TOPIC:

GLSI Trolling License Update
The Michigan legislature returns to session now that the elections are done. The GLSI will be kicking off our push for legislation to establish an optional trolling license. We are reaching out to legislators to obtain support for our proposal. We will need your help and all hands on deck to reach out to your representatives to encourage their support. We will provide information and talking points that you can share in the near future. The DNR has indicated this could be part of the 2nd phase of a licensing fee restructure. The GLSI will be working with the Michigan Legislature and the DNR to allow extra rods while trolling the Great Lakes.

As a reminder, our proposal entails creating an optional Great Lakes Trolling license. This $26 license would grant the holder the ability to use up to 3 additional rods when fishing from a boat on the Great Lakes and connecting waters. Each rod could contain no more than 2 lures. All other rules and creel limits would remain in effect. All revenue generated from this license would be directed toward the DNR Fisheries budget for use in enhancing our great lakes fisheries. The license would not be in effect for anglers fishing from piers or shore, so it does not create overcrowding in these locations and reduce angler participation. It could not be used for targeting other species like perch, bass, or pike in protected bays like the Les Cheneaux islands area. It will help to offset the effects of inflation on the DNR Fisheries Division and provide more opportunities for Great Lakes anglers.

If you have a relationship with any state legislator and can help, please reach out and let us know. Contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. More to come in the next few weeks on how you can help with this process.Copyright © 2024 Great Lakes Salmon Initiative, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website.

Our mailing address is:
Great Lakes Salmon Initiative
PO Box 189
Chelsea, MI 48118

This would be a cool idea for Indiana (and other states).  Remember, when Indiana's last license fee increase went through, there was no increase in the salmon stamp. Why?  Pick one:
A) Indiana's Lake Michigan program is so flush with funds that no increase was needed. 
Not raising the trout salmon stamp was an attempt by the DNR to be kind to Hoosier anglers. 
C) The DNR doesn't think the Lake Michigan program is important enough to fully fund the effort.  

Since the xtra license would be voluntary it wouldn't be unkind. Only those who are willing to pay would have to buy it.  It would help offset general and specific shortfalls in the Lake Michigan program's budget - like the biofilter at Mixsawbah. Increased cost of everything due to inflation - from fish food to electricity, to name something that doesn't cost more now than it did when the license fee increase was inacted.   

I am really torn about this proposal - as a guy that fishes alone most of the time I would likely purchase this tag. The extra rods would be nice but I would definitely not feel comfortable running 6 rods alone. If two anglers are in a boat then they can run 12 rods, three guys running 18 rods? I don't want to troll behind a boat with 15-20 lines out. Then let the charter captains and their mates purchase this license and the rod tally just keeps getting higher. At some point how many rods does a boat need in the water? The prospect of 6 or 8 boards to a side, with lines trailing up to 1000 feet behind the boat seems like a nightmare scenario for any type of inshore fishing. I have visions of  steelhead fishing becoming a battle for real estate and not all fisherman are courteous as we all know very well. I cannot imagine what it would look like of the pierheads or the point at Ludington - talk about combat fishing...we are trollers not trawlers.
 We already have a put and take fishery on our end of Lake Michigan and I see no way that this helps other than revenue generation. I understand the need for additional revenue, but I do not want every trip to become a war over space. I personally think three additional rods per tag is too many and not necessary. Increase the salmon stamp price and allow 4 rods per man without any changes in bag limits, or purchase the right for each additional rod separately. Doubling the number of lines is too much in my opinion

I suppose it could be written that way, but I thought it was actually a "boat license" which would allow three extra rods, max. You could run 6 alone, two people could run nine rods. 

Actually, it's somewhat self limiting - especially on small boats. I often have five licenses on my boat (four customers and myself) but I never run more than 12 lines. I'd catch fewer fish since I'd spend more time fixing tangles than fishing.  Just depends on how the new regulation is written. 

 

I've been fishing Lake Michigan for 40 years, about half those trips solo, 45% with my son or buddy, and 5% with more than two on the boat. My goal is to catch fish but not lose my mind doing it so a 6 rod spread with sliders seems to be the sweet spot between having enough baits in the water without the stress of managing all that goes with trolling.  When I do have 3 on board I will run nine.  With that said, I would jump on having the option of running up to 6 rods fishing solo. Depending on the conditions I may not even get that many in but more than 3 would be great. Limit doesn't change but I do think the odds of catching a limit is higher or at least more than I would likely catch with only 3.

Do we know if the Michigan license would include non-residents?  I generally fish Michigan waters anyway but if Indiana does not do this as well, outside of early Spring I will be headed east with every trip fishing 6-9 rods versus west fishing 3-6 rods.

 

 "Not raising the trout salmon stamp was an attempt by the DNR to be kind to Hoosier angler"

Brother Nature may have hit it possibly. Others like hatchery folks asked the same question. When Indiana restructured and raised the license fees would our fishermen had any issues with a higher fee on the trout/stamp? Especially if they knew what it helped pay for? I don't remember a questioner coming out asking for our thoughts?

The 3 rod extra license is a proposal, is meant to help off set some short falls and support the Michigan hatcheries. If it does go thru then non residents should be able to purchase when fishing Michigan waters.

Using the extra license is volunteer. I fish by myself at times or with just another person. Fishing a few extra rods legally, would be ideal at times. The way others would apply it is up to them but some thought process as to where your trying to use more to your spread would not work well when combat fishing. So if it helps some and can raise some extra revenue then why not?
Nothing is getting cheaper. Food prices for the fish, electricity, etc. etc. 

For me, I will help support this effort and would buy the extra license if given the opportunity.
Would Indiana fishermen support this effort for our state???

BNature wrote:

This would be a cool idea for Indiana (and other states).  Remember, when Indiana's last license fee increase went through, there was no increase in the salmon stamp. Why?  Pick one:
A) Indiana's Lake Michigan program is so flush with funds that no increase was needed. 
Not raising the trout salmon stamp was an attempt by the DNR to be kind to Hoosier anglers. 
C) The DNR doesn't think the Lake Michigan program is important enough to fully fund the effort.  

Since the xtra license would be voluntary it wouldn't be unkind. Only those who are willing to pay would have to buy it.  It would help offset general and specific shortfalls in the Lake Michigan program's budget - like the biofilter at Mixsawbah. Increased cost of everything due to inflation - from fish food to electricity, to name something that doesn't cost more now than it did when the license fee increase was inacted.   

D) the actual answer:   an economic analysis was run for all license types. The results of that were that raising the price of the trout and salmon stamp would end up losing revenue, since an increase in price would cause many people to forgo buying it. And the net change in revenue was projected to be negative, since the price increase would not offset the loss of buyers. They were pretty bang-on with the regular fishing license projections, so I feel confident that they were correct on the trout stamp too.

Also keep in mind that the trout and salmon stamp isn't just Lake Michigan anglers, it's also inland trout anglers. Up to about half of stamp buyers in Indiana are inland only. Most of them are much less invested than big lake guys and it wouldn't take much to have them just choose to fish for panfish and bass rather than put and take stockers

Before the license fee increases in 2022, there hadn’t been a license fee increase since 2006.  In that amount of time the cumulative inflation rate went up 2.52 annually (56.4% over time) so what cost $100 in ’06 now costs on average $156.Looking at the license fees now in place, the DNR is once again losing money. Adjusted for inflation, a $17 fishing license in 2006 should now cost $26.50. The $11 trout/salmon stamp should now cost a bit over $17. How can the DNR stay in business? Hopefully (maybe) they took this into account when they were making a profit and they can coast a few years until their current losses bankrupt them, at which time they’ll have to go to the legislature and request another set of license fee increases. That’s a stupid way to run a business, but that’s the way it works. I’m sure some people stopped buying fishing licenses when the license went from $17 to $23. Most didn’t and I’m sure some of the dropouts relented and resumed buying them in the ensuing years. I agree some of the salmon/trout stamp buyers would have dropped out initially if the stamp cost had been raised to $14 or $15 but some of those would have resumed eventually, as well. Dollar Tree stores lost lot’s of customers when they raised their prices to $1.25. They weren’t profitable at $1.00, for a period they were less profitable, now they are profitable once more. How many of you “boycotted” McDonalds when their cheeseburgers jumped from $1.50 to $2.40? How many of you have “accepted” it and still go to McDs? So since the DNR is now in the “coasting downhill” phase of their licensing income hills and valleys and the trout/salmon stamp income has been coasting downward since 2006 (at the bottom of the previous cycle) what lies ahead? Since the DNR in general (and the trout/salmon program in particular) can’t borrow or print money, one of two things have to occur. 1) Cut corners and production costs which is likely going to produce an inferior product or 2) produce fewer trout/salmon. Is either option going to retain current anglers or recruit new ones?

 

I could be wrong (my wife will be the first to tell you) but I think Illinois has a Lake Michigan and an Inland trout stamp?  If the concern is that inland fishermen will not pay a dollar or two more, which I find unlikely, then what about a LM salmon and trout stamp and increase the price of it to support the great people and assets that support our fishery?  If I buy one less Moonshine spoon which I already have 400 of, and that $8 went towards a license to improve the fishery, I would gladly do this and most likely still purchase the spoon becasue in February I start to lose my mind in getting ready for the season. There is nothing us recreational fisherman do that makes sense fiscally as we are paying $100 per pound for salmon when we factor in all our costs.  The idea that we are going to hang up our trolling rods and sell our boats because the salmon and trout stamp went up a few bucks seems unlikely to me especially if we can see first hand what the money is going towards.   

The biggest problem is the DNR can't make these decisions. Changes in license fees and kinds of license they are allowed to sell is a decision that needs to be made to the legislature. Even before it get there, the proposal has to work it's way through the DNR bureaucracy, from the head of Fish and Wildlife Division to the Director of the DNR who is appointed by the governor. Seldom is the DNR director an "outdoorsman" more than a political croney of the Governor. Most of them I've known over the years never hunt or fish. Occasionally, they'll go on a token trip, but even if they caught a 20 pound king or shot a 12-point buck they'd rather have been on golf course (if they even like being outdoors). Now imagine a bloke with this mindset going to the legislature trying to convince those guys to up license fees.  The biggest issue then becomes, how can the legislators transform their votes into political contributions. 
You can be sure if taxes and fee increases are passed, some of the spare change is going to trickle back to the parties or individual legislators. However, the ways the laws are written, hunting and fishing license fees are sacrosanct. Any impropriety and the US Fish and Wildlife Service can yank the millions of dollars the DNR (Fish and Wildlife and Enforcement) rely on from the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration and Federal Aide to Sportfishing Restoration. 
So us'ns at the grassroots first have to convince our field people to convince their supervisors, who have to convince the mid-level executives in their section to convince their section chief to convince the Division director to convince the DNR Director to convince the governor that it's okay to go to the legislature to convince the DNR committee to convince the house and senate leadership to actually put the bill to increase or add new licenses and each step up the ladder the answer is most often - Get Real!  Now if the governor would propose a new license fee or type of license, that would be a whole different scenario.