Comments on: Fee increases proposed by Governor

By: Randy Timm

Randy Timm — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 17:25:46 +0000

I live in Minnesota but own land in Mi, West Branch. My taxes have gone from $400 ten years ago to approx $3,000 this year. I come back each year to hunt with family and friends and spend quite a bit of money for a “out of stater”. Go ahead Michigan, tax it to the point people will not come back and hunt and pay the fees. In the business world there is something called competition. I see that isn’t the case in goverment. Good luck with this line of thinking.

By: Keipher Decker

Keipher Decker — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:29:17 +0000

Not to disrespect public officials, but I think license fees should not be raised. I think the DNR waisted a whole lot of money on the cwc farce. And I don’t believe Michigan hunters should take up the slack for they’re misuse of license fee money last year. I know this may seem harsh but that’s my opinion. Take it or leave it. I also think that the DNR say that kent county is so over run with whitetails, they hand out doe permits like t.p. drasticly lowering deer counts and wonder why less and less people are hunting in this area. Some hunters feel what is the sence of buying a license and hunting in this area. If their chances are so slim of harvesting a deer.

By: Brad

Brad — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:16:23 +0000

T Pitcher: If you go back and look at the non resident Michigan license it is $138 for an ANTLERED deer only, it is another $100 for and over the counter Antlerless permit. So in all it does compare to Illinois COMBO tag. I hunt both states, and do believe that I pay well enough money as it is. I am a resident of Illinois, because my wife is stationed here. Her family is all Michigan, and they are who I hunt with. I pay a pretty penny and usually don’t come home with a deer. By raising the prices too much, you will drive out of staters away from even wanting to hunt MI. It is known that the deer population is great there, but the qualit is not as good as you used to be. People would rather pay $20 more and hunt Illinois where there are great chances of seeing a monster buck on PUBLIC land. I wouldn’t mind a small increase, but the cost of my fishing license would almost double in MI if this were passed. I get to use it 3 times a year, totaling 9 days, and only take about 12 fish a year to eat. $45 should cover that cost, not $80. It is already dicouraging me from taking part in any MI hunting or fishing. I love the state, but there are better ways to cut costs and make up the revenue.

By: richard maciarz

richard maciarz — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:59:04 +0000

I see no reason for not raising both residential and out of state fees,we are probablly one of the cheapest when it comes to fees,avid hunters pay as much as 400.00 in some states for an out of state license-There is nothing wrong with a 60.00 resident fee for residents .fishing goes the same way – if we want to continue the good work this states DNR has done IT IS A MUST !!!!!

By: T Pitcher

T Pitcher — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 21:07:46 +0000

Increase the nonresident fee. I just looked at the ILL. fees and a non resident cost is $265.00 for a eather sex tag. [A nonresident michigan tag is only $138.00] If I wanted to hunt in the state of ILL. I would pay the fee. Why raise the resident fee and loose hunters because they cant afford to pay $60 or $75 for a licience or worse yet increase poaching.