i was always against a saltwater fishing license fearing that the $$ would go into the states general fund to be squandered away. recently i became aware of the dingel-johnson act which places a 10% excise tax on almost all sportfishing gear at the manufactures level. these $$'s are then distributed back to the states based on numbers of fishermen, these numbers are calculated by licenses sold. in mass and ri we only have freshwater licenses. i'm sure that there are many times that in saltwater fishermen. more licenses= more $$ back to states.

Most conservation and angling groups give it very strong support, with some understandable differences of opinion on how the money should be spent. A source of controversy, but also a strength is the fact that states are given considerable freedom in setting priorities according to their local needs. Moreover, states must match the federal dollars, for every $3 in federal funds, the states must provide $1. Another issue is that some of these moneys are also spent to build and support hatchery programs.

Nevertheless, in the first 40 years of the program, over $460 million has been provided to state fish and game agencies to reclaim more than 330 lakes, totaling over 40,000 acres and to purchase over 110, 000 acres of fishing access areas. Likewise, there is a specific provision in the act that up to 10% may be used to teach kids about water resources and aquatic

I'm all for it :D

Nope! Give them more money all the while they are taking away more and more access? I think not! More money and more money and more money......sure would be nice if I could keep a little of what I make to put food on the table.:smash:

PS Don- When you say the money will be matched....matched means for every dollar a dollar is given to "match" it. So if $3.00 is given then the feds must match it with $3.00.....$1.00 for $3.00 is not a match!:rolleyes:

BF, this $$ can be used to buy more access. does'nt have to much, just enough to cover enforcement costs. i know for sure that we need more co's in ri. just trying to get our tax $$ back.

Ya haven't you read where sportsman $$$ went to a general fund and it gets pissed away. One of the wildlife magazines had a big article where names were brought out and everything it happened to be a lot of money too:smash: Another thing that I have seen happen is that they will take the money and buy a piece of land that can only be used by birdwatchers, dogwalkers, a conservation area if you will, which would be all well and good if these people paid for a license. There is far too much corruption I would not give them anymore money until they could breakdown where every dollar has been spent.

What property are you talking about? Property like on the Vineyard where all the lah-ti-dahs can enjoy it! Oceanside property for sale? Please, the developers are going to get it first and turn it into high end condo developements. What will I get? Poorer and poorer.....no thanks. Basically all I have to say on this subject is a firm and unmoving "NO" I am not in favor of it.;)

VF...you took the words right out of my mouth. I might wear that Steelers jersey just for the heck of it!:laughs:

feds give $3 for every $1 state gives.

Yeah, and by the definition of the term...that is not "matching"!

That is also not as stated in your first post.

i'm in favor of it as a vehilce to track #'s of fishermen. states with more licensed fishermen get the lions share and states like ours, which have many, many, saltwater anglers get as much as say states like idaho. we pay this tax and get no benefit. looks like it's you and me eben:D (imagine that)

maybe matching is wrong term, me bad. feds give $3 for every $1 state gives.

Yes afterhours, we are on the same page here.. The $$ could go to purchasing land for access, it could go to paying more clam cops to bust the schoolie hunters at bavertail, it could go to eelgrass restoration projects, elver laders, dam removal, the list goes on and on.. But sadly, some people want to keep all their $$ to themselves. There was a big hulliballoo in Mass where $$ was taken from the general fund, but i believe it was put back, no?

I sat in on a coupla meetings DEM had in regards to the saltwater fishing license - and while we all know that there are a LOT of worthwhile things the monies could be used for here in RI, the problem is the license money was going to go into the General Fund :mad:

Which means that the money generated wouldn't necessarily be used to take care of the vital issues fishermen would like to see addressed - money from the licenses could be diverted to other state projects that have nothing to do with recreational angling, the state of the fishery, enforcement, access....and so on and so forth. They'll just squirt it all away, like VF said - with very few explanations and fewer apologies.

If the monies were to go strictly towards the issues we're interested in, I'd be behind it 1000% - and I think a lot of others would be too.

But given the track record of the legislature in this state, it's just not a good idea. :hs:

Yes Eben it was. All the things you mention are good causes for the money guys but you know what? It just never seems to work out that way. MSBA is out every spring cleaning the Weymouth herring run as volunteers and I ask myself....with all the money the town and state gets for herring permits....why don't "they" clean the herring run every year....and on top of that last year the club bought the wardens new nets and waders and my question then was the same....why is my club buying these things for the wardens???? Why doesn't the town buy them? :smash: :smash: Can't you see that the money, as much as you guys are snowed into thinking it will, never seems to get to its intended destination!:huh:

As Crafty Angler said....if the money was guaranteed to go 100% towards the things you guys are talking about...I also would be for it....but it won't so still no!:smash:

it's not the license $$ that's the issue, it's the millions that come back to be used for wildlife purposes and that does not go into the general fund. how many billions of $$ are spent on sportfishing every year? lot of $$ coming back to states with high #'s of licensed fishermen.

Well this is where I believe Afterhours and I split on our alliance. I hate to pay taxes, but lets face it, everyone is crying out to pay less taxes, so what happens? Taxes get cut, budgets get cut, funding for projects dries up, non-profit orgs go under... our society is running on credit debt from other countries so we can pay less taxes. Because our governmets are broke (local and fed) they are forced to impliment higher liscence prices and other misc. fees to supliment other losses.. thats probably why RI was considering a SW liscense. If the liscense was proposed in a proper manner, it would be such a great thing.

THE Massachusetts House is right now holding 6 million dollars of sportsmans money to balance the budget. It is not being spent on anything. The money must be appropriated to be spent. Call or write your rep.

see :huh:

we fought the saltwater licencse 10 years ago and won even then governor weld was against it. Mass isn't like florida where they use the licencse money to build state owned fishing piers. The dough would simply vanish or be apropriated somewhere else

I can see it now. I am just about to land when a mag-lite shines in my eyes and a bullhorn blares "Put down the rod and step off the rocks! I got a full can of mace and I know how to use it. Where is your license?"...



It would be hard to believe in MA (where we tax just about anything we can think of, yet have severely understaffed schools and collapsing bridges) that fees intended for the ensurement and enhancement of Saltwater fishing would ever be applied to their purpose. Without a strong and well-funded Saltwater fishing lobby our legislature's track record would indicate that the saltwater license fees would be re-appropriated just as other well-intended fees have been.

Is one more tax in order to save program really the answer? :huh: :huh:

BF my friend, the money grab of 18 months ago went like this. All of the money slated toward MASSWildlife (read fresh & salt water fishing) was taken from dedicated accounts and put into the general fund. The money that was put back into dedicated accounts was sales of some duck stamp from hunters and frrsh water /sportsmen licenses. The Hullabaloo mentioned really did nothing. The money was put back when the state was told by the dep't of the interior that they were about to lose 6 million in federal monies. The DMF or salt water money was NEVER and still has not been put back. 10 years ago MA DMF had over 40 employees. Today they have less than 20 doing more work. It is well known that most salt water fishers would support a license that was guaranteed to bring money back to the fishery or related items. That is why there is soooo much propoganda around praising all this federal matching money.

I know the issue's and afterhours is poorly mistaken. MA is maxed out on its matching funds in all areas for salt water fishing.

I do not care what BS is posted after this post as I am tired of posting about political issues on the net. Fishermen love to bitch and then do not have the sack to call in sick or show up at all. Of the thousands of people who yap on threads like this, less than 10 actually make it to any hearings and less than 5 of us make it to just about all of them. this is why we lose. This is why the politicians do not listen. The greenies, the commercials, they show up, fishermen do not. fishermen cry, and crying is for kids.

sad, very sad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BasicPatrick
.

I know the issue's and afterhours is poorly mistaken. MA is maxed out on its matching funds in all areas for salt water fishing.

poorly mistaken on which issues? please tell me.
whay do you mean that ma is maxed out on its matching funds in all areas for salt water fishing- that ma has no more$$ or that they maxfd ouy fed$$?

Afterhours,
You missed one very important point, every state gets a predetermined minimum of the dingle-johnston funds, its only what's left over, that gets divided according to the number of licensed fishermen. The amount of extra funds that the costal states would get from going to a salt water license has been estimated by several groups, and they all show that the increase in federal funds would be very small, much smaller than the fees collected from the license itself.

mike- if your correct i would rethink my position. my info regarding distribution of funds comes from a tackle industry source who's been been in the business for a long time. i was told that $$ distribution was based entirely on #'s of licensed fishermen. i will have to find fed's statements on distribution and find #'s. do you have access to this?

not tring to be a bureaucratic bad guy here. just thought that if there is deserved $$'s out there just for the pickin' and it has to be used for wildlife uses, why not get. 10% of many billions of $$ adds up.

is the predermined $$ your referring to based on the 40% coastline and 60% license appropreation divison?

no sw lic. Just more infastructure we don't need.

The current "tax" is just that...a tax... Don't excpect to gain more access just casue you give them more $....I would like to see that 10% tackle tax zeroed out.... It is unfair to tackle makers. BTW, All you guys selling tackle on the side...you are suppose to send 10% to the gov.....That is ON TOP OF a sales tax...which is after INCOME TAX...so many tax on tax on taxes....

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
BTW, All you guys selling tackle on the side...you are suppose to send 10% to the gov.....That is ON TOP OF a sales tax...which is after INCOME TAX...so many tax on tax on taxes....

Sandy, the tax is imposd at the maufacturers' level, so generally unless you're pouring plastic or making rods, you're not subject to the tax.


After,
I'll see what I can find on the DJ allocations and get back to you.

I had posted a poll about a saltwater fishing licence a while ago. The poll was split with the majority not in favor. Seems like most thought it was just one more tax and the money raise would not go to any fishing related improvements. I have mixed feelings about a saltwater licence. It could be good because it would help with fishing related issues (buying land/ access/ fishing piers/ law enforcement..) . But I also believe that money would just be another tax with no benefits to fishermen if the money raised was mismanaged.

Originally posted by MakoMike
Sandy, the tax is imposd at the maufacturers' level, so generally unless you're pouring plastic or making rods, you're not subject to the tax.


Mako...I know your a tax guy but that money has to come from someplace!...If you buy a plug at your favorite tackle shop that was made from our good buddies Habs or Salty, they have to (or should have had to) pay the 10% manufac. tax.

Where do they get the money to pay for that tax?
Ans. You and me when we purchase the plug. It is just passed along as a cost of doing business. So we end up paying for it but it is just buried within the price. This is known as a "Stealth tax" (you are paying a tax, you just don't know it) Then when the guy at the cash reg., charges state sales tax on the cost of the plug (which has a 10% tax in it already) this is tax on tax. And of course I paid for this with money I earned and already paid income tax on... NO MORE TAXES OF ANY KIND

One could argue that when a homebuilder sells a plug to Joe Bulletinboard and doesn't collect 10% for uncle sam he is avoiding taxes. I think that is a felony right? I doubt the IRS is cracking down on plug makers trying to make a couple bucks but the tax laws are screwed up.

IMO drop all taxes, wipe out the IRS and start all over with a A SINGLE tax maybe a consumption like tax and leave it at that...no income tax, no deductions, just a 4X6 card you file incase you have some special case but 99% of people should not have to file anything IMO! 5000 pages of tax documents that no one undersands is silly.

I really think they need to sell fishing licences for Salt Water just to pay for more enforcement of their weak-ass regulations. The regs need to be tightened up, fines need to go up and enforcement needs to go up. We, as fisherman, should pay for this. It's our sport. It should cost you $1000 if you get caught with an undersize Striper not $50.

Other things to spend this money should be spent on would be habitat reclamation and general management issues that are non-existant on the east coast.

This is a good one. I am for it in this way:

How about a license for fishermen where the charge is One dollar ($1.00) This method in effect gives us the ability to count the licenses and take part in the program. We'll take the dollar to match the feds $2.00. In effect a windfall of 2.00 for everey saltwater license to be applied to our needs. The license program has to stipulate in the legislation that the money can only be used for fishing stuff. Access, cleanup, etc. etc. etc. Don't forget this also includes boaters and beach buggy folks.

I'm with Afterhours and Eben if it can be done in this way.

Sandy,
I know who winds up paying the tax, I was just responding to your statement that those who informally sell fishing tackle should be collecting the tax. IOW if they are just reselling the tackle they don't have to pay the tax.

Afterhours,
This is the quote I was remembering:
Much to do about nothing has been made about WB matching funds. Only 3 states out of every state from DE to ME stand to see any increase whatsoever and only 2 of those 3 stand to see any amount (NJ would get a whopping $118,000 projected increase..insert rolleyes icon for sure)

This statement was made by Tony Bogan, a member of the MAFMC from NJ, in a similar discussion on another board. The complete quote can be found Licensing discussion (http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?page=1&startrow=1&topic_ID=25458&search=service&searchString=increase%20federal%20funds&searchNotString=&SearchMode=all&SearchNotMode=all&searchFromDate=%7Bts%20%272004%2D10%2D12%2012%3A47 %3A11%27%7D&SearchUpToDate=%7Bts%20%272005%2D01%2D10%2012%3A47 %3A11%27%7D)

By the way, Basic you are the b*lls!!!!

Originally posted by Navy Chief
I really think they need to sell fishing licences for Salt Water just to pay for more enforcement of their weak-ass regulations. The regs need to be tightened up, fines need to go up and enforcement needs to go up. We, as fisherman, should pay for this. It's our sport. It should cost you $1000 if you get caught with an undersize Striper not $50.

Well said Navy Chief, well said

Thanks TunaCell

By the way I think that $1000 fine needs to go back to the fish.

I thought you hit it right on the head with the enforcement issues.
:kewl: :claps:

It doesn't matter what the Feds match.The money YOU(WE)
pay for the actual licsense WILL go to the general fund.We in RI already pay some of the highest taxes in the nation for the least amount of return.

I'm still waiting for all the other crap promised when they hiked our taxes the last time.Now you want me to pay more?
Geez take another hit off the crack pipe!!

The state should sell liscenses to pay for the enforcement of their weak-a$$ regs Navy Chief?Are you actually a RI resident or are you just stationed here?The regs here are no weaker here than anywhere else on the east coast.Pretty easy to say when you MIGHT(I said might)not being paying state taxes.

We damn well pay enough already!I'll be damned if I'm going to continue to keep paying out my HARD EARNED money so the state can use it however it sees fit.WAKE UP FOLKS WE LIVE IN RI!!!DIPRETE.......RISDIC...........PLUNDERDOME!!! !!!!!!

Saltwater liscense......when you can pry the rod from my cold dead hands.Same goes for my guns!

Saltwater liscense......when you can pry the rod from my cold dead hands.Same goes for my guns! :claps:

I went to most of the RI License meetings held here in RI a few years back. If memory serves me right, we are doing a pretty good job in RI in getting the matching dollars we qaulify for thru the funds generated by commercial licesnes and fees and freshwater licenses.

If you want to review some of the info from those meetings check here - makes for less than interesting but infromative reading: http://www.ci.uri.edu/Projects/rifish/Subcommittees/Recreational.htm

Saltwater license? Money grab plain and simple. They have the bucks to enforce the present laws now. How often to you see it done? Next to never! Go ahead pass a SW License, I won't pay it and I won't get fined. They're just not there. And that's true every where. You wanna drive the beach, go ahead, who's to stop you? When's the last time a Ranger stopped and talked to you? Why spend 150 bucks for the privilidge? It's all a crock of bull. They enforce by intimidation and implied threats, There's no one behind the curtain.

Basswipe

I became a Rhode Island resident when I moved out here late in 03. I pay stay taxes here. My point is that the fine for keeping an undersized Striper is $50. In California, if you get caught with an undersized fish of any kind, you get fined at least $1000, you also get your boat impounded and sold, if you fished from shore, your car just got impounded and sold. All your equipment just go impounded and sold. All the fines go back to enforcement and fisheries.

I've said before that fisheries management on the entire east coast sucks. The Menhaden industry told the management councel that they would not comply or support regulation. If that ever happen on the west coast, that company would be through. The scientist and biologist should call the shots for fisheries, not commercial guys, not rec guys.

Last year was my first year fishing here and I was out alot. I saw 1 fisheries cop the entire year. If licence money went into the general fund, that would be bogus, but if it went to the fisheries and enforcement that would be good for all fishermen involved.
I would gladly pay $50 a year to improve fishing.

Originally posted by Navy Chief
Basswipe

I became a Rhode Island resident when I moved out here late in 03. I pay stay taxes here. My point is that the fine for keeping an undersized Striper is $50. In California, if you get caught with an undersized fish of any kind, you get fined at least $1000, you also get your boat impounded and sold, if you fished from shore, your car just got impounded and sold.

Last year was my first year fishing here and I was out alot. I saw 1 fisheries cop the entire year. If licence money went into the general fund, that would be bogus, but if it went to the fisheries and enforcement that would be good for all fishermen involved.
I would gladly pay $50 a year to improve fishing.

You being an RI resident even for just a short time should know better than to willing give MORE money to this state.

California's in much worse shape than here.Bad example.

As far as here goes as I said before the money WILL go into the general fund.Liscensing WON'T be enacted without
at least a percentage of the fee going into the fund period. Unacceptable.

I would have no problem seeing huge fines and impoundments put in place instead of liscensing.Why should I care?I'm legal all the time.But the money will used for many other things other than environmental purposes.
Remember this is RI.

I'm glad YOU'RE willing to pay 50 bucks.99% of the other Rec. fisherman aren't.

Like I said before "They'll have to pry the rod from my cold dead hands before I pay for a liscense".

Originally posted by Springtides
By the way, Basic you are the b*lls!!!!

?????

Check you PM

seems like the feds have enough of my money as it is... they can use some of the sales tax we pay on fishing tackle