|
|
« Entwistle breaks into tears as jury sees video of bodies | Today | Update: Pona's conviction in witness killing overturned » June 12, 2008Registration to fish in saltwater? NOAA seeks commentsLocal recreational fishermen will tell you that one of the benefits to casting a line into saltwater is that you don't have to pay to get a license first. That's unlike freshwater fishing, which requires a license, depending on your age, and is limited to a certain season. Now, proposed changes in federal fishing regulations would make it mandatory by 2009 for some recreational saltwater fishermen in the Ocean State to register first with the federal government -- for a fee. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service is seeking comments until Aug. 11 on the proposed rules. NOAA says information from interviews of those registered to fish would help close a gap in data that could help better manage and possibly restore certain stocks of fish. The proposal also applies to those who fish anywhere for species that spawn in freshwater but spend their lives in oceans, such as striped bass, shad and salmon. Unlike Rhode Island, some states already require saltwater licenses, including Alaska and other states along the West Coast, the South Atlantic and the Gulf Coast. Hawaii and states from New Jersey to Maine do not. Your turn: What's your take on the saltwater fishing license requirement? According to Jim Balsiger, acting assistant administrator for the Fisheries Service, “by law, the registry fee taken by NOAA will offset the cost of issuing the registration. It cannot be specifically directed to fisheries management.” Therefore, he suggested, states without licenses have an incentive to start offering them, and use the money to put toward local fisheries. Otherwise, anglers will pay the federal government directly, and no money will be returned to local fisheries. The proposal would require registration before 2009. No fee would be implemented until 2011 when, according to the Fisheries Service, the fee will likely be between $15 and $25 per person. Certain groups of anglers will be exempt, including those 16 and younger, and indigenous groups who fish for sustenance. Those who fish from licensed party, charter or guide boats would also be exempt. Persons who hold commercial fishing licenses or permits, and are legally fishing under them, would also be exempt from registration. To read and comment on the proposal, go to: www.countmyfish.noaa.gov Posted by Brandie Jefferson CommentsR Neill | June 12, 2008 4:11 PM link Lets see,,fishing license is just another tax.Here are some of the taxes I already pay to go fishing. I pay tax on gasoline,on my auto registration,my auto,my fishing rod, my reel,my line,my bait,my shoes and clothes,sunglasses,soap to wash my hands,tolls on some bridges,drinks and food,and when I get home I call my friend about the big one,and pay tax on the call. Then I get into a warm house,pay tax on heating bill,take a shower,and pay tax on my water bill.Please just shoot me. Oh oh! better not,then theres the death tax. Don | June 12, 2008 8:41 PM link What a rip-off of the taxpayers by fishcrats. Walter Scott | June 13, 2008 6:43 AM link If it would truly help manage fish populations, the way it works in Alaska, or if the money were to be used exclusively to improve fishing in the state, I wouldn't mind paying a modest fee for a license. I cannot see any reason why guide/charter/party boat fishermen should be exempt if the rest of us have to pay. I will say that the way I saw this in action in Alaska seemed like a tremendous amount of paperwork and regulation for the party boat captains. T. Cardea | June 13, 2008 7:06 AM link I would think that once they exclude "persons who hold commercial fishing licenses or permits," everyone else fishes for sustenance. And since they also exclude "indigenous groups who fish for sustenance", that leaves only exogenous groups who fish for sustenance, and it sure seems like a lot of trouble just to monitor foreign non-commercial fishermen. (Not many Anglos or Euros jumping the pond to drop their rods in Narragansett Bay for a bit of fish and chips, eh?) Unless...this is just one more angle to collar people and ask to "see your papers, please." Angler | June 13, 2008 12:03 PM link If the money goes towards docks,ramps and opens up paper roads and allows parking then it would make sense but in RI it will go towards roads that will never be repaird. So if they want the money to go into the general fund and not give back to the fishing community why lie to the people just raise the property tax and forget the whole thing David E Poette | June 13, 2008 10:50 PM link This will not only place another burden on taxpayers, but it will create more state jobs for the friends of the buffons in the state house. Way to go Rhode Island Henry | June 16, 2008 8:39 AM link Post a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
|
ADVERTISING |
|
|
|
|
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 |
ProJo 9 to 5 News Blog
Oct 2005 - March 2006
I thought sportsmen were taxed heavily already on equipment they purchase to subsidize management of game and fisheries. This is just another way to put the hook in our pockets. Tighten up large commercial enterprises that kill so many species through by -catch and leave Dad, Mom and the kids alone.