Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:01:50 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:30:50 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


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.
You got me curious and I checked. Our House is Democrat controlled and
the Bill most likely to succeed was sponsored 3:2 in favor of the
Dems. The most popular Bill was sponsored by a Republican lawyer (48
Bi-Partisan sponsors and co-sponsors)! I'll be watching the vote with
an eagle eye..... those voting nay will have their voice heard.... by
every boater that uses USENET and/or numerous boating forums.

I know - it's very different up here.

There are two populations in CT - the Gold Coasters and everybody
else. As long as the Gold Coasters are happy, then by default
everybody else must also be happy.

The state is actually bifurcated - it's largely rural and all the
legislative strength is along the coast and big cities which means
that 80% of the state in terms of territory in under represented in
terms of legislative clout.


Unequally bifurcated, as it were.

We New Haven County-ites always wondered who the hell lived in your part
of the state and why, since it was so far (relatively) from LI Sound.

Has Hartford County declined in influence?

Virginia has a similar "bifurcation" these days, which is why this year
it might elect a second Democratic U.S. Senator. Most of the big money
and population growth is in northern Virginia, and it is going
Democratic big time. Much of the rest of the state, and that means most
of the geographic, is far more rural and conservative, but it doesn't
have the population anymore to dominate the outcome of the federal
elections.

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:31:03 -0400, HK penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:01:50 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:30:50 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


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.
You got me curious and I checked. Our House is Democrat controlled and
the Bill most likely to succeed was sponsored 3:2 in favor of the
Dems. The most popular Bill was sponsored by a Republican lawyer (48
Bi-Partisan sponsors and co-sponsors)! I'll be watching the vote with
an eagle eye..... those voting nay will have their voice heard.... by
every boater that uses USENET and/or numerous boating forums.
I know - it's very different up here.

There are two populations in CT - the Gold Coasters and everybody
else. As long as the Gold Coasters are happy, then by default
everybody else must also be happy.

The state is actually bifurcated - it's largely rural and all the
legislative strength is along the coast and big cities which means
that 80% of the state in terms of territory in under represented in
terms of legislative clout.

Unequally bifurcated, as it were.

We New Haven County-ites always wondered who the hell lived in your part
of the state and why, since it was so far (relatively) from LI Sound.

Has Hartford County declined in influence?

Virginia has a similar "bifurcation" these days, which is why this year
it might elect a second Democratic U.S. Senator. Most of the big money
and population growth is in northern Virginia, and it is going
Democratic big time. Much of the rest of the state, and that means most
of the geographic, is far more rural and conservative, but it doesn't
have the population anymore to dominate the outcome of the federal
elections.

That really isn't terribly new. VA got the lottery based on votes in a
small geographical area of northern VA.



It'll be terribly new, for modern times, if Virginia, the capital of the
confederacy, elects a second Democratic U.S. senator this fall, and
Obama carries the state. That would be...news.

I'd be amazed, actually, if Obama carried Virginia.

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
. ..
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:11:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

NOAA Proposes Rule to Require Sal****er Angler Registration

Nice.....The HMS fee, the NC sal****er license fee, the Sal****er
Angler license fee in 2011, the oversize permit for the boat &
trailer, the inspection fee for the trailer, the TWIC.... what else
will they think of?


That reminds me of that line from "Young Frankenstein" as they are digging
up a dead body from a fresh grave. They are covered in mud. Young
Frankenstein stands up, covered in mud and says "What a filthy job. Igor
says "It could be worse". Frankenstein says "How". Igor - "It could be
raining", and suddenly it starts to rain.

I really don't think you want to ask what will they think of next.

I already know. The fees will go up, and up and up and up and up...with
more complexity than ever. 2 years no fees is just to get the foot in the
door.

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. :)

"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.

"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.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:26:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Wow, great article... But I was really hoping to hear your feelings on
the issue.. You have seen fishing from all sides of the table..

I'm not strictly "opposed" to the whole idea of a salt water license -
in fact, in a lot of ways, it makes a lot of sense to require one.

What I'm opposed to is the typical hodge podge approach to the problem
on the East Coast. The West Coast doesn't have the same "problems"
because there are only three states in the CONUS and Alaska/HA as
outriders not near any other state - it's an entirely different
approach.

[ Snip ]


In CT, probably $20 - which is what the freshwater license is. Out of
state will be $40.

There is a pier at the mouth of the Potomac River where it meets the
Chesapeake Bay, all in Maryland waters. If you line is on the Potomac
river side of the pier you do not need a fishing license. However if
your line is on th Chesapeake Bay side of the pier you need a $20
fishing license. It doesn't matter which side you are standing on and
which side you intended to cast your baits its all about where your line
is when the ranger shows up to check licenses.

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:39:42 -0400, HK penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:31:03 -0400, HK penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:01:50 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:30:50 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


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.
You got me curious and I checked. Our House is Democrat controlled and
the Bill most likely to succeed was sponsored 3:2 in favor of the
Dems. The most popular Bill was sponsored by a Republican lawyer (48
Bi-Partisan sponsors and co-sponsors)! I'll be watching the vote with
an eagle eye..... those voting nay will have their voice heard.... by
every boater that uses USENET and/or numerous boating forums.
I know - it's very different up here.

There are two populations in CT - the Gold Coasters and everybody
else. As long as the Gold Coasters are happy, then by default
everybody else must also be happy.

The state is actually bifurcated - it's largely rural and all the
legislative strength is along the coast and big cities which means
that 80% of the state in terms of territory in under represented in
terms of legislative clout.

Unequally bifurcated, as it were.

We New Haven County-ites always wondered who the hell lived in your part
of the state and why, since it was so far (relatively) from LI Sound.

Has Hartford County declined in influence?

Virginia has a similar "bifurcation" these days, which is why this year
it might elect a second Democratic U.S. Senator. Most of the big money
and population growth is in northern Virginia, and it is going
Democratic big time. Much of the rest of the state, and that means most
of the geographic, is far more rural and conservative, but it doesn't
have the population anymore to dominate the outcome of the federal
elections.
That really isn't terribly new. VA got the lottery based on votes in a
small geographical area of northern VA.


It'll be terribly new, for modern times, if Virginia, the capital of the
confederacy, elects a second Democratic U.S. senator this fall, and
Obama carries the state. That would be...news.

I'd be amazed, actually, if Obama carried Virginia.

Did you forget Doug Wilder from some 20 years ago?



Not at all. And I remember who followed him..."Senator" Macaca. I simply
believe it will be a remarkable accomplishment for Obama if he carries
the Old Dominion this November, and the Dems pick up the seat being
vacated by John Warner.

"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.