Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
L. Gallagher

MI Gov proposes new license fees

Recommended Posts

Lucky Dog

Back to the original topic, the more I look at this proposed license increase, the less I like it. It seems to me that residents will see a modest increase or in my case a modest decrease in license cost with this proposal. While the non-residents will be seeing a significant increase.

In my opinion, the residents should be bearing the brunt of the increase and the non-residents should see only a modest increase.

Seriously, 10 bucks for me to chase small game and waterfowl for a year is laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WindyHills

Not sure if the conversation was headed here, but if the thought is that the army corps only dredges if shipping is the motive, I can say that's not the case everywhere.  

In fact I think they have oversight over dredging in navigable water bodies regardless of where that is.  

So if I'm right, if you want dredging, you work with the army corps to get it done, even if your primary purpose had nothing to do with shipping.

And if the thought is that it's OK to charge only sportsmen for such work, I have not seen that done in the past (though I admit I have little experience with it).  Does seem fair to spread out the pain since so many benefit from the activity of fishing etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Medema

Oh, and one more thing.  I do pay an extra fee for the right to use boat ramps and landings.  I buy an annual pass and consider that a bargain too.  

Linda, what would happen to place like Charlevoix if no one could enter from Lake Michigan because the channel is too shallow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L. Gallagher

Doubt it would ever happen, Dave, since the Emerald Isle digs out the channel every time it goes out...LOL

Ok, let's answer your question. The Emerald Isle couldn't ship people, goods, and money to Beaver Island, they'd have to use airplanes or move their offices up to Petoskey, which would be closer to the island, anyway, the Coast Guard would have to relocate their ship, the USFWS would have to relocate their lake trout stocking ship, and a thousand millionaires would have to take their yachts up to Harbor Springs...LOL

Other than that, no biggy...honestly. It wouldn't halt tourism, if that's what you think. As long as there's any water at all they'll be there in July and August. And it wouldn't have a big impact on the area's industry.

The St. Mary's cement boat has it's own pier at the plant, along with it's own channel. Only comes in once a week during the shipping season, anyway.

Everyone else there has much smaller boats that could relocate to other launches or areas.

PS - There's several large plants on the Saginaw River that utilize Great Lakes shipping, go over the I-75 bridge and you'll occasionally see a freighter negotiating the channel there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gonehuntin
Apparently the Corps disagrees with you.

The Saginaw River and Channel in Saginaw Bay is currently being dredged.

The ships using the Saginaw River have been running partial loads for 15 or so years. The lack of dredging on the Corps part is nothing new, they have been shirking their duties well before the water levels dropped in the lakes.

Who do you think is paying for those "partial loads"? You. It costs so much per hour to run one of those ships. You are going to pay the same for a partial load as a fully load. It's simple economics.

The shipping companies aren't going to lose money so you can have cheap sand, gravel, and coal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rosies dad

The Governor is now talking about dipping into the state's $15 million "rainy day" fund for dredging.

99% of the dredging needed is intended to benefit recreational boaters and tourists, there hasn't been any mention of anyone else.

Again, commercial shipping, what's left, as gonehuntin said (he's right, there's hardly any compared to 40 years ago) would not be overly assisted by this effort. Nor would the commercial fishers, most of them have boats not a lot larger than the larger recreational boaters. anyway, and can still get around just fine as far as I have heard.

And I think that spawning fish, which I've seen mentioned as benefiting from dredging maybe one time, are way, way down the priority list.

Perhaps the DNR should make sure a few key rivers have adequate depth at the river mouth for fish runs, and let nature take care of the rest.

$15mil wouldnt fix much anyway, and unless water levels come up, you will be right back where you were in a short time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucky Dog
Who do you think is paying for those "partial loads"? You. It costs so much per hour to run one of those ships. You are going to pay the same for a partial load as a fully load. It's simple economics.

The shipping companies aren't going to lose money so you can have cheap sand, gravel, and coal.

Not sure what your point is?

I have no doubts who is paying for the the partial loads of the lake freighters.

Somehow we got off topic, the MI DNR has never said anything about dredging shipping channels, that is still the Corps responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gonehuntin
Not sure what your point is?

Point.........you need a point for this discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L. Gallagher

The DNR Director made several direct references to the need for dredging when speaking about the perceived need for a hunting license increase during the outdoor writers meeting a couple of weeks ago, and the DNR IS responsible for the dredging of DNR boat launches and access points, of which there are hundreds, if not thousands, in Michigan.

But it was only a selling point, I'm sure. Not something they're actually going to do anytime soon, I'll bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Medema

Ok, let's answer your question. The Emerald Isle couldn't ship people, goods, and money to Beaver Island, they'd have to use airplanes or move their offices up to Petoskey, which would be closer to the island, anyway, the Coast Guard would have to relocate their ship, the USFWS would have to relocate their lake trout stocking ship, and a thousand millionaires would have to take their yachts up to Harbor Springs...LOL

Other than that, no biggy...honestly.

What about the millions of dollars the lake michigan boats mean to the local economy from the grocery store, restaurants, boat yards, fuel, marina, weekly festivals, Venetian week, etc?  

Is it worth $200,000 to keep that channel open?  I'm asking from a dollars and cents standpoint?  What would it cost the emerald Isle to move, build new docks, buy and maintain new long term parking lots?  What would it cost the coast guard to move an entire station, build new buildings and docks?  How much time would it add to rescue operations outside of little Traverse bay?  

Any thoughts on what it would mean to local real estate values to know they are now simply an inland lake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L. Gallagher

Dave, it would be a shock, no doubt, but in the long run, I don't think it would change things all that much. Adjustments would be made, people would still come. We're a lot more afraid of the price of gas than we are of channels that need dredging.

The CG doesn't maintain rescue operations here, just in TC. All Charlevoix has is a boat. And as long as Lake Michigan doesn't dry up entirely Charlevoix will never just be located on an inland lake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Medema
I don't think it would change things all that much. Adjustments would be made, people would still come.

I'll disagree 100%.  

People maybe and most assuredly in smaller crowds.  Boats? If I can't get out to lake Michigan, I'm not coming at all.  

BTW - you could easily apply this situation to Manistee, Frankfort, Leland, Muskegon, Holland, Saugatauk, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steelheadfred
The Governor is now talking about dipping into the state's $15 million "rainy day" fund for dredging.

99% of the dredging needed is intended to benefit recreational boaters and tourists, there hasn't been any mention of anyone else.

Again, commercial shipping, what's left, as gonehuntin said (he's right, there's hardly any compared to 40 years ago) would not be overly assisted by this effort. Nor would the commercial fishers, most of them have boats not a lot larger than the larger recreational boaters. anyway, and can still get around just fine as far as I have heard.

And I think that spawning fish, which I've seen mentioned as benefiting from dredging maybe one time, are way, way down the priority list.

Perhaps the DNR should make sure a few key rivers have adequate depth at the river mouth for fish runs, and let nature take care of the rest.

$15mil wouldnt fix much anyway, and unless water levels come up, you will be right back where you were in a short time.

The quote to fix Betsie Bay, is $300,000

If it is the same other places, thats 50 river mouths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
L. Gallagher
Don't get excited, he was quoted as saying "dip into" the $15 mill for dredging, not use all of it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rosies dad

Don't get excited, he was quoted as saying "dip into" the $15 mill for dredging, not use all of it...

The Governor says raising taxes to build up the "rainy day fund" to $1 Billion so the State will have a great credit rating and be able to borrow money cheaper.

Maybe he isnt all about Tax and Spend, its Tax and Save.

He already has a budget surplus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×