sites, infrastructure,  general lake/fish mgmt - you name it. But we should have a bass, trout, salmon, musky, walleye add on - reasonably priced of course - that gives everyone a voice in the big picture as well as voice in the matters regarding specific management of the species they enjoy most.

[djkimmel]

Bass anglers are woefully underrepresented at meetings with the MDNR - almost not represented at all. I go to a few meetings and there are trout groups, walleye groups, pike groups, muskie groups, spearing groups, ice fishing...

Bass anglers are going to have to start making these kinds of activities more of a priority. The squeaky wheel really does get the grease.

[djkimmel]

Based on the steady decline in fishing AND hunting license sales... how many more CO's can we really justify? Raising the prices usually means additional decrease in sales... I think there are other issues that need to be addressed that will have longer term impact on the survivability of our MDNR.

For starters, coming into the modern ages and allowing MORE FISHING OPPORTUNITY, getting rid of ALL closed seasons (pretty much all of them can be handled easier, more customer-friendly ways), stopping this idiotic determination of who is a 'good' angler and who is 'undesirable' and destroying their general top-down nature of being about restrictions, not opportunity.

Every meeting I've attended lately has focused on restrictions, not OPPORTUNITY. I think I will scream if I hear 1 more MDNR person say how they have always been very conservative with their regulations, and always will be conservative!

Some MDNR people: 'So there angler who wants more opportunity - take that!'

Me: 'Uh... Mr. (or Mrs.) MDNR person... since you are steadily conservatizing yourself right out of jobs, I probably won't have to take it much longer from you...'

There are some real good people in the MDNR. They are either afraid to speak their mind, or are unable to get anywhere at a pace recognizable as forward progress...

I have always supported license fee hikes and have taken a beating more than once for that, but it is real hard to want to prop up backwards, short-sighted, misguided, out-of-touch thinking that is doing more harm, than good for our natural resources...?? I'm going to have to think about this. Generally, every time the MDNR proposes license fee hikes, they really take a beating. I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't be better of in the loooonnnngg run if they got beat up so bad finally that it knocked some sense into the right people once and for all...??

Anglers and hunters have a tough time with change sometimes but compared to the MDNR top-down, they move at light speed. I've talked to a lot of different kinds of anglers including many who don't know me from Adam who are pretty much all saying 'let anglers fish for whatever they want whenever they want and just tell them when they can keep them and when they have to throw them back.' Something needs to make the right people in the MDNR start hearing from their owners (us) too.

Think about this - can you imagine going a whole winter and spring WITHOUT anglers fighting against each other over who is 'illegally' fishing for what with what 'type' of lure from what 'type' of boat?!? Can you imagine that? What would we talk about then?!? Fishing...?

Yeah. Fishing... fishing more. Getting more people back into fishing. People tend to do things more that they enjoy doing. The earlier in the year people are able to start fishing, the more likely they are to actually buy a license and go fishing. Yes. Actual studies show that.

[TheFishinPollock]

I have found over the years that the NRC and the MDNR kinda do as they please. They "listen" to us the sportsmen , but eventually do as they see fit.  Not many on either board that I trust as far as I can drop kick across a room anymore.

The NRC for me is a complete waste of time .  They are not biologists that spent some time in school learning about   fisheries managment or  huntign managment. As is apparent with this NWLP 12 county APR junk.   They are pushed and pressured by special interest groups like any politiciton is.   The MDNR.  At least some of those guys have some background for these decisions, but in the end I feel they will do whatever they want to regardless of how the state's outdoors persons feel about it, how many surveys they take .   

[Waterfoul]

How about a MASS protest by Michigan's fishing public:  Let's just fish when we want for what we want.  They can't arrest us all!

Ah... pipe dreams.  All MOST of us what to do is fish more and we're not afraid to pay more to do it.  It's close minded people (like many in the DNR) that see it as their duty to keep us from doing this, using what ever false reasoning they can conjur up.

[dartag]

They figured out we have extra money since we only pay 10.00 per vehicle for DNR and state park access.  Used to be 25 for state park and 24 for DNR ramps.

Still cheap entertainment.

[gmetime24]

How about a MASS protest by Michigan's fishing public:  Let's just fish when we want for what we want.  They can't arrest us all!

Ah... pipe dreams.  All MOST of us what to do is fish more and we're not afraid to pay more to do it.  It's close minded people (like many in the DNR) that see it as their duty to keep us from doing this, using what ever false reasoning they can conjur up.

Lets do it! I say we all pack a lake with as many bass fishermen as possible a week before the opening of C&R and let's see what happens. Like you said they can't arrest us all but would it really help our cause. Not sure what other way would get their attention

[stackenem]

They figured out we have extra money since we only pay 10.00 per vehicle for DNR and state park access.  Used to be 25 for state park and 24 for DNR ramps.

Still cheap entertainment.

That is going up to 11.00 per car/truck this year.

[fiker]

Boy that didn't take long to get an increase did it?

Seems like about 10% in two years.

[dartag]

It is 11.00 now.  Just renewed 3 vehicles.   Not much you can do about it.  At least in 3 months we can go fishing...

[fiker]

Yes sir..... flipping jigs along the shore and under docks.  Sounds good to me.