Rhode Island Salt Water License [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: Rhode Island Salt Water License


artb
02-06-2002, 07:59 AM
I am getting upset with RI, in the News lately, there has been all kinds of news about salt water licenses, while I maybe could back it if the money was returned to the fishing, research, boating access, etc, but in its present form I can't go along with it. The reason is that the state officials:eyecrazy: want to put the moneys into the general fund. That is the fund that the officials get their raises from:hehe: , and things that are about the farther from fish as it could possibly get, for this reason I AM AGAINST A SALT WATER LICENSE. I ask how many of Flyfishing Forum would come on down and fish Rhode Islamd? I personally have enjoyed fish with my many friends that I have met on this board and would sorely miss things like the RI Clave, and I wouldn't blame all of you if you never came down and fished RI again. This State has got to be the Worst, everyone in the State government just got atleast a 4 1/2 percent raise. :devil:
Lets hear from you am I wrong on how I feel about this fiasco?

Regretfully,
Arthur E. Burton Sr.

DFix
02-06-2002, 08:52 AM
Members -

Last year or two years ago, a email/snail mail petition drive was organized on one of the boards, indicating solidarity against a vote of the RI Legislature and Gov. Almond's signature to institute salt water licensing requirements or seasonal bag limits re: commercials vs. recreationals.

I believe a petition draft existed as well. Anybody got the time to do archival research over at RT or FFSW or HERE? - I don't, but I also don't remember which board it was or who drafted the letter. I think it was effective for the moment; perhaps it's necessary again.

Art's right about the resource deserving the returns. The argument against the General Fund needs to be very loud. Massachusetts tried to do something very similar in the Eighties - remember???

Signed, a friend and supporter of Art's wisdom and intelligence.

Adrian
02-06-2002, 09:09 AM
I totally agree!

First off, Saltwater fish do not recognise political boundaries and whilst I respect each States inherent right to manage its affairs, there are times when the greater good would be served by applying the United prefix;) The thought of one day having to carry multiple licenses to fish the ocean from New Hampshire to Florida is mind boggling. The UK government actually did something sensible many years ago by introducing a National Licensing scheme for freshwater the funds from which go to support the National Rivers Authority. Angler compliance probably increased many fold as a result.

Secondly any licensing scheme targeted for general funds is a poorly disguised form of taxation.:tsk_tsk:

My .02c

grego
02-06-2002, 10:09 AM
Short & Sweat

I am not a big advocate for SW Fishing Licening. The ONLY way I (and other conservation minded fishermen)would think of supporting it, is if 100% was put back into the resource. And I agree that Research, Access, & Law Enforcement should be number one. Anything else is a Farse & just "Revenue Enhancement" !!! $0.02

Lefty
02-06-2002, 10:12 AM
To answer Arts question:

I caught nice fish up til Oct. 27 last season on the No. Shore of Mass. I was surprised to do so well and I thought to myself "why would I ever need to go to Rhodey when these locations were less than 30 mins. from home?" And the added expense of a SW license could add to that notion depending on how much it cost.

But, on the other hand, we in Mass. are used to the pols getting huge pay raises (4%? that's nothin, try 10-15% during a recession). And, if you are spending a few bucks to have a day or weekend in Rhodey, whats an extra 10 or 20 bucks? Especially if the fishing is phenomenal
(as we know it can be down there). OR if there's a clave and the Estey's are bringing chili, I have to show up (don't get stuck in cabin #4 with Juro).
So yes and no is the answer. How much are they saying it would cost?

For the record I totally agree with the sentiment that general fund targeting is wrong for this tax.
It's ironic, Rhodey has an image up here of taking care of fishemen. Where else do you see parking lots (lots of them too) posted as "Fisherman Parking".

.02 from
Lefty

Quentin
02-06-2002, 10:30 AM
Art, I agree wholeheartedly. I wouldn't mind paying for a license if the funds were used to benefit the resource, enforce fishing regulations and increase/improve public access areas. I would definitely oppose it if they intend to put the money into the general fund. Still, I like fishing in RI so much that I would probably buy a license anyway, regardless of how they intended to use my money. I probably spend a few hundred dollars per year in RI and another $30 or so won't stop me from coming down. I would just feel better about it if I knew that the money would be put back into the sport.
Q

Dble Haul
02-06-2002, 10:45 AM
Last year was my first season fishing the coast of the Ocean State, and I enjoyed it tremendously. I look forward to searching out new locations and revisiting some old ones later this year.

If a liscence is required, so be it. But I will not be happy if this winds up padding the wallets of politicians who should know better. Like Adrian has said, this sounds like taxation in disguise. :mad:

John Desjardins
02-06-2002, 11:25 AM
I have to play devils advocate and ask a question here. Why does a salt water angler get to fish without a license when his freshwater brethren has to purchase one? If one is duck hunting for instance it doesn't matter if your in an inland marsh or a salt pond, you have to buy the license.

Personally I purchase at least 3 freshwater licenses every year and find that the the cost of a license is a drop in the bucket of fishing expenses. The real problem can be in obtaining an out of state licenese.

If license revenues go for improved habitat, access, education & law enforcement fine. As most have stated, I do have a problem with the license revenue going into the black hole of the general fund.

DFix
02-06-2002, 11:30 AM
Quentin, here's a retort on the fresh water side -

I maintain a camp in NH. I spend quite a bit of time there and probably don't fish as much as I would like. NH raised license fees to almost those of Maine, without so much as a blinking of the eye; no consideration of whether non-resident fishermen would or NOT accept the increase. Personally, I don't think they'll get my money again this year. That means they've lost two renewals. Yeah, maybe they are a bit overzealous in enforcement, maybe they do stock, maybe they do cover management and safety, but they certainly shouldn't raise or institute fees without some type of public notice and reply period.

To me, it means going back to remembering some great times passed.

artb
02-06-2002, 01:01 PM
:) Members, I don't have a problem with paying for a salt water, or fresh water Fishing license, but I have a problem. The moneys brought in by the licenses do not go to RI Fish & Game, in fact the RI Fish & Game in 1990 got a budget for 1.200,000 million dollars, today the budget alloted is down to $600,000, yet the thiefs pay went up 4 1/2 percent this year alone. This is why I am against a license. Here is a URL.



http://www.ci.uri.edu/Projects/rifish/Online_Resources.htm

This was from RI Saltwater Anglers Association newsletter

Adrian
02-06-2002, 01:13 PM
As an ex-pat, taxation without representation is a reality for me at the moment but I live with it because this is a great country which I am proud to call home.:)

If licence fees are imposed for saltwater as they are already for fresh then I'll still go fishing. To John's point, last year I bought both Connecticut and New York rod licences in order to fish upstream of the arbitrary lines defining where the tidal and fresh zones begin. The Striped Bass I was chasing ignore these boundaries with impunity :D

I am with those who would support a licence fee 100% directed towards protecting and improving the resource. My sense is that a nationaly coordinated system would be more effective than individual states doing their own thing.

It just seems crazy for RI to create another level of beurocracy which, like so many other beurocracies, will in all probability fail to generate sufficient revenue to maintain its existence, let alone implement any policy. Bear in mind that it costs time and money to set these things up and then operate them. My sense is that historically, this has had a tendency to result in an increased tax burden rather than shutting an inefficient beurocracy down.

What next:

A licence (tax) to ride a bicycle on the public highway?
A licence (tax) to grow your own vegetables?

:eyecrazy:

To the points about States voting themselves pay raises in excess of the RPI when so many are accepting salary cuts to maintain their jobs well .................:confused:

sean
02-06-2002, 01:16 PM
Wait a second.

You east coasters do not have to pay saltwater license fees?????

In washington we have to pay BOTH slatwater and freshwater fees to the tune of around $40 if you want both.

I guess we do have slamon and steelhead stocking and enhancement programs but I am surprised to hear you guys do not pay a thing.

I do not mind paying the fees but only if they go to the right place. I for one do not think our department of fish and game in washington spends the money correctly but when has goverment ever spent money wisely?

I for one think if fees are going to be accessed then the public should get some kind of say in when/where/how the money is spent. The only recourse we have is general lobbying of the board members and we all know those with the deepest pockets usually win those wars. We will see though in 2 days when they vote on wild steelhead release.

-sean

Quentin
02-06-2002, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by DFix
. . . NH raised license fees to almost those of Maine, without so much as a blinking of the eye; no consideration of whether non-resident fishermen would or NOT accept the increase. Personally, I don't think they'll get my money again this year. That means they've lost two renewals. . . . They certainly shouldn't raise or institute fees without some type of public notice and reply period. . . .

Yup, MA did the same thing a few years ago and raised the cost of their freshwater licenses by $10 (as you probably know). I'm pretty sure that MA resident licenses now cost as much or more than NY or CT non-resident licenses!

If RI does go through with the SW license plan it will be interesting to see if they have any type of public hearings to find out what the people think. Of course, that may or may not make any difference in their decision. I also wonder what if any research was done to try to determine the overall economic effect of such a plan. Being in such close proximity to NY, MA and CT, I think RI businesses could lose quite a bit of money if people stop going there because they don't want to buy a license.
Q

Hawkeye
02-06-2002, 03:03 PM
Short and sweet. I seem to agree with most - no license unless $ used to enhance or protect the resource, but keep in mind they can change their minds about where the $ goes after they get their hooks in you. Wasn't the lottery $ supposed to go toward education?

If a license did happen I would like to see a punch card program as well.

rel1
02-06-2002, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by artb
:) Members, I don't have a problem with paying for a salt water, or fresh water Fishing license, but I have a problem. The moneys brought in by the licenses do not go to RI Fish & Game, in fact the RI Fish & Game in 1990 got a budget for 1.200,000 million dollars, today the budget alloted is down to $600,000, yet the thiefs pay went up 4 1/2 percent this year alone. This is why I am against a license. Here is a URL.



http://www.ci.uri.edu/Projects/rifish/Online_Resources.htm

This was from RI Saltwater Anglers Association newsletter I am definitely against the saltwater license as they are proposing it(general fund), even if it goes to DEM we won't se much of it in any form. Ron

rel1
02-06-2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Adrian
As an ex-pat, taxation without representation is a reality for me at the moment but I live with it because this is a great country which I am proud to call home.:)

If licence fees are imposed for saltwater as they are already for fresh then I'll still go fishing. To John's point, last year I bought both Connecticut and New York rod licences in order to fish upstream of the arbitrary lines defining where the tidal and fresh zones begin. The Striped Bass I was chasing ignore these boundaries with impunity :D

I am with those who would support a licence fee 100% directed towards protecting and improving the resource. My sense is that a nationaly coordinated system would be more effective than individual states doing their own thing.

It just seems crazy for RI to create another level of beurocracy which, like so many other beurocracies, will in all probability fail to generate sufficient revenue to maintain its existence, let alone implement any policy. Bear in mind that it costs time and money to set these things up and then operate them. My sense is that historically, this has had a tendency to result in an increased tax burden rather than shutting an inefficient beurocracy down.

What next:

A licence (tax) to ride a bicycle on the public highway?
A licence (tax) to grow your own vegetables?

:eyecrazy:

To the points about States voting themselves pay raises in excess of the RPI when so many are accepting salary cuts to maintain their jobs well .................:confused: Its funny you mentioned taxing bikes on the public roads. This same idea was mentioned on another board that I frequent- puting up toll booths along the bike path- which by the way was funded by our (fishermen) taxes as a DEM project. This idea I agree with.

John Desjardins
02-06-2002, 04:22 PM
Art, Only $ 600,000 for Fish & Game, that is a travesty. You can't run much of a program on that amount of money.

FishHawk
02-07-2002, 06:22 AM
The cost of the license is not the issue for me. Hell, I spend much more of flytying materials than the cost would be for
a non residence saltwater license. Its that fact that the state is not honest with the people. Is simply another way of sportsmen to help fund the state. I wonder if law enforcement would improve with funding from a saltwater license?
If having a license would increase law enforcement and be a dedicated fund then I wouldn't mind paying, but we all know
this will not happen.:smokin:

RayStachelek
02-07-2002, 11:46 AM
From what I understand, DEM's budget has been cut by the state legislature the last 18 years. DEM has been using federal money relating to fishing taxes to make up for this budget shortfall. To the tax people of RI, it appears that the dept. is adequately funded. Who knows where the intended money was siphoned off too. Maybe used at Foxwoods or some other vacation junket. The Dingle/Whallop act was supposed to extend and inherence the state's wildlife fisheries, not to make up for shortfalls in the budget. Strictly to improve conditions like access, boat ramps, fish limits, etc.

The politicians care less about our marine environment. They proved this by reducing funding and education. That why they continue to push for the container port issue. More money in their pockets derived from construction cost, builders, contractor, and the like.

capt_gordon
02-11-2002, 04:49 PM
Things are different here in NC. We desperately need a SW fishing license. As you may or may not know we have a very strong comm lobby here. The only way for us to make any changes (which we need) will be to have a definite count of the number of rec anglers buying licenses. Then we will have VOTERS, not just guesses. Then we can get the nets out of our inshore waters. You may think that this does not affect you up there in RI but think of this; almost the entire population of Chesapeake stripers is wintering off of the coastline of the northern Outer Banks right at this moment (a long ways from me in Morehead City), do these fish go to New England in the summer? They get hammered by netters (beach seiners mostly) pretty hard while they are here. Until we get a SW license there will be no way for us to stop them from doing this. Period. It's not all about the money (although we need that too). I almost think that pressure needs to be applied by other states or by the feds to help us here. It is sad when you run across one of our sounds and see gillnet floats as far as you can see and shrimpers running trawls in water that you can stand in. I get really frustrated. As a guide I can;t really do all that much because the guys who are running these nets find out where you live and come toyour house and break your stuff. Catch 22 as it were. Nobody is willing to stand up and take the heat. Remember that it took a constitional amendment in FL to get the nets out down there.

shaialude
02-11-2002, 10:07 PM
Hi arthur, Met with our old friend Al B Saturday. Good to see him still getting around well at 84.
Arthur, it saddens me to hear fishermen who are willing to trade the right to fish in salt water for the priviledge of buying a license. It has been frought up several times over the past 5 years. The DEM has a wonderous wishlist of benefits that will accrue to the fishermen if they only had more revenue. Missing from this is more fish. If you run their own number the lie become apparent.
At any rate is is good to hear from you again.

Ron Montecalvo

RayStachelek
02-11-2002, 10:42 PM
Ron

The state representees of RI should take a page out of one of their most successful models programs ever institued.

Remember back about five years ago they did away with the boat/motor sales tax? This helped jump start a sluggish marine economy. Now the return dollar amount has generated more cottage industries. New jobs, boat builders, even marines have prospered. There's a wait list for slips at all the marinas. They reap more in personal income taxes and new jobs than what they lost in tax revenue.

What they should do is promote sportfishing and faze out by attrition some commercial licenses. You don't deplete the stocks, but the revenue from tourists dollars is ten fold.

Move this money over to DEM and make sure they keep their hands off of it. Makes alot more sense that beating a dead horse.

Lefty
02-12-2002, 09:00 AM
Gordon,
Wow, I'm blown away! I wonder what the Dept. of Commerce's position is on the plight of the stocks in N.C.?

LEfty

capt_gordon
02-12-2002, 07:22 PM
Unfortunately at this time NC is "in compliance" which is a euphemism for doing the bare minimum so untila lot of pressure is applied by a lot of people we are pretty much stuck with what we got. It is a bum deal. Check out the discussions on http://www.gofishnc.com and see how the rec anglers down here can't even agree among themselves. Did you know that as a rec fishing person in NC you can get a permit to fish 100 yards of gillnet and that you can leave it unattended as long as the mesh is over 5 1/4 inches. I take redfish out of nets (to release them) all the time and it makes me sick!