"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:50:48 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

I've already written my legislators and asked them to address this
matter, since there is a provision to allow the states to report the
figures to the Feds and then exempt that state from the requirements.

Locally we don't have the state-to-state issues that you have in CT.

Why don't you guys get busy with your legislators?

We did just last year when this all started cranking up into high
gear. The problem in CT is that it's going to be an additional
resource for the state - we don't budget by department fee - it's into
the General Fund, then budgeted out to the various agencies. It's a
revenue question.

When I was one of CT's representatives to the NE Fisheries Management
Council, I and one other representative argued for a Federal license
for all states bordering on salt water to fund NOAA's information
gathering and the remainder to be proportional rebates to the states
based on how many salt water permits were issued in any particular
state. I had three state government reps tell me that was impossible
because of the states cost burden in writing and administrating the
license. When I brought up the whole repripocal issue, it was
dismissed out of hand. When I brought up the regional license idea it
didn't even see the light of day.

In CT, the reps and senators only see a source of General Fund revenue
and not as it is intended. My own rep and senator told me in a
meeting that as far as they were concerned, it wasn't a relevant issue
to CT because, according to DEP figures, only 8% of all license
holders would opt for the sal****er option. The DEP rep told the
group that the "special" case of RI/CT and NY would be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis. I asked if that was also true of NY and RI - no
answer.

Excuse my language, but this whole proposal is going to be a huge
cluster f#%k and it's all due to the "states rights" issue when it
really is a Federal issue.

So what do you do? Keep on keeping on and trying to get something
accomplished.

As an example, youmay remember that I posted earlier that NCDOT
& NCHP had jumped on their high horse about oversize boats, class
A drivers licenses, and restrictions on hours and days of transport.

After this was reported and the NC General Assembly went into the next
session there were no fewer than four bills addressing this issue. As
it stands, now, instead of the credulously restrictive rules and
draconian enforcement, NC will permit transport of up to a 120" wide
boat at all times and on all days, permit transport of a boat wider
than 121" on all days in daylight, and drop the requirement for a
class A license.

I'm glad all that worked out for you guys. Up here, I wish it was
that simple. Up here, nobody cares about what the people affected
think - it's a 96% Democrat controlled legislature full of lawyers and
morons.

West coast is not as simple as you state. We just work better together.
State rules are out to 3 miles and then federal rules. We have to have a
license to fish the salt and is same as Freshwater and costs about $32. I
have a lifetime license so do not follow the costs as much now. But the
license is good to fish in another states waters, as long as you do not
tough shore in that state. My Califonis license I can launch at Smith River
and fish into Oregon waters, about 4 miles notrth. As long as I do not go
into Brookings for fuel or bait, I can bring the fish back into Calif. If
launch out of Brookings I have to have an Oregon license. Forget what it
cost me 2 years ago, but seems expensive.