Gunny, you?re gonna have to do some homework because most of your post is wrong and misleading.
GunnySniper said:
Florida is a success because the money from the license fee's is PROTECTED ?
Wrong - Florida?s fishing success is because they banned nets ? had nothing to do with license revenues. As far as being protected ? again wrong. States (like Florida, etc) license fees are only protected until the legislators unprotect it. It would have to be part of the constitution to be safe. Historically, all license fees and funds that were once designated for particular purposes have always been raided by the legislators in Mass and RI and made part of the general fund.
GunnySniper said:
W/b funding MATCHES license monies collected by the state at a 3 to 1 ratio
Wrong again. You?ve conveniently left out the part where states get a minimum anyway. For instance, in RI, RISAA recently did research that indicated that even with license fees, RI would not get any more WB funds than it gets now. I believe it was the same for Mass. The states know this, which is why they don?t mention it. They leave it to folks like Ted Williams to write and for his sycophants to repeat.
GunnySniper said:
The money [from WB funding] can only be used for fisheries restoration and related matters. ?Why is the old Jamestown Bridge going to Florida to be sunk with a couple hundred of New Yorks subway cars for artificial reefs? W/B matched funding!
That is what happens now. We won?t get any more funding.
GunnySniper said:
people than ever are fishing Florida because they CATCH FISH!
More people than what? Not more people than before the license. Anyone with a shred of knowledge of economics knows that an increase in price leads to a reduction in demand. In RI and Mass, every increase in license fees resulted in a decrease in units sold. I mention those states because that is what I know. I suspect that other states have the same results.
BTW, am I the only one that realizes that Florida and many south coastal states have 12 month fishing, while we do not?
GunnySniper said:
You don't have to trust the poloticians with the money either, they have NO access to it. A former state rep here tried to get his hands on it once, he or is it she?, found out how much a few grand for a providence street was going to cost when the feds recouped all the money gained with interest and penelties, BILLIONS!
You?re going to have to be more specific. I think this example is absurdly preposterous. Billions in penalties for a few grand in mis allocated funds? Besides, those may have been federal funds. Since RI will not get any more than currently, this example would not be relevant even if it were true.
I read your posts on the relationship between duck hunting and market hunters. Aside from your misconceptions regarding the WB funds, it was nicely done. What amazes me is that you've apparently missed the obvious conclusion of that thread. It was private citizens lobbying the government and agencies NOT licenses that had the most profound impact on waterfowl recovery.
Aside from collecting data, there is not much that states can do for saltwater fish restoration due to its nature. Since in RI it would not increase our share of federal funding, a license would just make the ignorant feel good and restrict more people from enjoying the resource. I suspect that is what many of these "pro license" folks are really after anyway - keeping the riff raff away.