BOB@BBT
03-16-2006, 03:17 PM
http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/statewide/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1141769404262350.xml&coll=1
Column:Forget about one-buck limit
Sunday, March 12, 2006
As state wildlife officials begin the rule-making process for the fall deer season, sportsmen should understand up front that dramatic changes are not likely. The chances of some of the big changes on many hunters' wish lists -- a one-buck limit, for instance -- occurring are two: slim and none.
And it doesn't take a degree from Harvard B School to understand why.
The Game and Fish Fund, made up largely of license dollars and responsible for the bills racked up by the Department of Natural Resources' wildlife, fisheries and (most of) law enforcement divisions, is speeding toward the red. Enacting a one-buck limit would only tromp on the accelerator.
About 400,000 deer hunters buy more than one buck tag each fall, either one for each season (archery and firearm) or the two-tag combo license. At $15 a pop, eliminating the second-buck tag would cost the DNR about $6 million.
So, to any prudent bean counter, discussion of a one-buck limit would have to be off the table unless a new license package was approved.
But even then, hunters might find a one-buck limit to be a case of being punished by getting what you ask for. There is precious little evidence that the average deer hunter would be willing to make up the lost income.
If the DNR were expected to generate the same revenue with a single-buck tag, they'd have to bump the cost of that license up $8, to $23. And that's just to stay even.
The Natural Resources Commission, remember, is trying to develop a new fee schedule to raise income for the DNR. Odds are, when you figure in that bump, plus a little bit for future inflation -- who knows when the NRC will want to tackle a fee increase again -- we're looking at a $30 deer license, one that would allow half the harvest of today's $30 license.
That has hard sell written all over it.
At a recent NRC meeting, during public testimony, commissioner Frank Wheatlake asked everyone who testified about deer management how much they'd be willing to pay for a deer license. Most said $20, which won't even begin to touch the DNR's fiscal problems. No one said any more than that, though some said they'd pay "whatever it takes."
But there's evidence that the "whatever-it-takes" crowd is a decided minority. When Michigan United Deer Hunters asked its members if they favored a one-buck limit, 75 percent said yes. But when it asked the follow-up question -- Would you be willing to pay more for your deer license if there was a one-buck limit? -- 75 percent said no.
Some hunters believe the DNR has done a poor job managing the herd and that it should be punished by a license boycott. And although it may seem logical -- punish the incompetents by cutting off their funding -- how could the agency possibly improve its performance with less money for programs or salaries? This is clearly a case of biting off one's own nose. But many hunters are so wound up, they're unable to take a step back and see a license boycott for what it is.
My best guess is that there will be a small decrease in the number of antlerless permits available in much of the northern two-thirds of the state this fall, but not significant changes in southern Michigan. And because the DNR is still convinced there are too many deer in Zone III, I would expect the extra week of muzzleloading as well as the late December antlerless-only season to continue.
But sweeping changes, such as return to a one-buck limit? Not this year. And quite possibly, not after that.
Contact Bob Gwizdz at (517) 487-8888 ext. 237 or e-mail him at bgwizdz@boothnewspapers.com.
Column:Forget about one-buck limit
Sunday, March 12, 2006
As state wildlife officials begin the rule-making process for the fall deer season, sportsmen should understand up front that dramatic changes are not likely. The chances of some of the big changes on many hunters' wish lists -- a one-buck limit, for instance -- occurring are two: slim and none.
And it doesn't take a degree from Harvard B School to understand why.
The Game and Fish Fund, made up largely of license dollars and responsible for the bills racked up by the Department of Natural Resources' wildlife, fisheries and (most of) law enforcement divisions, is speeding toward the red. Enacting a one-buck limit would only tromp on the accelerator.
About 400,000 deer hunters buy more than one buck tag each fall, either one for each season (archery and firearm) or the two-tag combo license. At $15 a pop, eliminating the second-buck tag would cost the DNR about $6 million.
So, to any prudent bean counter, discussion of a one-buck limit would have to be off the table unless a new license package was approved.
But even then, hunters might find a one-buck limit to be a case of being punished by getting what you ask for. There is precious little evidence that the average deer hunter would be willing to make up the lost income.
If the DNR were expected to generate the same revenue with a single-buck tag, they'd have to bump the cost of that license up $8, to $23. And that's just to stay even.
The Natural Resources Commission, remember, is trying to develop a new fee schedule to raise income for the DNR. Odds are, when you figure in that bump, plus a little bit for future inflation -- who knows when the NRC will want to tackle a fee increase again -- we're looking at a $30 deer license, one that would allow half the harvest of today's $30 license.
That has hard sell written all over it.
At a recent NRC meeting, during public testimony, commissioner Frank Wheatlake asked everyone who testified about deer management how much they'd be willing to pay for a deer license. Most said $20, which won't even begin to touch the DNR's fiscal problems. No one said any more than that, though some said they'd pay "whatever it takes."
But there's evidence that the "whatever-it-takes" crowd is a decided minority. When Michigan United Deer Hunters asked its members if they favored a one-buck limit, 75 percent said yes. But when it asked the follow-up question -- Would you be willing to pay more for your deer license if there was a one-buck limit? -- 75 percent said no.
Some hunters believe the DNR has done a poor job managing the herd and that it should be punished by a license boycott. And although it may seem logical -- punish the incompetents by cutting off their funding -- how could the agency possibly improve its performance with less money for programs or salaries? This is clearly a case of biting off one's own nose. But many hunters are so wound up, they're unable to take a step back and see a license boycott for what it is.
My best guess is that there will be a small decrease in the number of antlerless permits available in much of the northern two-thirds of the state this fall, but not significant changes in southern Michigan. And because the DNR is still convinced there are too many deer in Zone III, I would expect the extra week of muzzleloading as well as the late December antlerless-only season to continue.
But sweeping changes, such as return to a one-buck limit? Not this year. And quite possibly, not after that.
Contact Bob Gwizdz at (517) 487-8888 ext. 237 or e-mail him at bgwizdz@boothnewspapers.com.