Check this out..In todays Globe ..Don't think this won't rub off in MA.

New Hampshire could become the first State to charge those who go fishing for salt water licenses. Proposed annual fees of $15 to $30 might be approved by state lawmakers this year, drawing protest from some amateur anglers. Charter boat operators are also complaining about new fees of up to $ 500 they face. The fees are part of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Departments plan to generate $5 million to avoid a long-term budget crisis. The agency estimated that the salt water fee could bring $1 million a year. If the agency can’t fix its budget, it will cut 28 full time and 36 part time jobs in July. ( AP )

The tri state will now have an added fee if this goes through. Would you pay the additional fee for a shot at NH waters? I know that I for one will just not fish NH if I have to pay a Salt water fee ofr a license.:af: :af:

My bet is that it will flow down to Mass., maybe not this year but certainly in the future.

Knowing alittle about govt. and big businesses, two ways to protect the bottom line - cut costs and increase revenues. Cutting costs, the real big costs, means cutting people and thats not politicaly acceptable in govt, so they go for increasing revenues. Slapping a $15 to $30 charge here and there can go along way, and, for the most part, the general public will moan and groan but generally go along with it.

Time will tell.

A lot of states have institued Saltwater Rec Licenses. RI has fought down a couple proposals already. Mass has had a few floated about too...

Don't be suprised if there is a federal one day....

I doubt it will generate the revenue they expect.........considering they only have 13 miles of coastline. People will just go to Maine or Mass.

Charter boat guys will get screwed because they don't have that option.

to balance their budget....

they're going to make the fisherman pay to balance their budget??

are they gonna guarentee more access...boat ramps what?


i hope the NH fisherman protest bigtime during the presidential campaign so that their voice is heard.

I doubt it will generate the revenue they expect.........considering they only have 13 miles of coastline. People will just go to Maine or Mass.

Charter boat guys will get screwed because they don't have that option.

I think a lot of time there is a charter 'rate' that covers customers. Another cost, but not a huge deterrent...

Who's proverbial "pet project" will this funds be syphoned to pay for?
Which state legislator will tap the fund to pay for his/her "wet-dream" project?
I don't think people are as pissed at the fact of a fee for fishing as they are at the fact that the funds will be mis-appropriated by any number of "sticky-fingered" scumbags at the top.
(Remeber a couple of years ago when the state tried to "appropriate" the funds from the Mass Wildlife Dept.?)
I wouldn't be completely against a saltwater fee if it was affordable/cheap enough and the funds stayed with the Fish and Game Dept., and were not given to the state as revenue.
The state waste enough of our money on themselves, so why give them more money to lose?

As opposed to the state of Fla. for instance, where all moneys generated from lisences has to go back into fisheries by law, RI insisted all moneys go into the general fund. Therefore this money can be used to balance the budget, fund unrelated projects or even plow the streets of Providence, how ever they see fit. I was at the meeting between RISAA and Jan Reitsma when he was the director and he told us up front that even if the present administration commited these moneys to salwater related projects, the next administration could overturn it immediatly upon taking over.
Catch'em up,
ThomCat
BTW If it weren't for the efforts of RISAA, Rhode Island would already have had a SW liscense for several years now.

It interesting that they cut the jobs, or proposed to anyways, that protect the environment, that which they all swear is most important to them anyways.

Before I have to read another 87 threads about how I wouldn`t be opposed if it went back to the fisheries lets get one thing straight. By law all funds generated by license sales have to go into the general fund. Period. No pols lies are going to change that. It would take a vote of the General Assembly to change. If that were to happen what other special interest groups would line up whining at the capitol to plead thier case. You`ve got about as much chance as a snoball in Hell!
Slinger