Comments on: MUCC’s Position on the License Fee Proposal: Is a Fee Increase Necessary?

By: dan

dan — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:33:00 +0000

if everyone paid their fair share for licenses we would not have this problem . I see seniors driving $100,000 campers paying reduced fees at both camp grounds and for licenses. Everyone should be paying the same. If one can afford gas, lodging, ammo, etc. One can pay the same license.

By: big jim

big jim — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:29:00 +0000

NO INCREASE IN FEES!!!!! The arguments are always the same and so is the bottom line.. Our government has become a black hole for money. We the citizens have turned into the goverments cash cow. They waste money left and right and then tell us we have to pay more. We have to say NO. They get more than enough to pay the bills. And now, like the rest of us, they have to make it work with what they get. I am an avid hunter and have talked to many other hunters and not one has agreed that we need to raise the fees!!!!!!

By: arrow57

arrow57 — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 22:29:00 +0000

The first thing everyone should do is go to Michigan.gov and see the “Outcomes of Generating More Revenue from Hunting and Fishing Licenses” that Gov. Synder has proposed for license increases. The estimated annual revenue he is looking for is $18,100,000. Looking at the breakdowns; $4,500,000 to law enforcement, $2,444,400 to marketing and outreach, and $1,466,700 to finance and operations. That is $7,711,100 or 60% of the 18 million proposed that doesn’t go to wildlife. I say, “NO Way”, to license increases. Go back to the drawing board and come up with a different plan. Just sounds like more big government to me.

By: Walranger5

Walranger5 — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 09:00:00 +0000

This plan forces non salmon fisherman the majority to pay to stock salmon they don’t want, or most can’t afford to fish for. Also the fisheries plan is to keep the alewives the dmoninant fish in Lake Michigan which wipes out native fish, perch walleye etc… transparently getting screwed changes nothing.

By: MUCC

MUCC — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 13:31:00 +0000

Mr. Sheltrown,
As with all fee increases and changes there are always those who instantly state “I won’t buy a license.” With all due respect, there are instances where those types of users will not be missed. The process to determine what will be done with any new revenue has been open and productive. MUCC is far from the only organization involved in those discussions: NWTF, PF, DU, RMEF, TU, etc. All of the organizations have worked together to ensure that this process will produce the types of outcomes that are needed. MUCC and other members of the Conservation Coalition have taken the proper steps to address everything you listed in your concerns and all of those were reported in the above blogs and will be in MUCC’s final report. Unfortunately, sometimes people choose to focus on what has happened in the past and allow grudges to prevent any movement forward. Everyone agrees that the previous license fee proposal was handled incorrectly and was misleading. Dwelling on that does nothing to address the future needs of conservation. If a package is presented correctly and mechanisms are in place to ensure the funding is used accordingly, it is the duty of all to consider the options for the future of the outdoors.

By: Joel Sheltrown

Joel Sheltrown — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:23:00 +0000

MUCC article. Sounds like the same position MUCC had before, .. They were on the committee of organizations that were to investigate if there was a need for doubling of license fees. However, the committee’s mission, as I saw it, was to convince the legislature that we needed to pass this increase… not to research whether we needed it or not. I think it will have a detrimental effect on license sales.. and northern Michigan’s economy. In addition, the legislature will have an excuse to continue reducing general fund support. Also, the DNR, according to MUCC’s link promises to do “more and better things for for wildlife, hunters, and trappers (all according to its plan) with that additional funding.” Well, I don’t think I am willing to pay twice as much for a hunting license to fund other “wildlife” like the DRIP funds were raided. I don’t know if the DNR can be trusted to be transparent.. I hope things have changed..but as for me, I don’t think I will be buying a fishing license this year… maybe not a deer license either.