View Single Post
Old 03-16-2010, 12:32 PM   #28
Mike P
Jiggin' Leper Lawyer
iTrader: (0)
 
Mike P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: 61° 30′ 0″ N, 23° 46′ 0″ E
Posts: 8,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman View Post
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.
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.

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
Mike P is offline   Reply With Quote