http://tinyurl.com/rd4w9n

"House Bill 5857 overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives
and now waits an expected similar vote from the Senate. During this
time of budget crunch, it’s hard to imagine revenues generated from
sal****er licensing will be voted down or vetoed by our governor.
Costs to a Connecticut resident angler will be $10 (65 and over, free)
and non-residents $15—separate from regular fishing/hunting licenses.
Party boat anglers will be exempt from fees."

There's a storm abrewing over the Party boat clause - apparently it's
only for large boats - 35 or more passengers - all others will require
a license to fish CT waters.

The small charter boat operators are frothing at the mouth about that.

This happened very quickly - I first heard about it on Monday when the
rumors started flying. I've been involved from the start on this as
both my State Rep and Senator are on the committee that wrote the bill
and I've actually presented my concerns to them and both the Speaker
and President Pro Tempore who I also happen to know personally.

Fortunately, this is a good bill and will recognize reciprocity in
neighboring states which was a major concern of mine - I would have
preferred a regional license for more money and sequestration of the
money to the various DEP departments, but you can't have everything.

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:21:57 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

Fortunately, this is a good bill and will recognize reciprocity in
neighboring states which was a major concern of mine

Hopefully Florida is a neighboring state? Enforcement is going to
present some interesting issues in places like Fishers Island Sound
and the Race where the state lines are not exactly painted on the
water, and NY does not require a salt water license. I'm opposed.

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/rd4w9n

"House Bill 5857 overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives
and now waits an expected similar vote from the Senate. During this
time of budget crunch, it’s hard to imagine revenues generated from
sal****er licensing will be voted down or vetoed by our governor.
Costs to a Connecticut resident angler will be $10 (65 and over, free)
and non-residents $15—separate from regular fishing/hunting licenses.
Party boat anglers will be exempt from fees."

There's a storm abrewing over the Party boat clause - apparently it's
only for large boats - 35 or more passengers - all others will require
a license to fish CT waters.

The small charter boat operators are frothing at the mouth about that.

This happened very quickly - I first heard about it on Monday when the
rumors started flying. I've been involved from the start on this as
both my State Rep and Senator are on the committee that wrote the bill
and I've actually presented my concerns to them and both the Speaker
and President Pro Tempore who I also happen to know personally.

Fortunately, this is a good bill and will recognize reciprocity in
neighboring states which was a major concern of mine - I would have
preferred a regional license for more money and sequestration of the
money to the various DEP departments, but you can't have everything.


I pay $50 a year for a Maryland boat sal****er license.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:21:57 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

Fortunately, this is a good bill and will recognize reciprocity in
neighboring states which was a major concern of mine

Hopefully Florida is a neighboring state? Enforcement is going to
present some interesting issues in places like Fishers Island Sound
and the Race where the state lines are not exactly painted on the
water, and NY does not require a salt water license. I'm opposed.


Florida already requires a sal****er license when fishing from a boat.

On Jun 4, 11:33*am, HK wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/rd4w9n

"House Bill 5857 overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives
and now waits an expected similar vote from the Senate. During this
time of budget crunch, it’s hard to imagine revenues generated from
sal****er licensing will be voted down or vetoed by our governor.
Costs to a Connecticut resident angler will be $10 (65 and over, free)
and non-residents $15—separate from regular fishing/hunting licenses.
Party boat anglers will be exempt from fees."

There's a storm abrewing over the Party boat clause - apparently it's
only for large boats - 35 or more passengers - all others will require
a license to fish CT waters.

The small charter boat operators are frothing at the mouth about that.

This happened very quickly - I first heard about it on Monday when the
rumors started flying. I've been involved from the start on this as
both my State Rep and Senator are on the committee that wrote the bill
and I've actually presented my concerns to them and both the Speaker
and President Pro Tempore who I also happen to know personally.

Fortunately, this is a good bill and will recognize reciprocity in
neighboring states which was a major concern of mine - I would have
preferred a regional license for more money and sequestration of the
money to the various DEP departments, but you can't have everything.

I pay $50 a year for a Maryland boat sal****er license.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Always has to be about Harry..........................

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:36:54 -0400, "Wishingtobefishing"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:21:57 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

Fortunately, this is a good bill and will recognize reciprocity in
neighboring states which was a major concern of mine

Hopefully Florida is a neighboring state? Enforcement is going to
present some interesting issues in places like Fishers Island Sound
and the Race where the state lines are not exactly painted on the
water, and NY does not require a salt water license. I'm opposed.


Florida already requires a sal****er license when fishing from a boat.

I know but it seems unlikely that CT will consider us a "neighboring
state".

On Jun 4, 2:28*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:36:54 -0400, "Wishingtobefishing"





wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:21:57 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

Fortunately, this is a good bill and will recognize reciprocity in
neighboring states which was a major concern of mine

Hopefully Florida is a neighboring state? * Enforcement is going to
present some interesting issues in places like Fishers Island Sound
and the Race where the state lines are not exactly painted on the
water, and NY does not require a salt water license. * I'm opposed.

Florida already requires a sal****er license when fishing from a boat.

I know but it seems unlikely that CT will consider us a "neighboring
state".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think we share with you's guys' on boaters licence's... But they
require a course and a test, all this requires is more tax collectors;(

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:27:44 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:21:57 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

Fortunately, this is a good bill and will recognize reciprocity in
neighboring states which was a major concern of mine

Hopefully Florida is a neighboring state? Enforcement is going to
present some interesting issues in places like Fishers Island Sound
and the Race where the state lines are not exactly painted on the
water, and NY does not require a salt water license. I'm opposed.

That's a large part of the problem. CT rushed into this way too fast -
it should have been a regional implimentation run concurrently and
with proper coordination.

There are places, in particular off Stonington, where you turn the
Watch Hill to Port and you are in RI, keep straight you are in CT and
if you split the difference, you are in NY.

And I've actually seen this - a RI DEM boat on one side of the line
and the NY DEM boat on the other side and both of them stopping people
crossing from one to the other - this was during the "fluke" wars
about six years ago.

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:27:44 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:21:57 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

Fortunately, this is a good bill and will recognize reciprocity in
neighboring states which was a major concern of mine
Hopefully Florida is a neighboring state? Enforcement is going to
present some interesting issues in places like Fishers Island Sound
and the Race where the state lines are not exactly painted on the
water, and NY does not require a salt water license. I'm opposed.

That's a large part of the problem. CT rushed into this way too fast -
it should have been a regional implimentation run concurrently and
with proper coordination.

There are places, in particular off Stonington, where you turn the
Watch Hill to Port and you are in RI, keep straight you are in CT and
if you split the difference, you are in NY.

And I've actually seen this - a RI DEM boat on one side of the line
and the NY DEM boat on the other side and both of them stopping people
crossing from one to the other - this was during the "fluke" wars
about six years ago.


Civil servants and commissions smarter than you or D'whine will figure
out what will work and implement it.

HK wrote:
Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:27:44 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 11:21:57 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

Fortunately, this is a good bill and will recognize reciprocity in
neighboring states which was a major concern of mine
Hopefully Florida is a neighboring state? Enforcement is going to
present some interesting issues in places like Fishers Island Sound
and the Race where the state lines are not exactly painted on the
water, and NY does not require a salt water license. I'm opposed.

That's a large part of the problem. CT rushed into this way too fast -
it should have been a regional implimentation run concurrently and
with proper coordination.

There are places, in particular off Stonington, where you turn the
Watch Hill to Port and you are in RI, keep straight you are in CT and
if you split the difference, you are in NY.

And I've actually seen this - a RI DEM boat on one side of the line
and the NY DEM boat on the other side and both of them stopping people
crossing from one to the other - this was during the "fluke" wars
about six years ago.


Civil servants and commissions smarter than you or D'whine will figure
out what will work and implement it.

OMG.
Good thing i wasn't drinking coffee. It would have been all over my
screen. You are dumber than Donny, if you believe what you just said.