By Craig Dumas
You know what’s got me upset this week? The fact that on April 20th of last year, the state government of Michigan introduced legislation to incrementally increase license fees over the next six years. For instance, residents will go from $15 to $30 for a regular firearm license and senior citizens in deer camp will fork out from $6 up to $24 for the privilege. While ours only doubles, the old timers pay more than 3 times for the same tag as a year ago. Shouldn’t they be expected to pay less out of respect for age and seniority? And to make it worse, they’re raising the prices but, for those in their golden years, they won’t tell you of the senior discount unless you ask. They want you to pay the higher price if you’re none the wiser. It’s public information, but it’s not. Get it?
Why can’t the cost be recouped from the carpetbagging non-residents that come into our state and pilfer our game? Ours is going up by $15 while the out-of-staters is going up 27, $138 to $165. I say tag them for double to compensate for the seniors, juniors, and retirees. (It’s bad enough we share a stateline with them, but do we have to let them have access to our wildlife too?) The state is even beefing up the small game price for juniors from $1 to $10. Is that any sort of encouragement for the next generation of hunters? As far as all the other fees are concerned, I guess they are adjusted accordingly. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not opposed to the increase itself, but the fact the state is doing it over six years. This state is long overdue for a rate adjustment. I just think it would be better absorbed and forgotten if they made the increases effective right away. I believe that if they have a long-term plan for how the funds are divvied, they can create a plan to bank the money (with interest no less) and disperse it more efffectively. Reason being, there will be some people that think it’s unfair and decide they will hunt on their own terms but if you look, we are at a much lower standard than other competitive states and need the increases to pay for the revenue shortfall we are currently facing and the cuts in place now. I mean, the state has even started to close some state parks because the lack of funding has caused poor upkeep and this is what affects me directly since my family devotedly uses these campgrounds for vacation and getaways.
Editor’s note: If anyone had the idea our Grizzly Woodsman was a gun-wielding simpleton, I think the preceding two paragraphs thoroughly put that theory to rest. No, he’s more of an angry-at-the-government, gun-wielding simpleton. But he respects his elders, so Craig’s a little less scary. I’m glad we’ve cleared that up.
So across the board we’ll generally pay more over the next six years when we could just get it over with and make the increase effective immediately. I feel much of the resentment and negative responses would be detoured if done swiftly and effectively. It’s kind of like ripping off a Band-Aid. Do they really want to hear the gripes over the next six years or just hear it for a few months? One quick yank and it’s quickly forgotten. I’m sure the number of tags will go down for a while but the hunters will return gradually just because hunters like to hunt. Meanwhile, those few hunters that don’t purchase licenses will return to hunt sans tag, illegally.
What’s the only reason I see why it might be better for the gradual increase? I don’t think the state government would know what to do with all that money coming in at once. I know what they could do. Bring back the DNR officers they thinned out and make the patrols more effective to control poachers and illegal goings on. That would be a start. What they could do is really focus on when and where the mysterious TB herd is going and quarantine them if possible. They don’t really seem to have a firm handle on how to count and control them. The flying over of an area and getting a head count and averaging it over the counties is farcical. The numbers change every year and they aren’t going down. It just seems to migrate from county to county overlapping on some borders. I, for one, have experienced that every deer taken in our camp has been disease-free and quite healthy. What they could do is set aside some funds to establish new programs for children and young adults to encourage hunting and hunting techniques in the field. What they could do is have controlled baiting regulated by said officers to better the hunting experiences especially for the younger hunters. In the same breath, they are trying to limit our baiting process to control the herd by simply not letting us bait at all. How is this helping the government control the diseased herd? Their answer: Give us unlimited tags (or have in the past) for antlerless deer but don’t let us bait to get them. This logic doesn’t make any sense to me. I guess as long as they can justify it to themselves, it’s ok. They claim the disease is spread via breathing and feeding around the same bait pile. I guess deer don’t breathe when they bed down or do anything else in close proximity. (So how does the DNR believe deer breed? Do they hold their breath while in “the act”?)
You know, as I reminisce on old photos of my uncles and grandparents back in the heyday of a popular sport, I realize that we’re not in the 1950s and ‘60s anymore, when the deer were plentiful, there was no need for baiting, and hunting was much more prosperous. We live in a time where politics and the local governments dictate what, when, and how we hunt. They tell us what times to be out, they tell us when we can bait, and they tell us how much we need to pay the state for wanting to enjoy the outdoors. It almost – almost – hints of Big Brother doesn’t it? I don’t really know when it got so out of hand but it’s gotten to a point that it can, does, and will turn away even the most dedicated and loyal of hunters. I ponder the thought, too often, that I need to be out there to carry on tradition as opposed to just going for the fun and camaraderie. I’m trying hard to carry this tradition forward so my son and daughter can go out to enjoy the same experiences I had, and not be deterred by politics or a government trying to intercede via costs, licenses, and rules. I will, however, forge on so as not to lose touch with nature and the future of my children, no matter what.
Editor’s note: As I was editing Craig’s work and searching the Internet for interesting links to add a bit of color to the dour forecast, I came across an article on the subject of fees. A part of me wanted to send this piece back to Craig with a ‘Sorry, we can’t post it,’ apology. However, after reading his rants about the fees, I thought it was more fitting to post the entire piece. You see, most people would be happy that logic won out in the end. Craig, however, will hardly be satisfied because he wrote this entry a full two months after the raised fees were nixed. Now he’ll read this and probably chew right through his own lip. Why? Because that’s what our Grizzly Woodsman does. Even when he wins, he loses.
And that’s funny all by itself.