Mass Saltwater License survey
 

Anyone else receive the NOAA / Mass Marine survey in the mail for getting a license this year ?

WTF is question #7 A "hypothetical" question am I willing to pay $55.00 for my 2012 Saltwater fishing license :yak5:

"No. Until there is some proof to how the current license fee is helping the fishing community, I refuse to pay more than $10."

At least the freshwater license helps fund the stocking and restoration program.

Would GFY be an appropriate answer to the asinine question?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes. as long as you write it long hand

gee what a surprise, they're already testing the water for more money. :smash:

meet my friend Ben from Dover

Really?!?!These mofo's!After one year there already checking increase perimeters?WTF!:fury:

They can chase me around the f'in rocks and across the water in my yak to catch me to collect their money if they go there!!! And to insult us with such a moronic question????:fury:

Hope I get their questionnaire.......I will promptly wipe my ass with it and return it to them toot suite!!!:uhuh:

Before everybody gets upset at this BS, NOAA is a Federal Agency, Salt water fishing permits are sold/issued by the States!!!!

In Mass the monies collected go into a dedicated fund for the fishery, the Feds/NOAA gets nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you ummm.....believe that? I do not.:hs:

NOAA is part of the survey.

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/recre...urvey_faqs.pdf
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So there working for free?
Funny I'am actually a millionaire and I work just for recreation:hihi:

no survey yet,i got my new lic back in january,the lic was part of the reason i went back to salt fishing(it was cheaper)i got tired of sneaking around hoping i would not get caught.

The F&W funds have gone into a dedicated account for as long as I've been around.

You can believe whatever you want, but the federal legislation that resulted in the license says that any state that doesn't segregate their SW license fees and keep them in a dedicated account will lose the matching funds they get from the Wallop-Breaux federal excise tax--which in our case, is several million dollars more than what license sales generate.

Even the dopes on Beacon Hill can do third grade arithmetic.

I do not believe much these days Mike...for reasons which are obvious.

And what agency regulates fishing beyond the 3 mile limit? Not the states......

If anyone has this survey please contact me directly via pm or basicpatrickataoldotcom

I am one of the five citizens appointed to the Recreational Fisheries Development Committee that advises DMF on all expenditures and thus far I know nothing of this survey. There may be some confusion about where this comes form.

If anyone wants proof that the license money is being used for the advancement of recreational fisheries call the MA Public Access board and you can get real numbers about the Recreational Fisheries Development Panel advising DMF partner on a going project with Public Access Board who is doing a rebuild of a boat launch at Highbank Road on the Bass River in Yarmouth and we can add some license money to build a fishing pier. This is only the first project but it will improve shore fishing access.

Gov't must be watched and we are watching...please always forward evidence and rumors to my attention.

I think I just fried my keyboard when I spit my coffee on it... love the reply... but to answer the question.. I havent seen a survey... If I was to be sent one.. I might be inspired to reply the G.F.Y.route..being of the belief that any time people start asking questions.. they are planning on taking something else away from us.

Survey payolla
 

Anyone else get a $500.00 check from noaa to turn in your 2012 saltwater lic. with the survey? I did. Not sure what to make of it.

There's no enforcement now for the free version. Crank it up to $55 and there will be a checkpoint at every launch ramp in the state. "We need 300 new enforcement agents and the new Bureau of Fishing License Enforcement"

$100+ lic in our lifetime. Fishermen will have to pay for everything related to fisheries.

I have been totally against the lic up top now. But now I think it may be a good way to cull out the number of fishermen and get the fishery back in some kind of respectable shape. I know it will be a hard pill to swallow but Lets just move it to 100 per person with NO discount for seniors or youths. Frankly, seniors should pay double as they will no doubt use the lic more. I think they should even consider a more excessive fee, maybe 500 to really jump start the fishery back into some kind of respectable shape. I mean considering it will cost a grand each time I put fuel in the boat this summer, 500 is little to complain about.

I already pay:

$160 commercial license
$140 charter boat license
$45 Federal tuna
$50 CT out of state freshwater (for the inlaws)
$50 ME out of state freshwater

what's another $55 just add it on to the pile. Excuse me while I go buy more ammo .

Sure I am Sure

that's rediculous Jim, what are you some kind of elitist or something:smash: maybe you are being sracastic
not everyone can afford to pay for a salt water rec. license, and at 100 bucks it would definately hurt the sport, kids wouldn't get into it, others also. Why the need to weed out people and make it so less people are fishing? I don't get it, the more that are aware, the better chance of keeping shoreline access, once it's gone, it's gone. Once they charge more, they'll charge more.
I say F that, sounds like the old, give em an inch, take a mile crap to me.
This is why I was against a SW lic. in the first place. It is supposed to be for registration numbers to get an idea how many are SW fishing, not a money grab:wall::smash:

you got a bribe? :huh:

sounds fishy

Rather than an insidious NOAA/state collusion to increase license fees, I wonder if this is a clumsy attempt to get an idea how dedicated or devoted a fisherman the person answering the survey is. They might postulate that someone who would not pay fifty bucks for a license is not that committed to the sport.

I could easily see someone at NOAA with a commercial bias turning this around and using it as an argument that the recreational community does not value the resource enough to even shell out 55 bucks for the chance to fish.

Or it could be used as "data" (which it hardly deserves to be called) to show states that high license fees would be counter-productive and reduce participation excessively.

All I know is that if I had to I would pay $55 and get on with it. I already pay way more than that for stupid things like trailer registration, mooring registration, excise taxes. Hell, I pay $30 for a freshwater license and use it about 3 x a season.

I think it will be $56.63 don't forget the CONVENIENCE CHARGE :fury:

Charge a big high fee so poor people can't go fishing and since only the rich can go fishing it will be easier for them to catch something....

All the deer in Sherwood Forest belong to the King. The penalty for hunting the King's deer is death.

I am tired of the "poor" fisherman argument. They don't pay taxes, they get lots of entitlements and enjoy the freedom we all share by calling ourselves Americans. If they want to fish, they need to pay like everyone else does. The poor need to contribute too. 50 bucks is not going to effect 99% of the fishermen.
One more thing...before you get your permit, they should check that you are a US citizen and/or here legally.

Bitter??? You bet I am.

Oh your right fishsmith, that convenience charge is an insult to anyone with half a brain who has ever bought anything on the internet. Imagine if Amazon added a convenience charge?

$50 isn't going to affect 99% of fisherman....but $1.63 is a slap in the face. :huh: