I must live in shelter. I need to get out more. I look more at who is harming the D.N.R. not imbicles who dont even vote. Those twits dont affect much of anything in the big scheme of things. They whine ,puss and moan about things and do nothing but go have another beer. My complaint is with the government not the people. The D.N.R. is an agency that keeps ending up on the bottom of this administrations list of important things to get fixed. And in my opinion they messed it up in the first place 20 years ago so they owe us. [smilie=brickwall.gif] [smilie=bangtard.gif] [smilie=brows.gif] [smilie=2c.gif] . Forget the beertards you guys, they know not what they do or say. They make no difference in Lansing. Our fight is with our representatives and this lame governor . For now it looks like the pressure has forced her to cough up 5 million from the general fund but 31 million was taken where is the rest? This is the real issue right there. Why did they take the general funds away in the first place and where is that money now? 5 million just came back now I want to know where other 26 million is. What is that money funding?????????????? [smilie=bangtard.gif] Kingfisher
It's a little disappointing to hear the name calling from this club when someone disagrees with the DNR. The BIG error the DNR made this year should lend some support to the idea that the DNR should be questioned, just as all government should be.
The overall tone I get from some of you is that sportsmen are ignorant scum who should just shut up and pay their fees. That attitude will not help Michigan resolve its problems.
Budget slipup hurts DNR's credibility
LANSING — Talk about crying wolf. The Department of Natural Resources' ham-handed retraction of a projected budget deficit and employee layoffs could make it impossible to get any needed license and other fee increases passed by the Legislature for years to come.
After the DNR announced that a projected $10-million deficit in the Game and Fish Fund had become a $10-million surplus, and that the agency had enough money on hand to get through 2008, the e-mails and telephone calls came in fast and furious.
I still think that some license fee increases will be necessary over the next few years to get the DNR out from behind a fiscal eight ball. And we also need to find some way to fund the natural resources of this state that doesn't put such a heavy burden on the hunters, anglers and people who visit and camp in state parks. Those resources are owned by all of the people of Michigan, and they should all pay to help preserve them.
But if the MUCC analysis shows that DNR officials tried to stampede us into unnecessary license fee increases, then the people who were responsible shouldn't be allowed to stay around.
<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … 60640/1058">[Permission to view this media is denied]
Yes the ballot initiative option is there, but first we need to see which final solution is selected by the legislators before deciding if needed. All the ideas haven't been fully debated yet. The legislators also have option of putting up a ballot initiative without all the hassle of public petitions which is very expensive. Good or bad they sometimes play that political game to bypass other ballot initiatives put up by the public. The politicians do not always like the public having direct political power of ballot initiative unless it is their own underground cohorts pushing their agendas. That goes back to DNR-DEQ funding political football not the welfare of the state resources.
My opinion is this, The state should set a certain amount aside from the general fund to fund the main functions of the D.N.R. such as law enforcment and state parks. The other programs like hatcheries and stocking programs should be funded by direct fees like the licenses, stickers, ramp fees, fines, tags etc etc etc . You guys if they put back the money they took this problem would go away. Yes like I have been saying for months,this is everyones problem not just hunters and fishermen and certainly not tourists who come here to spend money. I have and even better approach to tourism. How about we lower out of state license fees by 10 percent in an effort to bring more visitors to fish and hunt here???? We need the influx of tourist dollars to make up for the loss of industrial dollars. Rebecca no doubt was having panic fits as Granholm kept cutting her funds. 31 million since 2001. This has been the main problem and its over. Finished, book closed. Now we are here at this new place. There is money to work with but programs are being held back for a short time as things sort out. Its not the end ,its the beginning. Man I cant wait to see how well this is going work out with the State out of the cookie jar. All we need is the general funds back and the battle is over. I really dont think any large increases will be needed . I have written my rep with my recommendation as to making state owned boat ramps fall under the state park regs meaning state park sticker required to use them. I think the D.N.R. should issue a kill tag for Musky with a one fish per year limit that cost between 25 and 50 dollars with proceeds going directly to Musky stocking. Hound, You come up and fish with us sometime.
You all know my position on this topic. I feel its the governments fault that we have this problem. I do not fault the D.N.R. or its workers and Biologists. I feel pressure from our group and other groups like MUCC is what will force this governor to think twice before pulling any more funding from the D.N.R and return the money they took away from it. We sent the state a message in the last election. That message was hands off!!! They countered by pulling general funds(what a low blow) We said no thats not going to work either we want them back. If we give in and raise license fees then the governor wins and we get stuck footing the bill while she takes the money and funds her new spending . Jenifer, PUT THE MONEY BACK ,its not yours. Kingfisher
"Heavyhound" said:
It's a little disappointing to hear the name calling from this club when someone disagrees with the DNR. The BIG error the DNR made this year should lend some support to the idea that the DNR should be questioned, just as all government should be.The overall tone I get from some of you is that sportsmen are ignorant scum who should just shut up and pay their fees. That attitude will not help Michigan resolve its problems.
Whoa there, I don't think that's it at all. No one is calling anyone here names and not calling sportsmen "ignorant scum". It was simply pointed out that there are DNR haters that are very vocal, these same people want change made based on feelings and not science or economics. Not agreeing is one thing but blaming the DNR for everything and badmouting them to anyone that will listen is a problem. This was obvious when support was needed for the recent license increase. Do you really think these people DON'T have any influence? Why do you think the NRA got involved with the recent proposed license increase? Because of a bunch of people that couldn't see the forest for the trees didn't take the time to look at the license increase for what it was. They found someone that had the resources to stop what needed to happen – the NRA.
IMO the DNR needs to find ways to make it's own money and stay out of the general fund. The money the DNR makes can't get raided when Governor-X needs to balance the budget. This means fees at ramps, license increases, etc.
"Will Schultz" said:
…
IMO the DNR needs to find ways to make it's own money and stay out of the general fund. The money the DNR makes can't get raided when Governor-X needs to balance the budget. This means fees at ramps, license increases, etc.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Personally, I wouldn't mind paying more for a license (say, $50/yr) and think non-residents should pay more, too. I also wouldn't mind paying for launching/parking at DNR ramps, provided that I was assured the money was going to preserve/enhance the fishery. After all, I'm using this resource, and so I don't mind paying for the privelege.
Why do you think the NRA got involved with the recent proposed license increase?
The NRA got involved for one reason only to screw Michigan into a Republican state, period! The NRA is a one issue gun nut organization only meddling with Michigan funding for their gain not DNR/DEQ funding. It was the NRA Engler cohorts that destroyed the state DNR/DEQ funding to start with. Michigan can solve its problems without the NRA meddling.
Whoa there, I don't think that's it at all. No one is calling anyone here names and not calling sportsmen "ignorant scum". It was simply pointed out that there are DNR haters that are very vocal, these same people want change made based on feelings and not science or economics.
When I read this site and see terms like "NRA Violators" and "DNR Haters" used, it seems like name calling to me. There are idiots out there that blindly hate the DNR and I don't defend them. But those of us that oppose the license fee plan for more thoughtful reasons are painted with the same brush. You can support the DNR while opposing 100% fee hikes on non-residents.
I'd also point out that the economics part of the science and economics argument turned out to be baloney after the head of the DNR had to admit she really didn't have a handle on her own department’s budget or revenue estimates. Fortunately it was an error that worked in the DNR's favor.
Yes the ballot initiative option is there, but first we need to see which final solution is selected by the legislators before deciding if needed. All the ideas haven't been fully debated yet. The legislators also have option of putting up a ballot initiative without all the hassle of public petitions which is very expensive. Good or bad they sometimes play that political game to bypass other ballot initiatives put up by the public. The politicians do not always like the public having direct political power of ballot initiative unless it is their own underground cohorts pushing their agendas. That goes back to DNR-DEQ funding political football not the welfare of the state resources.
Thanks. I really feel like there ought to be a way to guarantee the DNR a certain amount of state revenue outside of the fees they collect. They could then make fee hikes smaller and easier to swallow
Heavyhound – I don't think opposing this or that is being a DNR hater, heck I've opposed plenty of things from size limits to harvest limits to overall management plans. I don't consider myself a DNR hater, in fact I consider myself a friend of the DNR. I'm certain that "DNR hater" was not directed at you or anyone that opposed the license increase. You recognize there are "idiots out there that blindly hate the DNR" that is the person that will not take the time to educate themself or get involved they're simply going to hate the DNR.
The economics of the license increases are very real and certainly not baloney. Regardless of the mistake in the estimate this year the money just isn't there. Could they have pushed the license increase through over two or three years to make it easier to swallow? Sure but the increase still needs to be made to keep the levels of management and enforcement we're used to seeing. If we want to see more law enforcement, more surveys and studies to determine if management plans are appropriate then the DNR will need more money than can be generated from just the license increase.
One thing I am going to support is that a certain amount of General funds be allocated to the D.N.R. from the state. The reason?? Because people other than hunters and fishermen use these parks and launches and even the law enforcement. This is why the increases were fought by The N.R.A. and many other sportsmen including myself. It is completely unfair that sportsmen be handed the entire bill for the parks and enforcement divisions when non sportsmen use these all the time. Engler and Granholm both have pulled general funds from the D.N.R. starting in 2001. The state can not be allowed to shirk its duty to contribute to this agency. General funds should pay for enforcement and state parks /launches while license fees ,sticker fees and violation fines should be used for Managment , Fisheries and environment(habitat). This is the only fair solution because non sporting residents and non residents use these parks. The D.N.R. officers like state police should be payed by general funds because they work for the entire state not just us sportsmen.
This is the main reason I oppose any increases at this time. Jenny needs to step up to plate and accept the fact that her adminisration needs to change direction and do what is right. They need to put back the general funds that they have denied the D.N.R. and set an amount that will cover enforcement and state parks. Its the only fair solution. Kingfisher
The economics of the license increases are very real and certainly not baloney. Regardless of the mistake in the estimate this year the money just isn't there. Could they have pushed the license increase through over two or three years to make it easier to swallow? Sure but the increase still needs to be made to keep the levels of management and enforcement we're used to seeing. If we want to see more law enforcement, more surveys and studies to determine if management plans are appropriate then the DNR will need more money than can be generated from just the license increase.
Warning – Dead Horse Beaten Below
I've never disagreed with the idea that the DNR needs more money. I also would support a modest increase in fees with some new smaller fees on things like boat launch use. My problem is that the proposed fee hikes are several times higher for non-residents (the fee doubles) and they are not phased in as they are for residents. If the fees come into effect a family with a couple of teenagers could have to pay over $300 in fees to take a fishing trip in Michigan.
The DNR material says, "In many cases, the current fees in Michigan are the lowest in the Upper Midwest. The new proposed fees bring many of our fees in line with what licenses cost in other states." That is VERY carefully worded and misleading because in reality the non-resident fees will be twice what neighboring states charge. Throw in the cost of $3.5/gallon gasoline and Michigan will be just too damn expensive for many families to fish. Since tourism is the second largest economic factor in Michigan driving away tourists is short sited in a state with HUGE economic problems.
The DNR has blown some of their toes off politically with this budget mistake. It will be damn near impossible to generate support next year when they say they still need to raise fees. So even if they come up with some resonable idea, that everyone can live with, this mistake will probably hamstring their efforts. Rebecca Humphries may need to resign in order to restore trust.
In my opinion the whole thing is a mess.
Hound, I dont think that set of increases is going to be implimented. They hit a brick wall when they put it forward. Like I have been saying it can not be put on the sportsmens backs because it is the responsability of everyone in the state. Only the hunting and fisheries apply to us sportsmen . I do not support a large increase on non resident licenses and in fact would recommend lowering the non resident fishing and hunting licenses to generate an incentive for more to come here. That is a very small part of the equation. The main concern I have is that sportsmen would get hung funding the whole thing and that is just not fair to Resident and non resident sportsmen alike.
In the 80's we had a solid D.N.R. running on general funds and a D.N.R. trust fund. The trust was making so much money that Blanchards crew put forward a proposal that would allow the state to take surplus revenues from this fund. I voted yes on this sorry piece crap proposal not understanding what I had done. I was in my 20's. Whithin months our spouses were required to buy fishing licenses and state park stickers were increased. At the same time they cut many programs at the Goverors request. The result was the biggest surplus revenue the D.N.R. ever had. The state took it all. These funds went towards paying off the deficit or budget balancing or something like that. After that Engler came in and rearranged the D.N.R cutting ,slashing and took more so called surplus revenues. Just before he left office he appropriated the largest amount ever taken from the fund and passed it to Governor Granholm who promptly spent it On social welfare programs in Detroit. Her liberal spending practices didnt stop there. Now she is asking the state congress to fund a bill that would put 80 thousand unemployed auto workers through College and we are supposed to pay for it . In the meantime my daughter has worked her way through medical school at Grand Valley with no help from the state. Can see my wrath rising YET?? These men and women dont want hand outs they want Jobs!!! This is what we have to work with here.
The D.N.R. has been stripped of its general funds so that these funds can be used to put forward these social spending bills. The only way it be fixed fairly is to reinstate the general funds to the D.N.R. and put the D.N.R. revenues back into the trust fund where they are now safe from state pilfering. This will take the congress and senate to agree on and pass legislation to this effect . They have to earmark a certain amount every year to maintain the D.N.R. at the law enforcement and park level. The rest should be funded from the D.N.R. trust fund. This is the way things were run before three governors trashed it. Kingfisher
I have to add one other thing, The Governor has started to turn back on this issue. She authorized the state to pay 5 million back to the D.N.R. to help stabilize the situation. This is the first positive move she has made in my opinion. To do that she had to give on a couple of spending projects . I applaud her decision to do this. Now she needs to go the rest of the way and restore the General funding that was the mainstay of our D.N.R. long before she took office. If she does this she gains my respect. Write your reps. and let them know that you do not support sportsmen shouldering the entire bill. Let them know that we feel this is everyones problem when it comes to D.N.R. law enforcement and state parks. Kingfisher
57
11