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 happened 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
of 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.

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. 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