Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,056 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Pure BS stop using money to plant fish that won't reproduce and manage the money in a responsible manner and we don't need the increase in the lic. costs. I am so sick of government doin this you don't have the same revenue because hunter numbers are dropping because the people in charge have done a piss poor job "managing" the herd. JMO

ADAM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,247 Posts
Perhaps you can give us one specific example of how the DNR is not managing our money in a responsible manner? Hunter numbers are dropping for a lot of reasons, like loss of habitat, urban sprawl etc. etc.. Some people even think the deer are doing so much damage to the habitat that deer numbers need to be reduced. To blame the people in charge for doing a “piss poor job” is capricious unless you have some facts that you can post to defend that opinion.

Maybe you didn’t experience the kind of hunt you think you are entitled to, but that does not mean the people in charge did a piss poor job. There could actually be another explanation!

From what I can tell, the people in the DNR are doing a very good job. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is, but that could apply to just about everyone. I think people lose a lot of credibility when they make general emotional statements that just show they are angry or frustrated.

I have no clue on what you mean by planting fish that don’t reproduce, but perhaps whatever your talking about would make a good topic for discussion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,596 Posts
Pure BS stop using money to plant fish that won't reproduce
There are no hard numbers to support what I'm going to say but I'll say it any way. Those fish that they are planting are bringing in alot of out of state visitors to catch the runs. I'd be willing to bet that the money spent on the fisheries is far less than the money it brings to the Michigan economy.

Don't worry there going to raise all lisceses across the board. Which doesn't make my wallet happy, but I don't have a problem paying these fees. What I don't want to see is a total reduction with in the DNR and with the fisheries. If we don't buck up now, that may be what the future holds. Also watch out for the state selling off land. Those are the things that are of the greater concern for me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,607 Posts
License fee increase? Yes!

As Users of Michigan's great outdoors we cry for more, but, some are not willing to pay for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
622 Posts
Whit1 said:
License fee increase? Yes!

As Users of Michigan's great outdoors we cry for more, but, some are not willing to pay for it.
I agree!!! The DNR need's to utilize the money in proper order though. I really don't care if they double the cost's, as long as there is a plan on how it is gonna be used. I buy resident tag's in IL as well and they are almost $200 by the time I'm done just to bowhunt. Ous state could learn a lot from Illinois.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,379 Posts
Whit1 said:
License fee increase? Yes!

As Users of Michigan's great outdoors we cry for more, but, some are not willing to pay for it.

A resident 'Combo Hunt/Fish/Big Game Gun/Big Game Nonquote' down here is 80 bucks - Whitetail, bear, boar and Turkey - thats 2 bucks 3 doe/day (In my WMA). Oh, and fishing is included.

ferg....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
Instead of an increase maybe we should be complaining about the drip funds that the legislature won't release to the DNR. These funds were supposed to be restricted funds. If a license increase goes into effect, which I'm sure it will, what prevents the legislature from tapping into these funds as well? I'm all for the increase IF it goes where intended. Obviously we,as the recipients of the increases, have no say in the matter.....Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,967 Posts
JAG said:
Instead of an increase maybe we should be complaining about the drip funds that the legislature won't release to the DNR...
I know the DNR has one employee dedicated to identifying/purchasing deer habitat using drip funds. I know they have made a couple of deer yard purchases over the last couple of years in the south central UP. I'm pretty sure they are currently negotiating for the purchase of a large parcel in Marquette county using drip funds.

The unreleased DRIP fund issue is at least in part related to the fact that while the DNR has money to buy land, they do not have adequate funds to make PILT payments on lands they already own, much less on newly purchased parcels. Some in Lansing want to stop all land purchases by the state until the PILT issue is resolved.

You can find more info on this issue here:

http://www.mlui.org/growthmanagement/fullarticle.asp?fileid=16535

Or by googling "+michigan +pilt"

-na
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
514 Posts
It seems to me that,after reading this, user fees would help solve the PILT problem, but isn't holding up the DRIP funds only making the problem worse? A portion of the PILT fund comes out of this money anyway even though it's a restricted fund. Like I said, I have no problem with a license fee increase as long as the legislature keeps their hands out of the pot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
184 Posts
The dnr need a new accountant!
Read the back of your 2005 MI Hunting and Trapping Guide:

"Michigan ranks first in the nation in licensed hunters (one million), who contribute $2 billion annually to our economy."

What are they doing with all of that revenue now????????????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,247 Posts
I think you will find that the DNR does not get that money but it is money spent because of the fine work done by the DNR. Perhaps the legislature should recognize that fact and find a way to get more general fund dollars into projects that promote hunting and fishing programs?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
I have no problem with a license increase....... In fact I have said right along that we've had it pretty good here. I don't think license increases over the last 20 years have even kept pace with the inflation rate. When compared with any other hobbie, entertainment, recreation, or assorted vices it's a pretty small price to pay in order to enjoy the hunting, fishing, and trapping that is available in our state. Having said that, I would like to know where the numbers are published that break down spending allocation vs. the revenue taken in through license sales?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,607 Posts
luv 2 bowhunt said:
The dnr need a new accountant!
Read the back of your 2005 MI Hunting and Trapping Guide:

"Michigan ranks first in the nation in licensed hunters (one million), who contribute $2 billion annually to our economy."

What are they doing with all of that revenue now????????????
The DNR doesn't get the $2 million, that's what hunters spend to aid Michigan's economy. It's an economic figure which shows the impact of hunting on the economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,479 Posts
If you don't like it, don't buy it. End of story. Maybe you and the rest of the clan will make a point and the fees can go up some more.

Go to Ontario for $175 + $35. Or Iowa for $400+. Let alone travel and guide costs. I know I won't be seing many more hunters in "my" woods now and that's a plus if you ask me. Maybe with less and less hunters, the herd will come back a bit and maybe even have more quality bucks. But when you come back and buy your first deer tag after your "strike", remember, you're the one who complained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
Spuds,

Why in the world would you want to pay additional money for using state land. The State of Michigan already receives $$$$$ through the Federal Goverment which you already pay through your taxes and this dosen't include your state taxes you pay yearly. When has an increase of tax ever or use fee resolved any problems????? Gee!, whats next put & take deer hunting or are going back to the days of paying the King's tax. The State needs to review thier spending and work with ajoining states by not duplicating studies, practices which the majority of time, wastes money. If you look back kinda like their pheasant program which burnt down $$$$$$$$, and came to an abrupt end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,056 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
A lot of people misunderstand what I am saying here. First I have been a great supporter of the DNR in the past look at my threads so this is not a DNR bash thread at all by me but I do not agree with raising the prices when the money is being managed poorly. Plant fish where they will not reproduce. Plant more and more steelhead salmon etc if they cannot sustain a population. Wipe deer out in areas of the state so hunter abandon these areas thats where they went they don't see deer so they do not come back. If I cannot manage my money appropriately I can't just go tell my employer I need more. We are their employer. DO we pay way too much for licenses in this state NO we do not but until I see them using it wisely I get irritated by increasing it.

AW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
I don't think improper management is the problem at all. It's lack of funds coming in due to a very outdated fee structure and old contracts that we all have to live with with things like pensions, insurance, etc.. Deer tags should have been $20 some 15 years ago and $40 today. The fees should keep up with inflation and reflect auto price increases, home increases and gas increases, etc.
If anything, the ability to raise fees needs to be stripped from the legislature and the NRC should be able to raise fees when it needs to, all by itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,798 Posts
I agree....use the money better...before increasing the fees...Look at ORV fees now 16.25 per year....I have not seen any trail improvements at all since 1998....where that money going? I'm sure its being used for other state projects...


Adam Waszak said:
A lot of people misunderstand what I am saying here. First I have been a great supporter of the DNR in the past look at my threads so this is not a DNR bash thread at all by me but I do not agree with raising the prices when the money is being managed poorly. Plant fish where they will not reproduce. Plant more and more steelhead salmon etc if they cannot sustain a population. Wipe deer out in areas of the state so hunter abandon these areas thats where they went they don't see deer so they do not come back. If I cannot manage my money appropriately I can't just go tell my employer I need more. We are their employer. DO we pay way too much for licenses in this state NO we do not but until I see them using it wisely I get irritated by increasing it.

AW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,056 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
The money has to go somewhere but where I mean look at what you pay if youare a dedicated sportsman in this state per year with small game, waterfowl stamps, doe tags, combo deer, fur harvester, norestrictes fish, orv, boats, turkey(2 times). That adds up quick! 700,000 firearm hunters at a minimum of 14 bucks a pop? Thats $9.8 million just there before you add those who purchase combo licenses. I realize there is a lot of money involved with payroll etc but lets face it we have way too few CO's inthe state, We spend way too much on fisheries and plantings that are absurd etc. That is a lot of money. If the lic was 100 dollars I wouldn't be happy but I would still hunt and pay the money but I fear we are heading for an era of the havs and the hav nots in this state. Lets see some results with what we give currently first

AW
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top