Proposed Price Increase on Hunting and Fishing License
#31
RE: Proposed Price Increase on Hunting and Fishing License
you need more options...
i think it use to be worth it, in regards to fines etc....to poach etc...no license, which is what you're proposing...nowadays though, laws, fines and penalities are stiff! and totally not worth it.
And even when fines weren't stiff, it's wrong to poach etc...
i think it use to be worth it, in regards to fines etc....to poach etc...no license, which is what you're proposing...nowadays though, laws, fines and penalities are stiff! and totally not worth it.
And even when fines weren't stiff, it's wrong to poach etc...
#32
Spike
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 98
RE: Proposed Price Increase on Hunting and Fishing License
They are talking about the same thing in CT, a doubling of license and tag fees. Here too the fund will go from the conservation fund into the general fund. They are also eliminating the self-funded pheasant program (to hunt pheasant on public land in CT you buy a stamp and the revenue from the stamp buys pheasants which are stocked by volunteers on public land).
The fact that a doubling of fees with the elimination of pheasant stocking will result in less rather than more revenues as marginal hunters (folks who go out once or twice a year or only chase pheasants) and people who buy tags that they don't use for whatever reason, stop buying licenses and tags, is lost on the legislature. The decline in licenses will also result in a loss of Pittman-Robertson revenues which, I understand (maybe incorrectly) are based at least in part of number of license holders. In other words the state is not only screwing the hunters and fishermen, it is screwing itself.
But this is Barry O's America where bipartisanship means we forgo our right to disagree so as to blindly follow the chosen one and his minions off a cliff.
The fact that a doubling of fees with the elimination of pheasant stocking will result in less rather than more revenues as marginal hunters (folks who go out once or twice a year or only chase pheasants) and people who buy tags that they don't use for whatever reason, stop buying licenses and tags, is lost on the legislature. The decline in licenses will also result in a loss of Pittman-Robertson revenues which, I understand (maybe incorrectly) are based at least in part of number of license holders. In other words the state is not only screwing the hunters and fishermen, it is screwing itself.
But this is Barry O's America where bipartisanship means we forgo our right to disagree so as to blindly follow the chosen one and his minions off a cliff.
#35
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ponce de Leon Florida USA
Posts: 10,079
RE: Proposed Price Increase on Hunting and Fishing License
ORIGINAL: moparmaddnes
I am wondering about lifetime lisc. in WI? I live in MN now but I grew up in WI and my dad and cousins have land there and I hunt that. Am I able to get a lifetime lisc. even though I am not a residence?
Matt
I am wondering about lifetime lisc. in WI? I live in MN now but I grew up in WI and my dad and cousins have land there and I hunt that. Am I able to get a lifetime lisc. even though I am not a residence?
Matt
#36
Fork Horn
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Arkansas Ozarks
Posts: 325
RE: Proposed Price Increase on Hunting and Fishing License
An Arkansas legislator just proposed to reduce fishing and hunting licenses to $1.50 as a "Sportsman's Stimulus".Teen pregnancy and heart disease aside, we have our priorities right.
#38
RE: Proposed Price Increase on Hunting and Fishing License
I will always pay for a license to hunt and fish. Not buying a license and paying a fine isn't the way I was brought up. It isn't about money it is about doing the right thing.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Maverick 1
Northeast
209
04-16-2009 08:09 AM
farm hunter
Northeast
1
02-07-2007 06:17 PM