The new license proposal is bad for conservation and sportsman. Base license is code for forced purchase of a small game license, rather you hunt small game or not. Isn't this what they might do in a in a socialist or communist country?
Fishing license fee increase? No, it's a penalty for those who don't fish all species. They get a $10 increase and those who fish all species get a $3 decrease. Right now a person who presently only fishes panfish, perch, blue gill, ext., will go from paying $15 to $25 for a fishing license, a $10 increase. And a person who fishes all species is now paying $28 will go to $25, a $3 decrease. Is this a fee increase or a fine on those who do less? How is this fair and equitable?
The DNR says they expect at least a 7 percent loss of sportsman do to the increased fees. How is this loss good for conservation? This year the DNR got $14,056,786 in Pitman Robertson money, which is based on the number of sportsman, which will be at least a 7 percent loss.
A person who only fishes for panfish and buys one deer tag now pays $30 total for these licenses; under the new plan this person would pay $56, a $26 increase.
One who presently fishes all species, small game hunts and buys one deer tag pays $58. Under the new plan this person would pay $56, $2 less than now, again a penalty for those who do not hunt small game. I'm sure this is going to cause a lot of bad feelings between the sportsman and the DNR. I know mine has already changed and not for the good.
Our present license system has worked my whole life and I'm 64, it may need tweaking, but it sure doesn't need to be changed into a charity program, benefiting those who do a lot in the outdoors being paid for by those who use the resources the least.
The two part fishing license came about when trout fisherman wanted more trout and told the DNR they would pay more license fees for them, maybe the walleye fisherman should do the same so we can keep a basic $15 fishing license for the pan-fisherman.
We have three distinct deer seasons, bow, gun, and muzzleloader. We now have one license good for all three. Maybe we should have a license for each, with the price of one staying the same as now, which would mean no loss of sportsman due to fee increases?
As for simplifying the license system, we're the most educated we've ever been in history and we're too dumb to figure out what license we need? This is 2013; a computer program can tell me how much to the penny I owe in taxes, so tell me why the DNR can't get a computer program that will tell the license dealer what license I need? Simplifying our license system is simply not worth the loss of 7 percent or more of our sportsman.
So Mr. McBroom, Tom Casperson and Daily Press please comment on this in the Daily Press. No reply would indicate one being a closet socialist.
Member of the
U.P. Deer Advisory Team