Would You Pay More For Prime Deer Habitat?

[Luv2hunteup]

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-28543--,00.html#ELIMINATION_OF_MARKET_HUNTING

DEER HABITAT ACQUISITION

The Department of Conservation recognized that there were two solutions to the deer problem of the late 1930s:

Reduce deer numbers to balance the herd with the range, and
Provide more and better deer range to sustain habitat on a long-range basis.
There were many discussions about changing the "buck law" and also about ways to provide more hunting lands for deer. In 1931 a law was passed to earmark $1.50 for land acquisition from each deer license sold. These funds were often used to purchase tax-reverted lands because of farming failures or hardships of the Great Depression. About 700,000 of the 3.8 million acres of state forest lands were purchased with funds from hunting licenses. In the early years of the Pittman-Robertson Program, a large share of federal aid money was used to purchase game lands in southern Michigan.

Despite the state's attempt to provide more hunting lands and to place more deer habitat in public ownership, the deer problem continued until the herd peaked at about 1.5 million deer in the late 1940s.

Would you pay more for a deer tag if it actually went to improved deer habitat developement/improvement? I'm talking no government raids, no delays in implementation due to budget shortfalls, no creative accounting plus an ammendment to this policy that allows for public hanging of government officials who attempt to circumvent these set aside funds. Trials could take place on public forums just like the recent DMU deer goals meetings with the juries being the sportsman who contrbuted funds. The public hanging would take place on PBS stations using the old Fred Trost time slot. :lol:

Our great grandfathers thought it was wise to ear mark funding for the sport we love so much. Are the hunters of today so cheap or nearsighted that they can't think of our future habitat needs for our deer herds. These set aside funds would be financed by deer hunters for deer hunters. I'm not sure how much a $1.50 in 1931 would be worth in todays dollars (10 to 20 times?) but it would get the ball rolling.

Any thoughts?

[farmlegend]

No, I would not.

I would happily pay more, much more, for more field biologists and CO's.

Give me a minumum of three CO's in every county (mine has one), and I'd pop for $200 a tag.

[plugger]

I would gladly pay for a habitat stamp, the money going to purchase, maintain or improve public lands.

[Rafrin]

No, I would not.

I would happily pay more, much more, for more field biologists and CO's.

Give me a minumum of three CO's in every county (mine has one), and I'd pop for $200 a tag.

There are a multitude of better ways to spend monies if license fees were to increase, than acquring more land, simply to have "more". That said, I believe that licence fees should indeed increase in order to insure the "quality" of hunting in this State, versus the "quantity" of land where, from I am hearing from hunters on this forum and elsewhere, expectations are not met for the most part. For this to occur, it takes money, lots of it.

We have to get out of this mindset where hunting fees are set to (1) be not too expensive for the average joe, and (2) help in just balancing the budget. Both of these lead to many of the problems we are exeriencing today. While not being callous or indifferent to those who might not be able to easily budget for this kind of cost, I for one, would gladly pony up $200 for a deer license, if it could provide the quality experience that is so woefully missing right now. However, increasing fees to aquire more land simply to maintain the staus quo, is not my cup of tea.

[Backwoods-Savage]

No, I would not.

I would happily pay more, much more, for more field biologists and CO's.

Give me a minumum of three CO's in every county (mine has one), and I'd pop for $200 a tag.

Good points about the biologists and especially the CO's. In our area there is just too much for that one fellow. I think it is one reason why the last two transferred.

However, it could also pose another problem if the fees were raised that much. Those who could not or just would be hard-headed and not buy a license would certainly give those CO's much to do! All in all, I do not have an answer to this sticky problem.

[lwingwatcher]

I don't deer hunt anywhere near state land and would prolly give up bow hunting and definitely rifle hunting if I had to do it around here.

So....I don't see nearly as much benefit to the area I live and hunt as I could envision positive things from another CO.

[username]

Only if they bought winter yarding areas and improved them. And if they are closed to hunting.

[Ferg]

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-28543--,00.html#ELIMINATION_OF_MARKET_HUNTING


Would you pay more for a deer tag if it actually went to improved deer habitat developement/improvement? I'm talking no government raids, no delays in implementation due to budget shortfalls, no creative accounting plus an ammendment to this policy that allows for public hanging of government officials who attempt to circumvent these set aside funds. Trials could take place on public forums just like the recent DMU deer goals meetings with the juries being the sportsman who contrbuted funds. The public hanging would take place on PBS stations using the old Fred Trost time slot. :lol:

Our great grandfathers thought it was wise to ear mark funding for the sport we love so much. Are the hunters of today so cheap or nearsighted that they can't think of our future habitat needs for our deer herds. These set aside funds would be financed by deer hunters for deer hunters. I'm not sure how much a $1.50 in 1931 would be worth in todays dollars (10 to 20 times?) but it would get the ball rolling.

Any thoughts?

Isn't there 'still' 1.50 going into the DRIP Fund for this?

ferg....

[NorthJeff]

Yes, I would pay more for help on public lands.

[wagoneer]

I would pay $10-$20 if it went to any of the following:

1. Purchase of deer yards in the UP and Public hunting land in Southern MI
2. Planting of deer browse, prefered species that are nearly non-existant on some state land areas (Hemlock, Sumac, etc.)
3. More good CO's

I would not pay more for more land to be planted in Jack Pine or Aspen (at least in Oscoda, Crawford area).

Also, my limit for a resident deer tag would be about $80. Not because I am not willing to spend more on deer hunting, but because any more than this and I would be hunting out of state.

[LUCE-YOOPER]

I can't imagine anyone not wanting to fairly fund the sport we love. Has anyone been to Cabelas in October? Lots and lots of money being spent. I would gladly spend more for a license. The higher-ups at the state level are looking at the money.

[yooperkenny]

Isn't there 'still' 1.50 going into the DRIP Fund for this?....

Yes, $1.50 out of every deer license goes into this fund. (Don't want to nitpick, but my understanding is that this started in 1971)

Someone correct me if this is wrong...

So would I pay? Yes ...
Am I pissed because I've been paying all along and the money rarely makes it to where it's supposed to go? Oh yeah ... :rant:

[yooperkenny]

Only if they bought winter yarding areas and improved them. And if they are closed to hunting.

I like that.... no bowhunting the winter deer yards - that's a great idea. Especially since most of those deer have migrated from the North where there are no doe permits

Hmmm.... can we also make those areas closed to wolves and coyotes? ;)

[Ferg]

I like that.... no bowhunting the winter deer yards - that's a great idea. Especially since most of those deer have migrated from the North where there are no doe permits


Yep - not fair to blast 'em in the yards when they would have been protected on their home range -

ferg....

[NorthJeff]

"I like that.... no bowhunting the winter deer yards - that's a great idea. Especially since most of those deer have migrated from the North where there are no doe permits"

I'd love to see some deer yard protection areas closed to shooting does in Dec.

[beer and nuts]

Yup I would pay more but only for natural habitat improvements-not manmade food plots. CO's I'm up in the air on that-seems they find the time to come out of the woodwork and have them all over the place when they want to work-ie..TipUp Town and the fleet of CO's. And not until they become CONSERVATION Officers and not the "guilty-until proven innocent" training they receive here in Michigan. Sorry, I've seen it and heard from too many...but thats another thread!!

[farmlegend]

Yup I would pay more but only for natural habitat improvements-not manmade food plots. CO's I'm up in the air on that-seems they find the time to come out of the woodwork and have them all over the place when they want to work-ie..TipUp Town and the fleet of CO's.

Not my observation. I haven't seen a real live C.O. in the field since about 1974.

[NorthJeff]

In all the hunting and fishing I do in MI I've never been checked by a CO..and never seen one in the field, while hunting. I see them drive by my house on the road, but that's about it.

[Nimrod1]

You guys should try an opening day hunt, in a popular area for ducks. Almost guaranteed that you will be checked. So far it's worked out real well for us. We usually get some good tips on where to find more ducks and fewer hunters!:D

Yes, I would be more than willing to pay more per tag, if the money would go into habitat.

[Ed Spin04]

Thanks for the initial post,LuvtohuntUP.

I think you are asking for an increase in the license to improve the existing public land, not purchase more land. If so. You have my vote. I have written several articles on this subject including one in the current issue of WNW.

There's a lot of hoopla about the DNR presently buying winter shelter land in the UP, mostly cedar yarding areas. That's all, buying land with absolutely no plan to sustain or regenerate the winter yarding areas. This will get you just deeper in the rut the UP is already in. Why do you think the deer herd in the UP has dropped from about a million in the early 1990's to less than 350,000 today?

The habitat is getting destroyed with not a single plan to do something about it. Buying more land with no plan will get us nowhere, except to spend mucho taxpayer's dollars foolishly. "It's the habitat stupid", if I can borrow a childish Clinton era campaign slogun.

The sad part of the whole problem is that there is a solution, but no decision maker pays attention to it. Every new top official knows better than anybody else and comes up with their own unproven solution. You have seen this happen many times and especially with public paid officials.

That's why our founding fathers knew better and had most of the business end of goverment handled by private enterprise. Too many in goverment are only interested in building up their own empire and legacy with your money.

Having more COs or field Biologists won't hurt, but we would do ourselves a lot more good if we increased the dollars available for habitat improvment and sustenance, and made sure it was 100% directed to this end, which it is not presently, (just more political mumbo jumbo).

[Ranger Ray]

Would you pay more for a deer tag if it actually went to improved deer habitat developement/improvement?
Yes.