Recently on December 28th there was an editorial by the paper on the “Comment” page in the Monroe Evening News titled, “Outdoor fees ’solution’ looks liked mixed bag”.
For most of this year, the hunters and anglers of Michigan have been threatened by the government and the DNR with outlandish rate hikes in their license fees. We were told that the DNR was in the red, programs were to be cut, people laid off, and vital research would be discontinued. Outdoor writers wrote that we must accept these fee increases for the greater good. Others stood their ground, and said enough is enough. Others called for investigations into where the money generated by the fees was really going.
Seriously folks, Michigan sells more licenses to hunters and anglers than any other state in the Union. Although, some states do charge higher fees than Michigan, others do not. Some like New York do not charge seniors for a license at all. Point is, if we sell more licenses, shouldn’t Michigan be generating more revenue than the others. I understand that higher fees can offset some of that difference between numbers and dollars, but not to the point where it called for Michigan residents to pay double the present fees in the couple of years to come.
If the majority of the budget is spent on the Great Lakes, or at least a good chunk of it, would it not behoove the DNR to work even closer with surrounding state agencies. Stop running similar programs that study the same problems. Work together, share the costs and have a greater relation with the surrounding states than exists today.
Certainly they could not justify the thousands of folks coming into Michigan paying through the nose to hunt or fish in the state. Not only does the DNR count on these funds as part of their budget, but the State itself depends on the dollars spent to help boost the sagging economy under Governor Granholm. Its bad enough that rising gas prices will cut into cut of the pie, but to make it even more expensive for people to hunt and fish, would severly cut into the expected tourism dollar influx into the state’s economy. With the industrial and corporate base leaving the state, you would think they would want to keep all they can coming in.
In the editorial, the DNR claims to have a 10 million dollar balance. Balance? Call it for what it really is, not a balance, but a windfall in extra money. Hopefully lawmakers will not find new ways to raid that money for purposes outside of the natural resource scope. In addition there should be investigations into how the department is being run, their management skills surely appear to be lacking.
Credit the person who wrote the editorial for “smelling a red herring”. He or she was absolutely correct in saying that the Department of Natural Resources should have calculated the amount of money “saved” by not hiring additional staff. Guess I just do not understand how the government, and the DNR, could have gone ahead with these proposed hirings if they knew it would put the agency into financial ruin.
More than likely the thinking was we can get more out of the people who hunt and fish throughout Michigan. They accept anything when it comes to the outdoors. Did they think we were dopes? Did they not think we are taxed enough? Make no mistake, when fees are raised as high as made out in the proposals, it does not become an operating fee, but another form of taxation. This time they heard the voices. Its good to live in a democracy and the representatives did their jobs, and held their ground. Well most of them, enough of them, this time.