Michigan hunting and fishing guides must navigate more than wilderness terrain. They must maneuver through mountains of regulations. Proposed new rules would add to the burden, yet special interest groups don’t seem to mind.
If anything, they welcome the extra paperwork and recurring fees that would come with state Senate Bills 103, 104, and 105, which would create occupational licensing requirements for paid guides. “The fur, fin, and feather groups are all in alignment on this issue, which is rare,” Michigan United Conservation Clubs director Amy Trotter testified in Lansing.
She touts the consensus as a selling point. In reality it’s a warning sign that should stand out like an orange hunting vest.
Anytime insiders in any industry call for tighter controls on themselves, they have ulterior motives. Usually their goal is protectionism. They want less competition, so they push for higher barriers to market entry. Established players feel some of the pain, but they accept it in exchange for even heavier hardships on others.
It’s an easy tradeoff to make.
Special interest groups would benefit from the legislation at the expense of at least three categories of people. The first set would be out-of-state hunting and fishing guides, who would have to pay double to work in Michigan.
The second set would be ex-offenders, who would have to pay twice for past mistakes. In addition to criminal penalties, they would face civil penalties. Specifically, the proposed legislation would ban anyone with a felony or field sport-related misdemeanor conviction from working as a Michigan hunting or fishing guide for three years.
Penalties like this are called “collateral consequences,” which refer to any punishment not imposed by a judge or jury in the courtroom. Examples nationwide include restrictions on international travel, ineligibility for government-subsidized housing, and loss of voting rights.
Some collateral consequences might be necessary to protect the public, but Michigan recognizes the need for restraint. In most cases the state protects people’s right to earn an honest living unless their criminal violations are directly related to their chosen occupation.
Michigan also restricts vague requirements for “good moral character,” and generally requires licensing boards to consider extenuating circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Among other factors, regulators must examine evidence of rehabilitation and the age of an offender at the time of wrongdoing. A one-size-fits all approach is illegal when reviewing most license applications.
Overall, Michigan earns a “B-” on a national report card from our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, which scores collateral consequences related to occupational licensing. Only four states and Washington, D.C., perform better. Yet Michigan’s proposed legislation would take the state backward.
The bills would impose a blanket ban on all felons, including returning citizens guilty of nonviolent crimes unrelated to fishing or hunting. The bills also would elevate petty offenses, treating certain misdemeanors like severe violations. Fishing with the wrong kind of hook, operating a charter boat with an expired pilot license, or wandering onto private land would trigger an automatic three-year suspension without pay.
No exceptions. No hearings. No appeals. Considering that one-in-three U.S. citizens has some type of criminal record, the proposed legislation almost certainly would thin the ranks of Michigan hunting and fishing guides.
The third set of affected individuals would be consumers, who would get stuck with less choice and higher prices for hunting and fishing guide services. Occupational licensing almost always has this effect.
Research from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy shows that licensing laws in Michigan raise consumer costs by up to 30%. “The state requiring this permission to work costs jobs and income, and causes higher prices for consumers,” the report concludes.
Out-of-state guides would lose. Returning citizens trying to rehabilitate themselves would lose. And Michigan consumers would lose. The only winners would be special interests — the same ones who think occupational licensing is a good idea.
Meagan Forbes is an attorney at the Institute for Justice. Daryl James is an Institute for Justice writer.
Subscribe to Metro Times newsletters.
Follow us: Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter
