Salt Water Licenses!......bet you change your tune - Page 2 - Stripers247.com Forums
 
Striped Bass Fishing Site Map | Contact Us | Fishing Log Software | Fishing Online | Advertise
to UPLOAD: please register or login

Go Back   Stripers247.com Forums > Striper Information & Services > Striped Bass Fishery Conservation / Politics / Management / News > Saltwater Licence Registry links /Regulations / Laws
Forgot Password? Register Now!!

Saltwater Licence Registry links /Regulations / Laws State game thief and Poacher hotlines / U.S. State Trailering Laws / Registration & Guidelines / Regulations / DNRs / Wildlife fish and game / and other govermental agencies / Park service Pass / Fees / News , fishing bills, conservation, regulations pertaining to the striped bass


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 12-30-2005, 01:48 PM
sea sea rider's Avatar
sea sea rider sea sea rider is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: wareham mass.
Posts: 1,894
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerstg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony db
I don't mind spending the $20-30 on a fishing license if the money goes towards fisheries management and lobyists taking the voice of the recreational fishermen to the legislature.
I quoted tony and the state takes the money for the licence. Thats who I don,t trust.

Lobyists are only paid privately. No tax/license money can go to them, nor can they be funded by 501C3 organizations. You need to make contributions directly to affiliated lobbying arms of these organizations. In RI contributions should be made to the RISAA PAC.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17  
Old 12-30-2005, 07:05 PM
Striperjim's Avatar
Striperjim Striperjim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogerstg
Lobyists are only paid privately. No tax/license money can go to them, nor can they be funded by 501C3 organizations.
So what your saying is that only for profit corps. can fund the lobbyists? The RISAA is a 501c3 org.

(edit**) Ok Thanks roger this spells it out more clearly. RISAA PAC Legislative Committe Report
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-31-2005, 11:16 AM
rogerstg rogerstg is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 103
Default

Thanks for that link. It explains it well. My point was that it is important for folks that truly want a seat at the table to send money to the PACs that support their cause. Even corporations can't get a tax deduction for funding lobbyists/pacs.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #19  
Old 01-03-2006, 01:29 PM
GunnySniper GunnySniper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,559
Default

Florida is a success because the money from the license fee's is PROTECTED. See my previous post "So what's the relationship"
W/b funding MATCHES license monies collected by the state at a 3 to 1 ratio. The money can only be used for fisheries restoration and related matters. FINE MONIES GO INTO THE STATES GENERAL FUND!!!!!!
Fining the poachers pays for streets, affordable housing, methadone clinics, and welfare programs.
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!
More people than ever are fishing Florida because they CATCH FISH!
You don't have to buy a season license either, 1 or 3 or 7 day licenses are available. Kinda like the clamming license and fresh water licenses, here.
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 recoupped all the money gained with interest and penelties, BILLIONS! They take it all back!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-03-2006, 02:55 PM
South Jersey River View South Jersey River View is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 26
Default

I agree with the licensing as well. If it keeps the netters from cleaning the areas up in the months when all of the boats are out for the season than so be it. If somebody goes out and nets 1000 lbs of fish for a profit 7 days a week for 4 weeks think of what that does to the environment in that area. This is happening to White perch in my area and you might laugh and say that is only white perch however in the last 4 years since they have started the amount of Stripers take have drop as far as not one keeper was landed in our boat in countless amounts of hours between my father and myself. I have no problem with people eating but you don't see people netting Deer, Largemouth Bass, Ducks. Why??? because there is a license involved. I work in construction and in certain towns their are merchantile licenses and even though we all complain about it it is the city's way of making sure everybody in their town as insurance and a registered business.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-03-2006, 03:40 PM
rogerstg rogerstg is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 103
Default

Gunny, you?re gonna have to do some homework because most of your post is wrong and misleading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnySniper
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnySniper
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnySniper
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnySniper
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnySniper
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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-03-2006, 03:42 PM
rogerstg rogerstg is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by South Jersey River View
I agree with the licensing as well. If it keeps the netters from cleaning the areas up in the months when all of the boats are out for the season than so be it.
How is a license supposed to keep netters away?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-03-2006, 06:31 PM
Ed White's Avatar
Ed White Ed White is offline
LunkHead
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Howell, NJ
Posts: 1,081
Default

I don't think the license is intended to keep the netters away, I think our hope is that the licensing fees can be used to fund lobbyists to urge our legislators to pass laws that restrict the comms and support the recs.
If I'm following this discussion correctly.
The comms have the $$$ and the political wherewithal to have their voices heard, the individual rec fishermen don't, until they are registered into a large enough group to give their collective voice some political sway.
I have no personal beef with commercial fishermen, but when the netters come thru and a significant, negative result such as fewer fish left, where before there were enough, for all, is the result, then I think we need to take some sort of action to protect the resource that we all enjoy so much.

Ed
__________________
Ed

"An Evil Barbarian with a Wrench in His Pocket......"

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-03-2006, 11:16 PM
BigK BigK is offline
Lunker
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: merrimac ma
Posts: 75
Default One thought

I vision the meeting where they make the fishery decisions. On one side you have the comms who pay fees etc and they have a strong voice, on the other side you have the non paying recs who have no voice.

Scenerio two: Now that we are registered and licensed you have two equal parties at the table with two equal voices. I am not so sure comms have a lobby, do they? if so we should then organize to either doante to the lobby group advocating what we want or form one.

I have heard from several people that recs are ignored at these things.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-04-2006, 02:42 AM
Striperjim's Avatar
Striperjim Striperjim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 4,316
Default

This debate has historically been an impassioned one pitting the rec angler and the commercial angler on opposite sides of the fence. I've seen a lot written about the subject and most of it is rhetoric that would bore you to tears. Flawed science arguments etc, etc.. The analogy for me reminds me of the Boxing organizations and the call for federal regulation. Nobody seems to want to get its act together.
At worst we can mislead and insult each other. I find that this debate has many unanswered questions for most of us. For example the pros and cons of Federal vs. the State jurisdiction, what organization represent whom and what have you. And what 'territorys' and issues each representative groups most interested in.
The purpose of this discourse is to educate and inform. Equally imperative is that we make informed decisions in regard to politics, fishing or otherwise.
Heres an old rhetorical question regarding the saltwater recreational license:
Would You endorse a program that gives millions of dollars to an agency that is regulating you?
****
Wallop Breux is a working model in the states and I feel it needs more exploration from the public at large as does the various lobbying bodies and their funding sources and interests.

Post update
Wallup Breaux State allocations in 2009
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-08-2006, 06:30 AM
CaptainMorgan!'s Avatar
CaptainMorgan! CaptainMorgan! is offline
Reports and Info Dude
Got a Little Captain in you?
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,619
Default

Posted this article as an illustration. I am neither 4 of against the license.
Just presenting some facts for discussion.

Scientists to seek striped-bass grant
Richmond Times-Dispatch Jan 8, 2006

NEWPORT NEWS - Researchers studying a bacterial infection that has beset striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay will ask a state board tomorrow for $88,500 to continue the work.
Scientists at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science want the grant to support a second year of their study on the impact of mycobacteriosis on the popular sport fish. The bacteria appears on the skin and internal organs of fish that are often weak and underweight. The infection raises concerns that it might imperil the striped bass's record recovery after fishing bans that went into effect in the 1980s.
The Virginia Recreational Fishing Advisory Board will meet in Newport News tomorrow to consider the request. The board finances fisheries research, construction of public boat ramps and fishing piers and other fisheries projects with the money raised by the sale of the state's saltwater fishing license. - Lawrence Latan? III
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-10-2006, 04:10 PM
EDBeasley EDBeasley is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed White
That article put forth the best reasoning that I have read for the institution of a saltwater license. I've been dead against the idea of a license because till now I have always felt that the "bounty of the ocean" was something that should be available to anyone, including folks who might not have the wherewithal to pay extra dollars just to go fishing.
That's a great attitude Ed. Here in NC, our saltwater license takes effect on 1 January 2007, and will be $10 a year (to those not holding Lifetime licenses by 1 January 2006). And as I was researching this (since I am a Lifetime holder, I needed to know if I was grandfathered or not) I came across an interesting snippet addressing "subsistence" (sp?) fishing. Basically, fishing to eat. And they're going to allow folks to apply for a waiver of the fee if they can prove that they fish the ocean for food, for their own table. And they apply for them at Social Services offices.

My "Southern Conservative Politics" aside, I think that is a very good and very fair, approach to the issue.

Here's a link to our recreational license info:
http://www.ncfisheries.net/recreational/NCCRFL.htm

And yes, since I got my Lifetime Sportsman License in 1982, I was/am grandfathered...(the year my step-dad married my mom, and he bought the license for me....how thoughtful a gift that has turned out to be...) I'd still pay it though, since it appears to be going to the right people here in NC's case. I guess you could say that I was on the fence when it first came about, but am 100% in favor now that they did the above for people that may not be able to pay the fee. I mean, c'mon, to the "rest" of us $10 ain't even 2 lures...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-10-2006, 06:12 PM
Ed White's Avatar
Ed White Ed White is offline
LunkHead
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Howell, NJ
Posts: 1,081
Default

Quote:
I came across an interesting snippet addressing "subsistence" (sp?) fishing. Basically, fishing to eat. And they're going to allow folks to apply for a waiver of the fee if they can prove that they fish the ocean for food, for their own table. And they apply for them at Social Services offices.
I think that's an excellent solution to that issue, you're right, for those of us who can afford to pay, the $10 is nothing, we wouldn't waste the fishing time to fill out the app. But there are people who could use that assistance. Hell I spend $22.50 plus the trout stamp every year, and I have never kept a freshwater fish. Hell, I hardly ever catch 'em either.

Ed
__________________
Ed

"An Evil Barbarian with a Wrench in His Pocket......"

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-10-2006, 10:36 PM
EDBeasley EDBeasley is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 22
Default

I don't know what struck me about the subsistence line in our regs that made it "ok" to me then, but it did. Maybe the thought that there are still folks out there that do catch fish for genuine nourishment reasons, not just "wanting some to eat" like you and I would.

I ain't gonna lie to ya, when the freezer gets empty, I ain't scared to run down to the Food Lion and pick up some farm raised Talapia to grill, that's if they don't have any Striped Bass in stock...and I guess I had gotten to the point of taking the ability to do that for granted.

So if our state was going to institute this fee, supposedly for the oversight and support of our fisheries, AND was good hearted enough to give subsistence fisherpeople a pass on the fee...I jumped on-board supporting it. I guess that was the one nagging downside in my mind when we first heard of the then possible regulation some years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-11-2006, 09:52 AM
Carl Hartmann Carl Hartmann is offline
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 43
Default

For New Jersey, there have been years of talk about getting a license.

This is my argument.

Did you know that everything you purchase towards fishing has an 11 percent federal excise tax included in it? Meaning, boats, tackle, gas, bait etc? This is in every state in the country. Now, this money does go back to the states. But it is distrubited, via the number of fishing licenses. So, if Utah has 100,000 fishing licenses and NJ has 80,000 freshwater licenses. Utah will get a bigger percentage of the money. Even though Utah may have 100,000 in total fishermen and NJ has 1,000,000! We could be talking about millions of dollars. This is because NJ only has a freshwater licenses. If NJ had both and if everyone got it, then NJ would get a substancial raise in the allocation of these monies.

Everyone is worried about where the license fee will go. I am too. NJ can make it where the seniors, disabled and youth could be free or $1.00 to make them count in the total figure. For other normal adults Make it $10.00. Not going to kill the average person. However, a few things would have to happen.

First and foremost! 100 percent of these fees need to go back into the resource. This can be enforcent. Scientific study or legistration. It can not go towards a new computer for some desk clerk in Trenton. Also, the fees cannot be raised with genuine input from the anglers. Put it in a law of some kind.

If the above was set in stone I would go for the license. Any thing other than the above I would say no too.

NJ is loosing millions every year. If we had the above stipulations and license, we would be better off and possibly be able to fight off the commercial guy better. However, again the $$ has to go back into the resource 100 percent!

My 2 cents
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
change, licensesbet, salt, tune, water

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Salt water license. chuckrudy Hudson River 10 03-15-2010 05:45 PM
Salt Water License? Linesidesonthefly Saltwater Licence Registry links /Regulations / Laws 35 11-03-2009 05:10 PM
North Carolina Fishing Regulations / Salt Water license issue passes CaptainMorgan! North Carolina - Interior 2 12-03-2006 03:34 AM
North Carolina Regs / Salt water license issue passes CaptainMorgan! Carolina Coast - Hatteras - OBX 2 12-03-2006 03:34 AM
First salt water trip of the 05 season Roccus Massachusetts 18 04-08-2005 09:24 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2013 Stripers247.com LLC
Affiliated Sites:   Noreast.com   Allcoast.com    2coolfishing.com