08-05-2009, 01:46 AM
I went to the saltwater fishing license meeting at the URI bay campus meeting last night. I was the only recreational angler there who was not associated with one of the groups represented on the advisory board. In fact there were only about 8 people there who werenât on the board. The reason for the meeting last night was to finalize a resolution on the framework of the license. The framework was revisited on the suggestion of the representative who was going to sponsor the bill in the house and the director of DEM who believed the original 3$ proposal did not do enough.
At the meeting 3 options were presented A. was a bare bones do just enough to get by which was the 3 dollar version. B. Was an increased version for extra funding for expanded surveyors for increased reliability in the collected data, and for 3.0 FTE and vehicles for new officers for enforcement for about 5 dollars. Option C. was the largest in scope expanding on both A and B just a bit more and putting in a provision for infrastructure improvement and repair (meaning docks and ramps and shore access). That option was in the range of the 7-10 dollars.
The discussion was around which to adopt in the end the board went with option C. The framework of this option is that instate will be 7 dollars annual. Out of state will be 10 dollars annual. And there is a provision for a 5 dollar 7day license. Also included in the packet there was the framework as currently available for New Jersey, New York, Conn, mass, NH, and Maine licenses. What was proposed is in line with Mass and CT. There was discussion for a one flat fee but it gained only little support. The hardest fight of the night was to get the 5$ for 1 week included.
Things of note according to the state representative and the director of DEM that as this is a license all revenue as such is placed in a restricted account and is not available in the general fund. This means that all funds should go directly back into the program. The other part that is far more reliable than that is the fact that the program will get matching federal funds which means if the state takes money from that fund then they run the risk of loosing federal funds for all other programs. As the representative put it donât get greedy do what you need to get done and keep it small so the state wont touch it they wont go after 500k when they stand at risk to loose millions.
Also out of the meeting RI will accept any out of state resident saltwater fishing license as a license in RI as long as that state reciprocates the RI license. As it is now according to whatâs happening in other states if you have a resident license in mass RI or CT you will be able to fish in any of them under that license.
My only real concerns are with the expanded program because accounts are secure under some bad math they estimated that possible 250k could be raised for infrastructure yearly now I asked the question about if they currently are receiving about 1 mil from the state for infrastructure whatâs to stop the state from taking back 250k to even it out. The explanation from the DEM director as I understood it was that it is possible they could do that he seemed optimistic they wouldnât. he justified it and I mildly agree that the money received through this program is locked away and cant be touched so as year to year if the state funding goes up and down like in the past this money can be banked to secure the improvement costs without concern of the budget.
This is my update as I know it now I can say this is no longer hearsay I went to the meeting and this is what came out of it. If there are any changes I will update and as they post the links for the meeting minutes or reports I will add them. Still not final but looking brighter.
At the meeting 3 options were presented A. was a bare bones do just enough to get by which was the 3 dollar version. B. Was an increased version for extra funding for expanded surveyors for increased reliability in the collected data, and for 3.0 FTE and vehicles for new officers for enforcement for about 5 dollars. Option C. was the largest in scope expanding on both A and B just a bit more and putting in a provision for infrastructure improvement and repair (meaning docks and ramps and shore access). That option was in the range of the 7-10 dollars.
The discussion was around which to adopt in the end the board went with option C. The framework of this option is that instate will be 7 dollars annual. Out of state will be 10 dollars annual. And there is a provision for a 5 dollar 7day license. Also included in the packet there was the framework as currently available for New Jersey, New York, Conn, mass, NH, and Maine licenses. What was proposed is in line with Mass and CT. There was discussion for a one flat fee but it gained only little support. The hardest fight of the night was to get the 5$ for 1 week included.
Things of note according to the state representative and the director of DEM that as this is a license all revenue as such is placed in a restricted account and is not available in the general fund. This means that all funds should go directly back into the program. The other part that is far more reliable than that is the fact that the program will get matching federal funds which means if the state takes money from that fund then they run the risk of loosing federal funds for all other programs. As the representative put it donât get greedy do what you need to get done and keep it small so the state wont touch it they wont go after 500k when they stand at risk to loose millions.
Also out of the meeting RI will accept any out of state resident saltwater fishing license as a license in RI as long as that state reciprocates the RI license. As it is now according to whatâs happening in other states if you have a resident license in mass RI or CT you will be able to fish in any of them under that license.
My only real concerns are with the expanded program because accounts are secure under some bad math they estimated that possible 250k could be raised for infrastructure yearly now I asked the question about if they currently are receiving about 1 mil from the state for infrastructure whatâs to stop the state from taking back 250k to even it out. The explanation from the DEM director as I understood it was that it is possible they could do that he seemed optimistic they wouldnât. he justified it and I mildly agree that the money received through this program is locked away and cant be touched so as year to year if the state funding goes up and down like in the past this money can be banked to secure the improvement costs without concern of the budget.
This is my update as I know it now I can say this is no longer hearsay I went to the meeting and this is what came out of it. If there are any changes I will update and as they post the links for the meeting minutes or reports I will add them. Still not final but looking brighter.