Bob Gwizdz: Michigan sportsmen and women set to bear brunt of resource management funding… again – Outdoor News
Legislation will be introduced very soon raising the costs of hunting and fishing licenses in Michigan.
Department of Natural Resources insiders tell me they have identified legislative sponsors for the new fee package and quiet discussions with other legislators lead them to believe the new fee structure has legs.
Generally speaking, the license structure will remain the same, but licenses will cost about $10 or $12 more each, if the package passes as proposed.
The DNR says the new license fees basically were raised enough to cover inflation over the past decade (the last fee increase was in 2014) and that’s probably so. Fish food for the hatchery program, for instance, has more than doubled since the last fee increase. But the DNR says it studied fees in other states and its proposals will still be competitive with, maybe even lower than, the fees charged by our neighboring states.
But the legislation would also include price escalators tied to the consumer price index, which is something that has been on the DNR’s wish list for a long time, but the Legislature has been pretty much loathe to allow. (We’ll come back to that in a minute.)
MORE COVERAGE FROM MICHIGAN OUTDOOR NEWS:
Michigan DNR to consider revising state’s furbearer regulations next year
‘Herculean effort’ boosted recovery of lake trout in Lake Superior
So what’s the damage to hunter/anglers?
The proposal calls for a $30 deer license, a $60 combination deer license, and a $38 fishing license.
Under the proposed package, the base hunting license will rise from $11 to $15 and a waterfowl stamp (Remember when it actually used to be a stamp?) will cost $18, up from $12. The state game area pheasant license, which funds the pheasant release program, is slated to cost $38, up from $25.
Seniors would absorb the biggest hit. Instead of the 60% discount on licenses seniors currently enjoy, they’ll get a 25% discount. So a senior base license will go from $5 to $12.
The senior discount has been contentious because, if you think about it, it’s a social program, not a natural resources program, and the last time license fees were increased, there was an “understanding” that the discount would be covered by the General Fund.
That never happened. And according to DNR accounting, the agency would have been reimbursed to the tune of $35 million over the last decade for those discounts if the Legislature had coughed up the dough.
That’s an expensive misunderstanding, isn’t it? And it’s a growing concern because 25 years ago, 8% of license buyers were 65 years of age or older. Now 18% of license buyers are senior citizens.
As for the increases tied to the consumer price index, the Legislature saw fit to include that in the price of the Recreation Passport, which is required to enter state parks or to use DNR boat launch ramps. Typically, the cost of the rec passport has increased $1 every three years.
The DNR says that if the Legislature will go along with the fee escalator for hunting and fishing licenses, it will be unnecessary to seek the kinds of fee increases it proposes in this package. The license fees will be evaluated every year compared to the consumer price index and would be raised anytime the results passes 50 cents. So if the comparison to the CPI says a license should cost less than 50 cents more, it would stay the same, but if it determines it should cost more than 50 cents more, the cost would go up by a buck. Got that?
Of course all of this is subject to change once the Legislature gets to eyeballing it. I doubt the DNR will get everything it proposes. By the time the lawmakers get through with it, the fee structure may bear little resemblance to what is being proposed. But even if it does, this package is just a stop-gap measure. As participation continues to decline, as it has for many years, license fees will produce reduced amounts and we’ll be back to the place we find ourselves now.
What is needed is a big-picture look at how natural resources are funded in Michigan. Hunting and fishing generate more than $10 billion annually to the state’s economy and much of that benefit accrues to folks who are not chipping in to the pot.
And how about all the hikers, bikers, berry pickers, bird watchers, etc., who use state game areas (or just state lands that the DNR manages, period) at no cost? Shouldn’t they chip in, too? Why are they being given a free ride? It is patently unfair that sportsmen are being asked to pick up the tab for such a significant contribution to the quality of life in Michigan.
Because this is a lame duck session, we can expect action on it sooner rather than later. We should know by the first of the year how much wider we’ll have to open our wallets to enjoy the very things that make Michigan such a great place to live.
And we’ll do it because what choice do we have?
Quit hunting and fishing?
Unacceptable.
