|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 members (Gut Pile 32, Auburn1716, ALclearcut, Jstocks, dave260rem!, Parker243, 7x57_Mauser, Gobble4me757, woodduck, ImThere, MoeBuck, Jehu, James, Chad Burnette, Dixiepatriot, donia, Thread Killer, UARandy3, mzzy, desertdog, 3 invisible),
726
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 412
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 412 |
May have already been covered, but how does the state get to keep adding user fees to a so called Lifetime License? Haven’t been snapper fishing in a couple years, but see where I have to buy a permit to possess a reef fish now, even though I purchased a combo lifetime license in 1989. It’s been a good deal, just more of a principal thing. Unless I’m missing something, they can just keep adding fees at their discretion, which seems to be BS.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,255 Likes: 18
Mildly Quirky
|
|
Mildly Quirky
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 52,255 Likes: 18 |
Yep.
They do it because they can, and no one challenges it, and if anyone does challenge it they or the courts shrug it off, and the "Aw, it's just a few more bucks. Don't you want to be a good little conservationist?" crowd jumps in to try to make you feel bad.
The baiting permit license crowd does this. "It's just 15 bucks! You can't pay that to help out?!?!" But when you have 2-3 kids that's another $45 or $60 a year. And in a few years when it goes up to $20 or $25 — and it will, because ... revenue — the CornBaiters will cry a little but pay it anyway because they're locked in.
Shuffle along now and pay more for the "privilege" to fish and hunt, and don't complain about it. You should feel grateful they're demanding that you pay your fair share! Don't be a taker and a teat-sucker and leech. Pay more!
"Hunting Politics are stupid!" - Farm Hunter
"Bible says you shouldn't put sugar in your cornbread." Dustin, 2013
"Best I can figure 97.365% of the general public is a paint chip eating, mouth breathing, certified dumbass." BCLC, 2020
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,908 Likes: 2
14 point
|
|
14 point
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,908 Likes: 2 |
I don't mind the fees. To do what is done should cost money. There is no reason to underfund our Wildlife agencies trying to paint it as a government overreach that's totally silly IMO. They perform a function that we should pay for because we are the ones who should promote and care about the things they do. Are we not the ones who directly benefit from their activities? Are they using the funds for the reef fish to install more reefs? You only want to benefit from it but not help pay for it... I see. I don't fish Alabama waters so I don't have to pay for the reef fish permit and I don't benefit from the reef they installed.
How is that not fair?
What I care about is accountability over how and where the money they do receive is spent. We still don't have Game Wardens for each county I know a few still share a single Warden. But we got a baiting license that had to generate significant revenue?
We had a chance to possibly change this but y'all voted for Mee Maw. So - Chuck is still in there like a hair in a biscuit.
No government employees were harmed in the making of this mess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 412
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 412 |
I’m not trying to benefit from anything without paying for it. If I hadn’t purchased the lifetime license in 89’, I would just suck it up and go on. But in 1989, $300 was a lot of money for my family to purchase me a lifetime license and my buddy who I fish with doesn’t even fish the public reefs, and you can catch all those fish listed on the Reef Endorsement in a lot of different places other than something the state has provided. Just typical government telling you one thing (one time fee for LIFETIME license), and then later telling you that they need more money for you to attempt to catch certain kinds of fish after you’ve paid a bunch of money up front.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,855 Likes: 42
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,855 Likes: 42 |
I’m not trying to benefit from anything without paying for it. If I hadn’t purchased the lifetime license in 89’, I would just suck it up and go on. But in 1989, $300 was a lot of money for my family to purchase me a lifetime license and my buddy who I fish with doesn’t even fish the public reefs, and you can catch all those fish listed on the Reef Endorsement in a lot of different places other than something the state has provided. Just typical government telling you one thing (one time fee for LIFETIME license), and then later telling you that they need more money for you to attempt to catch certain kinds of fish after you’ve paid a bunch of money up front. The reef license requirement for those like us who have bought a lifetime license is something I don't think would stand up if someone tested it. I can remember that Charles Kelley encouraged us to buy the lifetime license and one reason that he gave was that we would be exempt from any future licenses like this one. I wish I had saved the publication that said that, but I didn't. It's a moot point for me as I am now too old to be required to have it. GK, it's got nothing to do with being willing to pay for a license; it's about the state selling us a license and then deciding that they aren't going to honor it. It's like selling you an annual hunting license in August and then announcing in March that it won't apply to turkey season; gotta buy a turkey stamp too. Would you be ok with that? The only difference here is the species and the timing. All they had to do was to grandfather those who had bought a lifetime saltwater license. The fact that they didn't and nothing happened paves the way to add other species that your lifetime license no longer covers. I discussed this with a CAB member 2 years ago and he agreed that it wasn't right and it was going to be corrected. Hasn't happened, and I don't believe it's been discussed.
All the labor of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 412
4 point
|
|
4 point
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 412 |
I’m not trying to benefit from anything without paying for it. If I hadn’t purchased the lifetime license in 89’, I would just suck it up and go on. But in 1989, $300 was a lot of money for my family to purchase me a lifetime license and my buddy who I fish with doesn’t even fish the public reefs, and you can catch all those fish listed on the Reef Endorsement in a lot of different places other than something the state has provided. Just typical government telling you one thing (one time fee for LIFETIME license), and then later telling you that they need more money for you to attempt to catch certain kinds of fish after you’ve paid a bunch of money up front. The reef license requirement for those like us who have bought a lifetime license is something I don't think would stand up if someone tested it. I can remember that Charles Kelley encouraged us to buy the lifetime license and one reason that he gave was that we would be exempt from any future licenses like this one. I wish I had saved the publication that said that, but I didn't. It's a moot point for me as I am now too old to be required to have it. GK, it's got nothing to do with being willing to pay for a license; it's about the state selling us a license and then deciding that they aren't going to honor it. It's like selling you an annual hunting license in August and then announcing in March that it won't apply to turkey season; gotta buy a turkey stamp too. Would you be ok with that? The only difference here is the species and the timing. All they had to do was to grandfather those who had bought a lifetime saltwater license. The fact that they didn't and nothing happened paves the way to add other species that your lifetime license no longer covers. I discussed this with a CAB member 2 years ago and he agreed that it wasn't right and it was going to be corrected. Hasn't happened, and I don't believe it's been discussed. 100% agree with everything you just said. What’s to keep them from applying an extra fee to any species of freshwater fish that you want to possess or even fish for on top of your current fishing license?
|
|
|
|
|
