Michigan Trout Stamp

Discussion in 'Gear Restrictions and Trout Fishing Regs' started by polychoke, Oct 24, 2020.

  1. polychoke

    polychoke

    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2
    Is there a "voluntary" annual trout stamp like the fundraising duck stamp program sponsored by the Michigan Duck Hunters Assn.?
     
  2. kzoofisher

    kzoofisher

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    2,257
    I've never heard of one. You could always give money to one of cold water conservation groups or watershed conservation groups in the area you fish most.
     

  3. 22 Chuck

    22 Chuck

    Messages:
    2,596
    Likes Received:
    353
    Location:
    Montmorency Co, MI
    Might as well ave one. Have stamps for other critters and now it sounds like one for pheasants.
     
  4. jd4223

    jd4223

    Messages:
    1,786
    Likes Received:
    2,291
    In the "olden days" you actually had to purchase a Trout Stamp to go with your normal fishing license if you wanted to also fish for Trout and Salmon. Now every thing is combined on your fishing license,that's why the high price for the license. Sucks for the person who doesn't fish for trout or salmon. Just like the new hunting license(no more separate deer license). You have to purchase another license(equivalent to a small game license) first before you can purchase any other hunting licenses.
     
    tincanary and TroutFishingBear like this.
  5. 6Speed

    6Speed Premium Member

    Messages:
    8,334
    Likes Received:
    14,359
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    The "olden days"? Ha, this site was thriving when the stamps were discontinued so it wasn't that long ago!
     
    tincanary and TroutFishingBear like this.
  6. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    9,126
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    Yeah I remember the separate trout stamp. It made sense I guess, but I wonder how many times someone went trout fishing without a stamp in those days and got busted. Besides that $26 bucks for a year isn't a bad price anyways. As for those non-residents, $76 for a year isn't all that bad either. It's been a couple of years but when we went to Tennessee it was $50.50 for 10 days. Not bad I guess at $5 per day, but still. As someone else said, there are lots of places to make the donations if you so desire.
     
  7. DirtySteve

    DirtySteve

    Messages:
    10,652
    Likes Received:
    11,501
    I don't think the pheasant license will be a stamp. It is going to be a license purchase like the waterfowl license or base license is now. People call it a stamp out of habit. Like they did with the crossbow "stamp" when you had to ask for the crossbow endorsement when it first went into effect. People still call the state waterfowl license a stamp. You dont get a stamp unless you mail away for it. It is a license.
     
  8. Martin Looker

    Martin Looker

    Messages:
    2,659
    Likes Received:
    2,933
    Don't need a pheasant license because we don't have any birds. Haven't hunted them since before Dad died 37 years ago.
     
  9. kzoofisher

    kzoofisher

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    2,257
    The extra money for the trout stamp never went exclusively to cold water fisheries. When the number of trout and salmon fisherman dropped low enough it was inevitable that the warm water guys would have to pick up the slack. Trout and salmon fishermen just couldn't keep subsidizing all the other fisheries.

    I wouldn't mind seeing some sort of tiered license system within the current regulations.

    1. A base license that lets you keep naturally reproducing fish.
    2. An added "stamp" that lets you keep stocked fish.
    3. A reduced cost license that has creel limits that are half the standard

    Option 1 might be attractive to someone who fishes mostly Erie, Sag Bay and panfish.
    Option 2 might be for the guy who does the same but also likes some inland waters or chases kings.
    Option 3 for the guy who only fishes a few times a year with his kids and doesn't really care how many fish he gets.

    I also wouldn't mind being able to buy an endorsement like you can with license plates. Pay an extra $3 and have it go to management for whatever your favorite species or water type is. I'd guess musky and trout guys would do that. The sheepshead fans are probably pretty satisfied. :) Maybe if the money could be credited to a specific basin that would work, too. I'd toss in $3 to help deal with the Kalamazoo River disaster so I'd assign it to the SLMMU.
     
  10. TroutFishingBear

    TroutFishingBear

    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    324
    Location:
    Owosso, Flint, and Ann Arbor, MI
    This post is full of radical ideas; some good, some bad, but that's the type of thinking I like and that gets things going.

    I think the $26 fishing license is very reasonable, most states the cost is quite a bit higher. In CO for example, it is $35 for the fishing license and $11 to be allowed to use a second rod (you can never use 3). I simply don't like this tiered license system because telling a stocked from wild fish can be difficult at times; what if the stocked fish reproduced naturally, for example, or were stocked at such small size their bodies had no signs of being rubbed/deteriorated by concrete raceways? Would be tough to differentiate 1 and 2, and enforcement issues would abound. I don't like the idea of decreased cost by option 3; I would fall into option 3 cuz I don't keep many fish, only kept 1 walleye ALL YEAR, but I fish a lot of days of the year even if only for a half hour (>100 this year), so seems too much in my advantage.

    Your last paragraph is the framework for a brilliant idea to improve fisheries. I would even go so far as to say it could be a $3 minimum, and you could pay more if you wanted. For the last 5 years, if I would have known I could supplement the awful huron river steelhead fishery with more steelhead stocking, by paying more, I would've done it. Lord knows I lost more $ in lures chasing fish that aren't there.
     
  11. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    9,126
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    I'm not sold on the idea of a separate trout stamp. It would seem to me that the DNR figured out approximately how many stamps they sold back in the day, and added a little to ALL licenses to make it come out right financially. Having said that, it would seem to me that if they want to keep it the way it is now, there should be a question as to where one would like a portion of their license dollars to go to. For example, you go online, or in the store to buy your license they could have a question that says, "do you want a portion of this to go to warm water species or cold water species?". In that way, theoretically at least, some money can go to both. Or even have it done in a way that the money can be split between both. As far as I'm concerned fishing regs and all that are far too difficult as they are, let's try not to complicate the issue. I can assure you that if you buy your license from the store they would much rather you buy online.
     
  12. kzoofisher

    kzoofisher

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    2,257
    Bear, let me clarify option 2. It would apply to waters that are sustained by stocking. Trout stream A is all nat repo, trout stream B gets stocked every so often but would still have a fishery without it and trout stream C needs to be stocked at least every other year or there wouldn't be a fishery. Option 1 would let you keep fish on A and B but you would have to CIR on C, and option 2 would let you keep fish on all of them. All within the existing rules, of course. Getting license 2 wouldn't mean you no longer had to follow seasons or limits.

    I think this would apply most often to migratory fisheries but it would apply to some inland streams, too. It would apply more to one of my other favorite species, walleye. Guys in your neck of the woods would probably never go for option 2, way too many walleye in Erie. The same for the Bay. Someone like me, who fishes inland northern lakes a lot, would pay a little extra to maintain those mostly stocked fisheries. And people who mainly target species that don't get stocked, like bass and panfish, could go for option 1. License sales would give the DNR a very accurate read on how well allocated their dollars are.

    Not saying the idea couldn't use some tweaking. Just tossing it out there.
     
  13. toto

    toto

    Messages:
    9,126
    Likes Received:
    4,190
    Location:
    Bear Lake
    I see your logic there Kzoo but I'm not sure it is workable but this reason only. If the DNR has done their studies as to limits for a particular species, then so be it. For example I see your point on CIR in some streams but ONLY if it's for a conservation reason, in other words, if the stream in question is in a situation that it could do better with CIR. In other words, if the stream in question is in trouble from a biological standpoint, then I wouldn't have a problem with it, however once that stream reaches historical levels once again, then the CIR should be lifted.

    Of course in the above situation it would have to be determined whether or not that particular stream is even a viable trout stream any longer. Things change over time and unfortunately in todays age it probably isn't for the better. We all know that streams have been warming up a little bit all the time, in fact the AuSable is known to reach over 70 degrees in the summer time and Trout Unlimited is an advocate for not even fishing when it gets that warm. Having said all that, there are probably about as many ways to control and conserve as there are fish, but unfortunately when it comes to trout streams, it isn't once size fits all, no two streams are alike. What I'm probably doing here is agreeing with Kzoo in the idea of a better way and even agree with his idea of having type 1,2,or 3 streams as stated above. The problem is there is a bunch of study that would have to be done to determine what stream would qualify as 1,2 or 3. The way it's done now is just so confusing I firmly believe it is chasing some trout fishermen away. In the end, I still think a simple one question when getting your license would be would you like X amount of you license dollars going to warm, or cold water species.
     
  14. kzoofisher

    kzoofisher

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    2,257
    toto, my point was that for people who seldom fish the lower priced license might be attractive and get them more into the game. There are very few trout streams that are sustained by stocking and the DNR knows which ones they are. All the ones I can think of are in the south but there may be others. More steelhead streams are supported this way and the DNR knows those, too. But it would entirely voluntary to buy that license, nothing being forced on anyone or done for biological reasons. It’s only to get more people fishing and to be fiscally responsible with stocking.

    Mainly though I’m thinking of warm water fisheries. Let’s say a family is going to Otsego State Park Memorial Day weekend and they want to fish a little off the pier because that’s one of the things you do when you’re camping. Dad needs to get licenses for himself, mom and their 16 year old. $78 seems like a lot for just a little fishing. But, if they don’t care about keeping any walleye they could buy the level 2 licenses for say $42. That seems like a bargain. They do it, have a good time and decide they want to fish more in the future. Sounds like a win for everyone to me.
     
  15. kzoofisher

    kzoofisher

    Messages:
    3,981
    Likes Received:
    2,257
    Post above should say level 1 license. Sorry for the fat fingers and any confusion.