Heating up on new fees

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

It's not dividing anyone, it simply would give people a choice. You say you don't agree 100% with any politician you vote for, but you choose to vote for whoever you feel represents your views best. Same thing here, there is nothing at all wrong with it. If I feel that organization A will do better things with my money than organization B, I will side with them. Simple

we are saying the same thing I believe but organization A should just come out with their mission statement of NEW ideas of what they plan to do and not just say we are going to do the opposite of organization B. Organization B shouldn't even be referred to in their mission statement. Just do your own thing, you can actually be a member of both if both have ideas you value. No need to bash organization B, just put out your mission statement and get the word out.

Its similar to people that are members of Delta that hate on DU or vice versa. They are not competing organizations, they are both there for waterfowl and you can be a member of one or both or none, and that is how we get divided.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

LDWF is funded with a number of revenue streams, not just license fees, so the argument that license fees should increase with the consumer price index is invalid. MG that is like saying that LOTS of parts go into building a car... just because the price of automobiles has gone up doesn't mean the price of tires needs to go up. CPI is a generally accepted indicator of inflation. Why are license fees not subject to inflation over time? Their overall budget has grown by over 136% since the last change in the saltwater license fee. Agree... If you can show me that the OVERALL funding has gone up at the same rate of inflation as the budget in spite of the license fees staying the same then I would agree that the license fees do not warrant an increase.

But LDWF has represented that this increase is needed to allow them to take better data to better manage the fisheries. We are less than trusting in that representation for several reasons: I wholeheartedly agree with you here... But I believe these issues are separate... they can abuse the money they already get just as easily as new money. That doesn't necessarily mean that an increase in license fees is not warranted.

What if they just came out and said we are going to raise license fees from $5.50 to $13.00 effective 2014 without any reasoning besides inflation? Would that be OK? Or are you only opposed to the increase because you are suspect of where the increased funds will be spent?

They could just as easily write into a bill exactly where this money will be spent and abide by that... all the while sliding money from other areas to fund the projects you don't want.

All I'm trying to say is that whether the license increase goes through or not will not necessarily impact your reason for being suspect of budget issues that you don't agree with. Those things are still going to go on unless something is done to change them.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I still don't see the need to have a conservation organization whose sole purpose is to attack another conservation organization, it divides all of us.

in theory you are right, in a perfect world CCA would mind its own business and not interfere with other organizations efforts to help fishermen but CCA works to undermine them so the CCA by its own actions dictates that it MUST be removed from the position they hold where they can forever no longer dictate the agendas or their opinions hold any sway.

CCA actively works against anyone who speaks out or organizations using science based data to try and help fishermen all the while CCA is lobbying against everything other organizations want to do and paying off politicians to ignore the organizations trying to help fishermen.

so you see when CCA puts a target on other organizations and fights them every step of the way you must first kill off the festering infection that is CCA so an organization that has fishermens interests at heart can do their work without CCA undermining them every step of the way.

it shouldn't be necessary to take down CCA to get responsible resource management action but there really isn't an alternative since CCA cant help fighting against the interests of fishermen.

if CCA would just shut up and stop trying to hurt fishermen and just build their reefs and let other organizations work to help fishermen without interference from CCA then I would support them, not monetarily but in spirit only.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by keakar

in theory you are right, in a perfect world CCA would mind its own business and not interfere with other organizations efforts to help fishermen but CCA works to undermine them so the CCA by its own actions dictates that it MUST be removed from the position they hold where they can forever no longer dictate the agendas or their opinions hold any sway.

CCA actively works against anyone who speaks out or organizations using science based data to try and help fishermen all the while CCA is lobbying against everything other organizations want to do and paying off politicians to ignore the organizations trying to help fishermen.

so you see when CCA puts a target on other organizations and fights them every step of the way you must first kill off the festering infection that is CCA so an organization that has fishermens interests at heart can do their work without CCA undermining them every step of the way.

it shouldn't be necessary to take down CCA to get responsible resource management action but there really isn't an alternative since CCA cant help fighting against the interests of fishermen.

if CCA would just shut up and stop trying to hurt fishermen and just build their reefs and let other organizations work to help fishermen without interference from CCA then I would support them, not monetarily but in spirit only.

and of course you have at least one valid link you post here for your case right? A link to any of this above please

[keakar]

as long as you choose to not see the truth it shall always elude you and thus you can honestly deny knowing it and in so doing be able to feel good about supporting them

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by keakar

in theory you are right, in a perfect world CCA would mind its own business and not interfere with other organizations efforts to help fishermen but CCA works to undermine them so the CCA by its own actions dictates that it MUST be removed from the position they hold where they can forever no longer dictate the agendas or their opinions hold any sway.

CCA actively works against anyone who speaks out or organizations using science based data to try and help fishermen all the while CCA is lobbying against everything other organizations want to do and paying off politicians to ignore the organizations trying to help fishermen.

so you see when CCA puts a target on other organizations and fights them every step of the way you must first kill off the festering infection that is CCA so an organization that has fishermens interests at heart can do their work without CCA undermining them every step of the way.

it shouldn't be necessary to take down CCA to get responsible resource management action but there really isn't an alternative since CCA cant help fighting against the interests of fishermen.

if CCA would just shut up and stop trying to hurt fishermen and just build their reefs and let other organizations work to help fishermen without interference from CCA then I would support them, not monetarily but in spirit only.

Keakar, you are absolutely correct.
CCA is a political organization and they will tell you that out front.
However, if they would have listened to LDWF biologists during the speckled trout gill net controversy - the nets would still be in the water.
Biology's role is to place the biomass population on the table (like speckled trout). It is not biologists' place to say which sector (commercial vs. recreational) gets the better portion - that's a political decision.

But the fact of the matter is...biology has not provided us recently with the data for the public to ascertain the health of the trout fishery in Big Lake. That's a huge problem, and IMO we need to get those answers from any political organization we can.

That's the first step.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

What if they just came out and said we are going to raise license fees from $5.50 to $13.00 effective 2014 without any reasoning besides inflation? Would that be OK? Or are you only opposed to the increase because you are suspect of where the increased funds will be spent?

In general, funding of government agencies should be subject to citizens being satisfied with the services provided by those government agencies.

Your argument amounts to asserting that agency funding should be increased proportionally to costs of doing business regardless of whether they are adhering to their mission or satisfying citizens with their services.

The law specifies that wildlife and fisheries in Louisiana be managed with the best available science. Good science is at the core of their mission. Citizens have noticed that the LWF Commission and LDWF has deviated from their mission by consistently mismanaging resources and passing more restrictive regulations without and scientific need. Further, LDWF has refused to share data for four years now, while continuing to pass more restrictive regulations.

Refusing to further increase their funding is one reasonable and prudent step citizens can take to encourage state agencies to better achieve their mission. Passing every request to increase funding is more likely to maintain the status quo. I would support cutting funding for the EPA for the same reason.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

In general, funding of government agencies should be subject to citizens being satisfied with the services provided by those government agencies.



Your argument amounts to asserting that agency funding should be increased proportionally to costs of doing business regardless of whether they are adhering to their mission or satisfying citizens with their services.



The law specifies that wildlife and fisheries in Louisiana be managed with the best available science. Good science is at the core of their mission. Citizens have noticed that the LWF Commission and LDWF has deviated from their mission by consistently mismanaging resources and passing more restrictive regulations without and scientific need. Further, LDWF has refused to share data for four years now, while continuing to pass more restrictive regulations.



Refusing to further increase their funding is one reasonable and prudent step citizens can take to encourage state agencies to better achieve their mission. Passing every request to increase funding is more likely to maintain the status quo. I would support cutting funding for the EPA for the same reason.

So you won't be purchasing a fishing or hunting license for the foreseeable future in protest?

Didnt think so

This is my point.. You are condoning by funding as much as i am. The other methods of protest are more inline with my agenda. So i keep these issues separate.



Sent from my fruity phone

["W"]

This bill will pass I'm 99.9999999% sure, nothing much we can do other than ***** about how funds will be spent

Guess time will tell



They should also raise out of state fees also

[eman]

Should also do away w/ $5 step aboard license too.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by eman

Should also do away w/ $5 step aboard license too.

I think that would really hurt the guides... Not sure i would support doing away with it... I wouldnt mind an increase


Sent from my fruity phone

[eman]

I'm just saying .If we are going to increase license cost lets start at the cheapest ones?
Let anyone who wants to fish here buy a 1 day or 3 day license or a yearly non resident if they fish here enough.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by eman

I'm just saying .If we are going to increase license cost lets start at the cheapest ones?
Let anyone who wants to fish here buy a 1 day or 3 day license or a yearly non resident if they fish here enough.

I agree. The TX crowd are not paying their fair share. If annual resident saltwater licenses go up 136%, ALL saltwater licenses should go up 136%.

[Goooh]

Are wade fishing licenses going up as well, or are they exempt?

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I agree. The TX crowd are not paying their fair share. If annual resident saltwater licenses go up 136%, ALL saltwater licenses should go up 136%.

Awww MG...don't say that.
I have a NR Tx. all-water license too....they are going to reciprocate on us.

[mr crab]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I agree. The TX crowd are not paying their fair share. If annual resident saltwater licenses go up 136%, ALL saltwater licenses should go up 136%.

Non-resident is already $90. How much should we pay?....I'll gladly pay more tho cuz CCA and TPWD are about to slash our limits so bad that the only chance of bringing home a decent mess of fish will be to launch on the LA side of Sabine and keep LA limits. This is already what me and all my buddies do during the fall flounder run when the TX limit drops to 2/angler/day. There is actually a very successful guide here on Sabine who's whole sale's pitch and motto is "Louisiana Limits....Because Texas Limits Suck"...Name of the guide service is even "Louisiana Limits" this is getting stupid....but on a completely different note...check out some nice ones I busted on tops last night....I don't post a lot of trout pics on account of all the Sabine haters, but the mood is getting negative up in here.....ooohhhh look at the pretty fish pics...my ode to the MIA inchspinner....DOUBLE CREEP MODE SON!!!! Where ya at inch??????

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

I think that would really hurt the guides... Not sure i would support doing away with it... I wouldnt mind an increase


Sent from my fruity phone

I heard it was going up to $10 I think

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mr crab

Non-resident is already $90. How much should we pay?....I'll gladly pay more tho cuz CCA and TPWD are about to slash our limits so bad that the only chance of bringing home a decent mess of fish will be to launch on the LA side of Sabine and keep LA limits. This is already what me and all my buddies do during the fall flounder run when the TX limit drops to 2/angler/day. There is actually a very successful guide here on Sabine who's whole sale's pitch and motto is "Louisiana Limits....Because Texas Limits Suck"...Name of the guide service is even "Louisiana Limits" this is getting stupid....but on a completely different note...check out some nice ones I busted on tops last night....I don't post a lot of trout pics on account of all the Sabine haters, but the mood is getting negative up in here.....ooohhhh look at the pretty fish pics...my ode to the MIA inchspinner....DOUBLE CREEP MODE SON!!!! Where ya at inch??????

Non-resident saltwater is $30. You pay $90 total, because the freshwater (which is also required) is $60. Residents must also possess a valid freshwater license.

Raising the non-resident saltwater license by 136% would make it jump from $30 to $70 or $71, which is very reasonable considering:

1. Louisiana has much better fishing and much more liberal limits than Texas.

2. Louisiana allows Texans to operate their boats in Louisiana waters without any additional registrations or fees beyond registering the boat in Texas.

3. Louisiana allows Texans to drive on Louisiana roads without registering vehicles in Louisiana, obtaining Louisiana drivers licenses, obtaining Louisiana inspection stickers, or paying any additional fees that Louisiana residents must pay to get themselves and their boats to and from the water.

4. Unless they happen to work in Louisiana, Texans do not pay most Louisiana taxes and thus (other than their fishing license fees), contributions to state wildlife management, conservation, and enforcement efforts are minimal.

My wife and I have paid the non-resident license fees from 2000-2013 to enjoy Louisiana's awesome fishing, and I did not complain about it for one minute.

[mr crab]

I'm not complaining....actually said I'd gladly pay more....but it costs me $90 to fish saltwater in LA. not $30. Also points 2-4 are true of any state? Whats your point? As far as LA having better fishing than TX......You are spot on there....Fishing is terrible here. Don't waste your time, all Sabine, Galveston, Matagorda, Baffin, Laguna Madre trout have migrated through the passes to V-bay and B.L........#notxtroutanywhere

[Reggoh]

You are only talking about the advantages for the Texas resident. Don't forget the advantages for the local economy like the money they spend at hotels, casinos, convenience stores, etc... And yes I know guys that live in Orange, Port Arthur, etc are just coming for the day and probably don't spend as much but it's not a totally one way street... you have to consider all sides.