The BEST Idea!!!!

[beer and nuts]

Well maybe!

Here is my idea which might work for all.

One buck tag costing $30. All seasons.(one tag option)

NOW, if those hunters tag a buck in the bow season and then think they are done, thats where we introduce the BONUS TAG(or call it the habitat tag, rich peoples tag whatever you want....) This tag can also be purchased at any time during any season(giving poeple the two tag option). The catch, the cost is say $100.00 to $150.00.

The idea is, you have already took a buck and if you want to continue to hunt these poeple gotta give something back to the resource. The money where 3/4 of the bonus tag money is directed to habitat fund, research/data/study fund, something along those lines.

Maybe we need to place a higher "value" on our deer herd. Its an old retail trick, ie...place a 25 cent sticker on a dress and people naturally assume it has to be "cheap", place a $25 sticker on the same dress and it magically assumes value and a "good deal".

[Ed Spin04]

B&N I never believed that we would agree on anything. Your idea has some merit and is food for thought. Now can you make that single buck at least somewhat restrictive. Something easy to swallow, like on the order of protecting 50% of the yearling bucks.

[Gilbey]

This idea came up before and I am fully willing to pay the extra cash and take a bow buck and a gun buck. IF it's going to something useful regarding our deer herd.

Personally, I would couple this with MARS, but that's just my personal opinion.

I feel that the additional charges on a 2nd tag would deter many hunters from killing two bucks. Maybe it would help the populations, maybe not. I do believe that the young bucks still have to be protected, and that it's not just a numbers game that more bucks equals bigger bucks.

[Whit1]

There's been a shift in the polar axis!.............:lol:

Actually this is food for thought!

[WILDCATWICK]

Kind of like the concept but don't like the price. I'm primarly a meat hunter and harvest preety much 3 deer a year and I eat every bit of it:p

That would become awefully expensive to continue that practice. It also would cause a heck of a rift raft in the UP. There are many already who don't obtain proper liscensing....there would then be many more. The one's that do it leagally but are again depending on 3 or so deer to feed their family, and they are up there, they would be pretty S.O.L. Because I don't think they could afford it.

Unless your saying that you will open up more doe tags?

[mich buckmaster]

Nice, I like that idea. I vote YES!!!

[Gilbey]

Kind of like the concept but don't like the price. I'm primarly a meat hunter and harvest preety much 3 deer a year and I eat every bit of it:p

That would become awefully expensive to continue that practice. It also would cause a heck of a rift raft in the UP. There are many already who don't obtain proper liscensing....there would then be many more. The one's that do it leagally but are again depending on 3 or so deer to feed their family, and they are up there, they would be pretty S.O.L. Because I don't think they could afford it.

Unless your saying that you will open up more doe tags?

Ouch man. :sad: I think you may be receiving some fan mail after that statement. Anyways, the average meat hunter doesn't go out and sit for three months waiting for a 2nd mature buck, and doe tags are available in many areas still.

[beer and nuts]

Wildcat, two things. For those that want to break the law, they will nor matter if its an extra $10 or $2 million, plus they risk of a higher fine. Not buying it. Second, meat hunters will have to sacrifice-well some meat, in the UP for the most part of it, two of any deer should be the max and harvesting one deer should be the norm. There are parts inthe UP that have heavy populations and meat hunters there can take does I guess. Other than that, sacrifices by all would have to be made for any ideas, thats why Ed, your sacrifice will be no restrictions on the one license!!


I will say if there are families up there that solely depend on deer meat to survive(which by the way, I'm sure is extremely low percentages) I have no problems with them taking a deer anytime to survive(yes, I know its poaching do not preach), but we are talking survival for a few.

No new doe tags unless its warranted, again back to sacrificing a few things.

[Whit1]

.....sacrifices by all would have to be made for any ideas.....



What a strange concept! Sacrifices? By all? This smacks of compromise to me..........:lol:

B&N you've made a very important point here, valid, concise, and true. We can't have it "My Way!"

As for hunters depending (the key word is depending) on venison as the only way to feed their family I don't buy it and neither do statistics derived from poaching arrests.

[NorthJeff]

I'd be somewhat for that...but with a much smaller price tag.

"The idea is, you have already took a buck and if you want to continue to hunt these poeple gotta give something back to the resource."

This is where the problem comes in. The guys that hunt many weeks, through multiple seasons, already give back more to the resource by spending several times more dollars than the average hunter. For example, through my habitat efforts I have at least quadrupled the buck herd, and at least doubled the buck age structure in my area, not to mention doubling the fawn production rate. If you base the formula on giving something back...I should get my 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th tag for free. Also, taking a yearling buck does nothing to help the herd, which most gladly do, and many of the guys wanting to spend time in the woods and shoot more bucks are holding out for an older buck, which is a more appropriate and resource concious harvest decision...and that's how they would be rewarded?

The problem is that many of the people that want to hunt more days afield, and hunt all the seasons...already give more back, even if they take more game. They are the ones keeping recreational business going, the hunting industry going, buying property, and completing extensive habitat management activities, not to mention the costs that go along with those acitivies and the businesses that are positively effected.

Unfortunately, the idea does nothing to curtail the slaughter of yearling bucks. PA is a very representative state to ours and before the AR was in place, the yearling buck harvest was between 80 and 85%..which is actually WORSE than MI's WITH 2 tags.

This might raise money, but that's about it...that's where I have the problem. If this would make a biological change, great, but just like the 1 buck license, I don't see any evidence to see a change, other than making guys pay more that are already making positive difference to their local herds.

[Gilbey]

As for hunters depending (the key word is depending) on venison as the only way to feed their family I don't buy it and neither do statistics derived from poaching arrests.

Not worth a fight, but I have seen instances where yes it is a part of survival and not antler poaching. I would NEVER report this. I hunt for sport and would expect someone to report myself. Not some of these people, you know the ones that literally are living in wood scrap constructed "tent's" w/ no bath, electric and water. And yes, they still exist.

[Joe Archer]

Other than that, sacrifices by all would have to be made for any ideas....

Why should meat hunters have to make sacrifices so a select group can have larger racks to hunt?
<----<<<

[Foodplot]

If such a plan should ever pass make very sure those funds are specifical ly earmarked for the purpose stated. I never never never never trust a politician when there is money being raised and laying around. My state has stamps you have to purchase and the fresh water stamp has raised millions of dollars, laying in the bank, a politician just did his best to get all of that money, wouldn't you know it, his welfare voters, and almost pulled it off. There should be words written to disperse these funds in a timely manner for their purpose or some politician will tie them up to get support for his pet project etc.

[Pinefarm]

Hmmm...that's not the worst idea. If the 2nd tag was $100, should it also be for 4pt's on a side or better?
This way, any "meat" hunter won't be buying this tag for freezer meat and they'll be buying antlerless tags instead.

[fairfax1]

I like your idea. More specifically, I like most any new idea that offers us a possible better way.

As posted before, the DNR's conundrum is that: First, the Combo is their #1 revenue generating product; and second, it is currently mandated by law.

The law thing can be changed....but, how do you protect your revenue stream when changing your breadn'butter product? Rember 'New" Coke?

Perhaps, B&N's idea is part of the solution. It could be tweaked, sure....but it does offer a way to capture price increases while still offering hunting options. I like the idea of 'choice'.

[kdogger]

Just another case of the Bourgeios keeping down the Prolatariot!!!!

Only the King can hunt, huh???

Workers of the world, unite!

;)

[Munsterlndr]

Personally I could live with this suggestion.

It would require that the legislature change the law, however, and I don't know how likely that is to happen. The danger is that when changes to the current law get put into the political arena, it is kind of scary to contemplate what other changes certain legislators might attach to the bill.

If we want to change the current system without having to go to the legislature there are some set in stone items that any change would have to conform to:

1) a combo license good for the taking of two deer in both archery and rifle season is required. What the makeup of the combo license is and where it can be used is up to the NRC.

2) The combo license has to be double the cost of individual licenses.

3) There can't be any combination of tags, that allow someone to take more than 2 bucks a year. (so much for the idea of adding a 3rd tag)

Other than that it is pretty much up to the NRC to determine what each tag is good for, what DMU's are open to antlerless hunting, what the season dates are, etc.

So to be realistic any proposals that have a serious chance of being acted on would have to include the three points above.

If you wanted to incorporate B&N's idea of a very expensive restricted bonus antlered tag about the only way I could see doing it is to change the combo to be good for one buck & one doe and then offer the expensive tag as a restricted stand alone tag. This might work but I would want to see the restricted tag expensive enough that only a limited number get sold and used. Otherwise we might as well leave things the way they are.

[KalamazooKid]

I like it. For those who want/need more meat .... teach your wife and kids to hunt!

[walleyechaser]

I was getting ready to post on the MAR thread and it got closed before I had a chance.
As I see already there are complaints surfacing by so-called meat hunters but after reading their posts in other threads (you know who you are) they continue to follow the same train of thought and harp on license cost, penalizing the not so well to do, etc.,etc.
Its time we all come to grips with certain realities.
First of all our license fees are some of the lowest around and haven't even been adjusted to keep up with inflation so the concept of rich versus poor doesn't hold much water.
Secondly, it appears that MARs will not work in the minds of those hunters not interested in any change. Its too bad that some hunters can't realized that keeping things the way they are will only result in more of what we have regarding deer populations, buck antler size, etc..
I think the original idea put forth in this thread was one of the best I've seen so far but I would modify it as follows.
Go with the one buck tag period and raise the price to about 25 or 30 dollars.
Where deer/antler growth is shown to be limited by habitat and/or soil fertility such as UP areas, have no ARs but in the South, have mandatory ARs. To say that MARs don't or won't work to change the age structure defies any logic or reason. Secondly to suggest MARS will cause young hunters to become disinterested in hunting further suggests that we are not teaching the younger generations the responsibility of stewardship that we supposedly profess to be doing.
On the other hand I'd be all for no AR during a youngsters first season which should eliminate that concern.
Make available a second tag as suggested for $100.00 or more.
Allow each hunter to purchase 2 antlerless tags only at current prices in DMUs where the herd size permits.
Maybe toss in an option so those who cannot afford the price of any license to earn FREE licenses by donating their time to the DNR for forrestry/habitat improvement work in their home DMUs perhaps through the use of a simple punch card system to be presented to the ticketing agent. This should help the meat hunters who have to have 3 deer for food and their finances as well.
Tell the NRC members who use the scare tactic that loss of revenue will result in loss of jobs within the DNR to find a new line of work or passtime.
Those hunters wanting to spend more time in the woods in persuit of their hunting passion will pay the extra money for the second buck tag. To those who say they'll go out of state to hunt I say find another state where it'll cost less when you consider driving time, fuel, lodging, etc. and be happy!
Sorry this is so log winded but I wanted to cover as many bases as possible.

[mecosta]

Walleychaser-

Some great ideas! I agree about the tag price also. I am willing to pay more to get more. The problem is people have no faith in the DNR(or any other government for that matter) so they think if they pay more it will probably just be waisted. I can't blame anyone for thinking that way with the way things have been going lately. That is why the service option might be a better way to go and is a great addition in my opinion. Good thinking!

[Eric Jennings]

Let's make deer hunting a rich man's sport. What about the folks that can't afford the cost? You need to stop and think before suggesting such a descriminatory idea.

[mecosta]

I thought that was covered by some kind of service option?

[Joe Archer]

I like it. For those who want/need more meat .... teach your wife and kids to hunt!

My kids all hunt, now the question is "will I be able to afford to buy them a license in the future?
<----<<<

[beer and nuts]

""""Let's make deer hunting a rich man's sport. What about the folks that can't afford the cost? You need to stop and think before suggesting such a descriminatory idea""""" Man, that is such a lazy and totally overused arguement. So "they" can not afford the cost!? Well, the bullets they buy cost what, the truck they drive, the gas they put into it to get to their hunting grounds, the blind they sit in, the hunting clothes they buy, the gun, the bow, the arrows, the cigs they smoke, the beer they drink after the hunt, the knife, the freezer bags,the propane to heat the blind, the 450 pounds of beets/carrots they buy, the time off work they take, the atv, the snacks, etc. etc.. how much of the above does that fit where "they" can not afford $150 dollars worth of licenses IF they want two buck tags and a doe tag?! Show me a guy that will not be able to afford a tag license like that and then show me a guy that doesn't do a good portion of the above-I will buy their license for them.

[WILDCATWICK]

My kids all hunt, now the question is "will I be able to afford to buy them a license in the future?
<----<<<


Good point. I have no childern but I would imagine that could become quite a burdon. I still don't like the idea unless they increase some areas antlerless permits for the meat hunters & I don't think it promotes youth hunting enough. Also how will that work in certain areas. There are areas that have entirely to many deer. If people are harvesting less that will not help the situation either. I guesse there are just to many gaps yet.

As I stated before, I kind of like the idea but it's just not there yet.

[Joe Archer]

""""Let's make deer hunting a rich man's sport. What about the folks that can't afford the cost? You need to stop and think before suggesting such a descriminatory idea""""" Man, that is such a lazy and totally overused arguement. So "they" can not afford the cost!? Well, the bullets they buy cost what, the truck they drive, the gas they put into it to get to their hunting grounds, the blind they sit in, the hunting clothes they buy, the gun, the bow, the arrows, the cigs they smoke, the beer they drink after the hunt, the knife, the freezer bags,the propane to heat the blind, the 450 pounds of beets/carrots they buy, the time off work they take, the atv, the snacks, etc. etc.. how much of the above does that fit where "they" can not afford $150 dollars worth of licenses IF they want two buck tags and a doe tag?! Show me a guy that will not be able to afford a tag license like that and then show me a guy that doesn't do a good portion of the above-I will buy their license for them.

1) Bullets - I have purchased 2 boxes of rife shells in the last 10 years..
2) My truck is payed for and I haven't had a truck payment in the past 7 years...
3) I have limited my trips up North in recent years specifically due to the gas prices...
4) I haven't purchased a new tree stand in over 7 years, and have never purchased a blind...
5) My rifle was a gift back in 1984; my shotgun a gift back in 1976.
6) My bow was a gift back in 1999, and i haven't purchased new arrows in three years!
7) I quit smoking in 1999 partly because cigarettes were too expensive..
8) I do not drink beer!
9) The buck knife I still use was given to me in 1983...
10) I do not use propane to heat any blind...
11) Baiting has been illegal in my area for awhile now...
12) I get paid vacation time from work..
13) I do not own an ATV...
14) I snack less when up North hunting (if at all!) than I do whan at home...


DING DING DING!
Do we have a winner???
Are you buying my children licenses(3) or just my own?
<----<<<

[beer and nuts]

Hey Joe, you do not meet my criteria because based on what you told me--YOU CAN AFFORD THE LICENSES!!! Again, you made sacrifices to hunt. Plus you almost were a winner but you never said you DO NOT bait, just that it was illegal to bait in your area(#11)--technicalities my man!!! :) Next.....

[mich buckmaster]

Let's make deer hunting a rich man's sport. What about the folks that can't afford the cost? You need to stop and think before suggesting such a descriminatory idea.

What is discriminating about it, GET A JOB!!!!!!! As for those who cant afford it need to quit going out for dinner, movies, smoking, drinking, fishing, toys, and other EXTRA CURRICULUR activities. You have to SACRIFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey Joe Archer good point about having children and buying tags, I didnt think about anyone else. Just one tag. It will never fly so this is just a campfire discussion.

[Pauly3511]

Kind of like the concept but don't like the price. I'm primarly a meat hunter and harvest preety much 3 deer a year and I eat every bit of it:p

That would become awefully expensive to continue that practice. It also would cause a heck of a rift raft in the UP. There are many already who don't obtain proper liscensing....there would then be many more. The one's that do it leagally but are again depending on 3 or so deer to feed their family, and they are up there, they would be pretty S.O.L. Because I don't think they could afford it.

Unless your saying that you will open up more doe tags?


I had no idea some people thought us poor people up here in the U.P. didnt have the brains to even purchase a license properly. Actually I dont even know how to respond to this post :sad:

[WILDCATWICK]

I had no idea some people thought us poor people up here in the U.P. didnt have the brains to even purchase a license properly. Actually I dont even know how to respond to this post :sad:


I did not say everyone up there! I lived there for 8 years and have ex-inlaws up there. I lived on a road that deadends and only had 8 homes on it. 4 of the 8 depended on that meat and Sadly enough I heard gunshots on my road in the middle of the night often. It's just a fact. There is much more land and it's much easier to get away with it. I'm just telling you what I've seen and what I know. Sorry you took offense. But please don't generalize my staments and put words in my mouth becuae I never said anything remotely close to what you claim "I had no idea some people thought us poor people up here in the U.P. didnt have the brains to even purchase a license properly"
I don't feel that way at all.

The bigger concern is not the people who are doing it illegally but the people who are doing it legally and depend on that meat. Now werwe going to raise the prices? It's obvious (to me) that those who need the meat the most wil have a hard time paying for those new liscense fee.

[Ferg]

Keep the 'personal' issues out of this - and back on topic please -

thanks

ferg....

[Joe Archer]

Hey Joe, you do not meet my criteria because based on what you told me--YOU CAN AFFORD THE LICENSES!!! Again, you made sacrifices to hunt. Plus you almost were a winner but you never said you DO NOT bait, just that it was illegal to bait in your area(#11)--technicalities my man!!! :) Next.....
What have I told you that would make you think that I could afford a huge price increase s described for myself and my three kids?
:D As to #11) "the 450 pounds of beets/carrots they buy..." Even when baiting was legal 450 pounds would have been out of my price range.. :dizzy:
Also you said, "Show me a guy that will not be able to afford a tag license like that and then show me a guy that doesn't do a good portion of the above-I will buy their license for them..."
I think I have covered more than "a good portion". For the record, I have been 100% honest as well....
<----<<<

[Trophy Specialist]

When I grew up I had to buy all my own licenses and hunting sundries. I also had to pay for collage myself. Under the "high priced" scenario, I would not have been able to afford to hunt until I was in my 20s. When I got out of school and had to move to Nevada, I couldn't hunt there the first year I was there becasue I could not afford a non-resident license on my megar wages. Now I am as avid a hunter as you'll ever meet, but I still had to prioritize paying the bills and eating before hunting. I would bet that some of the people that would support such a measure have never been poor before. I'd support it if there was a clause that if your taxible income from the last year was below the poverty level, then you could have free licenses. That way I could hunt for free.:lol:

[mecosta]

TS-

I thought that only the second tag was expensive? I think that there was also an option of some type of work or management help to offset the expense of the second tag. By the way, it is good to hear that as much as we all like hunting, at least someone has/had their priorities in line. I think my wife sometimes wonders about me!
I do not think that anyone on this board wants hunting to be a sport for the rich. The high price would be just another way to make people think twice about managemant before shooting.

[beer and nuts]

Yup, the second tag is the big jump in price. The first costs $30. Frankly, just because you have 1 or 10 kids should not matter, you choose to have that many and the price of everything just went up. Just because you have extra hunters does not give you anymore of a discount in licenses, reason to selfcomplain, yes!! What would be nice is to see a chart/map and the price of resident licenses for each state and see where MI stands.

This is not and should not be a poor/rich arguement. Everybody can afford a $30 license just like they could afford the combo fee, its just your lacking that extra buck tag that will affect only 4.3% of the hunters....and if you choose/sacrifice to continue to hunt after you get a buck you will pay more..but its your choice! Its kinda like the choice everybody gets--spartan/generic cereal or Capt Crunch, even the poor choice Capt. Crunch!!




[

[walleyechaser]

I'm standing by my original post in this thread.
Just imagine, 4.3% of 700,000 hunters paying $100.00 for the second tag!
That sounds like 30,100 hunters adding $3,010,000 to the DNR's coffers.
As for having 4,5,10 or whatever number of kids, just imagine how many
donated forrestry/habitat improvement manhours come come from that
while "working" for a license not to mention that our kids would be learning
another aspect of wildlife stewardship along with being involved in something
positive and,-----being in the out of doors rather than on a street corner!
Our kids might even be able to teach us old guys a thing or two about land
management and habitat improvement as a result of their experiences.
Here's another thought but keep this one secret-----public land hunters
would have first hand knowledge of new "Hotspots" as a result of their
participation in this program!
I'm still searching for a downside but like the saying goes when taking a
test, "Your first thought is usually the most correct"!

[farmlegend]

Sign me up for this one. It is a creative and rational proposal.

It is puzzling how some like to look at virtually every issue imaginable from the prism of a class war. Turning hunting into a "rich man's sport" simply by asking those that are desirous of killing two bucks in a single season to pay more? Come on, the gymnastics we're capable of to rationalize our desire to take antlered deer are something else.

FWIW, I'm still a young enough man that I can honestly state that I've been broke for most of my life. On my most destitute day, I'd have had no problem with charging more for that second buck tag.

Choice! Empowerment!

[WILDCATWICK]

I'm standing by my original post in this thread.
Just imagine, 4.3% of 700,000 hunters paying $100.00 for the second tag!
That sounds like 30,100 hunters adding $3,010,000 to the DNR's coffers.
As for having 4,5,10 or whatever number of kids, just imagine how many
donated forrestry/habitat improvement manhours come come from that
while "working" for a license not to mention that our kids would be learning
another aspect of wildlife stewardship along with being involved in something
positive and,-----being in the out of doors rather than on a street corner!
Our kids might even be able to teach us old guys a thing or two about land
management and habitat improvement as a result of their experiences.
Here's another thought but keep this one secret-----public land hunters
would have first hand knowledge of new "Hotspots" as a result of their
participation in this program!
I'm still searching for a downside but like the saying goes when taking a
test, "Your first thought is usually the most correct"!


Couple of questions. How do you propose the logistics of these habitiat improvement. If your in Detroit then do you do them in Wayne county? Then will the program pay for the extra equipment and manpower to supervise and run these programs? Do these habitat improvements then incluse streams and rivers or are they only directed toward "hunting"? How receptive will the private landowners be who have dumped in a ton of money in their property to improve habitat in areas where there is no state land in the immediat area and all these deer live their whole lives soley on private land? Can they somehow bank their hours on their own property?

As I said I like the thinking and ideas of new programs. I kind of like this idea, but I don't think it will ever fly. I think it will make it more difficult to promote youth hunting when time & money is already a concern, I think it hurts the people who are strictly meat hunters, and depending on the how the habitat improvement programs are set up you may find some serious resistance among some private land owners who have already dumped a ton of money into habitat improvements so they can either have bigger bucks and/or more deer in total.

[walleyechaser]

I'll attempt to answer your questions as completely as possible but please forgive any unintentional oversights on my part.
In answer to your question regarding residence, I originally posted that the
volunteer work could be done in "home" DMUs but I realize that in the Detroit
area you used as a for instance this may be impossible but if we allowed for
hunters to do the work in either their home DMU or a "preferred" DMU (one in which they hunt) this concern could be addressed.
As for equipment, hand tools, chain saws, etc. could be provided by participants for their own use. Supervisory Staff is a valid concern but my
initial thought is that the DNR may have at least a portion of the required staff available but that would have to be further investigated.
I really don't foresee a major problem with private landowners because the private landowner is probably already making habitat improvements and will continue to do so regardless of what the DNR does or doesn't do with state
owned land.
I'm not certain what you mean by financial difficuly on meat hunters part
but maybe I'm missing something. By allowing hunters to participate in their
home DMU or preferred DMU I think the financial burden would be minimal since I'm not talking about hundreds of hours but rather something that would be more reasonable.
The biggest issue I see is one of logistics/scheduling which would obviously require a lot more thought and planning.
These are just my thoughts but its a starting point.
What do you think?

[WILDCATWICK]

Still pretty concerned. I would love to see a new structure work but I'm not convinced the logistics will even come close to working.

I originally posted that the
volunteer work could be done in "home" DMUs but I realize that in the Detroit
area you used as a for instance this may be impossible but if we allowed for
hunters to do the work in either their home DMU or a "preferred" DMU (one in which they hunt) this concern could be addressed.


There are quite a few people who hunt over 300 miles from their home. If you have a family of say 3 that you take up north for a week every year then your either going to have to shell out quite a bit of extra cash, regardless if you pay the liscense or you travle to do the habitat work, or have some people only hunt a short period if they are luck enough to get their buck right out of the gate. Many public land areas are tough to get antlerless public land liscense. I can definetly see where this "family" week vacation would become more and more difficult to do & could become discouraging. I want to see more hunters not less.


As for equipment, hand tools, chain saws, etc. could be provided by participants for their own use.
I don't think this is realistic. There are plenty of suburbanites who don't own any of this stuff yet they hunt and contribute to the "hunting economy" already. Now if they don't have the tools for what ever the habitat improvement project for that weekend we excepct them to go out and buy it? I think that in itself will cause way to many issues.

Then let's even say that the stte bucks up and supplies it. What happens when someone get's injured? You know they are going to turn around and sue the DNR or what ever group is running that program.

The liabilties are going to be there.

I assume these programs would have to run every weekend in every DMU right? Or else your really limiting the chance for the people to be able to get out and help.

Supervisory Staff is a valid concern but my
initial thought is that the DNR may have at least a portion of the required staff available but that would have to be further investigated.

This is a very large concern. The DNR and state of Michigan are already stretched too thin. I don't think they have anywhere enough staff to pulll this off every weekend in every DMU and still maintain their normal functions.
The state then would have to hire more people to cover that. How can they? They may have to buck up for a year two until the extra funds from these liscenses are put into a fund to pay for their services & equipment. OUr state is trying to downsize not increase the amount of expense & people working for them.

I really don't foresee a major problem with private landowners because the private landowner is probably already making habitat improvements and will continue to do so regardless of what the DNR does or doesn't do with state
owned land.


You dont think there would be a substaintial group that would be opposed to paying alot more or doing work on areas that they will receive no benefit, when in fact they probably wish they had even more time to spend on their own property? Again look at my previous post to see other concerns in regards to this.

This program may work if there are alot of bugs worked out. But upon thinking about what would actually happen or needs to happen if something like this went into effect the more I feel it just wouldn't work. The jist of the idea is great.

[walleyechaser]

I'm amazed that this thread has managed to stay on track for the most part and its great that we're trying to work together towards a common goal.
Having said that, my thoughts are a starting point and I'm sure there are more members out there with ideas of their own!
Where are you guys?

[LUCE-YOOPER]

At first I thought that by raising license fee's would be a good way to raise the revenue for the DNR, and hopefully pump that back into habitat. I've completely changed my mind. After doing some reading on the DNR site; license revenue is a very small part of the budget. Almost all of the budget comes from general fund $$$. The DNR and those that do the math, want as many hunters hunting as many days as possable. Thats where the money comes from, not licenses.

I've purchased combo tags every year, and have taken 2 bucks in a season once. If i get a buck early, I keep hunting any chance I get. I drive lots of miles (2% of gas tax goes to DNR) and buy lots of food, and spend at every stop I make. That's where the money comes from. According to the DNR site, 700,000 + hunters contibute 1.5bil + to the economy, in turn the DNR budget for 03-04 was 250mil. So hunters contribute about $2000. per person. It's not an issue of "saving" more bucks, it's about the money. The license fee is Kind of like a cover charge, they just want to get you in the door, then they can make money on the everything else you buy.

[Chuck]

Im not crazy about this idea for a number of reasons.

1. If im going to have to pay that much for a second buck tag as resident I will hunt in PA or some other place out of state for the same price.

2. It seems to me that with it in the 100-150 price rang you have taken the second buck tag from a vast majority of hunters. If you hunt public land are you going to buy a second buck tag for that much to hunt public land? Most guys I know that gun hunt only buy one buck tag now. The guys I know who bow hunt buy a combo tag. I feel the only ones who will buy the second buck tag are those that have the money to buy private land and invest time and money into managemant of said property.

3. I also see this as a way of limiting hunters in the feild and it will in the long run dercrease hunter numbers over all.

4. It seems like it also will limit youth hunters whos parents cant afford it. Its easy to say they can donate their time for habitat improvement but most of the youth of today are too busy to do this. My nephew seems to not have time to hunt with all his school activities. Its tought just to be able to get him into the woods.

I think there is a better way but Im not sure exactly what that way is without revamping the whole system.

[jimmyboy]

After doing some reading on the DNR site; license revenue is a very small part of the budget. Almost all of the budget comes from general fund $$$. The DNR and those that do the math, want as many hunters hunting as many days as possable. Thats where the money comes from, not licenses.
I drive lots of miles (2% of gas tax goes to DNR) and buy lots of food, and spend at every stop I make. That's where the money comes from. According to the DNR site, 700,000 + hunters contibute 1.5bil + to the economy, in turn the DNR budget for 03-04 was 250mil. So hunters contribute about $2000. per person. It's not an issue of "saving" more bucks, it's about the money. The license fee is Kind of like a cover charge, they just want to get you in the door, then they can make money on the everything else you buy.

Very interesting post, assuming you've done the research?

[LUCE-YOOPER]

"almost all the DNR budget comes from the general fund$$$"

Sorry, what i meant to say is the money isn't from license sales. Not that that money isn't important, of course it is, but per the head of the DNR budget dept; it's not "the most important factor". They weigh the affect of license prices and the number of license sales and how many days hunters are out in the field spending money.