OH YIPPEE

[UserRemoved1]

Telegram.com - A product of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette

[UserRemoved1]

eff you

The legislation authorizes the governor’s Office of Administration and Finance to set the fee for the licenses and allows authorized agents to sell the licenses and charge an additional fee for the service.

[JohnR]

Wonder what that means, specifically on the fees.

What a mess. It is sad when the best is made of a crappy situation like when fishing people work on a license that is at least palatable versus what would have been shoved down our throats by a likely uninterested legislature.

One state, CT, passes way early a somewhat palatable license with cheap fees, only to pass a short while later increased fees.

RI Legislature passes a palatable version worked on hard by local anglers and the Govenor, heart in the right place, vetos the legislation. If he vetos the legislation but chooses not to fight it with the Feds, it is a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Ma House of Reps has passed the palatable version put forth ny Mass anglers (thumbs up to Pat & Chucky) and in this article, the legi-dweebs are already rubbing their hands together waiting to appropriate the appropriations.

This is Ridiculous. Call that a hard foul?

[UserRemoved1]

I don't disagree. I call total bull%$%$%$%$ on this John. Wasn't the license fee supposed to pay for implemetation and support of the program? Now we got to pay extra to places to sell the license? Who lobbied for this. Friggin state hacks.

Originally Posted by JohnR

Wonder what that means, specifically on the fees.

What a mess. It is sad when the best is made of a crappy situation like when fishing people work on a license that is at least palatable versus what would have been shoved down our throats by a likely uninterested legislature.

One state, CT, passes way early a somewhat palatable license with cheap fees, only to pass a short while later increased fees.

RI Legislature passes a palatable version worked on hard by local anglers and the Govenor, heart in the right place, vetos the legislation. If he vetos the legislation but chooses not to fight it with the Feds, it is a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Ma House of Reps has passed the palatable version put forth ny Mass anglers (thumbs up to Pat & Chucky) and in this article, the legi-dweebs are already rubbing their hands together waiting to appropriate the appropriations.

This is Ridiculous. Call that a hard foul?

[kenyee]

Dunno why you guys are surprised. The M%$%$%$%$%$%$%$ legiscritters took the firearms licensing fees and threw that into the general fund even though the law for it said they couldn't.
This is why no one should be allowed to stay in office for long..they get this god complex and we are merely peeee-ons...

[Flaptail]

It's a farce. If you had open eyes you knew this was coming, shoved down our throats and well intentioned groups were promissed something that will never ever happen ala "the money won't be touched" bull$hit!!!!!!

As soon as it passed the "creative" minds in the legislature were already planning how to divide the spoils.

F-em!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ain't buying one and the monies generated from this won't ever make one iota of change to mess our coastal fisheries are in.

Beleive them and you definetly believe wrestlings for real too!!@@>

[Karl F]

you said a mouthfull Flap...anybody who believed it weren't general fund bound, or will be at some point, is drinking way to strong a blend of koolaide...
be interesting to see the enforcement of looking for license's...
i know more and more FW guys who don't buy 'em...and never get asked.

i would think they'd soon give up down here... long dark beaches with hardly anybody out there as it is now....

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

eff you

The legislation authorizes the governor’s Office of Administration and Finance to set the fee for the licenses and allows authorized agents to sell the licenses and charge an additional fee for the service.

They can do this now, when you obtain a freshwater, hunting or combined license:

In fact, if you get your freshwater license from a town hall, they must charge you an additional buck.

Chapter 131: Section 17A. Municipal processing fee for sale of licenses

Section 17A. Any city or town clerk issuing any license under the authority of any provision of this chapter shall, except as otherwise provided by law, charge a municipal processing fee of one dollar, and where applicable retain such fee; provided, however, that such fee shall be in addition to the fee provided under section seventeen of this chapter. Any other person duly authorized by the director to issue licenses at their place of business, provided such persons are duly bonded, may charge a service fee of up to one dollar and fifty cents for the sale of each such license. No person issuing any license under the authority of this chapter shall make a charge for the issuance thereof nor charge any service charge if no fee is required to be paid for the issuance of a license. The director is authorized to enter into agreements for the sale of licenses through other means that shall be subject to a service charge which shall be determined annually by the secretary of administration and finance under the provisions of section three B of chapter seven. The director shall cause to be printed and otherwise published upon its licenses and within its publications a notice of the fees charged pursuant to this section and section seventeen.

[tattoobob]

This is the Email I got yesterday from my rep.

11-4



Hi Bob,



Representative Greene has forwarded your email to me, expressing your support for H.4224, establishing salt water fishing licenses. I apologize for taking so long to reply, but this bill has been working through another Committee, and has actually just been released by the House Ways and Means as H. 4309. Before responding to you, I wanted to be certain that the intent of the bill had not been altered, as you feared might happen. The Ways and Means version clearly intends the revenue generated by the licensing program be used to support science and conservation programs designed to improve recreational saltwater fishing and other recreational saltwater fishing improvements. The bill actually specifies that 1/3 of the fees appropriated in a fiscal year must be expended on existing or new facilities or activities which improve public access to recreational saltwater fishing. The bill Is scheduled for a vote in the full formal session this afternoon. I will try and send you an email following the vote, but please feel free to call or send an email if you don’t hear from me.



Again, sorry for taking so long, but I wanted to be certain I had the latest information. Thank you for taking the time to contact us on this matter.



Ellen

[BasicPatrick]

I lobbied for this bill written the way it passed. So did Lou McKeil of the Salties, Liz Strohmeyer (pardon if spelled wrong) of Red Top, Mike Moss of the Sportsman's Council, Jay Baver from OTW, and many many more.

The legislation passed as written with all monies going into a dedicated fund, not the general fund. Use of the money is limited to administering the federal mandate and enhancing recreational marine fishing opprtunities. Oh yeah, 1/3rd set aside for enhnced public access only.

New rec panel to be consulted on developing uses of the money is also a great part of the bill.

The fees are reccomended by DMF and set by the state office that sets all fees. This is how fees are set. Sorry but that's the way it happens.

The "additional fee" is just like the freshwater license. The tackle shop or whomever gets to make a buck of two on top of what I believe will be a $10 license but may be $15 (which is the number I wanted in the first place after seeing the cost breakdown showing that the first $7 (roughly) will go to satisfy the federal mandate. The whole steering committee wanted some benefit for us anglers not just the fed registry. It sure looks like we are getting it.

All we have to do now is get it through the Senate. Sen Moore will not get his ammendment for the EPO's. If any money is diverted from DMF than the State wil loose 4.8 million dollars of federal matching funds that we already get. Diverting money will cost us more than Sen Moore can afford to loose.


Call your SENATOR

Whine later but stand up for yourself today...Call your Senator

Sure it sucks but man up and call your Senator

No it's not fair so particpate in Democracy and call your Senator

Stop wasting your time on this thread and call your Seantor

Listen to Flap (Gov't employee) do nothing and they might just take your money OR Listen to me (steering committee passed the bill with the dedicated fund through the House yesterday) and we might get somthing for our money....CALL YOIUR SENATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!

[UserRemoved1]

Moore is an ASS. He's %$%$%$%$ed this state so bad in the last few years it's disgusting. As a small business owner in the state I've seen it first hand.

To pay a fee on top of a fee is improper and Patrick no matter how much you tout this I respectfully disagree now that it's wrong. You lobbied to take $2 more or whatever out of every guy here's pockets. THAT isn't right. It could have and SHOULD have come out of the price of the license as I believe the original Federal wording said.

RANT OFF

[Flaptail]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

I lobbied for this bill written the way it passed. So did Lou McKeil of the Salties, Liz Strohmeyer (pardon if spelled wrong) of Red Top, Mike Moss of the Sportsman's Council, Jay Baver from OTW, and many many more.

The legislation passed as written with all monies going into a dedicated fund, not the general fund. Use of the money is limited to administering the federal mandate and enhancing recreational marine fishing opprtunities. Oh yeah, 1/3rd set aside for enhnced public access only.

New rec panel to be consulted on developing uses of the money is also a great part of the bill.

The fees are reccomended by DMF and set by the state office that sets all fees. This is how fees are set. Sorry but that's the way it happens.

The "additional fee" is just like the freshwater license. The tackle shop or whomever gets to make a buck of two on top of what I believe will be a $10 license but may be $15 (which is the number I wanted in the first place after seeing the cost breakdown showing that the first $7 (roughly) will go to satisfy the federal mandate. The whole steering committee wanted some benefit for us anglers not just the fed registry. It sure looks like we are getting it.

All we have to do now is get it through the Senate. Sen Moore will not get his ammendment for the EPO's. If any money is diverted from DMF than the State wil loose 4.8 million dollars of federal matching funds that we already get. Diverting money will cost us more than Sen Moore can afford to loose.


Call your SENATOR

Whine later but stand up for yourself today...Call your Senator

Sure it sucks but man up and call your Senator

No it's not fair so particpate in Democracy and call your Senator

Stop wasting your time on this thread and call your Seantor

Listen to Flap (Gov't employee) do nothing and they might just take your money OR Listen to me (steering committee passed the bill with the dedicated fund through the House yesterday) and we might get somthing for our money....CALL YOIUR SENATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patrick I respectfully agree to disagree with you. Why do something when in the real world nothing will happen. It's taxation with no representation all over again in a lot of ways.

Your wrong, yur efforts on this are being guided by hollow promises. You guys have started us on a roller coaster that will never stop once started. Good money for a bad idea.

Your so far in you can't get out now. You had better stay on top of this because you got us into a hell of a mess.

Money for a dysfunctional body, that will never repair the damage done by that same dysfunctional body, money that sooner rather than later will feel the cold slimy tentacles of state goverment slowly tightening around it as it is absconded with to shore up state transportaion cuts for student bussing (our district will see a 700,000 dollar cut form the state for the remainder of this year and the next fiscal year. That transltes into jobs lost for teachers, support programs for at risk kids and general operating costs.

If you don't think that the bean counters won't approach then thought of commandeering your "protected funds" your wrong.
The governor has already told the towns and city managers of the state to expect t lose more funding come next July 1st the start of the fiscal year 2010/11.

We got screwed, were gonna get even more screwed and you guys didn't accomplish anything.

Reality what a concept.

[kenyee]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

The legislation passed as written with all monies going into a dedicated fund, not the general fund.

The key is "as written". The assumption is that they will not dip their hands into it as they have in the past. This is ironically from a Dem site:
Agenda

"Fishing and hunting license fees and check-off donations dedicated to wildlife programs, fish stocking and restoration programs, are now deposited into the general fund, with only a portion allocated to environmental programs."

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

eff you

The legislation authorizes the governor’s Office of Administration and Finance to set the fee for the licenses and allows authorized agents to sell the licenses and charge an additional fee for the service.

You should know that a store who is set up to take credit cards has to pay a fee to use a card right? A store has every right to recoup those costs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

When I got a FW license to fish Maine for a weekend, they charged a couple of bucks for processing and such... to be expected I guess

[JohnR]

Flap & Patrick. Please play nice, stick to the points & no personal attacks - thank you.

[Slipknot]

I guess we'll just see what happens.
Makes sense to me to try.
I am emailing my senator now.

[BigFish]

I e-mailed my Senator and asked him if he wanted to take me to dinner before he schtupped me!!!???

[ivanputski]

Suggestions to contact a senator imply that a senator cares about what is best, fair, and just for the saltwater angler... Neither are true... From it's inception, this was a money-making tactic to plug holes in the state and federal economy... not provide YOU with a better quality of fishing... Someone, somewhere in a goverment office finally realized how much money they were missing out on... Stating that it will help fishing in some way is the sales pitch... *("of course I love you... sure I'll still respect you in the morning...")
I am a squeeky clean, law-abiding angler, who always does what's right... but charging me admission to fish an ocean, and then using my money NO WHERE NEAR the ocean (general fund) is an abuse of power... so here it is: I AM NOT BUYING A LICENSE... how many freedoms can I lose and still respect myself??
If you catch me, write me the damn ticket... every man has his breaking point, and this is mine.... Oh yeah.... when you come to give me a fine, wear your wetsuit and korkers... youre gonna have to earn it........

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Flaptail

It's a farce. If you had open eyes you knew this was coming, shoved down our throats and well intentioned groups were promissed something that will never ever happen ala "the money won't be touched" bull$hit!!!!!!

As soon as it passed the "creative" minds in the legislature were already planning how to divide the spoils.

F-em!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I ain't buying one and the monies generated from this won't ever make one iota of change to mess our coastal fisheries are in.

Beleive them and you definetly believe wrestlings for real too!!@@>

Actually, the question is, "which of my friends or relatives will I be able to get a job in the new expanded saltwater fishing agency?"

[striprman]

Disabled persons get a license "for free", well, I am disabled, where can I get a license "for free" ? How and where do I apply ? As a matter of curiosity, where will licenses be sold ? Walmart ? City Hall ? Bait and Tackle stores (Red Top, Macos...)

sucks

Also, how many kids recreational fish ? I imagine it would be quite a few, should they be required to obtain a "free" permit so the "science" that the experts are looking at doesn't get "skewed" results in their statistical calculations ?

[JohnR]

striprman - little early for those answers...

[TheSpecialist]

I have no problem with a shop that sells me a license making a buck on a license. for cripes sake they have to stop what they are doing and take the time to fill the paper work.
That said, I have been buying my sporting license online for years now, it is so much easier.

Patrick, is there anything from stopping them to adding a saltwater stamp to a sporting license?

[BasicPatrick]

Specialist,

There are some logistics that have to be worked out with the current software contractor however I am lead to beleive that in the end we will be able to go on line or go to point of sale locations just like we do now for the fresh water license.

I also a told that the goal which is not yet worked out in the software, is to be able to buy the salt water license on the same ticket with our hunting and fresh water fishing license.

The above will be difficut but is possible and almost automatically DQ's a "stamp" or even a "hip" number because the current system chanels all funds into the inland dedicated account and to do that with the marine license money would constitute a diversion and cause MA to loose it's federal funding. With federal funding the inland version is the Dingle Johnson Fund(no i'm not kidding) and the marine version is the Wallop Rowe Fund. Both could be administered on one ticket but the monies must go directly to the appropriate and separate State accounts or departments. Anything else is considered a diversion by the Feds and kils the funding.

[maddmatt]

Originally Posted by Flaptail

Patrick I respectfully agree to disagree with you. Why do something when in the real world nothing will happen. It's taxation with no representation all over again in a lot of ways.

Your wrong, yur efforts on this are being guided by hollow promises. You guys have started us on a roller coaster that will never stop once started. Good money for a bad idea.

Your so far in you can't get out now. You had better stay on top of this because you got us into a hell of a mess.

Money for a dysfunctional body, that will never repair the damage done by that same dysfunctional body, money that sooner rather than later will feel the cold slimy tentacles of state goverment slowly tightening around it as it is absconded with to shore up state transportaion cuts for student bussing (our district will see a 700,000 dollar cut form the state for the remainder of this year and the next fiscal year. That transltes into jobs lost for teachers, support programs for at risk kids and general operating costs.

If you don't think that the bean counters won't approach then thought of commandeering your "protected funds" your wrong.
The governor has already told the towns and city managers of the state to expect t lose more funding come next July 1st the start of the fiscal year 2010/11.

We got screwed, were gonna get even more screwed and you guys didn't accomplish anything.

Reality what a concept.

ct had a bunch of funds dedicated for conservation

rell just sent them to the general fund.

can't trustem and can't shoot them till the revolution officially begins

[maddmatt]

Originally Posted by ivanputski

Suggestions to contact a senator imply that a senator cares about what is best, fair, and just for the saltwater angler... Neither are true... From it's inception, this was a money-making tactic to plug holes in the state and federal economy... not provide YOU with a better quality of fishing... Someone, somewhere in a goverment office finally realized how much money they were missing out on... Stating that it will help fishing in some way is the sales pitch... *("of course I love you... sure I'll still respect you in the morning...")
I am a squeeky clean, law-abiding angler, who always does what's right... but charging me admission to fish an ocean, and then using my money NO WHERE NEAR the ocean (general fund) is an abuse of power... so here it is: I AM NOT BUYING A LICENSE... how many freedoms can I lose and still respect myself??
If you catch me, write me the damn ticket... every man has his breaking point, and this is mine.... Oh yeah.... when you come to give me a fine, wear your wetsuit and korkers... youre gonna have to earn it........

hear , hear!!!