|
Home | Forum | Online Store | Information | LJ Webcam | Gallery | Register | FAQ | Community | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-06-2018, 09:46 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 754
|
IMPORTANT: What would you change about California's fishing license?
I'm sitting on a DFW R3 (recruit, retain, reactivate) stakeholder subcommittee on licensing. We're looking for YOUR ideas. I feel good about this one. It's a chance to get something back from of the department. They really care about this issue too, because if the current trends continue, they will face severe budget shortfalls in the near future. I'm also happy to answer questions about R3 too, so fire away. If you're wondering how I got pulled back into fisheries politics, it's a long story, but the short version is the work we did together during the MLPA still resonates with the Department. We earned a lot of respect for our engagement. Last edited by PAL; 06-06-2018 at 10:00 AM. |
06-06-2018, 09:50 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2016
Location: SANTUCKET
Posts: 629
|
365
From date of purchase.
|
06-06-2018, 09:54 AM | #3 |
Emperor
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Buena Park
Posts: 3,649
|
Would be nice to be able to keep a valid digital copy on your phone.
__________________
There's nothing colder than yesterday's hotdog. |
06-06-2018, 10:01 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 754
|
Thanks guys, good suggestions. Keep 'em coming!
|
06-06-2018, 10:05 AM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: San Diego
Posts: 55
|
I like the idea of a license being valid for 365 days from the date of purchase.
Here's a total shot in the dark and possibly an unpopular idea...What about something like a reduced fee license available for people on welfare or are receiving food stamps. The idea being to promote an oppurtunity to give those people a chance to get out there and provide for themselves in some fashion for a little less money. |
06-06-2018, 10:06 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Table 17, Bay Park Fish Co.
Posts: 943
|
I once read that there was some study that found California fishing licenses cost 75% more compared to all other states, yet we have some of the highest barriers to fishing (i.e. MLPA's and other closed areas) put in place.
If the state was serious about it they would reduce cost, make it 12 months from purchase and take the politics out of fisheries management and leave it to actual real science, not appointed hacks with agendas. Unfortunately I don't see the socialist government in this state doing any of that... |
06-06-2018, 11:29 AM | #7 | |
Lurker
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Riverside
Posts: 431
|
Quote:
__________________
"A Reel expert can Tackle anything " ~Malibu Stealth-14 ~Malibu X-13 |
|
06-06-2018, 12:22 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 754
|
In my posts over on Facebook, the idea of a 365-day license is overwhelmingly supported. Some background, there are two bills being considered in the legislature. One, IIRC, adds a 20% fee to the current license price for the privilege. The other, SB518, sets the 365-day license at the same price, but requires optional auto renewal. If you don't choose to auto renew, there's an extra 30% fee.
Which of these, if any, do you support? |
06-06-2018, 12:27 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Seattle Area
Posts: 861
|
|
06-06-2018, 12:42 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 571
|
I'd be up for an additional recreational license to fish the MPAs. Gladly pay an extra 50-60$ a year.
Also I've always though that the year from date of purchase was a no-brainer. Would incentivize people to purchase the yearly license throughout the year rather than waiting for January. I don't see the need to raise the fee as you would already have an increase of participants.
__________________
2018 Hobie Outback 13 I do not fear the storm as it will teach me how to sail my ship. |
06-06-2018, 12:58 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 221
|
if part of the problem is a budget short fall then consider decreasing out of state fees to attract tourist.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk |
06-06-2018, 12:58 PM | #12 |
Currently @ MLO Territory
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Under the Shadow
Posts: 2,290
|
These are my personal ideas and might be controversial but here they go:
#1 I believe having a 365 fishing license is a bad idea, because I already detest fish game invading my plastic bathtub/ checking my vessel for any possible contraband. I literally have had them block me with their 60ft vessel... yell at me from 2 stories up to show them my fishing contract in a demeaning voice.... IM IN A PLASTIC BATHTUB what harm can I do! They also like to stare at you like hawks with binoculars, so that you feel uncomfortable fishing or waiting till your commit a crime on one of their statues. Having one type of fishing license is easy to distinguish... and the faster Fish and games/ fish and wildlife mafia molests my rights and gets out of my space so I can continue fishing in peace the better. I like to get out and fish to get away from the city... Solitude is good sometimes #2 What I would not mind paying for... is for fish hatcheries... I want to make sure our money is going to Fish Farms that replenish our ocean fish/fish structures... Trout Farms... And not overly paid Senate Members that have their own agendas.... #3 having a digital copy is a good idea.. but one could easily make one up. The only way to prove that a digital copy is authentic is for fish and game to have a current database where they can prove that you have a fishing contract that is active.... Which most often they are unable to authenticate because there is no signal where we are at.... Since the state has presumed that they have full control of the ocean waters and the fish that dwell on it. I don't feel that a fishing license/contract should be a money making scheme... I feel that fishing population should be protected for many generation after us. Rules are for the protection of the fish and the fishery... It should not be a money making scheme like traffic tickets. # 4 This one might be controversial, but it is just an idea.. I do like paying for trusted privileges... For example: global entry, tsa pre-check... what about trusted fishing privileges. Maybe a special color on your Fishing License meaning you obey the laws are a trusted individuals has not committed any violations.... They see that color fishing license.... they don't even bother you... might be far fetched.... a special sticker you can attach to your fishing vessel maybe but I just put it out there as an idea. # 5 I know many small countries that do not have fishing licenses/ contacts, but they do enforce the season that fish can be kept. The Fines are heavy and there is jail time. I personally believe there are ways to protect the fish with out making people sign a contract to fish. Granted we are not a small country, we are in fact large cities with huge populations: even more so we should be able to contribute to fish replenishments and habitats for our local fish. I think I'm way off topic. now.. Anyways not looking to start a war on words... just a fisherman idea on legal issues This one has nothing to do with Fishing License Contract: # A I also would like special fishing license plates that specifically contribute to fishing farms and fishing structures for our lakes and oceans. I know we have that fishing whale tale... but I want one strictly for fish replenishment.
__________________
Team: Disbanded You only have one chance in this life...make the right decision(s)...so you don't regret it
Last edited by wiredantz; 06-06-2018 at 01:23 PM. |
06-06-2018, 02:01 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: El Cajon
Posts: 512
|
I do like the 365 license because there’s plenty of casual fisherman who would probably buy the year license over the 1 say license to not have to hassle with a license every time they go out.
Maybe it would be cool to have an added tally chart on the back for a species of personal preference between a few different fish to better keep an eye on populations and mail in? Similar to lobster cards. (I know I hate mailing my lobster card) but I’d love it if it was an optional feature that can be printed on the back only if you wanted. |
06-06-2018, 03:15 PM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 34
|
One fish limit year round, or a yearly total limit on white seabass.
|
06-06-2018, 03:49 PM | #15 |
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 1-2 miles off the point
Posts: 6,943
|
We used to fish a casual jackpot Jan 1 every year to start the year off right..........I fish about once a week..........a buck a pop ain't too bad.
I am going up to WA next week and spending $60 for 3 of us to fish one day and am not complaining about that either.
__________________
|
06-06-2018, 04:11 PM | #16 |
Junior
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placentia, North O.C.
Posts: 16
|
A break for us old guys
I just became a resident of Colorado and after six months my license is only $1.00 a year. Fishermen 65 and older get a big break. But I will miss the saltwater.
Rodbuster….. |
06-06-2018, 04:37 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,384
|
I like the idea of a 365 license, but it would not matter to me personally. The automatic renewal would not be a problem for me either. What I don't want to see is the state trying to generate general fund revenues off of unwarranted fees attached to licenses. I don't see it costing the state 20% more to issue a fishing license on June 14th than it does on Jan 1? The only reason that they are entertaining the ideas is the possibility of increased revenue. They should be happy that more occasional fishermen will opt for the yearly over the short term, if they have a full year left. That is not likely to happen if they charge 20% more.
|
06-06-2018, 05:12 PM | #18 |
BRTF...bought & paid...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,247
|
I'll chime in on this...
First, thanks again Paul for your hard work 1. 365 days from date of purchase. 2. Minimum 10% discount for veterans and seniors, 55 or 65 and older, they already paid their dues. 3. Raise age to 18, instead of 16 to require a license. 4. Any future MLPA meetings be held in the area that they are proposing, i.e., if it's about San Diego, hold it in San Diego, not way up north (some of you know what I mean). Allow those who will be affected to attend. 5. Any future MLPA meetings, the 'esteemed' BRTF pay their lodgings and food. (I know, reaching on that one). 6. Discounts on those who have had licenses renewed yearly, say, 10 year minimum. Or, offer a discount for multi-year purchases. 7. MLPA review with scientific proof, not influenced by non-fishers, yearly. Surely they are already conducting these researches. Not their 5-year rule. Some good ideas here that I agree with...
__________________
Adios Tman Gaffer for Clay the Fishcatcher |
06-06-2018, 05:38 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East County
Posts: 914
|
Good arguments for both year round and end of year license. How about this. license good until the end of the year but every quarter of the year, the price is reduced.
Also by dropping the price to begin with, more people would consider buying a license. As it stands, every time they raise the price, they sell less licenses. More people buying, higher the revenue.
__________________
|
06-06-2018, 06:37 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 664
|
1. 365
2. A license card you can swipe instead of a 10ft long piece of receipt paper. 3. Or adopt Hawaii's regs... no license required for recreational saltwater fishing.
__________________
Urban Camo Trident 13 |
|
|