Comments on: A Bargain We Can't Afford

By: Jimmy-C

Jimmy-C — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:37:27 +0000

That's right. Don't tell me there haven't been increases. We pay 5x that of yesteryear for camping & park passes. Not including the price of gas to even get there.

Yes amenities, etc. have been improved at almost every state park, but $25 /night approaches that of a cheap hotel. Example: the new fire pits at all of the state campgrounds. Let's call them hobo pits because you have to stand over them to use them. Why should the state spend so much money on something as irrelevant as concrete reinforced fire-pits?

Michigan is a great place; let's keep it that way.

Go Blue

By: Jim Heinold

Jim Heinold — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:50:46 +0000

Since there has been no real buget cuts, only a re-allocation of where the money is spent, who is to say that the increased revenue from higher licenses fees will not also be re-directed to other non-DNR budgets by our esteemed state leaders?

By: Dan Ruffe

Dan Ruffe — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:19:23 +0000

Hunting and fishing fees in Michigan are purely a function of the "Joe lunch bucket" mentality. It is unfortunate that our State has refused to recognize reality and enact fees that are consistent with the quality of hunting/fishing in Michigan, which is by far some of the best in the country. Our legislature, as with the Big Three AND the UAW, have continually refused to recognize the competitive realities of everything outside of their little microcosm-an investment in the Michigan DNR through licensing, smart regulation AND enforcement would geometrically the "experience" of the outdoors in Michigan (and foster a priveledge rather than the current entitlement mentality. This "idealogy" (or truth, reality or COMMON SENSE!) could and should apply equally to the remainder of our State government...If you seek a pleasant peninsula...LOOK AROUND...!!!

By: Teresa E

Teresa E — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:51:05 +0000

1. Michigan as a destination is not happening right now. Most in the state can't afford to vacation & others have decided to stay home. I couldn't believe my eye on Labor Day weekend, I was at a Lake Michigan State Park and the lot was barely 25% full. It was 85 degrees and beautiful. With only 1 out of state car, we raised their fees and they stayed home.

2. To raise these rates now, will be putting a burden on many families that are relying on hunting & fishing to keep meat on their tables. Life isn't so rosy here.

3. Every time we give this state an inch in increased fees & taxes, they raise expenses a mile. This is why we face our budget crisis now.

4. The number of licensed hunters & fishermen is DROPPING. People just don't do these things as much anymore. If anything we should LOWER the out of state license costs and encourange others to come and spend money. We need it.

By: Cliff Veach

Cliff Veach — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:30:05 +0000

Although I agree with most of what you said, primarily because of the 'no free lunch' economics of it, but a few facts were missing that raised a sublimal anti-hunter/gun control flag due lack of consideration for data that shows less and less hunters due to economic issues. Gas prices, lay offs and travels costs, all of which have affected our northern recreational industry profits, coupled with the access to low cost food for rural families in economic need were not addressed. There is another area of 'gotcha' that also makes MI consumers wary of pricing issues and that is the state park "CAR Sticker" versus family access fee.

Every car in the family has to have its own sticker, and if I sell the car, I must remove the sticker with a razor blade and present it to the DNR to get one for the new car; too much effort and logistics, so we have to buy another or start trading cars to go to the parks. People would pay much more for an individual of family PASS that allows them to use the parks regardless of the vehicle they are driving.

Easier access stimulates more use, which in turn generates more money from park programs and cost justifies additonal staff, etc.

Back to specific hunting licenses and another sore point; out of state sportspeople paying very little to hunt and fish here. If they can fund a long distance trip to MI to enjy our resources, the increase of fees would present a minor obstacle to their trip. We charge very little for out state licenses, approximately the cost of one nights stay in a good motel. This is the area I would look to double up and catch up, and would not have as severe a negative voter impact for those in Lansing wearing the chicken feathers.

Another possibility is county specific, or region UP, Upper LP and Lower LP regional licenses that increase much slower when a hunter only hunts his/her own local region; this could also be by county as a separate, lower cost (current rates) license by county, sharing revenue with counties for processing the licenses.

This would target the favor the local hunter or fisherman (and retirees) who may also depend on the game as a source of food; they normally will not be traveling to hunt for food because the cost becomes prohibitive by the mile. The fees for region or statewide hunting could be increased even higher while offering the consumer choices and less costly alternatives, such as fishing locally, but going north once a year for deer or turkey.

JTOL (Just Thinking Out Loud)