Can u believe CT?
 

I can't believe they raised the out of state fishing license by double it used to be 40 now its 80 that is a bit ridiculous if u ask me i wish there was something we could do to change this.:wall:

At least you dont live here....

If they decide to make a law making it illegal to wear blue jeans on tuesdays, and I do anyway, that doesn't immediately make me an instant criminal.. it just means the state gov. is exercising a blatant abuse of power to create a nonsense law to SUIT THEIR NEEDS... not for the greater good.... screw them... fish the ocean for free ON PRINCIPLE!!! I bet the ticket is less than 80 bucks.

Amazing - they took the saltwater license and used it as an excuse to raise the out of state fees! I will bet we will see more of this occurring in all states soon.:fury:

Anyone know what NY NJ and the souther states are doing with the Saltwater reciprocal deals?:fishin:

CT offers universal reciprocity at present, so next year a Mass resident can fish there with his $10 Mass license. Unless that changes.

CT is the only state so far charging outrageous license fees. Most other states it's $10-$15.

NY only offers reciprocity to CT, and only on contiguous waters, I believe.

NJ hasn't agreed on a license bill yet AFAIK.

The southern states' licenses predate Magnuson-Stevens, so I don't believe there is any reciprocity

Thanks Mike. Between the beaches closing to ORV traffic and this years storm damage, we will be lucky to wet a line regardless of the cost. Next endangered species -- fishermen!

By the way--what CT is doing is likely illegal and could jeopardize their receiving millions of dollars in matching Wallop-Breaux funds. The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically requires that all monies generated by a SW license be kept in dedicated funds and used ONLY for fishery related expenses. My understanding is that they raised fees to close a general budget deficit. You CT residents should organize and challenge this.

File a formal complaint with NOAA, NMFS and any other Federal agency that might listen.

75.00 for a seasons lic for ny non res. fresh water lic.. 35.00 for a wk . is that fair .its all about how much they can squezze from the sportsman..look a the conn. non res hunting lic . $200 + to shoot there deer ???? they can keep them and there ticks too...

ct dep officers are all over checking for licenses,1st time i've been checked in 50 years.if they go to an area they check everone.so make sure you have one.

Go look at the cost to hunt Elk in Idaho (non-res) then complain.

I won't be fishing CT on General Principle now (unless there is a blitz of monsters in which case screw principle) ahem, umm, excuse me. OK, I probably won't be fishing CT on general principle. I will also not spend as much money in CT or go there as many times as I would historically.

I will be limiting myself to RI & Mass this year with one or two of how many possible licenses.

rich mans sport
 

thats what it called .it aint hunting when your held by the hand ,then told to sit here and wait. so the guide to get you a shot at one. the more u have the more u can do. and i dont have 4grand to shoot a blow pony. best hunting is in your backyard ,

What you are seeing is a raise in the "honesty tax" (license fees) and will also be seeing (per hesh and what I am seeing every day on I84) is a significant raise in the "dishonesty tax". That would be ticketing revenues son. The two interesting things will be the funneling of the money into the general fund and the total license revenue versus prior years with the increase this year. I am hearing a lot of no buy votes so far. I'm thinkin' DEP is hearing the same.

CT is acting illegally here. Using SW license funds to close budget shortfalls in other areas is a direct violation of the Magnuson-Stevens act, and subjects the state to possible loss of some significant federal matching funds.

You guys are getting screwed and if you take it lying down, you only have yourselves to blame :doh:

CT will not offset the loss of the federal funds with increased license revenue--you can bet your bottom dollar on it. No one from RI is going to pay $80 next year when they can fish CT with reciprocal privileges on their own RI license or even a $10 Mass non-resident license.

You can bitch and complain, or you can act---the choice is yours.

NY isn't reciprocal with RI?That sucks.:confused:

I have no clue what on earth you're even talking about but non-res license + elk tag is over $600.

Thats WITHOUT a fenced hunt.

Some of us can pound up mountains on our own, thanks. ;)

Status quo
 

From what I've learned this is a common tactic here - Cut the budget to Department X and then divert that $ to the general fund, regardless of what the funds were earmarked/intended for or what they were mandated to be used for. Feds need to look at how their $ is misused in CT.

Where's Baldwin when we need some insight on CT?

bye bye walleye
 

i was gonna fish for them this year in CT

now it is definitely cost prohibitive :fury:

i can go to a fancy restaurant twice
with the wifey for that kinda dough....

no reason(s) to tour Conneticut anymore

Unfortunately, I also live in CT. The state also doubled the fees for state parks, even for residents.

CT is always ranked in teh top 5 states for total taxes, yet we have the highest deficit-per-resident ratio in the nation (according to a recent story in the Hartford Courant). Worse, the funds that pay municipal employees' retirement and healthcare benefits are the 5th most underfunded in the nation (also according to the Courant).

The legislature's solution is limited to finding as many new revenue streams as possible. No one ever, ever talks about menaingful spending cuts.

And you can bet that we'll be electing a tax-and-spend liberal for governor in November. Because as we all know, the best way to get out of a hole is to dig yoru way out.

I'm here because my parents, 4 brothers, sisters-in-law, 8 nieces and nphews, and countless friends, are all here. I'd love to pack up and go to New Hampshire.

The "free" reg this year and the "$10" fee next year in MA is the same as the cable company giving you free service for the first two months and adjusting the fees downstream.

MA will substantially increase their fees, you can bet your bottom dollar on that. This is currently a loss leader to get you in the door.

This entire registration thing is a farce. It will never be implemented correctly. Few will get the lic and out of the ones that do fewer still will properly report. Little useful info will be gathered and the few will pay the fees for the many. There is not enough policing of fisherman with lic's now...how are they going to enforce this? Most people I know are ignoring this entire lic thing. Utter waste of time and money IMO.

The only thing this does is kill is the single mom who walks in to the local tackle store on a hot summer day with a little kid who has been begging her to take him fishing... We have all seen this each and every summer.... I smile when do as I had the same fishing itch when I was a kid....she doesn't know a thing about fishing and walks in to a local shop with the idea she can pick up a couple cheap kid's combos for her and her the kid, some bait, and some free advice on where to take this kid so he can catch a scup or two and feel good about himself and life in general. The mom hears another $20-80 bucks for a sw lic and says frig this and takes him out for ice cream. This lic SUCKS IMO.:wall: And this is all because the various fishery departments can't manage their way out of a paper bag. This lic will not be their savior.

In fact I believe it will cost society more in terms of social costs in the longer run...the good kid that wanted to go fish off the town pier with his mom will now be forced into seeking alternative social activities which as we all know have negative pitfalls... things that lead to drugs, crime and eventually prison. Let people fish for free, teach them about protecting the resource.

I'll bet that you didn't know that even freshwater and hunting/sportsman license fees can't be tapped into for the general fund, in Massachusetts. And that interest generated by the fund's deposits must also be put back into the fund:

Chapter 131: Section 2C. Inland fisheries and Game Fund; funding sources; appropriations


Section 2C. Monies received by the commonwealth from license fees, permit fees and from any and all sources pertaining to inland fishing, hunting and trapping from permit fees under section 22A, from any sale authorized in section 6 and sums received by the commonwealth from the federal government as reimbursement, grants in aid or other receipts on account of activities of the division, shall be credited on the books of the commonwealth to a fund to be known as the Inland Fisheries and Game Fund except that sums received for natural heritage and endangered species programs shall be credited to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Fund, established in section 35D of chapter 10; provided, however, that $1 from the sale of each sporting, fishing, trapping and hunting license shall be credited to the wildland acquisition account established in section 2A. All unexpended balances remaining in the Inland Fisheries and Game Fund at the end of each fiscal year shall be appropriated only for the purposes of developing, maintaining, managing, operating and administering the division of fisheries and wildlife. The fund, subject to appropriation, shall be used only as follows:-

(1) for the payment of general administrative expenses of the division;

(2) for acquiring, maintaining or leasing public fishing rights on land, on inland streams and ponds, including stream management and the creation of new ponds;

(3) for acquiring, maintaining or leasing public hunting rights on land;

(4) for biological surveys of inland waters;

(5) for propagation of game birds and fish;

(6) for salvaging and distributing game birds and fish;

(7) for acquisition and maintenance of wildlife sanctuaries and fish and wildlife management areas;

(8) for maintaining water resources to provide an adequate water supply for wildlife;

(9) for maintaining sources of food for game birds;

(10) for payment not to exceed 50 per cent of the amount necessary for personal services and other expenses for and on account of the enforcement of laws relating directly to inland fisheries and game, such amounts to be determined by the commissioner of administration;

(11) for the acquisition, by purchase, lease, easement or license, of land or interests therein critical to nongame wildlife and endangered species for the multiple purposes of protecting and enhancing nongame wildlife and encouraging compatible wildlife uses;

(12) for the management, inventory, preservation, protection, perpetuation, and enhancement of nongame wildlife and endangered species in the commonwealth;

(13) for supplementing funds provided to the natural heritage and endangered species program for the purpose of aiding in the protection of rare, threatened and endangered species in the commonwealth; and

(14) for other general purposes of the division.



The State Police already set their sights on SW license funds under the guise of "enforcement", and they were shot down. They do almost no fisheries law enforcement. If MSP couldn't glom onto the money, I doubt another agency could.

I don't believe that any governor has successfully tapped into the Inland Fisheries and Game Fund and diverted a penny to the general fund.

Fishermen don't want a "Fund" of any kind. They want FISH in the water, not money in some fund that will have little effect. This collection of money is already done thru the 10% tax on all fishing tackle.

Fishing in the SW should be free. I understand the FW issues and they are different. This lic will have just as much impact on fishing regs as the HMS lic does for tuna now... I don't care about putting money in a Fund...if I want a fund I will contact fidelity.

From the tuna permit website:
Q: What do I get when I pay for my permit?
A: Unlike many state permit programs, the permit fees go directly to the General Treasury and not to the managing agency (NMFS). The fee is set, in accordance with the procedures of the NOAA Finance Handbook, to recover the cost of administering the permit program, including maintenance of the public website and the toll-free phone system.

I ask you: This lic cost about 20 bucks...what is the purpose of having a website that collects money so it can fund it's website to collect money and not fund any fishing related business? This is something akin to a ponzi scheme. This should be illegal to operate. I know the state plan is different but if it costs 20 bucks/head to operate a website just imagine what it will cost to operate a website + put money in a fund to actually do something.

Well then, the SW lic. fee may just be worth it, if it keeps CT the unfished hidden jewel of New England striper fishing. Its too expensive, go somewhere else! :fishin::uhuh:

Sure they are, to a point.

The reciprocal area is, "those parts of Long Island Sound, Block Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean lying between Rhode Island and New York."

Not according to Ditch.:smash:

It's a good thing he doesn't make the rules then. :grins::buds:

So, living in NY but primarily fish CT & RI looks like I have to get a NY license (hopefully it's reciprocal for CT and certainly not going to pay $80 if it is not) and RI license, seems fair. Also, usually head to the Cape every year so tackle that issue down the line. FUN STUFF!

The license is a dead issue. It's here whether you or I like it or not. It's either pay Mass for a SW license and have the funds put into fisheries issues, or pay twice the amount to the federal registry and have the money go into Bobby Byrd's next pet pork project in West Virginia.

Maybe you can get Bawney Frank and/or Delehunt's successor to work for repeal of the amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Act that forced the choice of either a state license/Federal registry down our throats?

Or maybe you and all the rest of the moaners can just go on bitching about it here and wasting bandwith, wringing your hands over what's a dead issue and a done deal.

The topic here is CT violating the law and raiding SW license fees to close budget shortfalls in their general budget, and what CT anglers should be doing about that---not about whether there "should" be a SW license. That horse has left the barn.

Couple of Statements from The Ct DEP web site

"Does the revenue from this license go back to my sport?
Yes. State and federal law requires that all revenue from hunting and fishing licenses be used exclusively to support fish and wildlife conservation programs."

"What is a reciprocal license privilege? (Is there reciprocity with any other states?)Connecticut law allows non-resident anglers who hold a marine waters fishing license in New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire or Maine to fish in the marine district and land marine fish in this state without a Connecticut license provided the state issuing the marine license affords the same privilege to resident Connecticut marine license holders"

So it appears all funding from liceneses (fines are another matter) go back to DEP to retain eligibility for Federal Funds

Licenses will be reciprocal with other states if other states grant CT the same privelege. Why such a high non resident fee I haven't a clue

last year, CT increased the license fees across the board in all areas 100%, not just hunting and fishing. there has been challenges and debates since last fall on changing those licenses, at least on the fishing and hunting side of it. i have heard 2nd hand several times that the laws will change. last i heard the fishing and hunting licenses would be increased 20% from the original prices before the 100% markup. i have not heard on the updated status. here is that bill - AN ACT CONCERNING RECENT INCREASES IN HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES AND AMENDING CERTAIN MOTOR VEHICLE FINES.