The Michigan Department of Natural Resources gets a good chunk of its budget from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses.
And with inflation driving up the cost of everything from fuel to fish food, the agency recently asked the state legislature to raise the price of those licenses for the first time in over a decade.
But the DNR isn’t selling as many licenses as it used to, and some are wondering: Even if fees go up, how long will this system work?
The funding conundrum
Michigan didn’t invent the system of using license fees to support DNR conservation efforts.
It's called the North American model of conservation funding. Hunters and anglers buy licenses, and what they pay funds fish and wildlife conservation, including things like habitat preservation and fish stocking.
This was successful for many years, especially in the early 20th century when sport species like wild turkey and white-tailed deer were on the verge of disappearing.
But these days, there’s a problem.
“If you look across North America, 15% of people fish, about 4.5% of people hunt,” said Russ Mason, former wildlife chief at the Michigan DNR. “And those numbers are expected to decline, so there will be fewer anglers in the future, fewer hunters in the future, and there's really not much that can be done about that. It's unfortunate because of our funding models, but that's the way it is.”
Nowadays, Mason does consulting work for wildlife and conservation organizations.
And his key issue is this: A small percentage of the population — hunters and anglers — are shouldering the costs of conservation for everybody.
That used to work. But the Michigan DNR does a lot more than it used to, including wildlife rehabilitation, managing threatened and endangered species, controlling invasive species, maintaining dams and monitoring wildlife disease.
And bikers, bird-watchers, hikers — anyone who’s not buying a hunting or fishing license — are not really paying for those services.
“We have lots of parks, and lots of natural wonders, and la-di-dah, but we don't actually fund one of the most critical aspects of that outdoor experience, except by taxing, literally taxing, hunters and fishers,” said Mason.
Another crucial chunk of funding comes from federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing gear, which are distributed to state fish and wildlife agencies.
“So my perspective is that a license increase is certainly justified — we haven't had one in 12 years,” Mason said. “But at the same time, instead of going back to the same old well and applying what amounts to a tired and threadbare approach to funding fish and wildlife conservation, that the state looks more broadly.”
Other states have done this in a number of ways.
Minnesota and Missouri are both models in the Midwest. They take a slice of state sales tax, and set it aside for conservation.
In Missouri, for every $8 spent on taxable items, one cent goes to conservation.
Last fiscal year, that brought in over $170 million dollars for the Missouri Department of Conservation.
That’s more than double what the Michigan DNR brought in through the sale of hunting and fishing licenses, which accounts for about two-thirds of the money that can be spent on fish and wildlife.
“Every citizen contributes to conservation in this state,” said Laura Conlee, deputy director for resource management at the Missouri Department of Conservation. “I think the traditional funding model can make it challenging to meet the challenges that we face today, for sure.”
She said Missouri isn’t immune to the same issues Michigan is facing. But a dedicated funding source makes it easier to adapt to how fish and wildlife management is changing.
A new bill in Lansing
A bill introduced in Lansing would increase license fees in Michigan, and it would tie future fee increases to inflation.
State Rep. Parker Fairbairn (R-Harbor Springs) is not a big fan of this ask, which would raise licenses by about $10 to $15 across the board, right out of the gate.
“Hunters aren't getting anything out of this, and that's my big issue. I hunt and fish. I do all that stuff all year long, and this is just another barrier,” said Fairbairn, who sits on the State House Natural Resources and Tourism Committee.
He proposed another solution: A bigger slice of the state’s general fund – money from income taxes, property taxes and more.
Right now, only about 1 percent of that fund goes to the DNR.
“With this growth of state government, the DNR should be doing quite well, so I think they need to advocate to the governor on why they need some of that funding,” Fairbairn said.
But he said it’s unlikely that a bigger legislative change to provide more dedicated DNR funding, like a slice of state sales tax, would happen without a government trifecta.
What if nothing changes?
“I would look at what we have here financially as a three-year runway before we run into a very, very serious problem,” said Taylor Ridderbusch, the DNR’s executive policy advisor. “This is only maybe kind of a short-term fix, and there's probably a longer-term need.”
Ridderbusch said without fee increases in the short-term, Michigan will have to cut back on things like state fish hatcheries, state game areas and Great Lakes creel surveys.
In a February Natural Resources Commission meeting, DNR fisheries chief Randy Claramunt pleaded for increased license fees, and for broader change.
“We have failed to address what is the highest priority for natural resource management in Michigan,” Claramunt said during a presentation to the natural resources commissioners. “Until this is resolved, I’m part of that failure, you’re part of that failure, we are all part of this failure. And we cannot afford to kick this can down the road another 45 years to the next cohort of conservation leaders. We have to solve this problem.”
But besides the bill proposing to increase license fees, there are currently no plans in front of state lawmakers to address this issue.
Russ Mason, former wildlife chief at the DNR, compares the department to a pilot flying the fish and wildlife conservation plane.
“And so we're flying along, and one of the engines goes out, and wildlife staff goes, ‘Oh, that's OK. We can fly at three engines.’ And then another engine goes out,” Mason said.
The metaphorical plane keeps losing engines and altitude, leaving the DNR to continue operating at the bare minimum.
“Everything they do will be just to get it done — the lowest possible quality,” Mason said. “Is that what Michiganders want? If that's what they want, they can have it: They're going to have it. Or they're going to change the way that they look at how we fund conservation in Michigan.”
Right now, Mason says, that plane is starting to lose altitude, and without major changes, Michigan’s fishing, hunting, woods, waters, wildlife and outdoor economy will all suffer as a result.
Editor's note: The Michigan Department of Natural Resources is a sponsor of WCMU. We report on them as we do with any other organization.
Copyright 2025 Interlochen Public Radio
