Support of license

[beachwalker]

Hello,

I am not in support of the RI SW license but am wondering, if licenses go into effect in RI and potentially other states, what the residual outcome they will have on reducing pressure on our hallowed gamefish.

Is $ 18 really a big deal ? One may spend that on gas driving on the beach in a night.

If the legislation is wriitten that funds from the licensed be appropriated for DEM work will it then be OK ?

Oh man, I am in for it now........

[jugstah]

If the money was actually used to go towards conservation and law enforcement efforts to prevent people from taking undersized stripers, I think most of us may be amendable...

But it's really that they're going to charge fees for saltwater fishing just to balance their budgets... that's just not cool.

[beachwalker]

Yes, that is the bullsh*$#t there.

But if Mass were to do it and used a LARGE portion of the funds to protect and patrol we would all probably accept it. I mean that it would take a LOT of pressure off of the Bass (if that is what they are portecting) and reduce the wannabe, one time fisherman types.

[NilsC]

Originally posted by beachwalker
Oh man, I am in for it now........

.

I am not in support of the RI SW license but am wondering, if licenses go into effect in RI and potentially other states, what the residual outcome they will have on reducing pressure on our hallowed gamefish.

Is $ 18 really a big deal ? One may spend that on gas driving on the beach in a night.

If the legislation is wriitten that funds from the licensed be appropriated for DEM work will it then be OK ?

[list=1][*]I don't think license will reduce pressure on game fish. It will produce a lot of ilegal fishing, and if fishing without a license why bother with lenght or limit. If you get caught you get a fine...[*]$18.00 is not a big deal. BUT, is that all... what will the cost for non residents be? $18.00 for 14 day lic. etc. etc.[*]So how often does a politician tell you the truth? Today the money goes to the DEM, next year the DEM budget is reduced and the excess money goes to the GF. [/list=1]

just my two cents and how's fishing beachwalker.

Nils

[beachwalker]

Nils,

Good points but the fines generated from busting scofflaws would be a bigger motivation for enforcement and that definelty scares me.
To be pulled over on the beach to check for the license by whom ?

Clambo ? Who is a cop and can bust you if you have a frickin' beer between your legs.

The ramifications are quite large.

Just imagine someone unlicensed nabbed with undersized or over limit.

Maybe they will swear us diehards in as beach nazi's and we can take care of them ourselves. The old west way .............

[beachwalker]

Oh yea,

The fishing has been pretty damn good.

Looking forward to tonight. SW wind, higher pressure = hungry Bass...........

[Sweetieface]

Beachwalker,

I think its also the principle thats worth the fight.

Why should I pay any money (18 or 8) to fish in R.I.? I can just stay here and NOT have to get the license and NOT have to renew it in a year, and etc. etc.

And why should residents have to pay when MA residents don't have to in MA? Will this be the beginning of the end of non-license SW fishing in NE?

Figure, everytime you go to R.I. for a day/weekend of fishing, you spend more than 18 on gas, food, and misc. stuff. They'll lose out bigtime in the end. For me, its nothing to do with $$.

[beachwalker]

SF,

I hear you loud and clear but I believe that the opinion and assumption that people are "losing out" is unfounded and based on conjecture as oppossed to solid fact.
Just because one contributes to the local economy during their fishing venture doesn't automatically hand them the keys to the waterfront. Where did you buy the gas ?, etc. It isn't consistent and doesn't contribute to RI specifically. In my opinion it is NOT a good arguement.

If and when these licenses are imposed is just a matter of time. It is inevitable. Florida and other states have imposed them so it is not so "Socialist" to impose them elsewhere. The only surprise in RI is that the state actually has a history of standing up for individuals rights as oppossed to reducing them. Those years are long gone and we live in an age where rules and laws are cluttering our lives. Take a look at Europe. You need a license for wiping your butt (well almost).

People abuse rights. No one is saying that people are abusing their right to fish in RI and that is not the reason why this is being forced through. The reasons are monetary and won't help RI fisherman at all. But it WILL increase awareness of fishing and what it takes to go fishing.

We spend time on this site talking about fishinng and the how's and how not's.

My impression is that a Massachusetts SW license is coming and, in the long run, it will benefit the fishery. People will have to be accountable for their actions. It won't be the same drunken "this so easy, I'm an awesome fisherman" thing anymore. You will be accountable for catch, safety and release of fish. You may even actually have to be GOOD at it. Fancy that. Actually getting better at fishing as oppossed to being a "Cranky, I do it MY way" type of angler. The fishery WILL be healthier because there won't be as many demands on it.

Is progression wonderful ?

Overall, I am NOT in support of a license that is force fed down the constituents mouths without proper representation.
That is horse shiite and RI is in for a heap of protests over this method.

[Raven]

called the atlantic

[beachwalker]

For any that believe that the Atlantic Ocean is "Theirs" and it is a utopian right to have access to every inch and ounce of it should read the Constitution.

States and individuals have rights because of the Constitution.

Introduced as the Articles of the Confederation they were revised 5 years later and resubmitted for a vote to the states for ratification. It was unanimously approved by 12 states with one abstaining. You guessed it Rhode Island. At the time RI was a collective society of farmers and merchants who believed in equal representation for the common man. Other states were being governed by the upper classes and Rhode Island felt an obligation to represent the lower class working public.

So the arguement that this is some "Communist plot", etc. is far from the truth. RI was FAR more communist in the 1780's. You wish should be that they ARE a collective society today. That would have not allowed for this to happen.

My how times have changed..............

[JohnR]

Beach - the problem is that there are NO guarrantees that the money would remain or even start to be used for DEM. The money would be ear marked but can easily be swallowed up at any time. Legislation GUARANTEEING protection of the funds would not happen.

The other part of the problem is that the taxes brought in, both state sales taxes and the Federal Fishing Tax already occur and should be plenty to take care of the needs of DEM. For example, if Sales Tax from fishing & boating related activites were say, oh I dunno, maybe 50 million a year? Not unconcieveable but for the sake of arguement make it half that and it's 25 mil per year. What's wrong with getting the 3 mil needed by DEM from the General Fund to support what raised 25 mil or 50 mil in the first place? Why gouge the anglers for another 2 mil when the money SHOULD be there in the first place.

The problem is that the money raised in taxes by saltwater fishing & boating, jobs created - more taxes collected, yada yada yada is more than suficent by 800-1000-2000% or more to take care of DEM's needs yet they want to squirel that money away for their own projects (like giving 10-15 mil to the Greyhoud Dog Owners - I'm not making this crap up) to benefit the few but will tax us anglers to benefit the public. That's what it bo9ils down to - everytrhing else is CRAP I tell ya....

[beachwalker]

John,

I agree and thanks for the info. Wouldn't this be the right time to try and cut a deal that guarantees a more appropriate allocation of funds. It isn't going to fall flat. I thinka deal needs to be cut.

I am starting to concentrate on Mass.

I hope that you guys get through the proper channels down in Rhody. I went to school there and am pissed I don't call it my home right now ! I'd be on the State house steps protesting if I did !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mrmacey]

alot more people are up in arms besides this site, politicians themselves think it will never work and it might be unconstitional anyway its on the charters that all men have the right to the oceans it can never be enforced

[NilsC]

Originally posted by beachwalker
So the arguement that this is some "Communist plot", etc. is far from the truth. RI was FAR more communist in the 1780's. You wish should be that they ARE a collective society today. That would have not allowed for this to happen.

My how times have changed..............

(I read the part that I'm quoting several times... and everytime around I see a different meaning in those words. It's scary, but my post are not reflecting you. It's only my opinion and opinions are like a$$es, everybody got one... none alike)

I agree that times have changed, but they are also the same.
If "Communism / sosialism" are so great, why isn't USSR and East Germany still around? I grew up in a country where your personal income tax was +50% of you gross pay, you were limited to how many hours of overtime you could work in a year. If you worked more than 4hr's in any given week your overtime was taxed at 90%. Your taxes supported so called free medical, dental and sick pay. (Nothing is free in life).

The common man was protecting his rights and his freedom here in RI.
This quote are directly from State of RI History Chapter 3:

Beginning with strong opposition in Newport to the SugarAct (1764), with its restrictions on the molasses trade, the colony engaged in repeated measures of open defiance, such as the scuttling and torching of the British customs sloop Liberty in Newport harbor in July 1769, the burning of British revenue schooner Gaspee on Warwick's Namquit Point in 1772, and Providence's own "Tea Party" in March 1775. Gradually the factions of Ward and Hopkins put aside their local differences and united by endorsing a series of political responses to alleged British injustices. On May 17, 1774, after parliamentary passage of the Coercive Acts (Americans called them "Intolerable"), the Providence Town Meeting became the first governmental assemblage to issue a call for a general congress of colonies to resist British policy. On June 15 the General Assembly made the colony the first to appoint delegates (Ward and Hopkins) to the anticipated Continental Congress.

I love to read, it's almost as fun as fishing.

BTW, beachwalker I'm glad fishing are great. I'm on vacation next week and I'm ready to fish all night. And now I know what books to bring, RI history and so on.

Nils

[beachwalker]

Well done Nils. Facts not assumptions or prejudiced comments.

The truth can cause offense.

But the best offense is truth...........

[NilsC]

he he Beachwalker, one day I'll tell the story of me using the word "assume" in a meeting with my boss... not a pretty sight.


Nils

[BasicPatrick]

Beach,

I appreciate your well thought out and written opinions. I wish to ask on what basis you state that a license is coming in MA. I would disagree strongly with this statement.

The basis for this would be the following.

1) MA tried to back door a license about 7 years ago. A very quick public demonstration killed it in less than a week. This is with a DMF Commish that was in favor of the license. Many politicians took serious hits over supporting the license.

2) Paul Diodati (durrent DMF Commish) has stated many times both in public and private that he is not in favor of a license in MA. In fact at the recent SB Advisory Panel meeting he told us all on the record that he did not see a license in the future at all.

3) MA Pols in general listen to Ma facts and the numbers the state uses to determine the benefits of fishing just say that a license would be detremental.

4) The MA recreational community continues to become and even stronger lobbying group. The coalition of related groups, clubs and organization is very active right now in the Freedom to Fish Bill and there is not a state politician that is looking to bring up the license thing with this kind of pressure ongoing.

My comments are not to say that wqe should not always be on the lookout, but right now to say a license is coming would just be inaccurate from my perspective.

[beachwalker]

BP,

In my opinion a license is coming. Maybe not in our lifetime but in others.
My reasons come from first hand experience in Florida as well as a few years (40 to be exact) observing the decline of the fisheries and the generally poor funding of research and fisheries management. We, as fishing folk, clammer constantly over reduced stocks, crowded spots, illegal practices, poor enforcement, etc.

A fishing license doesn't always mean an all inclusive mandate for everyone that saltwater fishes. In Florida the license pertains to BOAT fishing, people over the age of 16 and under 65 and is offered in a Lifetime pass form.

There are so many variables and conditions that could allow for a license that is sensible that I believe it is close minded to think that there NEVER potentially will be a license in the area.

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.

I believe in a progressive approach to government. It is always the most popular learning is always that popular either.

[beachwalker]

It just isn't the most popular. Learning seems to be generally unpopular as well

[JohnR]

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.

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?

[beachwalker]

John,

Thanks again for the info.

Concerning Virginia:

Yes, and it is why I don't support a "force-fed" approach to SW licenses. I am against curtailing ones privilege/right to fish without prioper representation or in support other programs.
The taxes imposed on cigarettes is a good example. Much of the money is ear-marked for health costs incurred by smokers burdening the system.
The fisheries take punishment as well and funds should, more appropriately, be sent to managing and enforcing this fragile system.

When I drive the shore and see and smell dead fish carcasses littering the area, left by improperly educated or otherwise "lack of effort/respect fisherman, I KNOW there is a problem with management. It is a privilege to have fish to catch, not a right (in my opinion). My hope is for a better fishery future.

I don't believe wagging a finger at issues keeps everyone in the arena.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

My "New" opinions may shock some and anger others. That is part of a "knee-jerk" example. I am not accusing ALL fisherman of being ignorant nor am I pointing my finger at government and saying wrong, wrong, wrong. It is important to show the reasonable, logical, progressive side to matters and, hopefully, all involved can see a broader, more long range view of situations.

None of us are perfect (obviously). We all have our shortcomings.
My late Grandfather had a great saying:

"Every cripple has his own way of walking"

Meaning: accept all and work TOGETHER for substantive progression.

[Sweetieface]

(Raven, great new avatar)

Beachwalker, you seem passionate enough about this to be picketing on the sidewalks even if you aren't a RI resident.

I understand your argument, but I think its just plain ridiculous to hit up fishermen for something they've done for free all along just to pay for other things. Like JohnR said before (pretty sure it was him), if we KNEW the $ was going to all fishing related ideas, it would be one thing.

I like your comparison to the cigarette tax. I think that's an outrageous tax also. It may be contributing to healthcare, but I think its entirely unfair to tax one specific group of people to the point of doubling a pack of cigarettes just to compensate for those who've smoked in the past and now have lung issues and/or cancer. I defend that because its insane, not because I smoke, (because I do not smoke.) You can't hold one group responsible for the well-being of all others. I just think its unfair. Just like a fishing license in RI is. After all, my personal fishing in RI doesn't cause any serious problems for RI residents that I know of....unless they don't like me donating bait to their fish!

But, I see you feel strongly about accepting the license idea. And so I've decided to help you out. If you don't mind the license, I would be happy to allow you to pay for mine.........

[beachwalker]

Thanks Sweetie,

I appreciate the response and get the humor , but I think (and hope) that you are missing my point.

I am in favor of better fisheries management. If that takes a fee, and a licensing process, than so be it. I live in Massachusetts. I will contribute to any efforts to control and accpet or defeat proposals here and elsewhere.

It is HOW they are wriiten that needs to be monitored. Would you pay a fee if it meant that some prime, crowded fishing spots were monitored for license compliancy and gave you more of a chance of hitting some fish ? If it meant that the pressure on fishing was relieved, even slightly ? If it meant that, down the road there was the potential to introduce a management policy that was forward thinking (or at least CURRENT) and WE contributed to it through information and NOT just money ?

A VERY utopian idea but, I feel, worth thinking about.

Just wait how many guys pipe in trying to pay your license.

Thanks for the opinion, it is a good one.

[Sweetieface]

BW,
I absolutely get your point.
I understand your utopian idea just fine. But it might be just that, utopian, and maybe impossible.

My point was that yah, you have a good idea going, but how often do you see a tax go to good use?

This is, after all, the U.S.

We pay 25% or more to taxes each year, State and Federal out of our paychecks. Do you know what they go to?

If my MA taxes fund the big dig, what am I paying toll booths $2.00 each day to take the Tobin to work for? The roads are torn up, potholes run rampant, where does my $480.00 annual toll $ go?
Where does 25% of my paycheck go, my 5% meal etc. tax, my $2.00 toll tax, etc etc etc. (I personally believe I involuntarily pay Mr. Bulger's paycheck in part, but that's my opinion)
For me to believe that fishing taxes would go entirely to fishing is unrealistic.

That's *my point*. If you or anyone else can prove to me that taxing my ability to toss a jig into the ocean can provide better fishing for me or anyone else, I'll be first in line with my 18.00 check. Or should I say YOUR 18.00 check!

[beachwalker]

Sweetie,

Thanks again.

My thoughts were never that ALL of the bucks would go to fish management. Fortunately, the ocean potholes fill themselves in pretty quickly so we wouldn't have that expense.

Road taxes suck, but no roads at all, I believe, could be worse.

I heard one of the forum contributors state that "he would spend 365 days a year in court" before he would pay for a fishing license. What is up with that ? So he would take a whole year off, make no money, incur court costs and fines all for proving to himself that he won't pay a nominal license fee ? Hunters have to pay. They have a season. They realize that the stocks need to be culled but, equally important, need to be managed.

I am able to hear everyones opinion on the matter and accept qand understand their comments. It is the inflexibilty and stubborness that I hope would not be present.

Resistance to change. Fear of the unknown. These all make sense when used as identifiers for why fishing folk are reacting this way. No blame on my end.

Just a bit of puzzlement

[Sweetieface]

Well Beachwalker, we're at in impass.

Let's agree to disagree on this and call it a day. We'll have to wait and see.

Don't need this to be the next Roe VS. Wade-r.

[beachwalker]

Ok. I guess that means you disagree with something that I am not in FULL agreement with.

I am not trying to pass a license here. I am looking for relevant feedback in regards to a license and how it COULD be useful. At another post a fisherman has just posted statistics stating that DEM jobs (11 or 12) are to be lost due to budget cuts and shifted from local to State EPA.

Less management is the consequence of less funds. It's a fact (I think, we'll see what happens there) that will be what it will be.

Sweeitie, I look forward to any feedback and information you and others have concerning this topic. I know that some of the forum members (considering the LARGE volume of PM's i have been getting) are providing me with great information to back up their opinions, Some are for and some are against. Some have it accurate info and some have not.

I am getting the info I am seeking. Keep it up folks.

[Sweetieface]

BW, I guess in some way a license COULD be useful, but I also COULD be a supermodel if I'd only starve myself for six months and get some plastic surgery.

I'm not a big fan of either idea.

I don't argue the possibility of license/fees helping out, I just don't want to have to get one.

[beachwalker]

Sweetie,

Heehee.

But, I get the drift that you think that better rules, i.e. possibly a license, has about as much of a chance as you being a supermodel.

If that was how I handled each days challenges I may never have solved any of the hurdles that I ciome across.

Being proactive get's things done. John was proactive getting signatures together and delivering them to the State House and it had a great impact on things.

DOING get's things done. Period.

[Scotch Bonnet]

I would be in favor a saltwater liscence if the money were going to the DEM, fisheries management, clean up etc. They would also be able to pass out information on size and bag limits in different languages and spell out the penalties that one would face if caught breaking the rules. Hell, I blow $20+ everytime I hit the beach.