MyFishFinder Forum
MFF US Midwest => Indiana => Topic started by: Teacherpreacher on Sep 17, 2013, 09:49 PM
-
Today MI gov signed into law changes for hunting and fishing. License increases supposed to make things simpler and bring in more revenue and improve resources and hire more Conservation Officers.
Non resident annual fishing license, all species(only one you can buy) went from $42.00 to $76.00. Ouch!!!!!!!!!! That's a pretty hefty jump!!!
Teach
-
Its because of the charter boat Association. Most from M.C to the west buy michigan lic.. thats alot of money from us. Ben alot of talk about it.
-
That really bites Mich. must not want out of staters to fish there! I'm sure states next to Mich will raise there out of state fees in responce .
-
how many walleye does it take to justify 72 dollars?
-
Did they raise the one day fee?
-
Michigan lakes are 10 times better than 90% of indiana lakes for panfish, bass and walleye. The price increase will not stop me from getting their license and they have not had an increase in over 10 years. Instead of a gradual increase they did it all at once after holding the line forever on prices.
-
Did they raise the one day fee?
Daily fee went from $7.00 to $10.00
-
I fish michigan waters 40-50 days a year, so at 10.00 a day the annual is still a bargain.
-
do you still have to get that Sportsman card or whatever its called?
-
You gotta pay to play. I hold Indiana, Illinois and Michigan annual licenses.
Joe
-
how many walleye does it take to justify 72 dollars?
There is plenty enough good walleye waters in Indiana to not drive to Michigan. If you're looking for a great walleye fishing experience out of state, Erie is not too far of a drive and a yearly Ohio license is 40 bucks.
-
There is plenty enough good walleye waters in Indiana to not drive to Michigan. If you're looking for a great walleye fishing experience out of state, Erie is not too far of a drive and a yearly Ohio license is 40 bucks.
Depends on where you live. I can be in Michigan in 15 minutes and to lake erie in 2.5 hours. The difference in gas costs far outwiegh the 30 dollar difference in licenses. Are michigan inland lakes as good as erie? Heck no, but there are walleye if that is what you want to fish for. St joe river in IN and Mich has alot of walleye too.
-
Might be a deal breaker for me if I want to vacation for a week or two. I was born in MI but with what I get paid, maybe I could spend my money closer to home.
Do they have a one week license?
Will Indiana reciprocate? Something to see.
-
Might be a deal breaker for me if I want to vacation for a week or two. I was born in MI but with what I get paid, maybe I could spend my money closer to home.
Do they have a one week license?
Will Indiana reciprocate? Something to see.
Doubtful IN will do anything. IN is not a draw for out of state fishermen. We have nothing like Michigan has to offer. We have a tiny portion of lake michigan that is nearly all industrialized, and not place to vacation. Michigan has sag bay, lake st clair, 100's of miles of lake michigan shoreline, both arms of grand traverse bay, pristine waters in the UP, and countless lakes in the upper LP with world class SM fishing. Not to mention the miles and miles and rivers and streams teaming with trout and salmon. Michigan is a fisherman's paridise and they know it. To keep it that way costs money and the out of staters are going to foot more of the bill going forward. It may cost the state tourism dollars in the long run, but they are wiling to tak a change to see what the impact is.
-
I don't have a problem with the increase, but Ican understand that some people do. 70 some dollars for some familys is alot. as far as mich. being an excellant fishery thats true, but its a 4 hr drive for me to find that excellants sag bay, st. clair, up, erie an upper mich. I think i have excellant fishing right here in INDIANA, I'LL compare lake mich. In smallies to any thing in st. clair or mich. gills may run some what larger, but 35 is bigger than 25.
-
Doubtful IN will do anything. IN is not a draw for out of state fishermen. We have nothing like Michigan has to offer.
You haven't seen Brookville on the Weekend between Memorial day and Labor day.
-
I would say that Minnesota at 45.00 a year and has great fishing or Wisconsin at 50 dollars a year and has great fishing would be a reasonable figure. For Michigan to raise theres from 42.00 to 75.00 is way to big of a jump. A lot of us retired people and on a fixed income will have trouble justifying that cost. I for one will still buy one but not with a big smile on my face....lol
-
my wife complained that I buy to many lic's, mich,in,wisc, ohio,an tenn. I said one pair of your shoes are about the same price as 1 lic's. conversation over!!!!! lol
-
You haven't seen Brookville on the Weekend between Memorial day and Labor day.
Your right I have not seen it, but I know there is no way brookville could support the number of out of state anglers found on the detroit river for spring walleye or LSC for spring smallies in just one weekend. Indiana just doesn't have the amount of water, scenery, variety or quality of fish found in Michigan. Heck maybe the increase in cost will thin out the fishermen on the water. Fishing there is a choice, and the price will not change my choice, but I certainly understand how it affect others. I also keep enough panfish from michigan to make enough meals to offset the cost.
-
I do not mind spending that much for a license. I go to the U.P. twice a year for a week each and the beauty and peaceful scenery is worth the $75 for me. If the money is spent to make the fishing and hunting better, as well as for paying for additional conservation officers I have no problem.
-
You would be surprised at the number of people that come from mich to hunt deer here ,or at least they use to when i work at the local bait shop many many yrs ago. But it could have changed by now.
-
You would be surprised at the number of people that come from mich to hunt deer here ,or at least they use to when i work at the local bait shop many many yrs ago. But it could have changed by now.
What does hunting deer have to do with the cost of a fishing license? I don't see the correlation. A non resident deer tag for indiana is 150.00...nearly 2 times what the michigan fishing license will be next year...wonder if there is an uproar in michigan about that cost?
-
Seems to me that hunting and fishing always goes togather, what does mich charge for out of state deer tags . Bet that will be the next to go up. But hey i admit it was a streach on my part. I guess it's because i'm one of those limited income people that dream o going to Mich to fish for 2 or 3 days ,and next yr it will be that much harder!
-
I agree with Get the Net. The amount of fishing in Michigan is awesome. I have never fished st Clair, but I fish lots of lakes in NW lower Michigan and $75 is a steal for the quality of fishing. Spend a day tying into 40+ smallies averaging 3+ lbs makes it more than worth it. Add that to the Walleye fishing in the same lakes and it is a no brainer! Not too many Indiana lakes where you can hit the water before light, catch a limit of quality eyes and then spend the rest of the day wearing yourself out on big smallies! But I can see it being an issue for families that make Michigan a vacation destination for only a few days per year.
-
I always heard that 1 state charges the same price to out-of-staters that there state charges.
So we would charge Mich residents the same price for out -of-state license?
-
I always heard that 1 state charges the same price to out-of-staters that there state charges.
So we would charge Mich residents the same price for out -of-state license?
Currently the IN non resident with trout stamp is 35 + 11 = 46. Michigan non resident is 34 + 8 = 42. Indiana would have to make a change quickly to put their licenses in line with what Michigan has done. I am not sure it would be legal to charge someone from Michigan a different rate than someone from OH, IL or KY. I think Indiana would lose alot of non resident licenses if they tried to match Michigan's rate and had to charge all non residents that rate. I may be wrong, but I don't see the 'draw' to fish in Indiana like Michigan has. A small increase each year would be better, then they can find the tipping point where number of licenses lost does not justify the increase.
-
Indiana does not have reciprocal non resident lic fees at this time, there was talk of it a # of years ago because of all the Ill deer hunters double dipping in IN. but some other states do. mich. does need alot more CO's. I fish Mich alot over the years an have been checked once. CO told me 90% of violations were for no lic.
-
75.00 is not a big deal and well worth the money if your a person that can get that much use out of it,say several trips a year. As for me,one long weekend or even two wouldn't justify that kind of money only because of the choices i have in state. I don't think it will hurt and probable only help with an already great resource.
-
Indiana does not have reciprocal non resident lic fees at this time, there was talk of it a # of years ago because of all the Ill deer hunters double dipping in IN. but some other states do. mich. does need alot more CO's. I fish Mich alot over the years an have been checked once. CO told me 90% of violations were for no lic.
I used to get checked multiple times per year on Michigan waters. In the last 5 years I have only been checked while ice fishing. Not sure what happened but the CO's used to be everywhere in boats, on wave runners and waiting at the launch. Last few years they have been non existent. Maybe the extra money will help put more eyes on the water.
-
It's a deal breaker for me I'm afraid. Just too much.
-
To keep it that way costs money and the out of staters are going to foot more of the bill going forward.
How does a license increase keep it that way? Just asking so don't get sensitive. What does Michigan do with the extra money to keep it that way?
And I'm a graduate of a Michigan college and attended a high school there one year, so I have nothing against Michigan.
-
How does a license increase keep it that way? Just asking so don't get sensitive. What does Michigan do with the extra money to keep it that way?
And I'm a graduate of a Michigan college and attended a high school there one year, so I have nothing against Michigan.
I don't think they have had an increase in cost in in over 10 years. Name one thing that costs the same today as 10 years ago. To maintain what they have they have to have more funds. Concrete for ramps is more, food for hatchery fish cost more, fuel for trucks and boats cost more, they have to pay people more. I know you can see where this is going. To expect Michigan or any other state to maintain the lakes, ramps and fisheries with the same dollars as they got 10 or more years ago is just not sensible. It is only 'extra' money the first year or if they maintian a level of out of state anglers that yields an increase. The 'extra' money will likely be used to help do things they have not been able to do for years due to lack of funds and running a deficit. As I said earlier I used to see CO's several times in a summer on various lakes. The last 5 or 6 years, I have seen 1 and that was ice fishing. It is well known that Michigan cut alot of its DNR enforcement when funds were short.
The cost increase hurts alot of people. I get it. But to me it is worth it for the quality of the fish I catch there and the number of times I fish in Michigan. If the increase helps Michigan maintain or possibly better what they currently have, then I am ok with it. The only part I don't really agree with is the no increase for Michigan resident anglers. I think they should bear some of the burden, but I don't make the laws.
-
I don't think they have had an increase in cost in in over 10 years. Name one thing that costs the same today as 10 years ago. To maintain what they have they have to have more funds. Concrete for ramps is more, food for hatchery fish cost more, fuel for trucks and boats cost more, they have to pay people more. I know you can see where this is going. To expect Michigan or any other state to maintain the lakes, ramps and fisheries with the same dollars as they got 10 or more years ago is just not sensible. It is only 'extra' money the first year or if they maintian a level of out of state anglers that yields an increase. The 'extra' money will likely be used to help do things they have not been able to do for years due to lack of funds and running a deficit. As I said earlier I used to see CO's several times in a summer on various lakes. The last 5 or 6 years, I have seen 1 and that was ice fishing. It is well known that Michigan cut alot of its DNR enforcement when funds were short.
The cost increase hurts alot of people. I get it. But to me it is worth it for the quality of the fish I catch there and the number of times I fish in Michigan. If the increase helps Michigan maintain or possibly better what they currently have, then I am ok with it. The only part I don't really agree with is the no increase for Michigan resident anglers. I think they should bear some of the burden, but I don't make the laws.
All good points I can agree with but I just feel the price is much higher than their needs. Just my opinion of course.
I also find their regs very complex.
They could cut costs instead by improving efficiency. I.e. phase flow through raceways to circular tanks which need less flow and to recirculating technology that uses less water where their trout hatcheries pump well water. Raceways produce about 50 lbs. of trout per gallon per minute flow. Recirculating systems can produce up to a few thousand pounds per gallon per minute.
-
It sounds like the reason for raising the cost of the non resident license it to get more CO's out in the field. I haven't researched this but I was told that they are lowering the cost of the resident license by 5.00. Because of the ratio of residents to non residents that buy fishing licenses, I think it would have been far more beneficial for them to raise the license for everyone 5.00 dollars. If it is true that they are reducing the cost of the resident license there will be less money into the pot than more.
-
If princecraft is right ,that is just wrong ! I have never heard of a state lowering a fee of any kind.
-
I just looked this up on the DNR site and it says resident fishing licenses are being lowered by $2.00 and senior fishing licenses are being lowered by $.20. Not 5 bucks but I think because of the ratio between residents/non residents that they will bringing in less money under this new structure. Idiots!!!!
-
Not much of a drop but still , i think its still wrong.
-
The non resident license is going up by 33 dollars per non resident and the resident license is going down by 2 bucks. If you assume the sell the same number of non resident licenses next year as the current year and the same number of resident licenses as last year, it would have to be a ratio of more than 16:1 of resident licenses to non resident licenses for them to lose money compared to what they brought in this year. I am sure they know the ratio of res to non res licenses and they have to be smart enought to realize they are not going to get all the non residents to buy at the increased rate. It is a huge gamble what they are doing. I doubt they lose revenue with the plan, but they may not increase it much either. Only time will tell, but I agree lowering the resident cost is just nuts.
-
It is a slap in the face to the nonres. fishermen and women that fish mich.
-
I would think the ratio would be even more than 200:1. The outer edges of Indiana, Wisconsin, and maybe a few from Ohio are the main NR sales. You would think they would have the data to back up what they are doing but I really begin to wonder. Regardless as I said earlier, I will still get a Michigan license.
-
They are trying to lure more residents to fish in their own state. They will succeed through the suckers who are willing to pay an incredible price increase. If you're close to the border its a no brainer, you'll purchase the license. If however you need to travel farther to fish Michigan then it's an easy decision. Don't buy it, based on the fact of the regular resident reduction. Its bad for every party.
-
Boycott ! :wacko:
-
How much would the single day license be?
-
How much would the single day license be?
[/quote
It went up from 7 to 10 dollars for residents and non-residents.
-
AFter many years fishing lake st clair in the spring there are 100's of boats from OH, IN, IL, TN, KY, WISC, and Iowa threre in just the few days we are there every year. The non residents fishing that one lake in the spring seems greater than the residents fishing there. The detriot river walleye run brings alot of non residents too. There is no way the resident to non resident ratio of licenses is more than 16 res to 1 non resident. If it is, there no chance for the plan to increase funds for the state. The math makes it impossible, unless they greatly increase their sales of non resident licenses vs. last year and I don't see that happening when they just doubled the cost.
-
If you want to see the whole scoop on the new licence fees go to www.michigan.gov/dnr
It is going to take a while to figure this stuff out but I am old and senile.
Yes the res fishing licence is going down so to speak BUT you used to be able to buy a licence that did not cover fishing for trout and salmon. Now you have to buy a licence that covers all fishing so they are comming out a head as they will be getting that trout money from all of us. There are a lot of people that did not buy the all species licence that now have to.
I was afraid that us oldfogies were going to loose out on our serior discount but not so. They did do away with a discount if you bought 4 major licences at one time. I know I will change the way I buy licences now being on a fixed income.
-
AFter many years fishing lake st clair in the spring there are 100's of boats from OH, IN, IL, TN, KY, WISC, and Iowa threre in just the few days we are there every year. The non residents fishing that one lake in the spring seems greater than the residents fishing there. The detriot river walleye run brings alot of non residents too. There is no way the resident to non resident ratio of licenses is more than 16 res to 1 non resident. If it is, there no chance for the plan to increase funds for the state. The math makes it impossible, unless they greatly increase their sales of non resident licenses vs. last year and I don't see that happening when they just doubled the cost.
Just seems like alot of the comments are missing the point and do not wear the shoes that make up these types of regulations. The majority of the price increase is focused on, not the average joe who goes across the border to enjoy uncontested better fishing, but they are looking at what the revenue from the great lakes fisherman will bring. How many anglers are running to new buffalo for the better perch and salmon, running Mich waters for the eyes in spring in Lake erie and of course ST.Clair for the smallies. Let us not forget about all the northern Indiana bass tournaments
crossing the border and once again everything with a price has to go up eventually. I remember when the cry was so loud when our state jacked the deer permits !!!!! I will still buy and I personally think they know what they are doing.
-
Right or not, I know I will be fishing there.
If you love fishing and hunting and the Great Outdoors then you will do it no matter what the price.
Don't like paying them Big gas bills, or the price for them New boats or the prices on them New trucks to pull them with but we still do it.
We all just like to vent about it but you will be there if you love to do it, or someone else will take your spot, thats the way it is.
Just my opinion, don't like the rate hike but I'll be there 1 way or another.
Tom
-
Yes, you have to PAY TO PLAY. LOL
-
Headed to St. Clair in a few days ;D
-
Next thing you will have to buy a license to hunt mushrooms in Michigan.
-
Next thing you will have to buy a license to hunt mushrooms in Michigan.
That sounds good. The hunters and fishers have been supporting all things out doors for ever. About time some one else kicked in LOL.
If you think the fishing licence raise is bad. go the the link I posted and look at what a non res base hunting licence costs. all that covers is small game, squirrel waterfowl (stamp required), grouse and the such. Then the non res deer licence is onlly $20bucks same as a resident. Figure that one out.