ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
New Potomac River requirements
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
New Potomac River requirements
|
| Author | Topic: New Potomac River requirements |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-25-2010 07:32 PM ET (US)  
There is a new requirement announced on the Potomac River Fisheries Commission. http://www.prfc.state.va.us/announcements/announcements.htm NOTICE January 06, 2010 NATIONAL SALTWATER ANGLER REGISTRY Starting January 1, 2010 a NEW FEDERAL LAW requires most anglers fishing from the shore, piers or private boats, over the age of 16, to register with the National Saltwater Angler Registry. You may register (for free in 2010) by going online at www.countmyfish.noaa.gov or by calling toll free 1-888-MRIP44 (1-888-674-7411). This sounds so bad...why do I think we are talking about a fee for 2011...wonders what this will do to the whaler fleet fishing tendancies in the area, and or off shore... |
| jollyrog305 |
posted 01-25-2010 08:06 PM ET (US)
Same thing for the Chesapeake… I believe that MD DNR will automatically enroll you when you get the recreational fishing license/sticker starting in 2011 (plus $25) – but it appears that only the following areas are currently automatically registering folks; Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Washington Just registered myself – took 2 minutes |
| RevengeFamily |
posted 01-25-2010 10:54 PM ET (US)
Sounds like another tax to me... $25.00 this year... Fifty the year after.... Where will it end? <----retorical question We all know it never will end. Once the poiticians get their greedy mits on more of our money, they never let go of it. It really is to easy to spend others hard earned cash. And I can guarantee you that the registration fees will be deposited into a "general" fund that the politicians will pi$$ away on something totally unrelated to boating/fishing... They're doing it here in NY. Every person on my boat over the age of 16 (I believe)this year will require their own "permit". So if I want to take an uncle from Ohio fishing in NY tidal waters, he'll have to have paid in advance for the pleasure of fishing in NY's salty seas... The politicians are really taking the fun out of fishing... Norm |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-25-2010 11:15 PM ET (US)
AM I missing something are are the above states the ones that don't have to...better check....maybe I read it wrong, or maybe you did... Does look like there talking about both, vessel fishing fees as per regular and this new addition fee.....what a pain...I see it as .... So anyone who fishes off the banks of the Potomac or Chesapeake 16 yrs or older has to register...and pay next year to fish!!!!!!unbeliveable!!!!! |
| deepwater |
posted 01-26-2010 04:30 AM ET (US)
What next,, |
| jollyrog305 |
posted 01-26-2010 07:24 AM ET (US)
The areas listed are just those that currently are registering folks. I would assume that they are imposing a fee for this. What get’s me, and I need clarification on is whether or not my family and friends will have to pay to fish on the boat. I mean isn’t that the point of have a vessel permit – at least I thought it was in MD? |
| cohasett73 |
posted 01-26-2010 07:32 AM ET (US)
Read Sport Fishing and find out what the fees are intended for. Coastal people consider fishing the ocean,bays, and estuaries a birth right. It's not. Folks around the Great Lakes pay Grea Lake fishing fees. Here in Wiscinsin we pay $10.00 to fish the pond. It takes alot of money to bring back and maintain coastal fisheries. As you all know it's an on going project. Tom from Rubicon,WI |
| Don88outrage |
posted 01-26-2010 08:33 AM ET (US)
I've never had a problem with the fees, with fees defined as money goes back into the resource. With that being wishful thinking it is simply just another tax. I'm familair with the federal requirement for saltwater lisencing to be used as a tool to collect better data on recreational catches, however, some states saw it as an opportunity to get more of our money. Total cost of a combination hunting/fishing/saltwater lisence in Ct. is now $60.00, just a bunch of greedy bass turds. |
| skred |
posted 01-26-2010 10:14 AM ET (US)
Tom, I believe the Wisconsin fees is is a "Great Lakes Trout and Salmon" fee. I believe I can fish the big lake without that stamp - but cannot take trout or salmon. All other fish are legal without the stamp. So, it's sort of a "partial tax", I suppose.... |
| jollyrog305 |
posted 01-26-2010 10:38 AM ET (US)
Again – I don’t mind paying a fee to have myself AND my boat registered. I would hope that MD (in this case) would put any money collected into the Waterway Improvement Fund, like they do with the boat excise/sales tax. We shall see. What’s going to really rub my rhubarb the wrong way is if everyone on the boat has to have a registry card/pay. If this is the case, why wouldn’t someone just go get the $6 license which is good for 5 days (this price will probably increase in 2011 as well) |
| cohasett73 |
posted 01-26-2010 11:05 AM ET (US)
Ya got me pinned to the floor Dennis. I guess I can fish for those big head carp with out paying a toll. Tom from Rubicon,WI |
| GBayWhaler |
posted 01-26-2010 12:29 PM ET (US)
In Ontario we have been paying for fish license for many years. Apparently the penalty if caught fishing without one is severe and can incelude loss of boat and equipment. They are out during fall fishing seasons checking as well. I can't comment on how the funds raised are used. |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-26-2010 01:38 PM ET (US)
Well Interesting take people... question... I buy a fishing liciece for my boat, and all aboard...I buy registration sstickers for that boat. That covers that, but what this is for seems to be anyone fishing from shopre , dock, vessel, regardless of other licenses... And if you dont think your going to catch a rock fish, but you do by accident! OH MY!) then you shoudl register... so unless your under age...less then 16 yrs old...you have to if your fishing... Or am I missing something? |
| JMARTIN |
posted 01-26-2010 08:08 PM ET (US)
The 25 dollar fee got my interest, so I just purchased my 2010 Washington State license. It was 39 bucks and allows me to fish for: saltwater only fish, crab, shrimp, and clams. I did not see any fee for Washington automatically registering me. So with this 25 buck fee, are other saltwater fishing State licenses more expensive than 39 bucks? John |
| wezie |
posted 01-26-2010 08:24 PM ET (US)
As said, One more TAX. The fees don't get back. Some or all of it goes to pork or some other congressional entertainment. Where is all this going? Look at your wrist and you will see the tattooed numbers beginning to emerge. I could be wrong, with chips and dna, they may not need the visible brands. Good Luck out there! |
| prj |
posted 01-27-2010 11:16 AM ET (US)
wezie, you're as paranoid as that freak from Gilbert, AZ. This is NOT a tax, this is a simple User Fee, really the most equitable way to pay for services / resources that we use. I don't know how the states or feds/NOAA will direct the money collected from this fee and that is a valid point of discussion. In Wisconsin, hunting and fishing license revenue, or User Fees, are collected in a segregated fund dedicated to the furtherance of the natural resources of the State. Perhaps that is how these funds will be managed as well, at least we hope so. |
| gnr |
posted 01-27-2010 12:10 PM ET (US)
A "user fee"? To "use" the ocean? Will you feel the same when we have to pay a "user fee" to walk on the beach and enjoy the sunset? Maybe we should all be paying a "user fee" to feel the warmth of the sun on our faces. |
| Buckda |
posted 01-27-2010 12:37 PM ET (US)
In Michigan, the fee is $31 for residents and $38 for non-residents. To add trout and salmon to your card, it bumps to $41 for residents and close to $50 for non-residents (15 and older). It has been this way (perhaps lower fees) since I was a kid. What's the big deal? Go to Ontario, CA where they're really aggressively managing the wonderful fishery, and you pay even more, unless you get a "conservation" license, which limits you to two fish in your possession (by consumption included) per day. THOSE guys (Ministry of Natural Resources) are WAAAY more serious about enforcing these regulations than they are in Michigan. Every year, there are reports of US Anglers paing fines in the range of $6,000 - $8,000 for violating the rules. When we went to Lake Nipigon, there was an article that a pair of fishermen from MN had been fined a total of $8,000 for various offenses, including using barbed hooks, and had been banned from Canada for a year. (I've said it before, Canada acts much more like a SOVEREIGN nation than does the US at times). |
| prj |
posted 01-27-2010 12:41 PM ET (US)
No, not to "use" the ocean. To fish for species managed by NOAA or NWFS or whatever authority has jurisdiction. You read this thread and were aware of that, I'll guess. And surprise surprise, there certainly are beaches that require User Fees to access, here in WI and even Bahia Honda in the Florida Keys. The public lands in my state are actively managed for sports like hunting, fishing, cross country skiing and a multitude of other activities. To use them, at least the State Park designated lands, you are required to pay a User Fee by purchasing a park sticker and a trail pass for each visit. Again, it doesn't surprise me that the State is going to charge me a User Fee so that they can operate their trail grooming equipment and maintain facilities on the property. As an active user, I strongly support this method over the use of general funds distributed across the tax base that charge NON-users an similar amount for a resource they can't or don't use. Didn't Montgomery Burns come up with a ploy to charge for the use of the sun some years back? So that is certainly not an unbelievable future option... |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-27-2010 11:28 PM ET (US)
Dave, the big dealis as follows... We here in the DEL/Mar/Va pay a fee for the season to fish and that includes anyone on my boat. I can't remember if its 40 bucks or not, but thats something we have always done. What this new "Federal Law" suggests is you have to register anyone 16 years old or older, and will pay an additional fee in 2011 for the right to fish from shore, dock, or any land, and for the privilage to report all catches, and help with conservation. I dont need to go to Ca. or anywhere else to tell me that there conservation policies are not inforced here other wise we would have the Bay cleaned up already. This is clearly a way to generate funds to increase reporting procedures...better known as a paper push... Again Dave, Im not talking about commercial fishing, as there are plenty of penalties for that around...heck, these guys killed each othewr at the turn of the century over fishing rights in these parts. Some dreamed up a way to start a registration drive to generate "Fees" not taxes...under the guise of helping reporting. A better plan would be to stop septic tanks bleeding into the water, Chicken farmers from bleeding fertilizers into the waters, not charge ordinary people double of ffees to fish... If you go throught he questions they are trying to get as many people to register as possible, except for the ones excluded(states) States have fees I think are okay, this is just an added "Federal Fee" for the privilage to report catches??? Give me a break..Its the Fed not the state adding to the fees... |
| jollyrog305 |
posted 01-28-2010 08:00 AM ET (US)
Like I said, I don’t mind paying if the money was going to a “help the Bay” type fund, even if that fund was to get everyone off of septic systems for example (Henry is correct in his assessment). I guess we will have to see how MD (in my case) handles this in 2011. I have read in other forums that the $25 fee next year (for everyone) will be levied because MD and VA are not currently in compliance with the Fed – i.e. kind of a scare tactic to get them off their behinds and get compliant. I have also read that part of MD's non-compliance is because they allow for a recreational boat license. I tried calling DNR to get some clarification and they couldn’t tell me anything. So I am waiting on my 2010 vessel license from MD, my certificate from Uncle Sam and have told my wife and friends that they better register if they plan on fishing this year. |
| Buckda |
posted 01-28-2010 09:17 AM ET (US)
I'm not talking about commercial fishing either. In Michigan (and Ontario), each person in the boat pays a fee to fish. |
| johnhenry |
posted 01-28-2010 09:59 AM ET (US)
This is total BS. If that is the case, why bother buying a boat fishing liscense? Buy an individual. So much for deciding at the last minute to take an occasional fisherman fishing. The consequences are going to backfire on them. I have been giving to the bay restoration effort for years. Not only to the state, but special interest groups that supposedly represent conservation efforts. The states and the feds have dragged their feet for years over enacting stronger pollution rules and I don't expect this will move things along any quicker. Just another nail in the coffin! |
| Buckda |
posted 01-28-2010 10:04 AM ET (US)
If you have an occasional fisherman, you can pay $8 for a single day license. For convenience sake, you can buy the license during the week and specify what date you want it to be effective for (say, Saturday). I imagine that in this case, your state is considering doing away with the boat-tied fishing license, and transferring to individual fishing licenses. Why don't you check with your DNR (or equivalent) to get the real story instead of coming on a forum and whining because you're forced to do what the rest of us already do? |
| Buckda |
posted 01-28-2010 10:19 AM ET (US)
...and let's address the registry for what it is: https://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov/newsroom/downloads/ RecfishingregistryPR_09.pdf This is a program (i.e. no enforcement powers) run by NOAA. The idea is to streamline data collection efforts. What they're asking for is to develop a pool of people who fish so they can survey them about their fishing habits and catches. The registry allows them to target people directly, instead of wasting resources on screening people who don't fish for those who do. This is a time waste. This is scientific information collection to help them understand the pressures on the fishery (i.e. how many recreational people fish, where and how they do it, and approximately how many fish they catch, etc.) It actually sounds like a good idea to me. I imagine that you can easily just not answer the questions, if you don't want to. There are all kinds of "registries" out there now for similar scientific study. These are especially common in the medical world as researchers seek to determine outcomes of certain procedures and treatments. In the case of medical registries, the hospitals/physicians do the information gathering, but there is no fee associated with the registry. NOAA likely received funding to run this registry. The more people who participate, the better data we'll have on the fishery near where you live and fish. Be not afraid. If you take people fishing aboard your boat and they are covered by your boat's license...then THEY are already getting a KILLER deal on fishing. You should ask that they pay for your beer. |
| Buckda |
posted 01-28-2010 10:23 AM ET (US)
Further, my suspicion is that once you are on the registry, you won't need to re-register every year. That's the MO for other registries, anyway. ...so while next year, new anglers will have to pay a one-time registration fee, it looks like they're grandfathering current anglers in 2010 to get in without this adminstrative fee. In a way, I'm jealous. It would be nice if we managed species so well in the Great Lakes. Perhaps then we could limit the takes of commercial Indian operations that have significant "waste catches" caught in their nets. |
| prj |
posted 01-28-2010 11:56 AM ET (US)
Careful what you wish for, Dave. I've seen firsthand how the state of Virginia takes care of the their greatest natural resource, the Chesapeake Bay. It's an absolute national embarrassment that has resulted in such degradation of the water quality and portions of the fishery that I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy. I'm not certain of the root causes, but rampant development, over-harvest and a general lack of conservation minded citizenry and authorities would be a start. Before any of you DelMarVa types get up in arms, I'm not speaking about you, of course. |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-28-2010 05:33 PM ET (US)
Dave, Your so off base here..you may know a lot about fishing up north, but down here in the Del/Mar/Va, your mostly talking out of your knowledge base. You said "If you have an occasional fisherman, you can pay $8 for a single day license. For convenience sake, you can buy the license during the week and specify what date you want it to be effective for (say, Saturday)." We pay for that with our annual boat fishing license. we also pay a boaters registration fee as well...Some of us own water front as well. If someone steps out of a boat with a line in, they pay an extra fee? or get fined? if cought?......has nothing to do with "wining"... Your suspicions are just that, and nothing more...you know nothing about this area's fishing problems...you have not seen the "dead zones" in the bay...and you have not lived here over time to make that assumption Dave. And of course you claim clairvoyance to know what NOAA and our DNR are thinking...give me a break. "I imagine that in this case, your state is considering doing away with the boat-tied fishing license, and transferring to individual fishing licenses." This statement is pure "horse kaka!, You imagine? Based on your experience in what? Comon Dave, thats pure conjecture...There is nothing DNR here has said that would lead anyone here with a basic common sense of the issues to belive they dont have to pay a boat fishing fee in lou of this new fee... Why don't you check with your DNR (or equivalent) to get the real story instead of coming on a forum and whining because you're forced to do what the rest of us already do? Dave, I am suprized at you and disapointted in your narrowness of views. No one, especially me is wining, we have opinions and feeling on the subject and have every right to discuss them here as it pertains to the Boston WHaler boating population...it effects people here in a lot of ways.Why dont you keep that self centered , I know it all attitude in check once in a while. Your really not the know it all on many things here especially new DelMarVa fishing fees. How dare you call opinions here "Wining" By the way, this thread has nothing to do with your thoughts on "managed species so well in the Great Lakes. Perhaps then we could limit the takes of commercial Indian operations that have significant "waste catches" caught in their nets". This ia about additional fees for Boston Whaler boaters on this forum who will be impacted, need to know , discuss and learn more about their options in the Del/Mar/Va, as it pertains to the new requirement announced on the Potomac River Fisheries Commission.
PS I never ask anyone to pay for my beer, gas or anything else when they on my boat as a guest, nor in my home. Dont be jealous either, just start a grass roots drive to increase fishing requirements and fees so you to can pay more like us down here for the right to have a kid go fishing in a "dead Zone" in the Bay |
| jollyrog305 |
posted 01-29-2010 08:39 AM ET (US)
By Candus Thomson | candy.thomson@baltsun.com Baltimore Sun reporter 11:32 a.m. EST, January 28, 2010 * State officials want to implement a comprehensive $15 saltwater fishing license starting next year to bring Maryland into compliance with federal law and keep revenue here that otherwise would be funneled to Washington. The new license, which needs General Assembly approval, would end free fishing for anglers on the Atlantic Ocean and on the coastal bays behind Ocean City. In addition, the bill: would increase the length of short-term licenses from five to seven days; would establish a free registry for anglers fishing aboard a pleasure boat, waterfront property owners and their immediate family fishing from their property and individuals fishing in a free fishing area; would create reciprocal fees for non-resident licenses; and would authorize a commercial pier fishing license. Finally, the bill adopts the recommendation of the Task Force on Fisheries Management by maintaining residential recreational fishing license prices established by the General Assembly in 2007 but scheduled to sunset later this year. The action is in response to a law, passed by Congress and signed by then- President George W. Bush, that requires an annual census of saltwater anglers to provide a more accurate picture of the type and the number of fish being caught to prevent overfishing. For the eight coastal states — including Maryland — that lack a comprehensive saltwater license, a free National Saltwater Angler Registry is providing a one-year cushion. As a result, millions of anglers must go on line (countmyfish.noaa.gov) or call 888-674-7411 to register before they fish. The national registry, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, will cost anglers next year; estimates range from $20 to $30. That money will go to the U.S. Treasury. Later this year, Maryland will be switching to a new computer system to handle licensing and boat registrations, and officials hope to have permission to implement the new license on Jan. 1. Revenue from a Maryland saltwater license would stay in state. Copyright © 2010, The Baltimore Sun |
| Buckda |
posted 01-29-2010 09:25 AM ET (US)
quote:@henry: I lived in Virginia for six years and worked in Washington, DC for another year, and I have close friends in DC, Richmond, Chesapeake, Hampton Roads and Virginia Beach. I am familiar with the challenges in the Chesapeake Bay. It doesn’t take clairvoyance to understand what the NOAA and DNR are “thinking” they clearly communicate their intentions in documentation available from a simple Web search of the programs. They have a big job on their hands – to fix major problems that are present in the Chesapeake. However, this program extends beyond the Chesapeake to all other coastal states, if you’ll notice. In case you missed the news, we’ve got significant challenges to figure out ways to better maintain our fisheries (Fresh and Saltwater). That may require some changes. Personally, I don’t like to be asked to change unless there is good reason. The dead zones in the Chesapeake represent big, fat, ugly good reasons to consider other options, and to be interested to pay an extra $15 bucks to enable scientists to study the problem so we can spend other resources wisely to better manage them in the future. The concept of registries in scientific research are not mysterious either. This tool has been in use for a long time. For instance, there is a national pregnancy registry available for women who take certain antipsychotic drugs. The purpose of this registry is to more carefully study the effects of these agents on pregnant women, and more importantly, the health of the child that they bear while on these agents. Take heart on one thing Henry, it is my best guess that once the scientists understand what is wrong, and how best to fix it…they’ll go on up to DC and ask the men and women of Nebraska to help pay for it, so you won’t be alone. On that note, if you come to me and say there is a problem, and you need $10,000, I’m gonna want to know what that problem is, and to know what you’ve done to address the problem before you came to me for money, and what my money is going to go for – and why it might help. To get that information, you may have to spend some time/energy and perhaps even money to get me that information. Welcome to your Registry. When you guys figure it out, at least you’ll have something to tell me when my tax dollars go to help fix it.
quote:uh…there go my cookies. I’m not jealous of you at all, Henry. I do think that if a neighbor gets to go fishing in your boat without paying for a fishing license, that is a pretty sweet deal for him. Since we in Michigan are already backwards to your situation (i.e. we pay, as individuals, for fishing licenses), let me reverse it for an example. We also pay boating registration fees in this state, and I pay an individual fishing license, as do my passengers if they are going to engage in fishing (as do people who fish from shore or fixed structures such as piers, etc). If Michigan were to enact a $15 fee for boats that planned to engage in fishing this summer, and that money was going to be used to better manage the Great Lakes fishery, I’d pay the fee. $60 a season to fish is not an unjust burden. Heck, in Chicago, you pay $20 just to launch the damn boat. As it is, I pay $28 a year to use Michigan-owned ramps just to access the water. These are not egregious fees. quote: Pure speculation. quote: utter opinion quote: A bit of a whine here…pass the cheese? quote: Oh…the wails grow louder. Especially as this is the case for MOST States. What is curious is that you’ve not been whining about this disparity before. Seems to me that this is leveling the playing field somewhat. Boaters pay, so should shoreline fishermen. quote: Since you own sheets older than me, I’m sure you’ve heard many a child with this same sentiment. It’s called whining. quote: Speculation! Well, there you go Henry. Sorry I’ve disappointed you. Why don’t you e-mail me and I’ll send you a gift certificate to Bed Bath and Beyond to make up for it. Those sheets need a changing, unless you like the Saturday Night Fever theme. (Actually, I think I was around when that was released, but whatever…the latest hot bedsheets are from AVATAR and feature 3-D pillows. |
| Yiddil |
posted 01-29-2010 02:04 PM ET (US)
Takes a lot of ignorance to say this... "Look at your wrist and you will see the tattooed numbers beginning to emerge. I could be wrong, with chips and dna, they may not need the visible brands." I see your an expert on Tatooed Numbers on Arms too! Geeeze!What could you possibly know about tatooed numbers on arms?What an ignornate thing to say to anyone, anywhere, and in an open forum for the world to see. And of course, and more to the point, it had nothing to do with this new fee and program I posted about, and more to do with your being a "legend in your own mind" and knowing even things not yet determined, and a few other things if you could bring up tatooed numbers on arms in this dialogue.Don't look now but your colors are bleeding through for all to see. Shame on you. |
| Buckda |
posted 01-29-2010 02:59 PM ET (US)
So you're mad at Wezie too? Just curious, cause I was quoting him as an example of the other speculation in this thread. |
| Buckda |
posted 01-29-2010 03:13 PM ET (US)
Henry, I never said I was an expert. The experts are the ones who are trying to use a Sportsman Registry to gain information to make intelligent decisions about fisheries management from folks like you who do the fishing. My line of work happens to expose me to a variety of topics, industries and people. Part of that means that I am fortunate to gain 'exposure-based knowledge' of a wide range of information, tactics, strategies and industries. I have also been blessed and fortunate to have lived in a variety of areas across this great country, and had interactions and friendships with a great mix of people from across the political, geographic, ethnic and socio-economic spectrum. I don't agree with all of them, but I have taken the time to understand their point of view. If you know me, then you'd know that. Regarding the tattoo reference, that was NOT mine. I'm far from a know-it all, but I do try to have a strong understanding of a lot of things. Call it curiosity. In any event, if you can tell me exactly why a fisherman registry is a bad thing and how exactly you are being burdened beyond reason (especially in comparison with other anglers from around the country) then I am interested to hear your concerns. What I hear in this thread so far is that: Is that correct? |
| Buckda |
posted 01-29-2010 03:15 PM ET (US)
Oops...forgot one: 6.) You have bedsheets that are more than three-and-a-half decades old. (Sorry, it still blows my mind).... |
| johnhenry |
posted 01-29-2010 03:15 PM ET (US)
Relax guys, take a deep breath. Henry, I don't think Dave meant it in the way you are thinking. Weezie 1st mentioned number tatoos and not in a deragatory way towards individuals here, except as an example of government control. Dave we pay almost the same fees, taxes, permits, registrations(boat and trailer), or whatever for our boats and our right to fish, same as you do. Most ramps around here are not free. The only difference may be in the ability to get a fishing liscense for the boat, not necesarily each individual, if you want to. We pay more than a single permit fee for that right. I went on line and registered with NOAA. At this point it is free and seems very benign, possibly a good idea. It seems that about 1/2 the coastal states are already enrolled in this program and the other half are being enrolled as of the 1st of the year. When you register it states that if your state is already involved, you do not necesarily have to register and it is automatically done when you apply for your fishing liscense. My gripes come in if additional fees might be enacted in order to register, and in the extra hassle of registering friends and family who are occasional or very occasional fishermen/woman. It is kind of a hassle to make sure you have gone on line the night before to register someone. That is why I buy a boat fishing liscense. As I mentioned before, most of us already contribute quite a bit towards bay clean up,and state and local fees pertaining to boating and fishing. The economic impact on boaters in this economy has been significant and adding more fees just reduces the monetary pool that the Government can draw from. So lets hope it remains free. |
| johnhenry |
posted 01-29-2010 03:38 PM ET (US)
Oh, and besides all the efforts and money of sportsman and environmentalist, I feel that we are spitting into the wind. Nothing ever gets done! Commercial interest trump all. |
| gnr |
posted 01-29-2010 04:00 PM ET (US)
WOW! Even Dave is going off the deep end. Probably somewhere around 50 days till ice out in these parts. |
| K Albus |
posted 01-29-2010 04:56 PM ET (US)
You Chesapeake Bay guys are barking up the wrong tree. Here’s the situation: - NOAA wants to collect information about recreational fishing. If you are angry about this, you should be angry at your state government for its failure to comply with NOAA’s information gathering procedures. Unfortunately, in order for some states to comply with NOAA’s information gathering procedures, those state will have to start requiring licenses for certain types of fishing for which a license may not have been required in the past. This program appears to have been designed to put pressure on certain states to update their fishing license requirements and information gathering to conform with NOAA’s information gathering needs. |
| johnhenry |
posted 01-29-2010 05:12 PM ET (US)
We ARE angry at the states, there has been more than ample oppurtunity to start cleaning up the bay. We ARE angry at the feds, for not forcing the states to do something about the destruction of the bay. We ARE angry because of all the money and time we have wasted pissing into the wind. We ARE SAD, that our most precious natural resource is being ruined. |
| modenacart |
posted 01-29-2010 05:38 PM ET (US)
To assume a fee is not a tax is a bit naive. Both have the same result by taking money out of your pocket and giving it to someone else. This is from webster Tax: 1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes Fee: 2 a : a fixed charge Sounds like a tax to me. |
| |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.