Michigan’s Proposed Hunting License Fee Increases Are Absurd
Posted by Tom Remington on May 25, 2007
Not only are the increases proposed in Michigan bill HB4626 unfair, they are also well beyond insanity. One can only speculate that this bill’s sponsor, Rep. Matt Gillard, D-Alpena, has a hidden agenda. What I am not sure.
Sponsored by Rep. Matt Gillard, D-Alpena, this bill (if approved as written) will double and triple deer hunting licenses in next four years. The first deer license will go up to $30, the second to $45. The antlerless license also goes up to $30 for one tag. It also includes a 5 percent increase in 2011 and 2012. All of the other hunting licenses also will increase.
Hunters are reasonable people who have for the most part quietly sat back and allowed state fish and game departments to continue their upward spiral of increased license fees because we have agreed that it was necessary. But when Michigan proposes raising hunting license fees to a point where one hunter wishing to hunt deer and purchase one doe tag costs them $105 per year, the gloves need to come off.
This proposal becomes cost prohibitive and will cause several things to happen. Two of the most obvious are that many families will not be able to afford the cost of a license as well as several individuals. This action makes me wonder if this isn’t just another anti-hunting hidden agenda tactic.
The second thing that will take place is that poaching will increase drastically as those who require the meat from hunting as part of their subsistence living will continue to do so only unlicensed. Is this really what Michigan wants to do?
A separate bill, SB406, would increase fishing fees as well but nothing nearly as ridiculous as those for hunting. The hunting license increase would first take effect this coming season while the fishing increases wouldn’t happen until 2008.
Michigan hunters need to contact their representatives and give them a piece of their mind. This cannot be allowed to happen. Other hunters nationwide need to pay attention in their states as well and oppose any and all unnecessary license fee increases. It is time we stopped paying for programs, etc. that are not directly associated with fish and game.
Tom Remington
If you enjoyed this article check these out:
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Why don’t all states raise the fees 3 to 5 % each year if they need to, a small amount is so much easier to take then these huge jumps some states are doing.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
I couldn’t agree with you more, Tom. Here in Oklahoma, an annual resident hunting license costs $20, and a deer tag (you need a different one for rifle, primitive firearms, and archery seasons) costs another $20.
Oklahoma has one of the most successful wildlife management programs in the nation, and it’s funded mostly by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. See http://www.wildlifedepartment.com for more info.
I’m sure the cost of land acquisition is more in Michigan than in Oklahoma, but aside from that, I don’t see why there should be much of a price difference.
I believe you’re correct that there is a hidden agenda. If this legislator thinks this will raise revenues, what are his plans for the extra money?
-John
Tulsa OK
May 29th, 2007 at 8:39 am
[...] Department of Natural Resources. I admitted I had been remiss in not more closely following up on previous stories I had written about their woes. As a matter of fact, back in July I was contacted by the Cadillac [...]
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:17 am
[...] Department of Natural Resources. I admitted I had been remiss in not more closely following up on previous stories I had written about their woes. As a matter of fact, back in July I was contacted by the Cadillac [...]
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 am
[...] Department of Natural Resources. I admitted I had been remiss in not more closely following up on previous stories I had written about their woes. As a matter of fact, back in July I was contacted by the Cadillac [...]
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 am