Call your elected officials and ask them to pass the MDNR License Fee

[djkimmel]

Okay. I've decided to ask you to do this. Actually, I would have asked a few days ago but this is a very busy, busy week with a lot happening since last Friday.

My friend Bill Parker over at Michigan Outdoor News sums it up pretty good and he is a wise and kind person: http://www.outdoornews.com/February-2013/Hunting-and-fishing-license-fee-hikes-deserve-support/

Basically, if you have only been buying the regular resident fishing license, you would now pay $10 more per year with a base license of $25, but that covers all species fishing as if you bought the $28 licenses before so for those people it is $3 cheaper.

Fishing license fees haven't gone up 16 years and $25 is still a pretty good deal for a year of fishing a place as rich in water as Michigan.

It's still a bargain. Bill Parker recently quoted me (http://www.outdoornews.com/February-2013/Plan-to-hike-license-fees-gets-mixed-reaction/) as saying something to the affect that I always consider what an increase in cost might do to license sales already challenged, and that while I recognize the fee is low, I hesitate to give the MDNR more money if things don't change.

Well... since then - last Friday actually - things have changed. I have been very lax in sharing this with all of you but frankly, I think I'm still in a slight state of shock. I was asked to attend a new meeting setup by the MDNR - a Conservation Roundtable - as a rep for the Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation (I'm their new conservation director - again - btw) and I figured someone ought to go.

So I spent the day in Grayling with maybe 20 - 30 different statewide groups in attendance - bear, deer, forestry, trout, walleye, muskie, etc. I was the one bass rep basically. I'd say there were mid-40's number of people present. A little over 10 people from the MDNR but this was the heavy hitters - the new DNR Director, the new Deputy Director, chiefs of fisheries, forestry, wildlife, and law (along with their assistant chief) and some other admin and tech staff, and one commissioner from the Natural Resources Commission.

I would love to sit in a room with all of you and tell you all about it personally, but you know how hard it is with all our choices to get together in one place, so I'll share a quick summary - the MDNR now like bass tournament anglers. Yeah. I know... the Deputy Director asked if he could come meet with our federation and said, "I think bass tournaments would be a really good way to increase our natural resources economy."

After I came to and stood back up, I spent time talking to pretty much everyone there from the MDNR from the Director on down one or more times about various topics, what we would like and how we could help each other. I had more positive interactions with the MDNR that day than most of the past 30 years put together.

Apparently, the new culture is that ALL anglers are valuable and desired by the new MDNR. We talked about the bass season. It was all positive and I will be presenting options at a meeting in Lansing in June in a process that is expected to not be anything like the last time. I really can't tell you in a few words how different that day went and all the things we discussed.

I will be speaking at the April 21 Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation meeting about this. I'm working on getting MDNR Deputy Director Moritz set up to meet with them too at that meeting or a later one if his schedule won't allow that one.

I think I might be the TBF of Michigan conservation director too but my 'appointment' wasn't official and I haven't talked to Dave Reault yet... oh well. Someone needs to do whatever they can and now seems to be the right time to work on a few changes.

So yes, I'm willing to reboot, give all of this a new try and support the MDNR in working towards proper funding since we need people who can help monitor and care for our natural resources. Because, as you all know, we are one lucky, lucky state when it comes to natural resources.

So help me out here. Contact your legislators and ask them to pass the MDNR license fee restructuring. You need to call them or email them TODAY. ASAP. It is ridiculously hard to pass any license increase or just a change. Like trying to get a new boat ramp.

Lets give this a try and see where it goes. One of the main new tenets of the new MDNR is 'Increase outreach to anglers that fish for perch, bluegill, and bass.' Lets get involved and help define what that means and how it is done. Maybe it becomes a new win-win for Michigan bass fishing.

[djkimmel]

ACTION: Contact your Michigan Senator and Representative, as well as the members of the Appropriations Subcommittees to let them know that sportsmen and women support this license restructuring and simplification. While some details of the package are still being worked out, it is important that they keep this in the appropriations budget as it moves forward.

Michigan House of Representatives: Contact Your Rep
Michigan Senate: Contact Your Senator

Senate Appropriations:

Senator Roger Kahn, Appropriations Chair (R-32-Saginaw) 517-373-1760 or SenRKahn@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Mike Green, Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee Chair  (R-31-Mayville) 517-373-1777 or SenMGreen@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Darwin Booher (R-35-Evart) 517-373-1725 or SenDBooher@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Howard Walker (R-37-Traverse City) 517-373-2413 or SenHWalker@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Hoon-Yung Hopgood (D-8-Taylor) 517-373-7800 or SenHHopgood@senate.michigan.gov

House of Representatives Appropriations:

Rep. Joe Haveman, Appropriations Committee Chair (R-90-Holland) 517-373-0830 or JosephHaveman@house.mi.gov
Rep. Jon Bumstead, Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee Chair (R-100-Newaygo) 517-373-7317 or JonBumstead@house.mi.gov
Rep. Nancy Jenkins (R-57-Clayton) 517-373-1706 or NancyJenkins@house.mi.gov
Rep. Michael McCready (R-40-Bloomfield Hills) 517-373-8670 or MikeMcCready@house.mi.gov
Rep. Terry Brown (D-84-Pigeon) 517-373-0476 or TerryBrown@house.mi.gov

Please call this week!

More details from MUCC if you want to check on specific items and the latest details.

[Mojo]

WOW !  

Mr. Kimmel, I am proud of you.

Great work, This may lead to a landmark day in Michigan Bass Fishing History !!

[gmetime24]

Awesome news!! Keep up the good work Dan!!  I will be contacting a rep from my area tomorrow

[mchesney]

Done...

This is what I sent to my Senator and Representative if you need a start.

"I am writing you to ask to express my support for the proposed MDNR License fee restructuring. The MDNR plays a critical role in monitoring and caring for the natural resources we enjoy. These fee changes, while modest, would go far in assuring the MDNR has the proper funding to continue managing one of our state's greatest assets. Thank you for your time in this matter."

Respectfully,
XXXXXXXXXX

[Victor Cerabone]

I saw an article about the license hike a few moth ago.  At that time I was not in favor.  I felt like they were being tricky with the elimination of the restricted license and "framing" the new price structure as a price decrease.  It's a price increase for a person like me that only fishes for Bass, period.

With that said, I do believe that you get what you pay for.  I believe that's true for roads, schools etc too. If the price increase will help fishing in Michigan, I am for it.

I'll give your recommendation some thought.  Thanks for representing us Dan.

Vic

[karol]

louie stout said in one of his articles in the south bend paper about 2014 out of state going up to 75.00!! thanks a lot from all us out of state fisherman

[djkimmel]

I have heard from 4 out of state anglers so far and they aren't happy. No one is happy to have to pay more. We have to pay more for almost everything nowadays.

That includes the MDNR too! They haven't had a license fee increase since 1996. Imagine if you hadn't had a raise since 1996? (and I feel for you personally and can sympathize lately bigtime). $25 for a year of bass fishing in Michigan for residents is still a ridiculously cheap bargain compared to going to say, 1 movie and dinner out night.

I think $75 is still a bargain for non-residents. When I can afford to fish Ontario waters of St. Clair and Lake Erie more than a couple times in a year - which was every year before 3 years ago - I paid over $100 every year for Ontario and Walpole. I have also often bought Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Iowa, Illinois and many other non-resident fishing licenses and paid whatever I had to considering it a bargain for the thing I love to do most, and the amount of enjoyment I get out of it.

I do not have the budget to fish much now so like many others, I consider my spending carefully and budget accordingly. I think Michigan fishing is worth it but some may not have the budget to continue. I hate to lose any anglers. I always look at information for any fee hike that considers the effect on numbers of licenses sold verses the additional money expected to be raised to see if it seems realistic and reasonable.

All that being said, I am not asking everyone to blanket support the entire present proposal. The Michigan Legislature is the only body that can approve these changes so even non-residents can contact them and state their opinions for the entire package and/or specific parts of the package. I know several parts of the present package are being debated, discussed and/or possibly reworked. None of it is set in stone or even likely to pass. Especially if only the people who scream every time the MDNR tries to raise license fees once every 10 years or so are the only people the legislature hears from.

I do believe the fees are still a bargain for anyone who loves to fish, and I think simplifying regulations often helps increase participation in the long run while 16 years without any significant increase in funding should be expected to be a significantly negative situation. We need the MDNR for many things. They need realistic funding. We can debate and work on specific parts of the proposal, but lets try to agree that they need adequate funding they can count on.

There has been lots of talk about figuring out ways to get more citizens who use our natural resources involved in helping pay for taking care of those natural resources. Michigan's economy critically depends upon our natural resources. I will continue to follow and weigh in on creative efforts to fund the care, protection and good compromise use of our natural resources. As of now, I am conservation director of both Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation and TBF of Michigan. I have added lots of meetings to my schedule.

[mikesmiph]

Just got my Georgia license today. $45, resident is $9.

[djkimmel]

Georgia DNR has been in a budget crisis since 2008. By 2010 they were down 450 job positions. They are trying to avoid raising fees despite continuous large cuts in general fund (tax dollar) appropriations. They are putting off maintenance and other services that can't be put off forever.

From what I can tell, they still receive a higher percentage of their operating funds from their state's general fund - like the MDNR did many, many years ago - but they will be at our very low level soon at the rate annual appropriation cuts are being made if they continue down. I couldn't quickly find a budget document for this year that spelled out how much of their general fund appropriations are presently tax dollars verses license fee purchases that go to the general fund and are then appropriated back.

A lot of the issues started during various budget problems in various states when they decided the DNR should be funded by license fees and the various fishing and hunting excise taxes even though ALL citizens benefit from natural resources, and started cutting or eliminating general fun appropriations.

[Firefighter Jeff]

   Do you think there would be as many Michigan anglers on board with the price hike if it was the same percentage as the out of state jump??  I will pay the $75, it isn't really very much per day considering how many days I fish in Michigan.  But the state should realize I pay A LOT of money for gas, food and lodging to do all this fishing. Including park fees on Hamlin I'll bet it's anywhere from $2,500 to $3,000 a season. I may have it good as an out of state angler, but I pay for it already.    OK, I feel better.       Now why haven't I gotten that $30.50 park pass yet???  LOL

[djkimmel]

The old choice of a Restricted (non-trout/salmon, etc*) fishing license would be gone so you can only buy an all species fishing license. Both residents and nonresidents who previously did not choose the extra trout/salmon fee would see an increase.

Nonresident Restricted* Fishing License 2013
$34.00
Nonresident All Species Fishing License 2013
$42.00
Upgrade is only $8.00 (only 23.5% more)

Resident Restricted* Fishing License 2013
$15.00
Resident All Species Fishing License 2013
$28.00
Upgrade is $13.00 (87% more - looks like nonresidents were getting a pretty good break here to encourage them to buy All Species)

Proposed Resident All Species Fishing License 2014
$25.00
Increase for Resident anglers who previously bought only Restricted license:
67%

Resident anglers who previously bought an All Species license actually see an ~11% decrease ($25.00 verses $28.00 now).

Proposed Nonresident All Species Fishing License 2014
$75.00
Increase for Nonresident anglers who previously bought only Restricted license:
120%

Nonresident anglers who previously bought an All Species license:
78%

For lots of resident bass anglers, we're going to see a 67% increase because we bought the inexpensive Restricted license while nonresident anglers who did buy the All Species license (not much more expensive than their Restricted) see a 78% increase, not much more percentage-wise than the resident angler increase.

As I mentioned previously, I imagine most of us would be pretty upset if we hadn't had a raise in 16 years (and I sympathize with those who haven't). I also expect if we tried to get a raise, we would probably go for more than just 1 year's back calculation if it had been 16 years.

1. I dislike paying more for things maybe more than lots of you since I not only have not had a raise, my income is down over 67% the past two and a half years. I don't expect to be buying any nonresident licenses from anywhere in 2013, but I would buy Ontario and Walpole to fish all of St. Clair otherwise even though it is over $100 for me. That's still cheap entertainment if I fish 4 times or more - something I used to do over there quite a bit.

2. The proposal is not set in stone by a long shot so contact the people above and share your opinions. If you don't do that, you will get what we always get when we do nothing - whatever someone else decides for us!

Meanwhile, the MDNR needs funding, having suffered decades of general fund reductions and maybe 2 increases in about 30 years, and $25 or $75 for a year of fishing for anything in the water we have is a steal. Other states that are cheaper - well, you can easily find out their present situations are often not so hot either. I will be at the Sportsmen's Town Hall tomorrow to hear what the chair of the House Natural Resources committee has to say and maybe even get in a few opinions of my own - like more fishing opportunity in exchange for the higher license fee. That is my goal and I feel I have a lot of support from many dedicated bass anglers and a number of outdoor business people. It is the position of one Michigan bass federation for sure and probably will be of the other.

PDF of Summary of Proposed License Fee Changes.

2013 MDNR fishing license fees and information

* Good for all species EXCEPT trout, salmon, lake sturgeon, lake herring, amphibians, reptiles or crustaceans.

[djkimmel]

    Now why haven't I gotten that $30.50 park pass yet???  LOL

Have you heard about the budget problems the US Postal Service is having?!?

I could ask for you but the only chief not at the last meeting I went to was Parks and Recreation. If it has been longer than 7 days since you ordered online, you might want to contact the Parks and Recreation Division at (517)373-9900. Hours of operation Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT.

[markgoetsch]

I don't mind paying more (I think it's cheap as well) but I don't like the fact that the trout/salmon guys get a break.  This is where alot of money goes to stock fish for a put and take fishery.  The bass, pan fish, northerns, catfish, and most any other fish take about zero effort and money for stocking or managing (besides law enforcement).  I just think if we pay more they should keep it the same percent increase for the trout/salmon guys so they're paying there fair share and not getting a break scamming off other fisherman that don't use as many resources.

[djkimmel]

That has been discussed. The MDNR is re-evaluating the stocking programs around things like cost verses return and some of that is from prompting outside of the MDNR (I will add that bass anglers need to get more involved - we are the least involved group probably despite having the highest numbers).

The targets for the budget increase are tilted towards inland anglers including more outreach to perch, panfish and bass anglers. I think that is why I got the reception that Friday.

I don't have a problem with money spent on any fish. Some work helps all fish that swim in the water. In general, warmwater fish do not need much stocking. They take care of themselves as long as they have good water quality, habitat and forage. We can use some more discussion and involvement between anglers and the MDNR in areas like aquatic plant control and other habitat issues.

If issues arise that can be addressed to provide more fishing opportunity and boost our natural resources economy to more anglers, I definitely would like to see the budget designed to target that issue(s) that opportunity based on the amount of fishing opportunity and economic boost.

I think it may have been easier to feel they could 'measure' the Great Lakes trout and salmon fishing effort and benefit in the past but I think they are now realizing that they need to have more information to make better decisions, not necessarily the easiest decision. Bass and other warmwater anglers being more involved could help this head in that direction. The public meeting tonight is a good opportunity to bring more awareness about the opportunity and economic benefit of bass fishing.

[TritonTR20]

I'm stuck buying an all species license because the lake I'm on has trout even though I don't fish for them. A 78% increase seems excessive in my opinion. I bring a lot of tourism dollars to the state ( like Jeff I spend about 3K per year). I think the percentages for resident and non resident increases should be the same.

[djkimmel]

If you spend $3K per year here, why is $75 verses $42 that big a big deal - $33 for a whole year is what we are talking about? 1% of your spending. Back when I fished a lot, I paid over $100 every year to fish the rest of Lake St. Clair and I just paid it. A bargain for even just one big lake to be able to fish it all year.

I sure appreciate people that come here to fish but I just talked to one of my pro friends who spent that amount in each of 4 states that past few weeks within $10-15 either side of the proposed new amount. No one likes paying more. I truly do not like paying more for anything considering the giant reduction in my own personal budget.

But the MDNR hasn't had a raise in 16 years and they have had to pay more every year for everything too - part of why they are down by half.

If you think the only fair thing is to pay the exact same percentage difference as resident anglers then call or email the House and Senate committee members and tell them that. As Representative and House Natural Resources committee chair Andrea LaFontaine told a packed house at the Town Hall tonight (that no bass anglers besides Paul Sacks and myself attended), nothing is decided. They just have a recommendation from the Governor, and they - the Legislature - decide what does or does not actually become law.

I do like your idea about the same percentage. Since I have to pay 87% more to buy a resident All Species fishing license now verses a Restricted resident fishing license, if as usual, the MDNR is unable to get any new license changes passed this time too, I will suggest that the Nonresident All Species fishing license be changed to 87% more than the Nonresident Restricted fishing license.

Right now, Nonresidents only have to pay 23.5% more to go from a Restricted fishing license to an All Species fishing license. It doesn't seem fair that Residents should have to pay such a higher percentage difference than Nonresidents. That would mean the fair price of the Nonresident All Species fishing license would be $63.00 instead of $42.00. About what Ontario charges me for a Nonresident fishing license. So I'm fine with that thinking too. Though it won't simplify licenses or give the MDNR as much of the raise they've missed out on over the past 16 years while costs have soared.

The fact is, we have been underpaying for a long, long, long time. Eventually, it will catch up with all of us. One way or another. I'm happier even if this gets more bass anglers to take a few minutes to be involved. We are practically the least involved anglers and that needs to change. We have the numbers. We could have changed many things long ago by just 10% of us being involved.

BTW, Representative LaFontaine said she had so far only heard from about 20 people on the license fee proposal and only 1 of those was against it saying it would force people in a tough economy to pay more for the thing they love. Only 20 heard from. Only 1 against... That's different than past attempts though I have heard some state reps/senators have heard more negative - which is the norm. At some point, the fees have to go up or we will have an even smaller MDNR. Maybe almost no MDNR since they get almost no general funds (tax dollars) and this is the first time in a long time even a tiny increase in that has been proposed. I don't even try to keep track of who is acting in what job at the moment anymore with many posts because it changes so often.

[djkimmel]

I'll tell you this, the small cost of fishing licenses sure isn't what keeps me from fishing more. It is the cost of everything else that is the vastly greater chunk of the expenses. I'm not going to shortchange the MDNR just because everything else has gone up so much. I can recognize they are decimated and if they are willing to work with us, and they recognize now that they need ALL anglers and hunters, I'm willing to get them more realistic and fair funding. I've been fine with this every single time they've asked though most of their efforts have failed because it is easier to shortchange the MDNR than make gas prices, food prices, etc. go down.

I've always recognized that the easiest way is often the wrong way. Sometimes, answers and change are hard. So don't punish an easy target please.

That is like closing bass season for 6 months because you can't control the weather but only control fishing. Even if fishing doesn't have enough impact in many cases to counter for the much greater impact Mother Nature has.

I think the right people may be finally figuring that out. Let's be the right people on here too to figure out that the MDNR needs a raise and it's not right to block their raise because we can't do anything about gas prices or the rising costs for everything else. We are all in this together, and they are in this with us. We just need to all figure that out at the same time to improve things for lots of people even if they don't first see it as an improvement. Something that often happens with change.

[bigmojet]

I am on the fence on this proposal and I buy an all species every year.

One of the reasons I got out of snowmobiling was the continued increase in fees and still we got less grooming and signing on trails.

I am at a point where I don't trust any government institution when they want more $. I have no faith the $ will be put to good use besides more admin costs.

Dan, I hope u are right and seeing a change in MI DNR and ready to respond to what the people want.

[djkimmel]

I hope I'm right too. I get it. I really do. I was on the MUCC Board of Directors years ago and whenever the MDNR brought in a license fee increase proposal it would be a multi-hour debate and complain-fest. Almost as bad as when we used to try to pick the classic series tournament locations during federation presidents meetings in the old days (6 hours one time to pick 1 lake!!!).

I would sit there bored to death wondering why all of us with house payments, trucks and other things we chose to buy were spending so much time arguing about $5 or $10. I even wonder now why we on here are spending much time getting upset about $10 or $33 when so many of us have dropped 10's of thousands on boats, trucks - even 1 or 2 thousand bucks on a GPS??

Really, it doesn't make much sense to me on the dollar amount. We could probably all take this time to do something at are job or on the side with the same amount of time and make more than this 1-time per year increase will cost us?

I'm not trying to be unkind or hard. I do get it. I've been at a ton of meetings in my life were this kind of stuff has been debated and beat up. I've heard it all so many times.

I'm willing to risk an extra $10 I don't really have, or even $33 if I was a Nonresident, to keep our MDNR from getting to the point were they can accomplish and protect next to nothing, especially if they heard my message that was printed publicly across the state that I only hesitate to give them more money if they don't change.

Well, they have sent me a very clear message that they now get that. After last night, maybe for the first time in a good chunk of my 30+ years of adult life I almost don't feel like an undesirable anymore just because I happen to own and fish out of a bass boat. People high up in the MDNR are talking about bass tournaments. Local government is talking about bass tournaments. As I pointed out somewhere, even a representative for one of our US Congress officials is telling me bass tournaments are cool and he wants to be there, and expects Congresswoman Candace Miller will probably want to be there and involved.

I'm excited. I'm willing to take a chance things will be different for all bass anglers including so-called tournament bass anglers. I also do not only look at what giving the MDNR a little more - not a lot - but a little more stability can do for all of our natural resources. It is all interconnected. There is no isolation.

Bass and everything else needs clean water, protected wetlands, good habitat, forage and the MDNR is in charge of watching over that. The MDEQ is also involved and that was brought up last night too. I'd like to see a more stable MDNR get back to having more influence and collegial involvement with DEQ.