Beach - I appreciate your taking a long range view on the license but "not in our lifetime" on a relatively small issue is OK. I would certainly prefer it not happen but if my son had to fight it when he is 35 years old, that's OK too. I would much rather take a long range view on the actual fisheries management to make sure they are around when he's 35 then the license.
If Diodati is against a license, that's good enough for me provided Mitt doesn't get any bold new ideas from his little neighbor to the south.
Quote:
|
It seems as though the knee jerk reaction from most is that a license would be a death sentence for fishing and it would never be the same again. Well, in my opinion, except for the reduction in fisherman, the LONG TERM benefits would be positive if the licensing was constructed with the funds actually DOING something as oppossed to propping up a tax and spend system.
|
It seems to be your knee jerk reaction that we have not given this a lot of thought. You are relatively new to the board here and probably don't understand that we collectively - here on the board and in the clubs we are members - have gone thru potential saltwater rec licenses in two states several times. Many are not opposed to a saltwater license provided many concrete guarantees are made fact. Things like monies raised would be in addition to currently allocated funds not used in lieu of, money never goes to general account, specific returns on investment are made such as land /access aquisition, parking & right of ways, and angler's bill of rights so to speak. But if it's a money grab tax like the Rhody bit was, it should not be confused with a license.
In your nearly 40 years of watching similiar occurences did you see how Virginia, which strongly promised protection of their license revenues, stole the funds for their general account at the 1st sign of trouble?