Quote: .... a universal fishing license benefits only the fishermen.
Nope.
yup. a universal fishing license would not benefit the population as a whole but rather a small, small subset of that population.
pnichols wrote: States I'm not a resident of get NOTHING from me for fishing in those states because I don't fish at all in those states because I don't care for the messing around and cost you have to go through to:
1) Discover where they sell licenses,
2) find the closest one of these places,
3) drive to this place,
4) then buy their short-duration and expensive out-of-state-license,
5) and then study their fishing regulations as quickly and thoroughly as possible to make sure you use legal practices for your fishing there.
if you're camping anywhere within a cannon shot of a lake or stream where fishing is pemitted the odds are pretty good that there's a place that sells bait and supplies...and licenses. we've seen fishing licenses sold at mini marts, gas stations, grocery stores and all sorts of other non-sporting goods types of stores. you're making the process out to be much more difficult than it has to be.
pnichols wrote: It's not rocket science to figure out how to set up something like this. Of course getting the 50 states to agree to this would/will be impossible - unless and until state politicians (finally) do the math that shows what percentage of their voting blocks is made up of seniorsunless and until state politicians (finally) do the math that shows what percentage of their voting blocks is made up of seniors.
so most seniors fish? seems improbable to me. i wouldn't think that most senior RVers fish. instead of posting in the forum have you written to your federal representative and senators to ask them to sponsor this legislation?
73,
rich, n9dko www.bananaboatbytes.com
I know a guy who's addicted to brake fulid. He says he can stop anytime.
_________________________________
2000 Itasca Suncruiser 35U
'46 Willys CJ2A
'03 Jeep Wrangler TJ
'10 Jeep Liberty KK
monkey44 wrote: ...For now, the fishing license fees that promote a significantly higher amount for out of state are a little bit of gouging by states for 'travelers', much like the room tax for travelers. Each state wants to extract as many dollars as possible from anyone passing through. I'd bet travelers would spend more time and more money if the fishing license fee was equal to the residents fee. By it's very nature, out of state fishing, immediately tells which wallet it's aimed at. No guesswork there?
residents of the state pay much, much more in taxes...all sorts of taxes...than non-residents do. it ain't no different from local or county-wide park districts. residents of the county or park district usually pay less for programs than do out-of-county or out-of-district residents. if you and everyone else who advocate a universal license would organize a letter writing campaign to sympathetic congress-crittes you might make some headway on this.
monkey44 wrote: ...For now, the fishing license fees that promote a significantly higher amount for out of state are a little bit of gouging by states for 'travelers', much like the room tax for travelers. Each state wants to extract as many dollars as possible from anyone passing through. I'd bet travelers would spend more time and more money if the fishing license fee was equal to the residents fee. By it's very nature, out of state fishing, immediately tells which wallet it's aimed at. No guesswork there?
residents of the state pay much, much more in taxes...all sorts of taxes...than non-residents do. it ain't no different from local or county-wide park districts. residents of the county or park district usually pay less for programs than do out-of-county or out-of-district residents. if you and everyone else who advocate a universal license would organize a letter writing campaign to sympathetic congress-crittes you might make some headway on this.
Please don't misquote me - Never advocated for universal fishing license, only commented on the gouging of out-of-state licenses for travelers fishing - and all states do it - and, travelers do contribute to the local economy, camping fees, gas, food, hotels, campsites, recreation (movies, fun-parks) etc. So, to single out fishing and ADD a fee above what a local pays is gouging - or overcharging - a traveler that is in fact spending money in your locale, and then receiving nothing 'extra' in return except what we buy directly, and we get nothing for the sales tax, rooms tax, extra fishing fees. That state (that is residents) get the benefit of all that tax money, not the traveler who leaves it and moves on.
And we ALL pay taxes in our home state - so why charge a traveler more when a traveler brings money into your state to spend? Sure beats me !
WV and Ohio have an agreement on the Ohio river,can fish on either side with either state license.Other wise the residents of Ohio would need a Wv nonresident license to fish in the Ohio river,or fish from the bank.most nonresident licenses are not to bad.$37.00 in WV.
hilldude wrote: WV and Ohio have an agreement on the Ohio river,can fish on either side with either state license.Other wise the residents of Ohio would need a Wv nonresident license to fish in the Ohio river,or fish from the bank.most nonresident licenses are not to bad.$37.00 in WV.
KY claims up to the bank on the IL side of the Ohio River. You can fish the Ohio River with a IL license as long as you stand on the bank. As soon as you step foot in the water then you need a KY fishing license. Goes way back to when the territories were surveyed. There were a number of court cases until it was finally settled.
9-11 WE WILL NEVER FORGET!
04 HitchHiker DA LS 33.5 RLTG
09 F350 CC DRW 4X4
John
“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” Lao Tzu
The legal responsibility for managing wildlife is reserved for states, not the federal government. Therefore, fishing is managed for the benefit of the citizens of that state, not the citizens of other states. The Federal government can not (and should not) preempt state laws to establish a universal fishing permit.
jennlawrence wrote: Why do 60+ people think they're entitled to special treatment?
If you can't afford a regular fishing license at that age you've made some poor choices in life.
Wake up ... it's not about seniors affording it, it's about states charging more for one class of citizens (We're all USA citizens - well, most of us) and just because we cross a state line, we should pay more? That's just sticking it to the traveler that probably spends MORE money on one day than the residents. A traveler fills his gas tank and buys other items every day, not just once a week, like the local working folks.
I can hear the back room chats - "Oh, I got an idea, let's screw the out-of-state tourists or fishermen or hunters, we don't see them very often. Lets sock it to them." Great way to think ... let's all applaud that one. Make sure you raise the price ten-cents on a can of peas you sell travelers in the grocery store too.
And, I don't recall singling out a specific state to defend when serving in the military, so why should one state charge me a higher fee for fishing that a resident. Same with camping fees, in Florida or Mass, for example, higher fees for out-of-state - every one gets upset about price gouging at the gas pumps but supports the home-state doing the same thing in recreation activities.
States have the right to set fees as high as it takes to fund the fishing program. No issue with that, but charge everyone the SAME fee, that's what USA is all about, in theory, anyway.
* This post was
edited 07/08/12 07:19am by monkey44 *
jennlawrence wrote: Why do 60+ people think they're entitled to special treatment?
If you can't afford a regular fishing license at that age you've made some poor choices in life.
Wake up ... it's not about seniors affording it, it's about states charging more for one class of citizens .
And proposing a special license for people over 60 doesn't create a special class charged a different amount than others? Montana spends a whole lot of money on the fisheries department, much more than the licenses generate. That money comes out of state property and income taxes. Out of state visitors should pay more to use Montana's fishing resources that are primarily paid for by Montanans. Plus, how would they allocate any monies from a national license? Would Montana ( a major fishing destination) get the same amount as Delaware or New Jersey? Do we go by population and give the 2nd most money to New York to stock the East River? As others have pointed out, there are many advantages an in-state resident receives that an out of state resident does not. Would you feel better if they made the out of state fee the standard license fee and just gave residents a discount?
Offline
