MDNR's new licensing structure

[Dan]

Anybody have any good intel on how this new licensing system is working. I understand I can get my all species and a combo deer license for $76. Does this include a small game license?

[FrickerDude]

yes indeed

[djkimmel]

Yes. The base license you have to buy allows you to hunt small game. I'm assuming you are talking about the:
Hunt/Fish Combo Resident (includes base, deer combo, and fishing) $76.00?

New Hunting License Structure Chart

New Fishing License Structure Chart

The 'base' part includes small game. You save $1 over buying them separately because there's a $1 surcharge on both the base hunting license and resident fishing license but buying fishing and hunting together you only pay one $1 surcharge.

That $1 goes to the new Wildlife Council we are helping to put together that will market the good things hunters and anglers provide to our natural resources to the general public. A similar program in Colorado had great success in improving the public image of anglers and hunters, helping them stave off a number of anti-hunting attempts with more public support.

This all goes into effect March 1, 2014.

Are you eligible for the senior licensing yet? Cheaper.

[Hooksetter]

At what age does the state consider you a senior? I did not see that info anywhere, including FAQ.

Willie

[stackenem]

65, you have a ways to go willie, but at 62 you can get senior discount at the metro parks.

[dartag]

65, you have a ways to go willie, but at 62 you can get senior discount at the metro parks.

Going to need a discount soon.  Got my Metro Park sticker last week.  30.00 and the boat will be 35.00 this year.    The cost of fun is going up.

[Waterfoul]

Haven't looked at it yet... what's a fishing license going to cost this year??

[Kal-Kevin]

Fish All-Species Resident Annual $26.00

[djkimmel]

Everyone (residents) pays $26 now and you can fish all species. $1 goes to the Wildlife Council to market what anglers and hunters do for the natural resources (see Nimrod Society and below). The deal is, the deal it needs to be, is for that increase in the license for anglers who only fish for bass or non-trout/salmon/sturgeon, is that we get year-round bass fishing next year. That's the deal I keep reminding them about.

[djkimmel]

2013 versions of Hug a Hunter and Hug an Angler - not saying I'd like to have random strangers giving out hugs but the success in Colorado makes a similar PR and marketing program worth a try considering we are in the anti's bulls-eye.

[Waterfoul]

Fish All-Species Resident Annual $26.00

Pretty cheap.  I'd pay more.  I pay $40 for a Missouri seasonal and we only fish for 7 days (cheaper to buy a seasonal than a one week).

[djkimmel]

I've been talking about the fees to various MDNR persons and other groups. They tell me we are still generally low, even for the non-resident fishing license. Myself and others have asked them to watch the numbers for the next couple years, and keep us up-to-date in case we need to look at any additional options.

[6 lb Smallmouth]

I've been talking about the fees to various MDNR persons and other groups. They tell me we are still generally low, even for the non-resident fishing license.

They think $76 is low for a non-resident? 

[djkimmel]

They said many other states are higher. I haven't checked personally. Ontario is almost as high and has been for a long time. I haven't bought any other nonresident fishing licenses in awhile. In the past they were mostly cheaper than that, but I have been told other states don't always wait 17 years between each fee change.

If someone had a list of what other full, annual nonresident fishing licenses cost I would be interested in seeing it. I don't have the time to track it down right now. I would imagine there are websites on the web that already contain that information.

[6 lb Smallmouth]

WI NR is $50
IN NR is $35
IL NR is $32
KY NR is in the $30s
Ontario?  LOL-Michigan has some excellent fishing but it is not Canada.  

Granted those don't include the Great Lakes stamp but a lot of people, myself included, would never purchase the stamp.

On one of my local boards this has been discussed and several people have already said they won't be getting a MI license.  Personally, for my week of vacation this summer I am strongly considering not fishing MI due to the price of the license and since I will already have a WI license.  I also know of a club who brought the license prices up when discussing tournament sites for this year.  They already fish WI and KY so they only decided to go to MI once so guys could just buy a 3 day license.

So in my small circle, I know of people deciding NOT to fish Michigan or to fish it less due to the pricing increase.  It would be interesting to see what the decrease in NR licenses are in 2014.  

[Got Fish??]

I'm lucky . I live here in Michigan. There is as much coast line to fish in Michigan. As there is in Florida, and the inland lakes here are all great  fishing too. I don't think $76  for nonresident is asking too much.  If it is, then I guess I'll have more fish to  myself.

[djkimmel]

None of us have the option of 'trout stamp' or no 'trout stamp.' Some resident bass anglers have questioned why we have to pay more if we only fish for bass or inland. It's a fair question considering, regardless of what Jim Francis or any other MDNR Fisheries person says, they spend millions on stocking non-bass game fish while putting very few dollars into programs that directly make bass fishing better.

My deal has been, and will continue to be, that I expect year-round bass fishing in exchange for us agreeing to paying $11/year more to subsidize stocking of trout, salmon, walleye, muskie and pike. It would be hard to convince very many smart anglers that we aren't doing that considering bass is the number one sought after game fish in Michigan. The MDNR is supposed to put more effort into outreach with inland panfish and bass anglers too in the future. That's part of their new structure.

The impact of panfish, bass and inland fishing does not get the attention it deserves. They have stated that they know the impact is very significant to Michigan's natural resource economy even though people assume trout, walleye and salmon are the biggest impact. I did the math and the per day spending alone of bass anglers fishing in Michigan works out to almost $400 MILLION of the $2 Billion spent each year in Michigan's natural resources fishing economy! Panfish is also several hundred million per year. Add in the equipment expenses and inland, panfish and bass fishing is every bit as important as the Great Lakes fishery to Michigan, probably more so now as an example bass fishing on the Great Lakes has become much more significant than it was in the past - partly why bass is still the number one sought after game fish in Michigan. Bass boats even have their own category in the 5-year US Fish & Wildlife Service expense surveys!!

My purpose in pointing this out is not to start a mines bigger argument between angler 'types' but to make sure the right decisions are made at putting the effort and dollars where they make the most impact for the most anglers. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. We need to do more squeaking to make sure our money is used wisely. It's never good for anything to consistently have disproportionate amounts of effort and money go unfairly to limited and/or smaller subsets of a population. If certain types of angling have a smaller impact on the fishing economy they should not keep getting a bigger proportion of the money and effort. Not if you want to maximize participation and retention.

The new MDNR budget did have a certain level of reduced license purchases built-in - 8% less I believe - they expect to see with the increased price. I'm not sure without going through lots of notes if 8% is the number, but they do expect a reduction.

Myself and other groups have asked them to keep us up-to-date on license sales numbers. The new license structure is not a permanent thing. It has a sunset clause. The MDNR knows that. It has to be re-enacted at the end of the initial term by the Legislature I believe.

My feelings are they had to wait so long to get an increase at all they reached a ways thinking they may have to wait as long for the next one too. I don't want to see a significant decrease in nonresident sales. I don't think very many, if any, nonresidents made their voices heard where it matters as I suggested a few times.

I did bring it up multiple times with MDNR leadership. I have also brought up at the Conservation Coalition (MUCC, major fishing and hunting groups, MDNR leadership) that I would like to have them considering a 7 or 10 fishing license that is good for residents or nonresidents as an alternative. I mistakenly thought we already had a 7-day but by the time I was looking at that the process was too far along anyway to make a major change.

I have not had a great deal of support yet but they are aware, and other groups have said they would consider supporting it if the drop in sales is significant, probably over a couple seasons to verify it is not just a first season drop at the initial increase.

Some people in leadership positions aren't relishing the idea of another license fee action any time soon but there appears to be rules that allow the MDNR Director to create such a license under certain circumstances. I will keep a watch on the situation.

I need some of you reminding me about it once in awhile, while remembering it will probably not change the first couple seasons. There are so many issues right now, and more new ones coming. Reminders will be necessary because there will always be new, hot issues taking our attention.

I really like the Executive Director at MUCC - Erin McDonough. She has been very helpful and supportive. She is also very busy on so many wide-ranging issues but I expect she would help with this if we see a continuing significant downward trend over a couple seasons or more of nonresident fishing license sales.

Please be sure you understand though that I believe the MDNR needs proper funding. Their costs go up just like ours so I support them getting higher fees because frankly over 90% of their budget comes from user fees like our licenses. They can't operate in 2014 on 1996 money. Just won't work.

But I will continue to push them to keep their words about change, better outreach to inland, panfish and bass anglers, treating all 'types' of anglers (and hunters) as equally desirable, using the money wisely where it does the most good for all of fishing (and hunting), supporting the new Wildlife Council to promote the good that hunters and anglers do for our natural resources, and being open and transparent in all their actions that affect us and the natural resources we enjoy and support.

I heard one recently say they work for the fish and animals. No, they don't. They work for us. Without us, they don't have a job. I'll keep reminding them of that. No problem doing that.