RISAA will hold a meeting this evening to discuss the issues of a Recreational Saltwater License. Many members of the licensing subcommitee will be there.

My understanding is that this meeting will be limited to RISAA members and members of clubs affiliated with RISAA and that only the first 200 people to show will be able to participate.

I am hoping to attend (I am a member of an affiliate club).

This meeting starts at 6pm at the Coventry/West Warwick Elks.

RISAA Details here (http://www.risaa.org/newsletter/120101_recliccomm.html)

thanks for the heads up John .
I'm not affiliated with any club other than the lane family club ;) so I wont be able to attend . FGive them Hell cause I know Ct is waiting for the outcome with baited breath !

Based on the relative lack of turnout to the meeting last night, I'd be suprised if enough momentum to derail a license is possible (if derailing becomes a necessary crusade)...

Right now, I'm still not for or against. I don't think that it should be necessary in the first place but the government will probably just push it through either way - regardless of the wishes of resident & non-resident.

Here is the deal in as simple of a way as my tiny mind can put it:

**** DEM gets way too little money from the state to fund most marine programs. Right now, they use money allocated from freshwater & commercial licensing revenue, and federal monies and some matching funds. They are already running an increasing deficit as it is. They are also running an increased deficit in the areas that they currently siphon money from, like FW & Comm licensing. This burden on the revenue from FW & Comm sources is already making those programs falter as the money they need is going to the marine needs of DEM.

DEM needs to access additional funds in order to survive and certainly if it intends to do a few things of interest to us as anglers. They also have a few things in mind that may or may not really be necessary.

The government recognizes that DEM needs an infusion of funds in order to perform it's most basic jobs regarding marine management. The easiest way to get those funds is to charge the people using the resources - regardless of the millions and millions of dollars already generated for the state by the various taxes and fees already imposed on anglers & boaters. ****


Very little state money gets allocated to marine uses even though it's the second largest tourist attraction in the state (anyone know how much $$$ is given to beautify the Cliff Walks which I assume is the #1 attraction - or is it the beaches???). Most studies show that a little more than half of the recreational marine fishing in Rhody is done by non-residents so many of the dollars generated by motels, B&Ts, resteraunts and all, is generated by the guy from CT & MA that drops coin to fish Rhody waters. Something like 3000 jobs are the result of recreational marine fishing & boating in this state. Plus, all the tourism dollars that come in as a result of hotel rooms booked and Bess Eaton coffees drank at 3am.

IMO - that's where the money should be allocated from. Stop lining peoples' pockets for pet projects with it...

So what will happen? We have a while before we find out. Decisions need to be made and in place by April of 2003 so we have a little time....

I think they will lose a big chunk of that (non-resident change) if they put the license through, especially if it is fairly expensive. I know I, for one, as a non resident. wouldn't shell out $50 or $75 for the maybe three or four times a year I fish there (even though that will probably increase this year). I'd just stay in Mass.

i fish r.i. about 20-30 times a year. if they pass this i will never fish there again. i already kick up $50 for a beach pass. it is just not worth the extra money. i just hope conn. doesn't get any bright ideas.

Welcome to Striped-Bass W'fordstriper... We have a few CT'ers hanging around here.

So far all the discussion has been small fees, same for resident as non-resident and roughly the same as a freshwater permit - $9.50. Nothing is cast in stone but the models (even too early to call them models) the subcommitee have been working with have all been from - 5.50-15 bucks max.... Still, the money should come from the state and not the angler in my opinion....

thank you john for the welcome. $5-15 would be livable but if it gets up over $30, it is too much. between gas, food etc... at least with a fresh water license you are paying for trout to be stocked.