Jump to content
REGISTERING FOR MEMBERSHIP ON UPLAND JOURNAL Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
L. Gallagher

MI Gov proposes new license fees

Recommended Posts

Dogwood

Long overdue.

x 100.

Particularly if the revenue stays in the DNR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Larry Brown
Ouch!  That's more than double the current nonres small game license.  Granted, I think $69 is too cheap and I've always thought it a bargain, but $150 is nuts.  Wisconsin is $85.  Something in that range, I think, is reasonable.  $150 is more than you pay in the Dakotas.  Pretty good bump in nonres fishing as well, which is $50 in Wisconsin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dogwood
I always found non resident fees silly. Non residents take way less service and spend way more per hunting day.

Interesting observation. Higher non-res. fees do seem rather punitive.

While we're on the subject, can the "senior discounts".  If anyone deserves a discount it should be the young parents, and thats about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindyHills

$150 is sky high for a non-res small game license in this region.  Baffles me a bit.    We just raised ours after being cheaper for many years--to $85. Maybe we'll see a new surge in non-res hunters?

Edit--after reading the article, I think something's off there.  The 150 is for an all encompassing license that would lump small game with waterfowl and a few other things.  Isn't clear if that's the only option for say a grouse woodcock non-res hunter to buy.  If it is, I still predict a mass migration of hunters of the "King" to our fair state.  

There's a couple of trends in the license fee business.

One sadly seems to keep res fees very low while hiking non-res fees sky high.  This usually comes out of a system where politicians are in charge of fee proposals from the start.  The other--what happened here--involves some analysis of value versus willingness to pay and initial development of a proposal by the game/fish agency itself.  Usually treats non-residents better, while residents sometimes complain that they should soak non-residents like some other states due to keep resident fees lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntschool

Folks, for the minority dollar we represent to the various states, weather resident or nonresident, given the current condition of the various state economies....  we are a profit center which will pay...

I agree, $150.00 for a small game tag is a bit high although, for a full season, perhaps not.  On the other hand, if the state retains a five day or three day structure that might be the way to go unless you live close by in a bordering state and can hunt the other state regularly.

Fact remains, many states view NR users as a cash cow.  IL did it with their archery deer tags years ago.  $300+ for a NR tag is out of line.

I pay $42.00 + $7.00 trout stamp for MO and that’s not bad for a full year. I use the hell out of it and that makes it even better.    Their small game tag is $80.00 for the season.  In years past when they had good quail that was not too much for me to spend.  Not so much now….

The rest of the places I hunt I just pay and do it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ANF grousin
Glad we're heading out this Oktober or I wouldnt be able to sit down and enjoy a beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
braque du upstate
$ 150 ? Thems rich white guy prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caleb
$150 is more than you pay in the Dakotas.

Except you can't actually buy a season-long nonresident license in North Dakota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottGrush

Actually I think it would be $175.

$150 is the non-resident base then license fees apply after that and it's discussed that small game will be $25.

The resident base fee is $10 so the Mi. resident small gamer will pay $35 as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Hamming
Actually I think it would be $175.

$150 is the non-resident base then license fees apply after that and it's discussed that small game will be $25.

The resident base fee is $10 so the Mi. resident small gamer will pay $35 as I understand it.

I read it as a Resident small game is $10.00.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucky Dog
I always found non resident fees silly. Non residents take way less service and spend way more per hunting day.

I agree 100%.

But Michigan has had a history of encouraging people not to come here and spend money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L. Gallagher

I think in this era of rising gas prices (he also proposed hiking our gas tax by something like 34 cents, which would really skyrocket the price of gas in this state, which is already high enough), to more than double the cost of a non-resident small game tag they would really put a dent in the number of visiting bird hunters, which would hurt our growing tourism economy.

And I still haven't figured out what they want to do with the price of a turkey tag, which if hiked would serve to really discourage non-resident hunters, who can undoubtedly find very nice Eastern wild turkeys in lots of other states.

Meantime, they continue to ignore the plight of the wild turkey in northern Michigan, which is where all the public lands are, by not only not contributing to organized feeding programs or helping private landowners who feed in any way, but by not doing anything at all for wild turkey habitat in this state.

He is promising more CO's...they have said that before...several times. We now have fewer CO's and DNR employees in general than at any other time since the old Conservation Department was formed way back in the late 30's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
The other--what happened here--involves some analysis of value versus willingness to pay and initial development of a proposal by the game/fish agency itself.  Usually treats non-residents better, while residents sometimes complain that they should soak non-residents like some other states due to keep resident fees lower.

Yes that was a big project coordinated by my co-worker Jen Wical.

Here is a link to some of that work for those interested:

http://www.responsivemanagement.com/downloa....ort.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
caleb

There's a couple of trends in the license fee business.

One sadly seems to keep res fees very low while hiking non-res fees sky high.  This usually comes out of a system where politicians are in charge of fee proposals from the start.  The other--what happened here--involves some analysis of value versus willingness to pay and initial development of a proposal by the game/fish agency itself.  Usually treats non-residents better, while residents sometimes complain that they should soak non-residents like some other states due to keep resident fees lower.

The approach is usually revenue maximization, and with nonresidents I think that's how it should be.  Frankly, I can't think of another defensible policy with nonresidents.  Why should the taxpayers of State X forego revenue they could obtain from hunters visiting from States Y and Z?  I don't think they should because foregoing that revenue shifts the tax burden to state residents.  

The questions then are:

1) Whose revenue should be maximized?  The DNR budget?  The state tourism industry?  The state economy generally?  

2) Over what period of time?  Do they want to maximize revenue this year, or take reduced revenues annually in the hope of encouraging long term participation?

Different states have come to different conclusions about these questions.   For example, ND seems to really discount the value of nonresident hunters by limiting the amount of time they can hunt each season.  Just to the south, SD takes hunting as a tourism driver and really cultivates it.  SD is probably taking in more money for both its DNR and economy, but resident hunters are paying the price through increased hunting competition and decreased access.

I know I've harped on this before, but I think nonresident license fees are way, way low all over the country.  So low that doubling them across the board would have zero effect on participation.  Traveling to upland bird hunt isn't a low income sport.  People who want to caravan around the country to shoot tweety birds can and should pay for all their host states do to promote hunting.

I'd say $300+ for nonresident, $40 for residents, and free for residents under 21 sounds entirely reasonable.  I doubt those prices would impact participation a bit, and hopefully it would increase DNR revenue for habitat work to improve the hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cooter Brown
Actually I think it would be $175.

$150 is the non-resident base then license fees apply after that and it's discussed that small game will be $25.

The resident base fee is $10 so the Mi. resident small gamer will pay $35 as I understand it.

Good lord.  That's a 150% increase for non residents.

I guess one way to think of it is that with all the other costs it's not a huge amount relatively.  But it's still more than another 100 bucks.

If I didn't have a history in MI it would certainly make me think twice if I were planning my first trip north.  And it'll weigh into the decision next season.

I've been expecting an increase but nothing like that.

I usually have licenses in four states and it's becoming an expensive proposition at a time when we all generally agree that we need to recruit younger folks into the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×