News and analysis from The Center for Michigan • http://thecenterformichigan.net
©2015 Bridge Michigan. All Rights Reserved. • Join us online at http://bridgemi.com

Original article URL: http://bridgemi.com/2013/02/deer-fishing-fees-headed-for-change-under-snyder-plan/

Public sector/Quality of life

Deer, fishing fees headed for change under Snyder plan

The cost of shooting a deer in Michigan would double next year, under Gov. Rick Snyder’s proposed 2014 budget, and more conservation officers would patrol the state’s woods and waterways.

Released Thursday, Snyder’s budget calls for $354.3 million for the Department of Natural Resources, which would allow the agency to hire 41 more conservation officers, improve more fish habitat, enhance wildlife management activities, expand some state game areas and improve trails.

“Fundamentally, the budget is predicated on the role that natural resources play in the long-term recovery of Michigan,” DNR Director Keith Creagh said. “Our stakeholders (hunting and fishing groups) have said that we need some additional investment — in fisheries, wildlife and habitat.”

A cornerstone of the 2014 DNR budget is a plan to overhaul fishing and hunting license fees. The proposal, which calls for doubling the cost of a firearm deer license, but lowering the cost of an all-species fishing license, would generate $18 million annually, DNR officials said.

Hunting-fishing license proposal

The DNR currently generates about $50 million annually from fishing and hunting license sales, agency officials said.

The license fee increases are overdue, said Erin McDonough, executive director of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs. MUCC is the state’s largest conservation group.

“There’s no denying that when you compare our fees to other states, we are low,” McDonough said. “But any fee increase has to come with better transparency, and the department has to ensure that the return on this investment supports the kind of work that sportsmen and sportswomen want to see.”

McDonough said MUCC would not take a formal stance on the license fee package until it reviews all of the details.

Deep cuts in the DNR budget since 2000 — coupled with stagnant license fees and rising inflation — have reduced the DNR’s spending power by 47 percent and hampered its ability to properly manage natural resources, agency officials said.

The license fees proposed for 2014 would still keep the cost of Michigan’s hunting and fishing licenses below what most surrounding states charge, according to data from other states.

Under the proposal, the cost of a firearm deer license would increase from $15 to $30 for residents (which includes a $10 base fee for all hunting licenses), and go from $138 to $170 for nonresidents. Senior citizens would pay $12 for deer license under the plan, double the current fee of $6.

Every hunter would be required to pay $10 for a basic hunting license, and additional fees for different species of birds and mammals. Aside from deer, the license fees would remain the same for most other fur-bearing animals and birds.

All Michigan anglers would pay $25 for an all-species fishing license under the proposed DNR budget, down from the current $28 fee. The basic fishing license, which currently costs $15 and provides a lower cost alternative for anglers not interested in catching trout or salmon, would be replaced by the $25 all-species license.

Senior citizen fishing licenses would cost $10 under the proposed DNR budget, down from the current fee of $11.20.

Michigan’s last increase in hunting and fishing license fees was approved in 1996. A 2006 proposal to raise the fees died in the Legislature.

Creagh said revenue from the proposed license fee increases would be used to put more biologists in the field and support more habitat restoration. He added it won’t fund administrative costs or “buy more computers.”

Bryan Burroughs, executive director of the Michigan Chapter of Trout Unlimited, said persistent cuts in the DNR budget have decimated important research programs and jeopardized some fisheries.

“One of the things we’re seeing is a lack of expertise (among DNR officials) in any one type of fishery,” Burroughs said. “I would hope that if the department gets more money, it would change that.”

Jeff Alexander is owner of J. Alexander Communications LLC and the author of “Pandora’s Locks: The Opening of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Seaway.” A former staff writer for the Muskegon Chronicle, Alexander writes a blog on the Great Lakes at http://allthingsgreatlakes.wordpress.com/.

5 comments from Bridge readers.Add mine!

  1. Karla

    Being a fishing woman and married to a devoted fly caster, I have no qualms about the increases. The DNR does a great job of protecting our natural resources and I support their being given more money to operate.

  2. Edward

    As a long-term hunter and fisherman, I will gladly pay more for the continued privilege of hunting in our beautiful state, and I strongly support the governor’s fee proposals. Michigan’s DNR has been short-changed and cut back for far too many years, to the detriment of our precious game and fish species. In addition to increased habitat development and additional biologists, I would like to see more conservation officers in the field as well, to expand game law enforcement and penalties for those who abuse the system. Our fish and game resources are some of Michigan’s most valuable assets, and a tremendous source of tourism to help our economy. Hunting and fishing fees ensure that these assets are preserved and enhanced for our enjoyment, and for future generations.

  3. Hardvark

    Hopefully, this additional revenue will show a benefit to us, the users of hunting & fishing resources. Its so easy to create buracracy with out any real benefit. Didn’t realize there was a significant increase in conservation violations that required the increase in COs or is it just that more is better?

  4. Red Man

    I DISAGREE, double the gas TAX, double the license plate fee (TAX) , double hunting license fees (TAX)
    With 80% (yes the DNR says- what 10-20%) of the deer herd in many southern (zone3) counties gone from last summer’s midge fly kill, there won’t be many hunters this fall. So let’s double the fee (tax) that will make the deer herd better? The only thing left to hunt is squirrels.
    Tax tax tax
    No wonder the businesses leave this state, business goes so do people.

  5. dale westrick

    It has become apparent just give me more money and that will solve the problem. It will for the short term but there is very little imagination on how to market the resources we have in Michigan. By raising the nonresidents license fees it will help reduce there involvement in our economy. I feel we should have 3 day licenses for nonresidents so they can participate in events like the squirrel hunt in Cilo Michigan this year that had 400 teams involved. Developing events like this and allowing nonresidents to be involved by purchasing a 3 day license at a reasonable price. Michigan out of doors filmed the squirrel hunt this year. They also filmed our 10th annual bow and arrow rabbit hunt this year. We have bagged 4 rabbits and one mouse in the 10 years but have bought out of state hunters to it. Use some imagination on the possibilities.
    Dale

Leave your comment...

Your email address will not be published.

Currently on Bridge

An Earth Day pitch: When you hang up the phone for good, toss it the right way

Michigan’s roads affect everyone, so a 'yes' vote on Proposal 1 makes sense

‘Diplomacy Begins Here’ conference aims to illuminate international relations

What NOT to post on Facebook: Jokes about prison rape, when you’re in charge of preventing prison rape

A program to give young offenders a second chance is sending many to prison

Similar accounts in suit over alleged teen prison rapes pose challenge to state's defense

‘New fish’ ‒ One teen inmate’s account of alleged sexual assault

Early learning summit in June could impact Michigan’s children

Money Smart Week: Be penny wise, and pound savvier

Plan B or no Plan B, here’s what happens if road proposal fails

The political tale behind the selling of Proposal 1

A Bridge primer: Untangling the pothole promise of Proposal 1

Who supports, and opposes, Proposal 1

Let's rebuild Michigan through its greatest asset: its water

Could a public boarding school model work in Detroit?

Coalition supporting Detroit schools a step in the city’s road back

Chasing fads? Today’s schools are struggling too much for that

For one Michigan legislative staffer, an hour or two in the spotlight

A cull is a kill, and it’s an overreaction to deer ‘problem’

Lack of college guidance keeps poor and rural students from applying

Those who can, do – and get their hands ‘dirty’ in the process

For one Detroit mom, a complicated path to employment

Detroit by the numbers – the truth about poverty

Michigan should require dental screening for all children entering kindergarten

Where in the world is the Center for Michigan?

After two years, hard to call ACA anything but a success

Bridge’s Academic State Champs emphasizes all the wrong measurements

A graying population poses challenges for Up North counties

Up North, isolation impedes health care for seniors

Enbridge oil pipes and the Straits of Mackinac: Too risky to ignore

Not bigger government, but better services when Community Health and Human Services merge

Two Michigans gaze across a widening gap

In northern counties, workers and business find each other lacking

Hidden poverty stalks a Pure Michigan setting

Postcard: How a git-’er-done spirit helps one rural school district

Postcard: When elk is for dinner

Postcard: Luxe life at Bay Harbor reflects changing economy

Postcard: A roof and a bed

Invest in non-partisan journalism.

Donate to The Center for Michigan. Find out why.