Legislators: Deer Overpopulation? Let's Hike Hunting Fees 50% Across the Board, Increase Each Year

[XLFD]

Lame duck Democrats in the Michigan legislature are hell-bent on making those who shoot wild ducks and healthy deer pay a lot more to the state for the privilege.  Introduced by Amos O'Neal (D-Saginaw) after November elections saw Republicans gain control of the state house, House Bill 6229 would affect a wide range of hunting activities and require some teenage anglers to get a license for the first time.

The proposed fees almost uniformly jump by a whopping 50% of the currently rates.  The fee for an antlerless deer license would increase from $20 to $30, would increase the fee for a resident combination hunting and fishing license from $75 to $113, and anyone seeking one of these or other game licenses (such as bear, waterfowl, wild turkey, and pheasants) would also face increased application fees of this rate.    Non-residents get the same treatment; for example, a seven-day limited small game license, currently $80, would cost $120.

If that wasn't bad enough, the bill would make fees go up each year by having the state treasurer increase fees by the Consumer's Price Index (CPI) each year to come.  Currently you don't need a fishing license if you're 16 or younger; the bill would make 16-year-olds require a license, which would cost $38 rather than the $25 it goes for now (instate).   

The bill has proven controversial and partisan thus far, with Democrats backing the measure.  Representative O'Neal has indicated: "[We] need to properly fund conservation efforts in the State of Michigan. License fees have not been raised in over a decade, while the cost of providing services has increased drastically due to inflation.”

Republican Rep. Dave Prestin suggests the state agency should use their revenue wiser in an email: 

"Instead of raising costs even more, we should be making it easier for people to enjoy the great outdoors.  If the DNR wants to fund improvements, they should focus on delivering better services and cutting inefficiencies, not sneaking revenue grabs past voters."

LOCAL ANALYSIS:  The facts are that since 1995 the number of deer hunters in Michigan has dropped by 32%, leading to what the DNR has claimed is overpopulation of deer in the lower peninsula.  The impact of drastically hiking fees should continue the decline of those continuing with, or taking up, the sport and likely increase poaching numbers.  

While the DNR might make some extra money if less than 33% of the current hunting population drops out of the hunt, local communities and their businesses would see a definite negative impact in their economies as hunting numbers drop and more of the money (over $11 billion in Michigan) they spend in our community goes to a state agency, which like our lame duck Democrat state house of representatives, hasn't quite figured out that if you have too much deer running around, you want to make it easier and cheaper for people to hunt them.  These rate hikes would exacerbate the problem, but for some reason you won't see the DNR coming out against them.

One thing that the Ludington Torch noticed when the deer cull controversy came to town was that the few people who were clamoring to use city funds for the expensive cull were progressive or liberal on other issues, and those that were adamantly opposed were often conservative or libertarian.  Common sense behind reducing deer at the state level indicates you should not hike hunting fees, while common sense at the local level indicates that you should not pass the buck to a federal agency and rely more on policies that allow locals to solve any such issue pragmatically, cost-effectively, and efficiently.

[stump]

Back in the day many years ago everybody was a hunter . As I got older I gave it up . I don't think the younger generation is at all interested in going out before day light walking though the woods and freezing to possibly see or shoot a deer. If the State has a problem with over population of deer the worst thing to do is raise permits fees. But thats Government thinking. To some hunting is a sport, to some hunting is food on the table. Now it will be a toss up, go to the woods or to the grocery store.

[Willy]

I agree. It makes no sense to raise fees when the goal is to reduce the deer population. And I certainly don't think the insurance companies want the deer population to increase. Deer / motor vehicle accidents are costing the insurance business millions in deer / vehicle collisions. Less people are hunting now days  and that will affect any increase in the number of future hunters because kids will have nobody to mentor them. Another reason, in my opinion, that is keeping young people out of deer blinds and stands is that they are so addicted to their smart phones that they don't have the discipline  to stay focused on a hunt. If people are so hooked on their phones  that they use them anywhere and anytime, my guess is that they will be unable to resist them while sitting for hours waiting for Bambi to walk by.

[XLFD]

The DNR makes a lot of money from hunting and fishing already, but you never see them marketing either of them.  Schools are likely to suspend you if you reference guns at all.  Once the federal Dept. of Education is eliminated, we need people to get on school boards or at least go to meetings and make hunting great again by making shooting and archery, part of the elective curriculum.