DNR Director Responds

[Will Schultz]

Mike - I guess that's where we will not agree in this. If license fees don't go up, even with increases in other areas, we'll struggle to keep the status quo. I'm of the opinion that Michigan can be at the forefront of fisheries and wildlife management, to do that the license increase needs to happen. I'm tired of having to use research done in other states to support management decisions because there isn't enough money or manpower here in Michigan to fund the research.

I think the comment at the end of that article is very appropriate toward the NRA - it actually made me laugh out loud. Unless the NRA was coming to the table with a solution then they should have kept out of this. The increase had nothing to do with a gun control. The point was they couldn't function with 1980 membership fees and neither can the MI-DNR. I support what the NRA does in most respects but in my opinion they made a mistake getting involved with this license increase.

[Hamilton Reef]

Will is correct and states my position better than I.
Nobody is questioning the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. That is absolute. Period! The NRA is good at protecting gun rights, but just overstepped a bit with their enthusiasm in Michigan.

Michigan has more habitat fish/hunt diversity than any Great Lakes state. A solid funded DNR/DEQ would increase job opportunities to help replace the former auto industry jobs, protect and increase our outdoor sports, and improve our quality of life. It was proven before that for every $1 invested in the DNR outdoor activities $9 was returned to the economy spread throughout the state. To me that is a solid win/win investment.

[Kingfisher]

We really dont disagree at all, I just want the others to be implemented first and then monitored. I betting they find more money than they think they have. No one is objecting to small increases across the boards. The one that was put forward was based on false information and 20 million dollar mistake proved that. It was supposed to be negative 10 million and proved to be positive 10 million. Now another 5 got added and that is good. Jenny needs to kick the state general funds up even higher. The reason I say this is that enforcement and parks are everyones problem not just us in the sporting group. I support fixing those issues first then we will see exactly how much of an increase in hunting and fishing licenses is nessasary. Ultimately there should have still been a multi million dollar surplus in the D.N.R. trust fund. But we all know where that went. That nest egg needs to be replaced and rightfully it should come from the branch of state government that took it to start with. Maybe the N.R.A. should have stayed out but I am glad they spoke up when they did because the facts were misleading by 20 million dollars. This saved an increase based on false information. We both want to see facts and science guiding these decisions not assumptions and misleading statements. The fact is the General fund owes the D.N.R. at least 31 million dollars and probably twice that number. What I am saying is if they put that back the increases will be small and no one will feel like they got bent over. I expect to pay a little more next year for my tags. I just want to make sure our governor does not hand us the entire bill when its not just our problem. She needs to ear mark enough to cover the enforcement and park services from general funds first. She does that and there will be no more disagreement. I am not going to pay double for my tags so a jet skier can use the same ramp for free. Im not going to pay double so that campers can pay less at the parks. Fish and wildlife funds from our licenses should be funding fish and wildlife programs. The state should be funding the rest. Mike

[Hamilton Reef]

Saturday evening, 02/02/08, I had a chance to enjoy a few drinks and venison dinner with DNR Director Humphries. A group of us got together at the PM River Orvis Lodge. It was nice to relax and talk family, hunt/shooting sports, and DNR budget topics, etc.. She told me she knows some of the conversations on the forums. She also understands many of the forum comments are totally uninformed and political lies, but that's normal taken in stride. I can't comment on everything we talked about, but I'll pass on a few of the comments.

Per the sporting goods tax Humphries mentioned the proposal by Representatives Joel Sheltrown and Matt Gillard to capture a portion of sporting goods sales tax for recreation purposes is still being discussed and several other sponsors have jumped on board. It’s not known how that will work out. Projections indicate about $20 million could be generated by taking 1 percent, but she pointed out that is money already being collected and already going to another program. Sheltrown's proposal would leave current programs looking for replacement funding, which would cause problems in the legislation.

The license plate plan proposed by the Citizen’s Committee for State Parks to fund state parks with an additional fee on license plates is not going anywhere right now. It has the support of the NRC, but does not have an official sponsor in Lansing. That could change. The opposition is trying to spin the idea as a tax increase, but the present higher fees would be eliminated and those not wanting the special plate can opt out, thus no tax increase. I mentioned that was my preference, and she indicated she likes it also.

[Hamilton Reef]

I was too tired to keep typing on the last post so in no particular order more comments included....

The DNR sold more licenses than it anticipated. Instead of declining 1.7 percent as projected, the number of hunters actually went up. That was due mainly to lowering of the hunting age. There was also the apprentice program that allows young hunters to hunt two years without having taken hunter safety. Sometime in the future they'll need to get back to reinstating the hunter safety and we'll see what happens after they have to take hunter safety.

Investments the DNR had also earned more interest than anticipated, but that is handled by other state offices not DNR staff. Humphries saved $5 million not spent on program funds because of her executive directives. These combined factors will save the budget for a year, but she stressed the DNR is still in search of a long-term funding solution.

I didn't know that about 39% of the deer license buyers change every year. Humphries mentioned that hunters may not buy a licenses every year and skip couple years and then get back in. That could be to any number of reasons (health, jobs, family matters, another hobby break, deer numbers). Humphries mentioned that 39% could be a great opportunity, but it's also very scary. That makes it much harder to predict future license sales.

I learned the average age of hunters in Michigan is 43, thus within few years many of them will start claiming the 60% senior discount and reducing further DNR funding. The DNR was used to get reimbursed from the general fund for hunters who got a senior discount, but the legislators reneged on that promise. The legislators screwed the sportsmen on that one.

There are several ideas are being reviewed, such as possible frequent buyer discount that would reward anglers who buy licenses for five years in a row, but all of that is very preliminary.