Last night I watched the end of life as we know it start to unfold as Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire. If wins the white house she will complete the Globalization of the planet that Carter and Bush started. There wont be a high paying job in this state. With the middle class gone we will end up a tourist trap for the rich. Buy your motel now and get yourself a good rifle before they are Illegal. I have sick feeling in stomach. It feels like I am losing my country and my way of life. This little tribble we have here in Michigan is nothing compared to what is going on in world affairs. And dont say she wont or cant win. They thought Obama would blow her out of the race and now she is top of the world. We are in big trouble. Kingfisher

DNR funding is still an issue

<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
"><link_text text="[Permission to view this media is denied] … 30655/1058">[Permission to view this media is denied]

01/13/08 ERIC SHARP at 313-222-2511 or ** you do not have permission to see this link **.

In 1966, a Michigan resident deer license and a membership in the National Rifle Association cost $5 each. Today, a Michigan deer license is $15, but an NRA membership costs $35.

The NRA says it opposes any increase in the cost of Michigan hunting and fishing licenses, and the Legislature is so spineless that it won't stand up to the gun lobby and pass even modest increases of $3 or so.

So here's a proposal — Michigan will forego license fee increases if the NRA will drop the price of its memberships to $15. But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Frank Wheatlake is a member of the Natural Resources Commission that sets policy for the Department of Natural Resources, including requests to the Legislature for fee increases.

He is also on a committee that Sen. Michelle McManus, R-Lake Leelanau, established to find a new way of funding the DNR that doesn't put a great burden on the hunters, anglers and people who visit and camp in state parks.

Unfortunately, McManus predicated her plans for DNR funding reform on the Legislature passing some form of license fee increase. With legislators weaseling out of that responsibility, it becomes even more important to figure out something before a budget crisis arrives.

"Whether we have a $10-million fund balance (in the Game and Fish Fund) is irrelevant," said Wheatlake. "What we need is to get back to the employment levels of 2005 to run the department properly."

The DNR should be given some license increases simply to bring it up to par with the cost of inflation. No one with a lick of sense would suggest that the DNR can defray 2008 prices with a 1980s revenue stream. But the agency's credibility is shot because of the way it has handled its fiscal problems.

Wheatlake said the DNR's spending is audited by state and federal agencies, and that there has never been a material deficiency. "That tells me that there is no inappropriate accounting or expenditure of revenues in that department," he said.

But he said the recent flap in which a projected $10-million shortfall turned into a $10-million positive balance and averted some announced job layoffs was a good example of why some accounting changes need to be made.

"We need to be reviewing the budget monthly, like a business does, not quarterly, as state agencies do now," Wheatlake said, a practice that would have shown a month-by-month accrual of money in the Game and Fish Fund as spending cuts and other revenue-enhancing measures took effect.

I've had a hard time getting some people to understand that the $10 million in the Game and Fish Fund isn't a surplus. About $60 million to $70 million, much of it from license sales, passes through the Game and Fish Fund each year, and $10 million is the minimum balance the fund is required by law to maintain.

The real answer is to come up with a way to provide dedicated funding for the DNR that is protected from politicians and provides a flexible cash flow.

Wheatlake and others on McManus' committee will look at a lot of options, such as the small tax voters in Missouri imposed on themselves to pay for their DNR, or the higher-cost, voluntary license tags that people in Wyoming buy to support their resource agency.

The burden should be spread around. Whether they use them directly or not, the natural resources of this state belong to all of the people of Michigan.

As for the NRA, it can have a say in our DNR funding when it's willing to drop its membership fees to 1980s levels. Until then, butt out.

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

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.