Rhode Island Salt Water License - Fly Fishing Forum
Stripers and Coastal Gamefish Stripers, Blues, Inshore tuna!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-06-2002, 06:59 AM
artb artb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 515
Angry Rhode Island Salt Water License

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.
Lets hear from you am I wrong on how I feel about this fiasco?

Regretfully,
Arthur E. Burton Sr.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 02-06-2002, 07:52 AM
DFix DFix is offline
Fluff
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salem, MA; Deerfield, NH
Posts: 1,033
Art, this is worth ressurection

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.

Last edited by DFix; 02-06-2002 at 07:54 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old 02-06-2002, 08:09 AM
Adrian's Avatar
Adrian Adrian is offline
Flats Rat
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Connecticut/New England
Posts: 2,952
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.

My .02c
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old 02-06-2002, 09:09 AM
grego's Avatar
grego grego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NorthEast
Posts: 835
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
__________________
grego
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old 02-06-2002, 09:12 AM
Lefty's Avatar
Lefty Lefty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: North Shore, Ma.
Posts: 1,850
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old 02-06-2002, 09:30 AM
Quentin's Avatar
Quentin Quentin is offline
_
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Berkshire County, MA
Posts: 1,520
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old 02-06-2002, 09:45 AM
Dble Haul's Avatar
Dble Haul Dble Haul is offline
Fly chucker
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 3,674
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.
__________________
Mark
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old 02-06-2002, 10:25 AM
John Desjardins John Desjardins is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Central MA
Posts: 1,839
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.
__________________
John Desjardins
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old 02-06-2002, 10:30 AM
DFix DFix is offline
Fluff
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salem, MA; Deerfield, NH
Posts: 1,033
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old 02-06-2002, 12:01 PM
artb artb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 515
Angry

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/rifis..._Resources.htm

This was from RI Saltwater Anglers Association newsletter

Last edited by artb; 02-06-2002 at 12:04 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old 02-06-2002, 12:13 PM
Adrian's Avatar
Adrian Adrian is offline
Flats Rat
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Connecticut/New England
Posts: 2,952
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

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 .................

Last edited by Adrian; 02-06-2002 at 12:20 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old 02-06-2002, 12:16 PM
sean's Avatar
sean sean is offline
LBFF Mojo
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 2,160
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old 02-06-2002, 12:20 PM
Quentin's Avatar
Quentin Quentin is offline
_
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Berkshire County, MA
Posts: 1,520
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old 02-06-2002, 02:03 PM
Hawkeye's Avatar
Hawkeye Hawkeye is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: South Shore Mass.
Posts: 1,053
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.
__________________
Tight Lines,

Gregg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old 02-06-2002, 02:24 PM
rel1 rel1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Narragansett Bay
Posts: 110
Thumbs down

Quote:
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/rifis..._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
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rhode Island SaltWater License Penguin Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 13 06-25-2003 04:16 PM
RI Salt Water License Meeting Tonight DFix Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 0 02-13-2002 02:57 PM
Rhode Island Weekend Nick Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 9 10-06-2000 02:12 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 PM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)