Okay. I've decided to ask you to do this. Actually, I would have asked a few days ago but this is a very busy, busy week with a lot happening since last Friday.
My friend Bill Parker over at Michigan Outdoor News sums it up pretty good and he is a wise and kind person: http://www.outdoornews.com/February-2013/Hunting-and-fishing-license-fee-hikes-deserve-support/
Basically, if you have only been buying the regular resident fishing license, you would now pay $10 more per year with a base license of $25, but that covers all species fishing as if you bought the $28 licenses before so for those people it is $3 cheaper.
Fishing license fees haven't gone up 16 years and $25 is still a pretty good deal for a year of fishing a place as rich in water as Michigan.
It's still a bargain. Bill Parker recently quoted me (http://www.outdoornews.com/February-2013/Plan-to-hike-license-fees-gets-mixed-reaction/) as saying something to the affect that I always consider what an increase in cost might do to license sales already challenged, and that while I recognize the fee is low, I hesitate to give the MDNR more money if things don't change.
Well... since then - last Friday actually - things have changed. I have been very lax in sharing this with all of you but frankly, I think I'm still in a slight state of shock. I was asked to attend a new meeting setup by the MDNR - a Conservation Roundtable - as a rep for the Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation (I'm their new conservation director - again - btw) and I figured someone ought to go.
So I spent the day in Grayling with maybe 20 - 30 different statewide groups in attendance - bear, deer, forestry, trout, walleye, muskie, etc. I was the one bass rep basically. I'd say there were mid-40's number of people present. A little over 10 people from the MDNR but this was the heavy hitters - the new DNR Director, the new Deputy Director, chiefs of fisheries, forestry, wildlife, and law (along with their assistant chief) and some other admin and tech staff, and one commissioner from the Natural Resources Commission.
I would love to sit in a room with all of you and tell you all about it personally, but you know how hard it is with all our choices to get together in one place, so I'll share a quick summary - the MDNR now like bass tournament anglers. Yeah. I know... the Deputy Director asked if he could come meet with our federation and said, "I think bass tournaments would be a really good way to increase our natural resources economy."
After I came to and stood back up, I spent time talking to pretty much everyone there from the MDNR from the Director on down one or more times about various topics, what we would like and how we could help each other. I had more positive interactions with the MDNR that day than most of the past 30 years put together.
Apparently, the new culture is that ALL anglers are valuable and desired by the new MDNR. We talked about the bass season. It was all positive and I will be presenting options at a meeting in Lansing in June in a process that is expected to not be anything like the last time. I really can't tell you in a few words how different that day went and all the things we discussed.
I will be speaking at the April 21 Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation meeting about this. I'm working on getting MDNR Deputy Director Moritz set up to meet with them too at that meeting or a later one if his schedule won't allow that one.
I think I might be the TBF of Michigan conservation director too but my 'appointment' wasn't official and I haven't talked to Dave Reault yet... oh well. Someone needs to do whatever they can and now seems to be the right time to work on a few changes.
So yes, I'm willing to reboot, give all of this a new try and support the MDNR in working towards proper funding since we need people who can help monitor and care for our natural resources. Because, as you all know, we are one lucky, lucky state when it comes to natural resources.
So help me out here. Contact your legislators and ask them to pass the MDNR license fee restructuring (http://michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-31574---,00.html). You need to call them or email them TODAY. ASAP. It is ridiculously hard to pass any license increase or just a change. Like trying to get a new boat ramp.
Lets give this a try and see where it goes. One of the main new tenets of the new MDNR is 'Increase outreach to anglers that fish for perch, bluegill, and bass.' Lets get involved and help define what that means and how it is done. Maybe it becomes a new win-win for Michigan bass fishing.
ACTION: Contact your Michigan Senator and Representative, as well as the members of the Appropriations Subcommittees to let them know that sportsmen and women support this license restructuring and simplification. While some details of the package are still being worked out, it is important that they keep this in the appropriations budget as it moves forward.
Michigan House of Representatives: Contact Your Rep (http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/)
Michigan Senate: Contact Your Senator (http://www.senate.michigan.gov/fysenator/fysenator.htm)
Senate Appropriations:
Senator Roger Kahn, Appropriations Chair (R-32-Saginaw) 517-373-1760 or SenRKahn@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Mike Green, Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee Chair (R-31-Mayville) 517-373-1777 or SenMGreen@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Darwin Booher (R-35-Evart) 517-373-1725 or SenDBooher@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Howard Walker (R-37-Traverse City) 517-373-2413 or SenHWalker@senate.michigan.gov
Senator Hoon-Yung Hopgood (D-8-Taylor) 517-373-7800 or SenHHopgood@senate.michigan.gov
House of Representatives Appropriations:
Rep. Joe Haveman, Appropriations Committee Chair (R-90-Holland) 517-373-0830 or JosephHaveman@house.mi.gov
Rep. Jon Bumstead, Natural Resources Appropriations Subcommittee Chair (R-100-Newaygo) 517-373-7317 or JonBumstead@house.mi.gov
Rep. Nancy Jenkins (R-57-Clayton) 517-373-1706 or NancyJenkins@house.mi.gov
Rep. Michael McCready (R-40-Bloomfield Hills) 517-373-8670 or MikeMcCready@house.mi.gov
Rep. Terry Brown (D-84-Pigeon) 517-373-0476 or TerryBrown@house.mi.gov
Please call this week!
More details from MUCC (http://www.mucc.org/2013/03/take-action-now-to-invest-in-the-outdoors/) if you want to check on specific items and the latest details.
WOW !
Mr. Kimmel, I am proud of you.
Great work, This may lead to a landmark day in Michigan Bass Fishing History !!
Awesome news!! Keep up the good work Dan!! I will be contacting a rep from my area tomorrow
Done...
This is what I sent to my Senator and Representative if you need a start.
"I am writing you to ask to express my support for the proposed MDNR License fee restructuring. The MDNR plays a critical role in monitoring and caring for the natural resources we enjoy. These fee changes, while modest, would go far in assuring the MDNR has the proper funding to continue managing one of our state's greatest assets. Thank you for your time in this matter."
Respectfully,
XXXXXXXXXX
I saw an article about the license hike a few moth ago. At that time I was not in favor. I felt like they were being tricky with the elimination of the restricted license and "framing" the new price structure as a price decrease. It's a price increase for a person like me that only fishes for Bass, period.
With that said, I do believe that you get what you pay for. I believe that's true for roads, schools etc too. If the price increase will help fishing in Michigan, I am for it.
I'll give your recommendation some thought. Thanks for representing us Dan.
Vic
louie stout said in one of his articles in the south bend paper about 2014 out of state going up to 75.00!! thanks a lot from all us out of state fisherman >:(
I have heard from 4 out of state anglers so far and they aren't happy. No one is happy to have to pay more. We have to pay more for almost everything nowadays.
That includes the MDNR too! They haven't had a license fee increase since 1996. Imagine if you hadn't had a raise since 1996? (and I feel for you personally and can sympathize lately bigtime). $25 for a year of bass fishing in Michigan for residents is still a ridiculously cheap bargain compared to going to say, 1 movie and dinner out night.
I think $75 is still a bargain for non-residents. When I can afford to fish Ontario waters of St. Clair and Lake Erie more than a couple times in a year - which was every year before 3 years ago - I paid over $100 every year for Ontario and Walpole. I have also often bought Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Iowa, Illinois and many other non-resident fishing licenses and paid whatever I had to considering it a bargain for the thing I love to do most, and the amount of enjoyment I get out of it.
I do not have the budget to fish much now so like many others, I consider my spending carefully and budget accordingly. I think Michigan fishing is worth it but some may not have the budget to continue. I hate to lose any anglers. I always look at information for any fee hike that considers the effect on numbers of licenses sold verses the additional money expected to be raised to see if it seems realistic and reasonable.
All that being said, I am not asking everyone to blanket support the entire present proposal. The Michigan Legislature is the only body that can approve these changes so even non-residents can contact them and state their opinions for the entire package and/or specific parts of the package. I know several parts of the present package are being debated, discussed and/or possibly reworked. None of it is set in stone or even likely to pass. Especially if only the people who scream every time the MDNR tries to raise license fees once every 10 years or so are the only people the legislature hears from.
I do believe the fees are still a bargain for anyone who loves to fish, and I think simplifying regulations often helps increase participation in the long run while 16 years without any significant increase in funding should be expected to be a significantly negative situation. We need the MDNR for many things. They need realistic funding. We can debate and work on specific parts of the proposal, but lets try to agree that they need adequate funding they can count on.
There has been lots of talk about figuring out ways to get more citizens who use our natural resources involved in helping pay for taking care of those natural resources. Michigan's economy critically depends upon our natural resources. I will continue to follow and weigh in on creative efforts to fund the care, protection and good compromise use of our natural resources. As of now, I am conservation director of both Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation and TBF of Michigan. I have added lots of meetings to my schedule.
Just got my Georgia license today. $45, resident is $9.
Georgia DNR has been in a budget crisis since 2008. By 2010 they were down 450 job positions. They are trying to avoid raising fees despite continuous large cuts in general fund (tax dollar) appropriations. They are putting off maintenance and other services that can't be put off forever.
From what I can tell, they still receive a higher percentage of their operating funds from their state's general fund - like the MDNR did many, many years ago - but they will be at our very low level soon at the rate annual appropriation cuts are being made if they continue down. I couldn't quickly find a budget document for this year that spelled out how much of their general fund appropriations are presently tax dollars verses license fee purchases that go to the general fund and are then appropriated back.
A lot of the issues started during various budget problems in various states when they decided the DNR should be funded by license fees and the various fishing and hunting excise taxes even though ALL citizens benefit from natural resources, and started cutting or eliminating general fun appropriations.
Do you think there would be as many Michigan anglers on board with the price hike if it was the same percentage as the out of state jump?? I will pay the $75, it isn't really very much per day considering how many days I fish in Michigan. But the state should realize I pay A LOT of money for gas, food and lodging to do all this fishing. Including park fees on Hamlin I'll bet it's anywhere from $2,500 to $3,000 a season. I may have it good as an out of state angler, but I pay for it already. OK, I feel better. :) Now why haven't I gotten that $30.50 park pass yet??? LOL
The old choice of a Restricted (non-trout/salmon, etc*) fishing license would be gone so you can only buy an all species fishing license. Both residents and nonresidents who previously did not choose the extra trout/salmon fee would see an increase.
Nonresident Restricted* Fishing License 2013
$34.00
Nonresident All Species Fishing License 2013
$42.00
Upgrade is only $8.00 (only 23.5% more)
Resident Restricted* Fishing License 2013
$15.00
Resident All Species Fishing License 2013
$28.00
Upgrade is $13.00 (87% more - looks like nonresidents were getting a pretty good break here to encourage them to buy All Species)
Proposed Resident All Species Fishing License 2014
$25.00
Increase for Resident anglers who previously bought only Restricted license:
67%
Resident anglers who previously bought an All Species license actually see an ~11% decrease ($25.00 verses $28.00 now).
Proposed Nonresident All Species Fishing License 2014
$75.00
Increase for Nonresident anglers who previously bought only Restricted license:
120%
Nonresident anglers who previously bought an All Species license:
78%
For lots of resident bass anglers, we're going to see a 67% increase because we bought the inexpensive Restricted license while nonresident anglers who did buy the All Species license (not much more expensive than their Restricted) see a 78% increase, not much more percentage-wise than the resident angler increase.
As I mentioned previously, I imagine most of us would be pretty upset if we hadn't had a raise in 16 years (and I sympathize with those who haven't). I also expect if we tried to get a raise, we would probably go for more than just 1 year's back calculation if it had been 16 years.
1. I dislike paying more for things maybe more than lots of you since I not only have not had a raise, my income is down over 67% the past two and a half years. I don't expect to be buying any nonresident licenses from anywhere in 2013, but I would buy Ontario and Walpole to fish all of St. Clair otherwise even though it is over $100 for me. That's still cheap entertainment if I fish 4 times or more - something I used to do over there quite a bit.
2. The proposal is not set in stone by a long shot so contact the people above and share your opinions. If you don't do that, you will get what we always get when we do nothing - whatever someone else decides for us!
Meanwhile, the MDNR needs funding, having suffered decades of general fund reductions and maybe 2 increases in about 30 years, and $25 or $75 for a year of fishing for anything in the water we have is a steal. Other states that are cheaper - well, you can easily find out their present situations are often not so hot either. I will be at the Sportsmen's Town Hall tomorrow to hear what the chair of the House Natural Resources committee has to say and maybe even get in a few opinions of my own - like more fishing opportunity in exchange for the higher license fee. That is my goal and I feel I have a lot of support from many dedicated bass anglers and a number of outdoor business people. It is the position of one Michigan bass federation for sure and probably will be of the other.
PDF of Summary of Proposed License Fee Changes (http://michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Hunting_FishingLicenseFeeProposal_411653_7.pdf).
2013 MDNR fishing license fees and information (http://michigan.gov/documents/dnr/license-info_274655_7.pdf)
* Good for all species EXCEPT trout, salmon, lake sturgeon, lake herring, amphibians, reptiles or crustaceans.
Quote from: Firefighter Jeff on March 25, 2013, 10:28:45 PM
Now why haven't I gotten that $30.50 park pass yet??? LOL
Have you heard about the budget problems the US Postal Service is having?!? ;D
I could ask for you but the only chief not at the last meeting I went to was Parks and Recreation. If it has been longer than 7 days since you ordered online, you might want to contact the Parks and Recreation Division at (517)373-9900. Hours of operation Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT.
I don't mind paying more (I think it's cheap as well) but I don't like the fact that the trout/salmon guys get a break. This is where alot of money goes to stock fish for a put and take fishery. The bass, pan fish, northerns, catfish, and most any other fish take about zero effort and money for stocking or managing (besides law enforcement). I just think if we pay more they should keep it the same percent increase for the trout/salmon guys so they're paying there fair share and not getting a break scamming off other fisherman that don't use as many resources.
That has been discussed. The MDNR is re-evaluating the stocking programs around things like cost verses return and some of that is from prompting outside of the MDNR (I will add that bass anglers need to get more involved - we are the least involved group probably despite having the highest numbers).
The targets for the budget increase are tilted towards inland anglers including more outreach to perch, panfish and bass anglers. I think that is why I got the reception that Friday.
I don't have a problem with money spent on any fish. Some work helps all fish that swim in the water. In general, warmwater fish do not need much stocking. They take care of themselves as long as they have good water quality, habitat and forage. We can use some more discussion and involvement between anglers and the MDNR in areas like aquatic plant control and other habitat issues.
If issues arise that can be addressed to provide more fishing opportunity and boost our natural resources economy to more anglers, I definitely would like to see the budget designed to target that issue(s) that opportunity based on the amount of fishing opportunity and economic boost.
I think it may have been easier to feel they could 'measure' the Great Lakes trout and salmon fishing effort and benefit in the past but I think they are now realizing that they need to have more information to make better decisions, not necessarily the easiest decision. Bass and other warmwater anglers being more involved could help this head in that direction. The public meeting tonight is a good opportunity to bring more awareness about the opportunity and economic benefit of bass fishing.
I'm stuck buying an all species license because the lake I'm on has trout even though I don't fish for them. A 78% increase seems excessive in my opinion. I bring a lot of tourism dollars to the state ( like Jeff I spend about 3K per year). I think the percentages for resident and non resident increases should be the same.
If you spend $3K per year here, why is $75 verses $42 that big a big deal - $33 for a whole year is what we are talking about? 1% of your spending. Back when I fished a lot, I paid over $100 every year to fish the rest of Lake St. Clair and I just paid it. A bargain for even just one big lake to be able to fish it all year.
I sure appreciate people that come here to fish but I just talked to one of my pro friends who spent that amount in each of 4 states that past few weeks within $10-15 either side of the proposed new amount. No one likes paying more. I truly do not like paying more for anything considering the giant reduction in my own personal budget.
But the MDNR hasn't had a raise in 16 years and they have had to pay more every year for everything too - part of why they are down by half.
If you think the only fair thing is to pay the exact same percentage difference as resident anglers then call or email the House and Senate committee members and tell them that. As Representative and House Natural Resources committee chair Andrea LaFontaine told a packed house at the Town Hall tonight (that no bass anglers besides Paul Sacks and myself attended), nothing is decided. They just have a recommendation from the Governor, and they - the Legislature - decide what does or does not actually become law.
I do like your idea about the same percentage. Since I have to pay 87% more to buy a resident All Species fishing license now verses a Restricted resident fishing license, if as usual, the MDNR is unable to get any new license changes passed this time too, I will suggest that the Nonresident All Species fishing license be changed to 87% more than the Nonresident Restricted fishing license.
Right now, Nonresidents only have to pay 23.5% more to go from a Restricted fishing license to an All Species fishing license. It doesn't seem fair that Residents should have to pay such a higher percentage difference than Nonresidents. That would mean the fair price of the Nonresident All Species fishing license would be $63.00 instead of $42.00. About what Ontario charges me for a Nonresident fishing license. So I'm fine with that thinking too. Though it won't simplify licenses or give the MDNR as much of the raise they've missed out on over the past 16 years while costs have soared.
The fact is, we have been underpaying for a long, long, long time. Eventually, it will catch up with all of us. One way or another. I'm happier even if this gets more bass anglers to take a few minutes to be involved. We are practically the least involved anglers and that needs to change. We have the numbers. We could have changed many things long ago by just 10% of us being involved.
BTW, Representative LaFontaine said she had so far only heard from about 20 people on the license fee proposal and only 1 of those was against it saying it would force people in a tough economy to pay more for the thing they love. Only 20 heard from. Only 1 against... That's different than past attempts though I have heard some state reps/senators have heard more negative - which is the norm. At some point, the fees have to go up or we will have an even smaller MDNR. Maybe almost no MDNR since they get almost no general funds (tax dollars) and this is the first time in a long time even a tiny increase in that has been proposed. I don't even try to keep track of who is acting in what job at the moment anymore with many posts because it changes so often.
I'll tell you this, the small cost of fishing licenses sure isn't what keeps me from fishing more. It is the cost of everything else that is the vastly greater chunk of the expenses. I'm not going to shortchange the MDNR just because everything else has gone up so much. I can recognize they are decimated and if they are willing to work with us, and they recognize now that they need ALL anglers and hunters, I'm willing to get them more realistic and fair funding. I've been fine with this every single time they've asked though most of their efforts have failed because it is easier to shortchange the MDNR than make gas prices, food prices, etc. go down.
I've always recognized that the easiest way is often the wrong way. Sometimes, answers and change are hard. So don't punish an easy target please.
That is like closing bass season for 6 months because you can't control the weather but only control fishing. Even if fishing doesn't have enough impact in many cases to counter for the much greater impact Mother Nature has.
I think the right people may be finally figuring that out. Let's be the right people on here too to figure out that the MDNR needs a raise and it's not right to block their raise because we can't do anything about gas prices or the rising costs for everything else. We are all in this together, and they are in this with us. We just need to all figure that out at the same time to improve things for lots of people even if they don't first see it as an improvement. Something that often happens with change.
I am on the fence on this proposal and I buy an all species every year.
One of the reasons I got out of snowmobiling was the continued increase in fees and still we got less grooming and signing on trails.
I am at a point where I don't trust any government institution when they want more $. I have no faith the $ will be put to good use besides more admin costs.
Dan, I hope u are right and seeing a change in MI DNR and ready to respond to what the people want.
I hope I'm right too. I get it. I really do. I was on the MUCC Board of Directors years ago and whenever the MDNR brought in a license fee increase proposal it would be a multi-hour debate and complain-fest. Almost as bad as when we used to try to pick the classic series tournament locations during federation presidents meetings in the old days (6 hours one time to pick 1 lake!!!).
I would sit there bored to death wondering why all of us with house payments, trucks and other things we chose to buy were spending so much time arguing about $5 or $10. I even wonder now why we on here are spending much time getting upset about $10 or $33 when so many of us have dropped 10's of thousands on boats, trucks - even 1 or 2 thousand bucks on a GPS??
Really, it doesn't make much sense to me on the dollar amount. We could probably all take this time to do something at are job or on the side with the same amount of time and make more than this 1-time per year increase will cost us?
I'm not trying to be unkind or hard. I do get it. I've been at a ton of meetings in my life were this kind of stuff has been debated and beat up. I've heard it all so many times.
I'm willing to risk an extra $10 I don't really have, or even $33 if I was a Nonresident, to keep our MDNR from getting to the point were they can accomplish and protect next to nothing, especially if they heard my message that was printed publicly across the state that I only hesitate to give them more money if they don't change.
Well, they have sent me a very clear message that they now get that. After last night, maybe for the first time in a good chunk of my 30+ years of adult life I almost don't feel like an undesirable anymore just because I happen to own and fish out of a bass boat. People high up in the MDNR are talking about bass tournaments. Local government is talking about bass tournaments. As I pointed out somewhere, even a representative for one of our US Congress officials is telling me bass tournaments are cool and he wants to be there, and expects Congresswoman Candace Miller will probably want to be there and involved.
I'm excited. I'm willing to take a chance things will be different for all bass anglers including so-called tournament bass anglers. I also do not only look at what giving the MDNR a little more - not a lot - but a little more stability can do for all of our natural resources. It is all interconnected. There is no isolation.
Bass and everything else needs clean water, protected wetlands, good habitat, forage and the MDNR is in charge of watching over that. The MDEQ is also involved and that was brought up last night too. I'd like to see a more stable MDNR get back to having more influence and collegial involvement with DEQ.
What effect will this have on Tournaments? Catch & Delayed Release permits/stamp/fee should be part of the equation in my opinion so is this part of any proposal being submitted? I personally don't think a year round catch and keep season would fly with the general uneducated public.....The whole "give/get" standard really applies in this situation - we give more money we get more opportunity; I don't think a year round catch & release season is more opportunity (unless the C/O's are mind readers there is no way prove an angler is targeting a particular species unless they actually posses that species or openly and willingly admit they are targeting that species). What do the top 3 current proposals look like so far?
Dan,
I've held off on my comments but here they come. First, I took a politcial science class about 10 years ago and it was taught by Mick Midough. He was a 25 year state rep thrown out on term limits. He taught me a lot. Ever wondered what happened to the money that the lottery was supposed to put into schools? Well they do it, yep 600 million or so a year. At the same time the state when it does budgets looks at that and says, we can save 600 million and spend it somewhere else. So when the state allocates budget money to schools they allocate 12.4 Billion instead of 13 Billion and pocket the rest. Its called earmarking, and in general its a shell game. Mick also said that the state legeslature when pressed on finances tends to not allocate as much to state branches that can generate their own funds, like sec of state, DNR, State police, courts and the like. Basically anybody that can generate funds on thier own is asked to do this. So the problem is this, the DNR's funding is not being cut or the increases reduced because the whole budget is being cut. But rather because they can come to outdoorsmen, claim poverty and raise more income with license fees. This is what we call a never ending cycle.
In addition, it just erks me that the DNR now that they need money is our best friend, In my book they have never been a friend to sportsmen, we are treated in general like criminals and they clearly have the best interest of the DNR at stake not the fishermen and hunters. There, I feel better. :)
Quote from: ROI Outdoors on March 28, 2013, 05:43:04 PM
What effect will this have on Tournaments? Catch & Delayed Release permits/stamp/fee should be part of the equation in my opinion so is this part of any proposal being submitted? I personally don't think a year round catch and keep season would fly with the general uneducated public.....The whole "give/get" standard really applies in this situation - we give more money we get more opportunity; I don't think a year round catch & release season is more opportunity (unless the C/O's are mind readers there is no way prove an angler is targeting a particular species unless they actually posses that species or openly and willingly admit they are targeting that species). What do the top 3 current proposals look like so far?
The affect on BASS tournaments seems to be that the MDNR is desperate and has finally realized they need ALL anglers including bass tournament anglers. I actually believe it is a combination of things as I have tried to figure out and explain to the many people who have asked me lately. Importantly, it does NOT matter to me as long as it lasts, AND helps me advance more bass fishing opportunity in Michigan. You work with what you have if you want to get anywhere.
I do not want anymore permits / stamps / dedicated fees. These often create more problems for me, for anglers and for the agencies that have to use them from a special fund for limited and sometimes problematic restricted uses.
I DO think a year round catch and release bass season in Michigan is MORE opportunity. I personally used to fish a LOT during the spring but I quit in 2006 because then Fisheries chief Smith asked me to set an example to improve relationships between the MDNR and bass tournament anglers. I know many anglers who would like to and prefer to be able to legally fish. Doing it legally would have many, many, many good benefits for the anglers who have abstained AND the anglers who have flaunted the law. It would also open Michigan up to more tourism dollars from out-of-state anglers who would now feel safer in coming here whenever they want to enjoy our waters and boost our natural resource economy.
There are no proposals written yet that I have seen. I have not had time to write the ones I intend. I will be sharing them after I have had some organized groups, partners and influential business and industry people review them first to make sure I have a good consensus. I will most likely share them on this website (or another), but ONLY with registered members at least until after I have submitted them to the MDNR at a meeting of the Warmwater Resources Steering Committee in Lansing in June. I don't expect the outburst I had ~8 years ago but there is always and outburst and I do not have the time to waste right now.
I will also be presenting 1 or all of the proposals to the Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation at their April 21 presidents' meeting for discussion and hopefully approval. They may have the MDNR Deputy Director there also. Not confirmed yet.
Quote from: Basschief on April 03, 2013, 10:46:45 AM
Dan,
I've held off on my comments but here they come. First, I took a politcial science class about 10 years ago and it was taught by Mick Midough. He was a 25 year state rep thrown out on term limits. He taught me a lot. Ever wondered what happened to the money that the lottery was supposed to put into schools? Well they do it, yep 600 million or so a year. At the same time the state when it does budgets looks at that and says, we can save 600 million and spend it somewhere else. So when the state allocates budget money to schools they allocate 12.4 Billion instead of 13 Billion and pocket the rest. Its called earmarking, and in general its a shell game. Mick also said that the state legeslature when pressed on finances tends to not allocate as much to state branches that can generate their own funds, like sec of state, DNR, State police, courts and the like. Basically anybody that can generate funds on thier own is asked to do this. So the problem is this, the DNR's funding is not being cut or the increases reduced because the whole budget is being cut. But rather because they can come to outdoorsmen, claim poverty and raise more income with license fees. This is what we call a never ending cycle.
In addition, it just erks me that the DNR now that they need money is our best friend, In my book they have never been a friend to sportsmen, we are treated in general like criminals and they clearly have the best interest of the DNR at stake not the fishermen and hunters. There, I feel better. :)
No sense in holding back. I built this website so we could all share information with each other, learn from each other and maybe even accomplish some things by compromising our way into acceptable agreements. We have more in common than not.
I've been through many of the budget things over the years. I talk to the various sides. I've sat in big rooms with lots of people and little rooms with just a few. I've been asked what I think; I've been told what I should think; I've even been wined and dined a few times... (who doesn't like to get 'influenced' while getting a free meal?!? I wish it had happened more! ;D)
Here's what I think I know right now (and this is for everyone not just basschief or any other one member/visitor):
1) The MDNR isn't crying poverty. They are at their lowest staffing levels since the Great Depression (that's the one in the late 20's, early 30's). The MDNR has not had a license increase since 1996. I asked before if any of you can imagine not having a raise in over 15 years? Particularly considering how the price of everything has gone up in those same 15 years. They are now IN poverty.
2) Yes, hunters and anglers pay more than their fair share for the management and care of natural resources that benefit most citizens and businesses of Michigan. So, do something about it! When I first started on this train ride 30 years ago, the MDNR got a lot of money from the General Fund - regular tax dollars. Now, they get almost none, AND I found out 2 evenings ago that the House subcommittee is recommending that the tiny increase the Governor proposed to the small General Fund part be removed from the budget.
I, personally, have not been happy for many years that some in the MDNR Fisheries thought they could openly or semi-privately decide some anglers are undesirable. I have been vocal about that for decades including directly to the few persons in the MDNR I knew who felt that way. For whatever reason, someone / something (probably a number of both) has made them realize they can't do that anymore. I'm fine and happy with that. I don't even know who/what/where/when/why. I just need to get to work making the most of it.
Meanwhile, regardless of any past bias or behavior, I know we need the MDNR as much as they need us (I always told them that including a number of times over the past year). We can't afford to have an almost completely ineffective MDNR. They are not the only government entity that can affect our natural resources, particularly negatively. At times, the MDNR has been the entity that has stopped another entity from doing more harm to our natural resources and even to bass tournament anglers (the federal VHS virus issue that almost shut down multi-jurisdictional bass tournaments - I went before the Natural Resource Commission to publicly thank the MDNR over that one!).
It is pretty easy to 'pick on' the MDNR. Some of them even make it easier at times. Bass tournament anglers in particular know and feel that. But again, I can't allow that to make it easy for me, any of you, the state government, PETA, HSUS, any federal agency, another state, etc. to just blow them off and bleed them dry because it is easier to do under their present funding makeup than it is to 'fix' gas prices or lower our taxes. There have ALWAYS been more helpful people in the MDNR I have gotten great information from and who have cooperatively helped myself and other accomplish good things than there has been that number who were not helpful. I have probably been guilty as much as anyone in not making that more clear over the years. I can personally think of way more good MDNR employees who did good things than I can think of those who didn't.
Frankly, we outdoors people should be leading the fight to get more General Funds for the MDNR. I have heard at so many meetings including an all day meeting this past Tuesday about how unfair it is that anglers and hunters have to foot most of the bill while so many other users of the natural resources get off cheap or free. That is not entirely accurate but it isn't far off the mark either. If any state hunters/anglers could fix this, we should be able to in Michigan with the organization we have in MUCC? But, we don't. We're too busy hunting and fishing, and other busy stuff. Hunting and fishing pretty darn cheap as far as the license cost goes too.
If this staffing and budget crisis is what causes the MDNR to realize from the top down that they really do need ALL hunters and anglers... I'm fine with that! I will take that however I can get it. When I started out a long time ago as a 20-something conservation director, I repeatedly asked the clubs to appoint a local conservation director and MAKE THE MDNR YOUR FRIEND! Only a very few did that. Can't change that.
But here is another chance to MAKE THE MDNR OUR FRIEND. Wouldn't it be nice for all of us in the end if from now on, the MDNR appreciated and cooperated with ALL bass anglers including organized anglers (i.e. bass tournament anglers though neither completely covers the other)?
Who cares how it happens if it happens and then we take it and run with it so it never changes back to the way it was? I know I don't. I've been tired of it for a long, long time. As tired as I am of seeing the incessant annual hunter and angler infighting over minor differences versus all of us working together because of our more numerous common interests.
MY OPINION: We need a capable and productive MDNR to watch over and protect our natural resources. AND we need to be more involved more often to make sure their practices and policies match what we expect of them (how we expect them to spend the budget they have).
I mean, isn't that pretty much how democracy works? Well, how it should work anyway. Frankly, when people say democracy isn't working, doesn't that just mean the people are doing their 'job?'
I always feel like I can and should do more. What about all of you?
If you're too busy to get more involved, then at least realize that an extra $10 or $33/year is a pretty teensy, tiny price to pay to DO SOMETHING! Of all the fees, taxes, etc. we can choose to quibble about, a $10/YEAR (actually $3 DECREASE if you previously bought all species) or $33/YEAR increase,
especially considering there has been
NO increase in 16 YEARS... just seems like we have much better and more important things to quibble about...?
Now, in the vein of working with the MDNR to make sure bass fishing and bass anglers get what they need, I attended the Lake Erie Lake St. Clair Fisheries Citizens Advisory Committee Tuesday with Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation president Paul Sacks. Many groups were represented.
Many topics were covered but the one I want to include is this budget issue with the license fee simplification and proposal. I did publicly share the comments I have received so far about confusion about what Seniors will pay - more a PR issue than a cost issue AND that a small number of nonresidents (I have heard from 6 people) were upset about the amount of the fishing license increase.
Now, understand again, what the Michigan Legislature has is a recommendation from the Governor. The Legislature has the right to make the actual budget approvals. So far, nothing has been approved, only discussed. As mentioned above, the small amount of increase in the General Funds part of the Governor's proposal was recommended to be removed by the House budget subcommittee. It was small enough already but it is an easy target.
It SHOULD NOT BE an easy target though if EVERYONE meant what they say about how important our natural resources are to our Michigan economy. Fishing is worth BILLIONs to our Michigan economy. That makes it clear to me that the agency that manages those resources should be pretty darn important.
Yet, they get almost no General Fund money and anglers argue and complain like mad every 10 to 15 YEARS that the MDNR tries to get a tiny raise on their already cheap fees...
Why is that? Are our Michigan natural resources taken for granted by anglers, business and our government? Will our natural resources just take care of themselves? Michigan is #3 in the country in boating registrations. Michigan is also #3 in what percentage of our economy is based on our natural resources (behind only Florida and New York). Is Michigan #3 in the size of our MDNR? No. Not even close. Someone mentioned Georgia. Last I saw, Georgia, with no Great Lakes, has 3 times the number of employees in their DNR.
The Governor's proposal recommends reducing licenses from 227 down to only 31. Only 4 fishing licenses. I would think that will save some money?
If the Governor's license fee proposal went through, the MDNR might get another $18 million/year in additional fees. $6 million of that would go towards Fisheries. That is good for us. MDNR Fisheries can't do hardly anything right now including anything we might like them to do. There have been no creel surveys now in 2 years.
In Michigan, the average MDNR fisheries biologist is responsible now for 500,000 surface acres of water! Compared to only 50,000 in other states. How can that even be? Look at these numbers and then look at the $BILLIONs our fishing economy is worth to the State of Michigan.
Am I saying a bigger, better funded MDNR guarantees better fishing? No. But I am pretty confident an ineffectual MDNR means a higher risk of damage to our water, wetlands, habitat and fisheries (all tied together). There are always those who wish to cut corners and don't care as much about these things as we say we do.
We need the MDNR. They need us. Together, we can do things. Apart, we do less and risk much. My feelings are, the MDNR is changing things so they can work with us better knowing there is the chance they get NOTHING out of these proposals whether they begin partnering with us more or not, based on previous public and Legislature behavior and failed attempts. There is more involved here than just this license fee proposal. I know it. They know it. And all of you should know it too.
Go back to the very beginning of this post and see how you can contact your Michigan legislators. Anyone, including nonresidents, can contact the committee members. They need to hear from regular anglers that you are willing to pay $10 more or $33 more per year to have an effective MDNR that can take care of our critically valuable natural resources while being able to work with bass anglers and other outdoors persons to increase participation and opportunity. While you are at it, tell them that you believe everyone should pay more to take care of our natural resources that benefit everyone - so increase the amount of money from the General Fund too!
Compared to the rest of the budget, it is a tiny amount of money. Especially when you compare it to the $BILLIONs it impacts just in our fishing economy. I have to ask them, is THAT important to them?
Having dealt with the MDNR when they didn't like bass anglers I'm hesitant to just jump on the band wagon
And I think we need to at least consider the opposing view so let me ask a couple of questions
First other than saying "We like bass fisherman now" what are they planning to do for "US"
I see a lot of talk about how they need the money but very little on what this means for us other than more money out of the pockets of the anglers left in this economically hard hit state.
With the state of affairs and very limited budget they can barely regulate the sport yet they have managed to focus on us for years.
Now all of a sudden they like us? And the first thing they do is ask us to support a raise in license fees? And at the same time they try selling it as a saving for us? Doesn't this smell fishy? (Sorry) I mean just the fact that they are trying to sell it as something it's not makes me suspicious if saying they like us is just another ploy.
After decades of being treated like the red headed step child I'd like a lot more details on what they are going to do for us rather than 14 paragraphs on how they need more money.
Considering that the majority of anglers buy the standard license this is going to be a big boost in revenue, and another hit to the public.
I have to ask have they told us how they plan to spend this money and how will it benefit us?
Or is it another "We have to vote it in to see what's in it"
Last but certainly not least – As you might remember Dan you where the Conservation officer for the BASS back when I was dealing with the MDNR and I'm sure you remember we didn't see eye to eye on the issue then either and you were saying the same thing then "I'm willing to take a chance"
And 20 years later can you say we have been treated well? I remember being in the minority and saying no to most of the changes they proposed then and we see how that went.
Dan I like you but I think you're a little to forgiving and way too willing to except them on their word that things are going to change. And now you are representing two of the largest bass fishing organizations in the world and that scares me a little.
Please, Please remember actions speak louder than words and they have a history that doesn't bode well for us. And although you think this is a good idea does the majority of your constituents like the idea of paying almost twice the price for their license just because they say they like us now?
I for one need more proof/details before I show my support
Well, you did outdo me for post-length (well... up to now anyway). I actually don't think you represented me very accurately though. I was against ALL of the MDNR proposed changes the last time except the one that left our regular season alone and added more catch and release. I'm confident in saying I fought as hard as anyone during that process. If you want to say I compromised, that is fine. Compromise pretty much ALWAYS happens in a process involving the government and/or large numbers of people with different opinions.
In the end, we got the best we could have hoped for in 2006 in statewide catch and release bass fishing back to the earliest major opener in Michigan - that last Saturday in April when some trout, walleye and pike fishing opens. That was after thinking right up until two weeks before the final announcement that we might have lost and ended up with a July 1 opener!?!
I also don't think you are reading ALL of my words. You are concentrating on the ones where I am asking people to help the MDNR get a slight raise after 15-16 years of no raise.
I have heard some sentiments about not trusting the MDNR overnight or that they are only being friendly right now because they need us - sure I have - from a handful of anglers. I think I have actually explained enough of my reasoning above already so I won't do it again.
Pulling up the drawbridges and keeping bass anglers and tournament bass anglers alienated when me may have a chance to make some real progress seems like a head-in-the-sand move to me. I don't do head-in-the-sand. Never have. I actually like to get somewhere. If you are a member of either federation, you can have your say like any other member. Talk to your club president and/or come to their state meetings.
Meanwhile, I am working on having the Deputy Director of the MDNR at the next Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation meeting. If he ends up not being able to make it because it is a Sunday, I am discussing other high-up MDNR staff persons to come in his place at that meeting. We will be discussing season changes at that meeting on April 21 along with MDNR - bass angler relations.
I believe I have already covered this above too - I know some people do not like reading long posts but sometimes topics are complex. Sorry. At the Conservation Roundtable I was told by Fisheries Chief Jim Dexter to write a short 2-3 page proposal on the bass season to bring to the June 17 Warmwater Resources Steering Committee meeting in Lansing. I was also told it would not go this time like it did last time. It was spelled out more clearly than that.
I am not getting my information from one source, but multiple sources within the MDNR including the Director, the Deputy Director, several chiefs and various other high-up persons. I also had a nice talk with one of the Natural Resource Commissioners, and have since been asked by a rep for Congresswoman Candice Miller about her involvement in our 2013 Bassmaster events, at least the Lake St. Clair one. I'm feeling pretty confident that I should be talking with the MDNR about making some changes.
What is the worst that can happen? We have to pay $10/year extra for residents after only paying $15/YEAR for the past 16 years to FISH ALL YEAR IN MICHIGAN?!? Oh my goodness... ;D Actually, since I have been buying the still a STEAL All Species license the last 3 or 4 years for $28 total and now it might only cost me $25 (like 40% of the other fishing license buyers) I will be saving $3.
Roy, if you want to make this a personal problem about me, go ahead and try. It will not stop me one minute from doing to the best of my ability what I think is best for Michigan natural resources and Michigan bass fishing. It may waste a little of my very limited time in wondering what I should respond to and why you wouldn't want to at least try to see what happens? I do have some idea why this is coming up, but it doesn't have much to do with this actual topic.
Regardless, I have a good number of business owners, both bass federations and a number of other groups and influential leaders who have already said, yes, let's make something happen. Because it would be good for Michigan fishing and the economy too. And the time seems right based on everything we being told and hearing from a lot more entities than just the MDNR. I'm not doing this on my own. I pretty much never do. I also pretty much do not let outliers slow me down. Now more than ever I can't afford to do that.
If you want to tell yourself that I'm a yes-man or walking through life with blinders on go ahead. It will probably distract some from our efforts to improve bass fishing for Michigan. I don't think this time it will be much of a distraction because the support is MUCH bigger and broader now than last time. I'm including that there are more government types now than ever talking about, and wanting bass tournaments IN Michigan. There are many, many reasons why the MDNR is suddenly singing a different tune, not just because they want a bigger budget.
I tried to explain above that there have always been supportive, or at least not anti-bass tournament people in the MDNR. Because of all that we have generally wanted as a group, we have dwelled on the anti-leaning people a lot. Right now, it's not the time to do that. I have explained why above.
If you want to see what the MDNR is proposing to do for bass anglers (and other inland / panfish anglers) you will have to read everything I have written and read all the MDNR license change information, and the MDNR Fisheries strategic plan - including that it is not all set in stone yet - I have mentioned above that things are changing constantly right now as far as specifics.
I discussed this very topic at the Lake Erie Lake St. Clair Citizens Fisheries Advisory Committee meeting Tuesday with MDNR Fisheries staff, Paul Sacks and many other groups present. I have more details in my notes but while the 2014 budget is still undecided, they cannot commit to all specifics yet.
Still, one of the main goals now of the MDNR as a whole is more outreach to bass, panfish and perch anglers, and I fully intend to play an active part in how that specifically gets defined. I have never believed in sitting by and letting other people decide for us. That is just another version of the head-in-the-sand. This goal is in writing and has been published statewide and to many large groups. It's not like they can pretend they didn't mean it later or do nothing because MUCC and other groups (ME INCLUDED) are staying on them about definitions and accountability. And they are doing everything we have asked them to do as fast as they can despite the extremely low staffing.
Frankly, Roy, I privately offered to get you involved and personally informed a couple weeks ago, and you turned me down because you are out of the loop, not up on things and you said you would only want to be involved if I needed a bulldog (your words). I don't need a bulldog. I need diplomatic people who want to get things done and can make the time to get informed to do so. You can disagree with me all you want, but please do not misrepresent what I have done or said now or in the past. I believe what I have played a part in accomplishing over the years speaks for itself that I actually might know what I'm doing more than some of the time. That can't stop someone from disagreeing but hey, it's a free country... ;D
As far as 'constituents' and supporting the Governor's MDNR license fee proposal part of the 2014 budget, I am not TELLING people to do that. I can't do that. I have never been able to TELL people what to do. I am ASKING people to do it and explaining why I would like people to do that. I personally have only provided my PERSONAL opinion to my elected officials so far.
I will support the letter Michigan B.A.S.S. Nation sent to the Legislature through MUCC as their conservation director. They wrote the letter themselves without my input. It is their opinion. If you would like to know their position, I believe you should come to their next state meeting April 21 at 1pm at Bass Pro Shops. That would be the place, or a club meeting, where their members can state their own opinions.
The only other thing I have done is have some general discussions with various people involved in the process, mostly MDNR, to share that in an earlier thread about this topic, members of this website were generally supportive though they would like more done for bass fishing. I also did pass along the few questions and comments I have received about the amount Seniors will pay, and that some nonresident anglers are upset about the amount their fishing license would increase. Even though I personally do not believe either of these issues are significant enough to stop this change from going through because I believe a fishing license going up that amount only next year after 15-16 years of NO INCREASE is still a STEAL, I passed these comments along because that is what a fair person does.
I have also mentioned several times NOTHING is set in this process and ALL of you should share your own personal opinions with the Legislature because that is what people in a Democracy are supposed to do. I think I have been fair and honest. Am I forceful and not shy about speaking my opinion. Yes. Sure. Will this part of the proposed budget make it through the Legislature? I have no idea. I have been through a number of license fee increase/change proposals and I have mentioned more than once, people tend to go ballistic about it. I do not see why. I never have.
I pay more for many things that mean a LOT less to me than Michigan fishing. Michigan fishing licenses are a BARGAIN even if they doubled! I can go fishing ALL year for something for less than taking my wife out ONCE to a movie with popcorn and drinks cost. I always wonder why are we spending this many words (or at meetings) these many hours 'debating' something that is still a steal and that we all say is so important to us? That is how I feel before the MDNR tells me they now all like us.
When I told Bill Parker of Michigan Outdoor News that I hesitate to give the MDNR more money if they only keep doing things the same way, I sure wasn't only talking about the bass fishing season issue - that was just one example I gave him. I'm nowhere near that shallow. I have been studying all of this stuff, speaking at public meetings and sitting through long, not super exciting meetings from the much of my adult life. There's a LOT more at stake with a vanishing MDNR than just a bass season problem! If I didn't think this, I wouldn't have worked on reviewing and commenting on wetlands permits for years, aquatic weed treatment permits, and on things like combined sewer outflows, and the bills that outlawed dumping raw sewage from boats into our Great Lakes, etc., etc.
There's a heck of alot more at stake than just fishing seasons. We don't have to worry about fishing seasons if water quality goes down, more wetlands are erased, habitat destruction increases. All this great fishing we enjoy can be damaged by others who don't care about it as much as we do.
I don't have to like or agree with anyone. Things still have to get done. So, we make the best of what we have - who we have to work with and get done what we can get done. Our MDNR has been getting short-changed for 20-some years by reductions in their budget from General Funds.
They can almost never get an increase. Every time they try it's just like every time they try to make us a new boat ramp on a lake - they get hammered, sued, whatever. In the end, prices keep going up and they have the same amount or less money to work with year after year. Who does that really hurt - you and me.
It can hurt you and me a lot more than an extra $10 or $33 a year will cost us. This is not something I'm guessing at. This is something I have lived.
HOLLY CR....... You can type way too much!
Dan I never wanted this to be "Personal" Like I said "I like you" I also respect you
But I don't think any one person (not just you – anyone) should represent both organizations.
Yes I'm out of the loop and yes I said I wouldn't be much help unless you needed a pitbull
I wasn't at the meeting in 2006
BUT I was referring to the meetings with the MDNR in the late 90's that ended up regulating the number of tournament allowed on lakes / the number of boats allowed per tournament / the new tournament permit fees and so on. And I remember you were all for the regulations at the federation meeting. You how ever were not at the MDNR meeting if you remember a former MDNR employee was sent to represent the federation. Another move I disagreed with! And I was left in the minority on all of these issues.
If you remember we somehow got picked to fish together right after that in a federation fish off thinking we would kill each other before the day was out. That was when I gained more respect for you and your abilities and I considered you a friend after that. Please do not take all this personal!
I just don't trust them.
Okay, I want to step in here briefly. Remember, there was an election. There is a new administration and maybe a new way of thinking about our natural resources and fishing. The DNR is part of the executive branch. Therefore it is possible that the change in the attitudes of the DNR towards tournaments can happen that quick. Tournaments can generate revenue. Some in government may see that and take action. I'm not saying that is what happened but throwing it out there as a possibility. Attitudes can change quickly if it comes from the top and people value their jobs.
Dan is doing a good job by working to improve things but still looking at things with a cautious eye. Dan is one if the very few who are willing to put in the effort, travel, and time to meet with the necessary officials. Nobody is stopping anybody from participating. It justs takes the will and the effort.
Called! ;D
Thanks CMURoss (and cameraguy too)!
If anyone is willing to step in and take one of the conservation director positions - give me a call! Be my guest!
I should be concentrating on making a living, making my web clients happy right now. Meanwhile, more fishing opportunity will be good for everyone so I'm striking while the time is prime.
I'd love to reminisce about the 90's (not) but they don't matter much now and many things have improved since then.
BTW, Roy's memory is getting bad like mine. I definitley didn't support some of the stuff that happened in the 90's. Some was done behind my back after I was assured that wouldn't happen. It sure didn't stop you Roy and some other people from blaming me and being mad at me about. I really getting stabbed in the back and slapped in the face at the same time. But it didn't stop me. It is never easy when you work for change. Change is scary for people.
Ron Spitler also took some crap he didn't deserve. He was our best friend in the MDNR and he put his job at jeopardy more than once. All he did was what he was told to do and what he thought was best for the time. It was not the best of times but it was a long time ago and not relevant to today.
That last meeting in 2005/6 (after the 15 or so before it starting in 2004) I was actually told if I showed up I would be arrested. I went anyway as Ron's guest. I didn't get arrested and things changed for the better. Again, different times, different people, different situation. As cameraguy pointed out pretty good, these are also different times and different people. I like our odds right now than ever before for many reasons. Believe me. The bass season is just the beginning. And I will take all the help anyone is willing to give.