DRIP - $ From Your Pocket MIA?

[yooperkenny]

The thread on the Marquette DNR Meeting 1/17 is very broad and has triggered some good discussion. I did not want this important issue to get buried and overlooked.

We argue... I mean discuss... AR, VAR, MAR, one buck, shortening seasons and so on but I don't think I've read yet where anyone disagrees that we need to improve winter yarding habitat. Here's some background about DRIP previously posted for those not yet aware:

From the DNR website (link below for those interested in the complete text)

"DRIP is funded by a portion of deer license revenues. From each license, the DNR sets aside $1.50 to improve and maintain deer habitat and acquire land for deer management purposes in the UP and the northern Lower Peninsula. To date, the program has identified 14,000 acres of land that it has recommended for purchase. Of that, 3,000 acres is pending approval.

The DRIP program began in 1971, under the leadership of retired Wildlife Division Chief Merrill “Pete” Petoskey, with the goal of maintaining sufficient habitat to support 1 million deer in Michigan by 1981. The success of DRIP and a series of mild winters in the 1980s drove the deer population to exceed 2 million in 1989."

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...1008--,00.html (http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10369-131008--,00.html)

What was said in the Marquette meeting was that this fund has $6 million of our money tied up that has not been appropriated by the legislature for its intended use. UP Sportsman are upset because habitat improvement is sorely needed asap. Everyone was urged to contact their state representatives and/or senators to light a fire. This affects the NLP also.

Does anyone have any accurate figures on the amount of $ currently tied up in this fund? Do any organizations like QDMA or MUCC or Whitetails Unlimited have a stance on this? What can be done? Is this analagous to the Lotto scenario when we were told that those dollars would go to Education only to learn later that they went to the General Fund? Are we just gonna lie down and take this? Does anyone care?

Also let me add that in addition to improving winter deer yards we also MUST stop the killing of migrated does to these areas every December IMHO.

[Trophy Specialist]

According to my estimates 6 million dollars would buy at least 6,000 acres of land in the U.P. (figuring an average of $1,000 per acre), or perhaps even more land considering large parcels of mostly swamp would constitute the best habitat and the price per acre drops the wetter the property is and the larger the acreage. Still, 6,000 acres would be a good start.

Let's look at some other figures: The DNR reports to sell over 1.7 million deer licenses every year. That equates to 2.55 million dollars at $1.50 per license that goes into the DRIP Fund annually. With a budget like that the DNR should have no problem buying any critical winter habitat that becomes available.

[farmlegend]

Lots of hunters don't have a clue that $1.50 of each tag they buy gets allocated to the DRIP program.

Things sure have changed since this program was developed.

Now, over half of Michigan's deer hunters hunt primarily in the southern lower. 100% of their contributions are funding habitat improvements in regions they'll never hunt. What we have here has evolved into a rather large cross-geographic subsidy.

My guess is lots of guys would rather have these dollars fund an extra C.O. for their county than acquire/enhance winter deer range in places 500 miles away from them.

[NorthJeff]

FL,

You take the extra CO's, we'll take the improved habitat!:)

At the same time, we need to do something with the habitat...not just let it to continue to grow older and lack diversity or regeneration. I've found if you own private land you can make a SUBSTANTIAL differance to your local deer herd even if the deer leave for a few months during the winter. Don't underestimate the impact you can make if you own land in the U.P. The summer ranges have plenty of food, often several times more food than is needed, but if you target your property to offer high quality browse in the leanest times of the year..late fall, and early spring, you can make a huge impact on your local deer herd. If you aren't doing that...START! You will be amazed.

[yooperkenny]

Now, over half of Michigan's deer hunters hunt primarily in the southern lower. 100% of contributions are funding habitat improvements in regions they'll never hunt. What we have here has evolved into a rather large cross-geographic subsidy.

Allow me to ramble about this a bit:

Historically hunter dollars have always contributed to benefit wildlife habitat, and more often than not in areas they themselves don't hunt. Is this any different that Pittman-Robertson, for example? At least the money is (supposed to be) spent in your own state.

Besides, if we can improve habitat and manage the herd maybe it will come back up to levels that will draw more downstate hunters back. This personally doesn't excite me all that much but it would be good for the economy "Up North".

And realize that these things go in cycles. Just because SLP is great habitat now doesn't mean it will be 20 years from now especially with urban sprawl etc. Your money may come back to benefit you directly some day

[Luv2hunteup]

The southern 1/3 of the state has the biggest doe problem. 34% of deer tags are anterless tags. How about all the drip funds collected on anterless tags state wide goes to fund the winter yarding areas in the southern 1/3 of the state and all the drip funds collected on buck tags be spent in the northern part of the state? Sound fair?











It's not really a fair question, Michigan does not collect drip funds on antlerless deer, I guess they don't think antlerless deer impact the habitat. :confused:

[farmlegend]

Actually, by statute, DRIP funds can only be applied in the northern lower and the U.P. So, unless the law changes, we're in for a perpetuity of severe cross-geographic subsidies.

Seriously, I do not mind a few bucks of mine going to deer range improvement in the U.P. I just hope the hotheads that attended the Marquette meeting appreciate the generosity of SLP hunters richly subsidizing their deer range.

[Luv2hunteup]

Here's a link to an article on the Marquette and Soo meeting.


DNR: Deer numbers depend on timber harvest, winter
By CHRISTOPHER DIEM, Journal Staff Writer

PHOTO: Michigan Department of Natural Resources wildlife biologist Bob Doepker addresses a large group of deer hunters in Marquette Tuesday night. (Journal photo by Andy Nelson-Zaleski)

MARQUETTE -Dissatisfaction, frustration and anger were on display among the more than 400 people gathered at a meeting in Marquette Tuesday evening to discuss the Upper Peninsula deer herd.

Click on link for the rest of the article.

http://www.miningjournal.net/news/story/0118202006_new02-n0118.asp

DNR outlines deer population goals

By SCOTT BRAND/The Evening News
SAULT STE. MARIE - In a perfect world, there would be a big buck behind every tree; the does would be fat and hearty producing a pair of healthy fawns each spring. The deer would have plenty to eat throughout the year without affecting forest regeneration or farm crops.

Click on link for the rest of the article.

http://www.sooeveningnews.com/articles/2006/01/13/news/news462.txt

[Luv2hunteup]

I didn't find where the whole amount went but how about this raid of our funds?

PILT issue could shortchange DNR

Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:35 PM EST

By Steve Griffin Field Editor

Midland, Mich. — Michigan hunters and boaters, buying their licenses and boat fuel, contribute to dedicated funds used to benefit wildlife, hunting, and boating; funds that would be used, that is, if the Legislature OK’d it.

But Michigan’s Legislature, apparently at least partly in response to ongoing disputes over payments in lieu of taxes the DNR makes to local governments, passed its annual budget bill in December without language that would authorize the transfer of the money to the DNR.

How much money? How about $3.5 million from the Deer Range Improvement Fund (DRIP), built on $1.50 from each deer hunting license sold, and $5 million from the Waterways Fund, raised through the return of fuel taxes attributable to boating.




For the full article click here.

http://www.michiganoutdoornews.com/articles/2006/01/19/news/news1.txt

[twodogsphil]

Luv2hunteup,your'e incorrect in stating "It's not really a fair question, Michigan does not collect drip funds on antlerless deer, I guess they don't think antlerless deer impact the habitat."

The fact is that the DRIP fee is part of every deer license sold in the state.

In addition to the focus of the thread -- a potential raid on the DRIP fund, hunters should be aware that MDNR already spends a good deal of the DRIP monies on things other than directly on "deer range Improvement". Specifically, MDNR funds some of its overhead and other costs with DRIP monies rationalizing that such costs are related to / associated with deer range Improvement.

Hunters should demand an annual 100% detailed accouinting of all DRIP expenditures fron MDNR.

[Luv2hunteup]

The fact is that the DRIP fee is part of every deer license sold in the state.


This is incorrect. DRIP funds are only attached to full price deer tags.

[Trophy Specialist]

This is incorrect. DRIP funds are only attached to full price deer tags.
Actually I did a search in the state of Michigan's website and did not find anything that said that only full priced deer tags were subject to DRIP funding. Here's what it did say about public act 106, P.A. 1971:
"$1.50 be earmarked from each deer hunting license".

Now unless I missed something like an amendment to that law, the DNR is required to allocate $1.50 from every deer license sold. Back in 1971 when the measure was passed, there were no antlerless deer licenses available. Instead there were doe permits that were allocated through a drawing and they were free. Now days an antlerless license costs $10 and if the DNR is not allocating the $1.50 from each of those licenses to the DRIP, then according to what I read they are not obeying the law.

[Luv2hunteup]

Now days an antlerless license costs $10 and if the DNR is not allocating the $1.50 from each of those licenses to the DRIP, then according to what I read they are not obeying the law.
You are correct.