# $urf Fi$hing in Fl. to co$t



## Jigmaster (Apr 3, 2006)

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...fishing+in+Florida&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL



The Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission estimates up to 338,000 people would have to pony up starting in January. It'll raise $1.7 million.


----------



## SnapperHunter26 (Apr 28, 2009)

Gotta love Republicans...trying to make a dime every chance they get


----------



## Singletjeff (Mar 27, 2005)

SnapperHunter26 said:


> Gotta love Republicans...trying to make a dime every chance they get


Honestly, what's the problem with a $20 annual license? That comes out to $0.05 a day. I figure I blow $20 in beer, snacks, etc in a single fishing trip. Whenever a state institutes a Saltwater license, a similar thread to this pops up. I mean seriously...We all already buy a Freshwater license and a hunting license (if we hunt) We don't complain about those? So why make a big deal about a license for the saltwater? Just look at it as money into your DNR's pocket for enforcement and studies.


----------



## CaptJack (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm all for true saltwater fishing license, instead of the boater fishing license. As a matter of fact, I wrote the FWC Commissioner about the possibility of instituting a shore-based saltwater fishing license for Florida, as I had heard that the Federal Government was moving in that direction, and thought we (Florida) would do a better job at licensing that Washington. Not only that, but I also felt we needed to pump more money into the FWC...mainly for more patrol officers and their equipment. Twenty bucks a year, per person, is nothing for the possibility of having better paid, better trained FWC officers looking out for out natural resources. Pretty inexpensive, really.

Here in N. Florida, we could use a few more FWC officers to help keep the "fishing criminals" under control.

Here's hoping the Governor does the right thing and signs off on this. Florida needs it, you need it, the resource needs it.

CaptJack


----------



## SnapperHunter26 (Apr 28, 2009)

Singletjeff said:


> Honestly, what's the problem with a $20 annual license? That comes out to $0.05 a day. I figure I blow $20 in beer, snacks, etc in a single fishing trip. Whenever a state institutes a Saltwater license, a similar thread to this pops up. I mean seriously...We all already buy a Freshwater license and a hunting license (if we hunt) We don't complain about those? So why make a big deal about a license for the saltwater? Just look at it as money into your DNR's pocket for enforcement and studies.


I have a fishing license cause I go on boats alot too, but it's sickening the way the government is trying to tax EVERYTHING or make us PAY SOME HOW for EVERYTHING. Whats next, taxing watching tv?? Think about that...and think about it good. it's not far away. and NO paying for cable, and other services is NOT what I am talking about. I suspect sometime in the near future the government will try and find a way to tax people who watch tv, or something just as stupid, that alot of people do, so they can get easy money.


----------



## SnapperHunter26 (Apr 28, 2009)

And also, we all KNOW just how much of that money will go into enforcement and studies...it's almost a worth laughing at. It's gonna go to line someones pocket, garuntee it. Just like most of the other absurd laws. I would venture to say maybe 10% of the money made from this absurd law will actually go towards FWC/DNR the rest will go to someones pocket


----------



## jhmorgan (May 16, 2007)

Yes, we all know Florida is making SO much money that they are literally sitting around putting cash in each other pockets...

I was astonished when I first learned some states still did not make you pay for a license to fish from shore. As a boater and shore angler, it does not make sense to force boaters to purchase one if the shore bound guys dont have to.


----------



## FlatsManiac (Apr 14, 2009)

If you have cable your watching taxed TV, its about time they did this, you should have to buy a duck stamp to fish MINWR too.


----------



## Sand Dollar (Nov 26, 2005)

FlatsManiac said:


> If you have cable your watching taxed TV, its about time they did this, you should have to buy a duck stamp to fish MINWR too.



The US is one of the most taxed countrys in the world. Also, cable is a luxury that a company is providing. Who is providing us the opportunity to fish, it sure isn't the government. Think about it, "UNCLE SAM" takes his share before we even see our money, when we spend our money and then again at the end of the year if we made too much. So.............


----------



## jhmorgan (May 16, 2007)

Sand Dollar said:


> The US is one of the most taxed countrys in the world. Also, cable is a luxury that a company is providing. Who is providing us the opportunity to fish, it sure isn't the government. Think about it, "UNCLE SAM" takes his share before we even see our money, when we spend our money and then again at the end of the year if we made too much. So.............


Ummmm no. Im a supply-side kind of guy, so I love the notion of reducing taxes, but you are off base in saying we pay some of the most taxes of any country.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp

Look at the chart.


----------



## sprtsracer (Apr 27, 2005)

I don't own a boat and always fish from the pier or surf. Only time I take a boat is a "head boat" that is already licensed. I do, however, buy a license every year, just because I support FWC. My biggest question is: How much of this money will go to the FEDERAL Marine Fisheries and how much will Florida get to keep. My second biggest question is: Will the commercial fishermen who fish from shore be checked more frequently to see if they have a COMMERCIAL license??? Ever stand close to a commercial pomp fisherman on the beach??? Does one of the older bamboo/wooden refurbished and restored surf rods qualify as a "cane pole"??? The state was FORCED into this by the Federal Government! Seems they can't keep their hands off ANYTHING these days. Bush signed off on this to start with. In my opinion, the beaches belong to US...not the government. Maybe if I trace my ancestory a little further, I can verify my native american heritage. Then, I won't have to pay as much, fish for free, and maybe even open a casino and sell cheap cigarettes!


----------



## SnapperHunter26 (Apr 28, 2009)

The republicans on here, are amazing...really are.


----------



## sprtsracer (Apr 27, 2005)

SnapperHunter26 said:


> The republicans on here, are amazing...really are.


Not sure you were referring to my post or not, Snapper, but if you were, you'll notice the ONLY person I mentioned was Bush (a Republican, BTW), who OK'd this crap! You should also note that the legislature in Florida is also a majority of Republicans. I just call it the way I see it!


----------



## sprtsracer (Apr 27, 2005)

I"VE GOT A GREAT IDEA!!! How about we tax the Internet??? Since Algore invented it, 59% of the taxes can go to fueling his jet so he can fly around the world and talk about "Global Warming"! Then, 39% can go toward funding "photo ops" for Air Force 1 over NYC, along with the F16 escort. I'm sure the New Yorkers would go for that! One percent of the remaining 2% can go to ACORN, so they can register inelligible voters over the internet that Algore invented, and the last 1% can be spent on administrative expenses involved in falsifying the number of jobs created by this crap!

Since the Feds have decided to raise cigarette taxes 62 cents per pack, I think it is also fair that a Federal Food Tax be implemented! After all, since smokers cost the government money in medical bills, it's time we realized that people who eat too much also cost us. Obviously, there are waaaaaayyy too many obese people in the US, so the only "fair" thing to do is to tax food at the rate of 35 cents on the dollar. When people can no longer afford to eat, they'll loose weight, be healthier, and thus, less of a burden on the taxpayer! This will only affect those who make over $250,000 per year, since they are the ones who spend the most on food, and therefore, must be more obese than the rest of us!


----------



## Coffeeguy (May 27, 2006)

*Licenses*

Gertting back on track here...I get to visit FL once a year, and I pony up for my non-resident license each time. Fair's fair, and it's well worth the enjoyment I get out of fishing. One funny thing, though...I ordered mine online, and my license was shipped to me by a company out of Nashville. Yeah...Tennessee. I know that this is a common practice now; states contract with private companies to handle licenses, etc... But in light of how little of that revenue actually benefits fishermen and the environment, all of you who are Florida residents should seriously question the wisdom of sending a portion of YOUR money TO ANOTHER STATE!!! Georgia does the same thing, and (no pun intended) I'm not a happy camper about that. I've let my reps. in Congress know it, too.


----------



## Fishmaster (May 8, 2009)

Holy Smoker Beans! It is geting HOT in here! I see both sides of the agument....but i side with that the idea that the Goverment is sticking it's nose into A LOT of things I feel it should not. The bottom line is I think Florida will follow suit with a lot of other states that already have a surf fishing licence or will have one in the next year. I MAY be wrong it has happen before!


----------



## montylfl (Mar 29, 2009)

jhmorgan said:


> Ummmm no. Im a supply-side kind of guy, so I love the notion of reducing taxes, but you are off base in saying we pay some of the most taxes of any country.
> 
> http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P148855.asp
> 
> Look at the chart.


JH. That is a perfect example of how Stats lie. 

the chart is only focusing on income taxes. How about:

Gas Tax
telecom Tax
Car Registration fees ( a tax).
Cig tax.
Engery Tax.
on and on. Add all these taxes in and we are taxed more then any other country. States call them fees not taxes.

Now they need to raise revenue so they want to Tax fishing. A good given right that people have been doing since the time Men used clubs to get a woman.

What am I going to get for my $7.50 a year? less fish to catch, more closed seasons, larger limits, shorter slots and only half a peir to fish because there is no money to fix the current pier.

GET THOSE POLITICIANS OUT OG MY POCKETS. Does not take a genius to know that you can not have $5.0BB in programs when you only have $3.8 in revenue coming in.


----------



## montylfl (Mar 29, 2009)

SnapperHunter26 said:


> The republicans on here, are amazing...really are.


What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## livin2fish5 (Jan 8, 2009)

*Just a few quick things :

1st. i have had a fishing lience in 3 different states in the last 4 years , fish about 40+ hours a week in all places ( including state parks ) and have NEVER gotten checked 

The ocean shouldnt belong to anyone , So Know one should get taxed to use it , what happend to the good days about 150 years ago when people could just live of the land . 

Theres ALOT of homeless ,and poor people that fish for dinner ....

last there gunna tax people for everything till people fight back ( which they wont cause peopleare sheep these days, they just go with the heard ) but if there gunna do it ATLEAST PUT IT ALL TO PIERS ,MORE PUBLIC FISHING AREAS , ARTIFICIAL REEFS AND CONSERVATION !!!!! *


----------



## emanuel (Apr 2, 2002)

I personally don't have a problem with it. We don't pay state income tax here and this is one of the only states I've lived in or know of that doesn't require a saltwater license for shorebound anglers. From what I understand, the money will go towards fisheries and not the state coffers to be blown on other nonsense.


----------



## jhmorgan (May 16, 2007)

montylfl said:


> JH. That is a perfect example of how Stats lie.
> 
> the chart is only focusing on income taxes. How about:
> 
> ...


All well and good, but are there charts that compare these total numbers?

Because as far as I know, other countries have similiar taxes. Great Britian taxes you to register a car, makes you pay tolls, forces you to pay the London Congestion Charge if you drive in that area, etc etc. Almost all countries also tax alcohol and tobacco, energy, and gas in particular. You paint the picture as though all other countries _*only*_ have the income tax....


----------



## jhmorgan (May 16, 2007)

SnapperHunter26 said:


> The republicans on here, are amazing...really are.


Ironic coming from someone spouting off about how the gov't is going to come in and tax you for watching your TV.

But at least you are talking with substance/facts and not just making generalized statements.....


----------



## sprtsracer (Apr 27, 2005)

jhmorgan said:


> All well and good, but are there charts that compare these total numbers?
> 
> Because as far as I know, other countries have similiar taxes. Great Britian taxes you to register a car, makes you pay tolls, forces you to pay the London Congestion Charge if you drive in that area, etc etc. Almost all countries also tax alcohol and tobacco, energy, and gas in particular. You paint the picture as though all other countries _*only*_ have the income tax....


Sorry jh, but I personally don't care to become more like the other countries!!! What's next...Euros instead of Dollars??? Great Britain also has *socialized* medicine, government retirement for ALL, and other social programs where the "central government" controls *everything*...i.e....there are no "States" in Great Britain! We have a *REPUBLIC *here! Remember, they also have a "Queen" as well as "Lords" in their parliament! I thought we got away from all that after the Revolutionary War!!! The other countries are FAILING...do we really want to join them??? The point is, our FEDERAL government is TOO involved in our lives!!! I personally don't want some idiot from Chicago (read that however you want) deciding what I am going to do, make or PAY in Florida!!!


----------



## jhmorgan (May 16, 2007)

Sprts - No offense taken, and I think that you know from my political posts that I am not a proponent of taxation, nor of big govt. My point has simply diverged due to incorrect previous posts. As I originially said, I am for little taxation as feasible. The problem with Florida is, as E said, there is no state income tax. We all know money does not appear out of nowhere unless you are Enron.

Factor in the probability that FL has the most shorebound anglers of any state and its a no brainer to have a nominal license fee. Iv always had a license here (visited about 12 times a year before moving) for a boat. I ask again: why have a boat license and no shore license? The average boaters more than likely spend more $ (i.e. revenue for the state) through gas (boat/truck) and accessories (bait, gear, etc) than the average shore angler. 

My Virginia relatives and friends always ask me "Where exactly is the revenue coming from for Florida?" Good question..

Trust me, I dont ever want to remotely resemble Europe, that tidbit was a tangent that probably should not have been followed by me.


----------



## Sand Dollar (Nov 26, 2005)

*.*

WOW, sorry to ruffle anyones feathers here. The information I spoken on was from the documentary I saw, Sicko, by Michael Meyers. Sorry if I was misleading with the info. :beer: Hmmm :beer::beer:


----------



## Sea Level (Nov 20, 2005)

I agree completely with Capt. Jack on this issue. I'm hopeful the added revenues will go toward additional FWC resources (Officers in the field, equipment, better salaries, etc.)

I just returned from a week in the Keys, where in addition to fishing, I was able to visit with my 39 year old son, who has been an FWC officer now for three years. He took a considerable salary reduction when he left his position with a marine engineering firm in Virginia to enter Florida's law enforcement branch of FWC. He loves his job, finds it extremley interesting, loves being in the outdoors, being on the water nearly all day everyday. It's a good thing he loves it, because he is certainly not in it for the financial rewards.

I'm not wild about paying taxes, but I am solidly in favor of the US lifestyle when compared with the dozens of other countries I've visited. One incident, years ago, made a lasting impression on me regarding taxes. In 1975 when the navy destroyer I was serving in made a port visit in Sweden I, and a few other junior officers, were invited by local citizens into their homes for dinner. The doctor who was our host informed us that 80% of his income went to his government for taxes. 

So, I'm not too concerned about the little extra I'll have to pay for the priviledge to fish. I think it is overdue.


----------



## sprtsracer (Apr 27, 2005)

jhmorgan said:


> Sprts - No offense taken, and I think that you know from my political posts that I am not a proponent of taxation, nor of big govt. My point has simply diverged due to incorrect previous posts. As I originially said, I am for little taxation as feasible. The problem with Florida is, as E said, there is no state income tax. We all know money does not appear out of nowhere unless you are Enron.
> 
> Factor in the probability that FL has the most shorebound anglers of any state and its a no brainer to have a nominal license fee. Iv always had a license here (visited about 12 times a year before moving) for a boat. I ask again: why have a boat license and no shore license? The average boaters more than likely spend more $ (i.e. revenue for the state) through gas (boat/truck) and accessories (bait, gear, etc) than the average shore angler.
> 
> ...





Sea Level said:


> I agree completely with Capt. Jack on this issue. I'm hopeful the added revenues will go toward additional FWC resources (Officers in the field, equipment, better salaries, etc.)
> 
> I just returned from a week in the Keys, where in addition to fishing, I was able to visit with my 39 year old son, who has been an FWC officer now for three years. He took a considerable salary reduction when he left his position with a marine engineering firm in Virginia to enter Florida's law enforcement branch of FWC. He loves his job, finds it extremley interesting, loves being in the outdoors, being on the water nearly all day everyday. It's a good thing he loves it, because he is certainly not in it for the financial rewards.
> 
> ...


I have absolutely NO problem with Florida requiring the fee, receiving the money, and spending it for our resources and the FWC. As I already said, I purchase a license every year, even though I don't need one. My BIGGEST concern is twofold: First...this is something that has been forced on Florida by the Feds! Second...when the Feds are involved, they always keep their fingers in the pot! I just want to insure that my money stays here in Florida to do what it's intended to do. No offense to our Northern neighbors, but since we have the largest number of shorebound fishers, we hopefully will get to keep the money generated here and not have to send it North to support the fisheries elsewhere. Now...before you say it, I am quite aware that there are many migratory species, and supporting the fisheries in GA, SC, NC, VA, etc., are also very important for our fishing here in FL. The problem comes into play when and if the Feds decide to spend OUR money in a disproportionate amount in other states. Right now, it appears that they are only going to require "statistics" be sent to Marine Fisheries...however...they have taken the first step in mandating that the States require licensing and "reporting" (which, in gathering statistics and hiring those to do so, costs money, BTW) and there goes another right of the states to regulate as conditions dictate and as they see fit. If this came up two years ago and was proposed by the Florida legislature, I would have had absolutely no problem with it. The next "logical" steps on the part of the Feds are not that far away, JMHO.


----------

