Hot Button Headlines

House Subcommittee Passes DNR Budget; Your Voices Were Heard

March 22nd, 2013

Six weeks ago, a new hunting, fishing, and trapping license fee package was presented by Governor Rick Snyder as part of his 2014 budget.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Natural Resources passed a budget out, which is a reflection of what they heard from hunters, trappers, and anglers all around the state, but also reflects the fact that Michigan is still on the uphill climb to economic recovery.

In response to hundreds of calls from sportsmen and women across the state, this version of the budget contains most elements of the proposed license fee package, which will bring in a projected $18 million in its first full year of implementation ($11 million for FY 2013-2014 since it would not be in effect until March 2014). Some changes to the package are scheduled to be adopted, including:

  • Discounted licenses for juniors, similar to seniors
  • A new multi-species Sportsmen’s License Package
  • Reducing the 24-hour fishing license from a proposed $15 to $10

Unfortunately, the DNR budget did not escape unscathed from the targeted General Fund cuts occurring in most departments. Once again, as has been the case for many years, sportsmen and women will continue to pay for the bulk of our state’s natural resources management. General Fund items that the Governor proposed but were cut from this version included:

  • $2 million one-time funding to replace the 65-year old Great Lakes research vessel, the Chinook;
  • $3.7 million in ongoing funding to operate Belle Isle as a State Park, if the City of Detroit concurs;
  • $3.5 million in ongoing funding to support the hiring of 25 new Conservation Officers, and $600,000 in one time funding to fund the academy (there will still be some money dedicated to increasing CO’s in the license fee package, approximately 16 could be hired if revenues come in as projected);
  • An additional $150,000 for Aquatic Invasive Species prevention and control; and
  • $9.7 million from the Waterways Fund for emergency dredging and other boating projects.

However, recent conversations with House members may shine a glimmer of hope for a new Great Lakes research vessel, but it may have to wait a little longer to find money to to cover this expense. Hopefully, the Chinook can keep chugging until then.

Overall, we are thankful to the House Subcommittee members that voted to support the license fee package in this budget–Representatives Bumstead, Jenkins, McCready, and Brown.

But now is not the time to relax, if you have not already done so we continue to urge you to call your Representatives and Senators to support the license fee package and to consider adding some or all of the General Fund items back into the final budget bill. Another version of this bill will also come through the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Natural Resources, both bills will move through their respective chambers and likely eventually end up in conference committee to hash out the differences.

Michigan House of Representatives: Contact Your Rep
Michigan Senate: Contact Your Senator

Please also contact those on the Senate Appropriations:

In addition, legislators are in their districts over spring break (March 22-April 7). Find out when they might have coffee hours over the break and join them to discuss this proposal.

 

  • Dave Bowen

    This is considered a win? Whats the matter with you people? The sportsman get taken to the bank to hire 16 COs and then wildlife division hires 20 more people that we don’t need? We NEED CO’S and A lot more than 16!! This bill is a joke and once again the Sportsman of Michigan get screwed!! I will not be buying any more licenses in this state.

  • Paul Szymanski

    Greetings,

    I’m sure by now everyone has had a chance to look over
    the new hunting and fishing licenses proposal. After looking at them
    myself and doing some figuring I came to the conclusion they will do more harm to the DNR and sportsman than good.

    What happen to the idea of retaining the hunters and
    fishermen we have? What happened to wanting to get more people to
    participate?

    Under our present fee system, a person who just hunts deer
    with one tag, and purchases the restricted fishing license pays $30 for both.

    Under the new proposal, this same privilege would cost that person $55. That is
    almost a 100% increase. I’d call this guy pretty much a take it or leave it
    guy, (I enjoy it, but maybe not enough to pay this price.) I always thought
    this was the guy we were trying to keep. I think it’s a pretty steep
    price for a guy to have to pay $25 just to try fishing, or $35 just to try deer
    hunting. Especially if he has a minimum wage job, to these people that $25
    & $35 would probably be the equivalent of a $100 or so, compared to the
    people who are coming up with this stuff.

    I am also very much against being forced to
    buy a small game license if I don’t hunt small game. For three reasons; I
    should not be forced to purchase something I don’t want or need, it adds $10 to
    the price of a deer license, and if the DNR doesn’t have to produce small game
    to encourage people to buy a small game license what incentive will they have
    for doing it.(CAN ANYBODY REMEMBER THE DEER DRIP FUND?)

    A dedicated sportsman who small game hunts, duck
    hunts, buys one deer tag, who fishes all pieces of fish, presently pays
    $65. Under the

    new proposal that same sportsman will pay $55, $10 less then now. (What the
    hell ever happened to philosophy of play more pay more, it’s only fair.)

    Now a person like me, and I’m sure most of you who are dedicated
    sportsman who can afford and would pay more end up paying less.

    Do more pay less, do less pay more, I’d like to find a restaurant like
    that. (you know, eat more, pay less-eat less, pay more.)

    Now as far as simplifying the license system and reducing
    the number of licenses, (simple yes, everyone pays $55, no matter what you
    do.) As far as the number of licenses, they say presently they
    have 200+types licenses, that the sportsman has to deal with. Show them to me?
    I went over and over my fishing and hunting guide and the most I can come up
    with is 42, including the sportsman card. And out of all of them, all that they
    have eliminated, is the duck stamp and the restricted fishing license. All at
    the expense of the lower end sportsman.

    Oh, and now seeing how everyone has to buy
    a small game license and everyone who fishes must buy an all species license,
    we are going to have to use some of this new revenue to pay for surveys to find
    out how many small game hunter and trout fisherman we have because the number
    of small game and fishing licenses sold will no longer give us that
    information. (Great way to spend that new revenue.)

    Has any studies been done to see what
    effect potentially 100’s of 1,000’s of trout fisherman would have on our
    delicate trout streams and trout population? Anyone who presently fishes trout
    should think about this very seriously.

    Has any studies been done to see what
    effect potentially 100’s of 1,000’s of small game hunters would have on our
    already depleted small game population on public land?

    As for myself, I would really
    feel guilty when I’m fishing brook trout in a stream where I know they are
    planted, that some poor guy or gal working at WalMart for minimum wage that
    doesn’t fish trout was forced to contribute to this fishery. Even though all he
    wanted to do was take his wife and kids down to the lake shore to teach is kid
    to fish and catch a few bluegills or perch.

    As for the DNR who claim to be concerned
    about their image to the public which was badly hurt with the last attempted
    license increase fiasco. They really need to think about what they are doing. I
    know if this should go through as is, the DNR will have totally lost my
    support.

    I’m in favor of more money for the DNR,
    but I’m also a capitalist. (those who do more should pay more. Not a socialist,
    who believe everyone should pay the same.)

    Thank you
    for your time,

    Sincerely,

    Paul Szymanski

Click here to get the Hot Button Headlines Feed delivered to your RSS.