Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Salt water license looks to be a go...
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. |
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Salt water license looks to be a go...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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. WE have a "combo" license here for what could be called "brackish" waters...the Bay and its tributaries, the Potomac... It's $50 for an annual boat license, which also gives the individual owner an individual license and a crabbing license. Honored by Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. |
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Salt water license looks to be a go...
"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. |
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Salt water license looks to be a go...
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:54:11 -0700, "CalifBill"
wrote: 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. Well, good for you guys. It don't work that way around these here parts. :) |
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Salt water license looks to be a go...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:54:11 -0700, "CalifBill" wrote: 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. Well, good for you guys. It don't work that way around these here parts. :) No salt or fresh water license required for those above 65 years here in Florida. It's about the only advantage I've found for reaching my senior years. |
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Salt water license looks to be a go...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:54:11 -0700, "CalifBill" wrote: 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. Well, good for you guys. It don't work that way around these here parts. :) The Colorado river is same way, can fish the river with either states license, just not from the shore of the other state. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Fresh water from salt water. | ASA | |||
Salt Water/Fresh Water | General | |||
Salt Water/Fresh Water | General | |||
Salt Water V. Fresh Water | General | |||
salt water use | General |