22 April 2009

New Jersey Debating the SW Fishing License

The Question is: Do We Accept a Federal License or Replace that with a State License?

Al Ristorti writing in the NJ.com/Shore/Blogs:

The cost for the federal requirement could be a ridiculous $15 to $25, for something that could be done at a tiny fraction of that cost. Worst of all, that fee wouldn't do a thing to help the fisheries as it would go to the U.S. Treasury. If you feel you're not paying enough in income taxes and are anxious to fund President Obama's deficit spending that may be an attractive idea. Unless the free state registration bill is passed and signed by the Governor, the only alternative would be a state license that would collect the required information as part of the process. A proposed state license would probably be in the same price range of what the feds want for the registry, but it would stay in the state.


What about a Fee for Each Breath We Take?

"Politicians tend to regard fees as more palatable than taxes, and more focused too. If a state needs to finance an infrastructure to oversee fishing, why shouldn’t fishermen foot the bill? But groups like the nonpartisan Tax Foundation in Washington worry that governments are now using fees to shore up budget shortfalls rather than cover specific costs incurred by specific users."

Read the whole article: New York Times

Connecticut Tourism;
Long Island Sound Resource Center;
Housatonic Valley Association;
Stratford, Connecticut;
Milford, Connecticut;
fishing; charters; vacations; travel

No comments:

Post a Comment