Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Michigan House OKs increased hunting, fishing fees

Michigan's first significant increase in hunting and fishing license fees since 1997 passed the House and has support of outdoor groups.
LANSING, Mich. (AP) � Michigan's first significant increase in hunting and fishing license fees since 1997 passed the House on Wednesday, a move that has the blessing of outdoor groups.

Legislation approved 77-32 by the Republican-led chamber would raise about $20 million more for wildlife, fisheries and habitat programs, a 40 percent boost. The fee hikes, which legislators recently built into the next state budget at the request of Gov. Rick Snyder, would begin in March 2014.

Michigan has 227 different types of hunting and fishing license fees. The bill headed to the GOP-controlled Senate would leave the state with approximately 40, according to a House Fiscal Agency analysis.

The proposal would create a �base'' hunting license costing $11 for in-state residents, with lower rates for youths and seniors. For out-of-state hunters, the price would be $151. The base license would pay for hunting waterfowl, migratory birds and small game such as rabbits.

Separate fees still would be levied for hunting certain species, and some of those would increase: Tags for deer would rise from $15 to $20, and the bear license from $15 to $25. A 24-hour fishing license would increase from $7 to $10. The fee for a seasonal all-species license would drop from $28 to $25 for Michigan residents, but rise from $42 to $75 for out-of-state anglers.

Supporters said it has been too long since the fees went up, saying purchasing power has eroded over time.

�People don't mind it if they know where the money's going,'' said bill sponsor Rep. Jon Bumstead, a Newaygo Republican and a hunter. �It can sell itself if somebody will just listen.''

Bumstead, who chairs the House committee that oversees the state Department of Natural Resources budget, said the agency did a good job telling outdoor groups how the additional revenue would be spent.

Also Wednesday, the House voted 70-39 to increase the off-road vehicle license fee from $16.25 to $26.25 starting in April 2014, with the extra $2.7 million in revenue mostly going to improve the 3,700-mile trail network. For $36.25, riders also could use state trails.

A quick glance tells me those in-state fees are plenty cheap, considering..

Am I off on that?

No you're right on Lee. I have no problem whatsoever with these fee increases.

The funds from hunting licenses go only for wildlife management in Michigan, and the DNR has been sorely underfunded for too long.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yup. I have no problem with it either. As you said "sorely underfunded for too long"

If the money goes to support hunting I am all for it. As I remember my last time I got to hunt PA as a resident was more than that 20+ years ago!

60 bucks> buys me 1 moose, 1 griz ,3 blk bears, 2 boo, birds and ducks (with the stamps) by the boat load... along with salmon & butts...and all the fur I care to trap...seems fair to me.

I'm glad to see it. Our DNR is sorely underfunded.

And yet they still have money to dick around studying and tracking non-game animals like wolves?

One of the reasons for increasing the fees is the erosion of purchasing power. Well, my purchasing ability has been eroded, too, but apparently they don't seem to give a chit about that. I don't mind the increase in fees so much, but the implementation of some horsechit "base license" is nothing but a tax. Add to that the DNR is about to pass and impose antler point restrictions just to satisfy a bunch of guys who think hunter success is measured in inches of antler, not meat in the pot.

It's enough to make me wanna say [bleep] it and become strictly a target shooter.

Scott,

maybe I'm seeing things through rose colored glasses but what if those wolf studies are supposed to justify a season on them, thereby making them game animals?

dreaming I know...

151 for me to hunt rabbits and ducks?

No thanks.

Charging even $1 for that crappy hunting is a crime.

I live in the U.P. and see nothing wrong with some rate increases if they do good. What I object to is outfitting DNR with new trucks, trailers, boats and ATV's so they can travel all around looking for bad people.....We used to have one DNR officer for each district and they did a pretty good job, now we have three or four for each district and they do an OK job.... Seems like we have made a lot of progress!!!

If the fees go towards hunting and fishing, I have no problem. If it goes into a general fund and gets scooped up by a bunch of crooks, I'm against.

Problem is, the cost of everything is on the rise, while middle class employment is down along with the wages for anyone who is employed. Add to that the cost of gas. Also, the participation in hunting and fishing is on the decline. The increase may be warranted, but it's pretty bad timing.

They had to do that here in Missouri and I am in favor of it. The fellas here are so "macho" that they HAVE to shoot a buck. They would have a young 6 point buck standing next to a doe and shoot the buck every time so they could tell their friends they shot a buck..
I only go after bigger bucks if I am going to shoot one and haven't shot a buck in 11 years and have passed on at least 7 I know most would have mounted. In that time I have probably shot 40-50 does for meat as you can't beat them for taste IMHO..
I can see culling out bucks that have no potential but there is nothing sadder than someone blasting a 2.5 year old 100" 8 or 10 point that has serious potential..

This is loooong over due. They should have been raised a good bit more. Fees here are dirt cheap here and the DNR is woefully under funded.