Michigan 2014 non-resident fishing license increase

[taxid]

  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.

[Get_the_Net]

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.

[taxid]

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.

[princecraft]

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.

[black55]

If princecraft is right ,that is just wrong ! I have never heard of a state lowering a fee of any kind.

[princecraft]

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!!!!

[black55]

Not much of a drop but still , i think its still wrong.

[Get_the_Net]

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.

[black55]

It is a slap in the face to the nonres. fishermen and women that fish mich.

[princecraft]

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.

[ben48bengie]

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.

[popnfish]

Boycott ! 

[Jig_Head]

How much would the single day license be?

[princecraft]

How much would the single day license be?
[/quote
It went up from 7 to 10 dollars for residents and non-residents.

[Get_the_Net]

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.