$10/Boat Fee Considered in New Hampshire

[jason]

$10/Boat Fee Considered in New Hampshire

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/...1/display/full/

-Jason

[ccarlson]

Yeah... all NH residents, please write/call your legislators to dump this thing.

[EEL]

>Yeah... all NH residents, please write/call your legislators

>to dump this thing.

The reps in the lakes region say they have been bombarded with calls about this and the calls have all been negative. We shall see. Its putting alot at risk to raise $234K. IF they start collecting money then we have the right to demand access points for canoes and kayaks in addition to those kayak eating concrete ramps for bass boats. That would eat up the income in a hurry.

Since they are short millions, this is a drop in the bucket for fixing F&G.

I'm happy to launch in Kittery and spend my money there and not contribute to SLA, etc.

Ed Lawson

[rick stoehrer]

i didn't see anything in that article about ocean access? is it there and i missed it? i can see where it says any body of water in NH but are the 18 miles of coastline included? and for that matter, this doesn't say it's a fee for launching, it's a use fee for the body of water. i could almost understand a use fee for the launch cause someone had to build it and maintain it but this is for the water. so the state "owns" the lake, river, ocean? huh...i had no idea.

to quote an old blues song (jr wells) "keep your hands outta my pocket, ain't a goddamn thing in there belongs to you"

[jason]

>>Yeah... all NH residents, please write/call your legislators

>>to dump this thing.

>

>The reps in the lakes region say they have been bombarded

>with calls about this and the calls have all been negative.

>We shall see. Its putting alot at risk to raise $234K. IF

>they start collecting money then we have the right to demand

>access points for canoes and kayaks in addition to those

>kayak eating concrete ramps for bass boats. That would eat

>up the income in a hurry.

>

>Since they are short millions, this is a drop in the bucket

>for fixing F&G.

>

>I'm happy to launch in Kittery and spend my money there and

>not contribute to SLA, etc.

>

>Ed Lawson

They seem to have a pie in the sky figure in there head that they will raise $1,575,400. I know that my WW boat will be going to western MA instead of NH if this becomes law.

From the Bill:

"

The Fish and Game Department states this bill requires a conservation decal for non-motorized boats. The annual fee for a set of conservation decals is $10. The issuing agent retains $1 of the fee and the remaining $9 is deposited into the fish and game fund. The Department estimates 200,000 sets of decals would be issued annually, for total revenue of $1.8 million. There would be administrative costs to the Department which include the cost of decals, shipping costs, agent reports/signs, brochure costs, added personnel time for customer service and data input, and OIT charges for system changes. The Department estimates the cost of administering conservation stickers as follows:

Cost of 500,000 decals $60,000

Shipping Costs 4,000

Agent Reports/Signs 600

Brochure Costs 10,000

Additional Personnel Time 100,000

OIT Services 50,000

Total $224,600

"

-Jason

[raddog]

Unfotunately, the senate committee approved SB255 yesterday. Please turn up the volumne on your letters. be polite but give them reasons why, such as we don't use F&G services, there are other reasons as well, but this will severely dampen paddling in NH waters, and yes, that means coastal waters as well as laeks annd rivers

Jeff

[Brian Nystrom]

I'd be very surprised if even one tenth of that number of boats gets registered annually. One things is certain, MINE WON'T BE! If this stupidity actually becomes law, civil disobedience would be the best way to kill it. If people refuse to comply and they paddle elsewhere, the program will lose money, as similar programs have done in other states. At that point, there will be no choice but to repeal it. Hopefully, it won't come to that...

[EEL]

>Unfotunately, the senate committee approved SB255 yesterday.

BTW, was there an ACA official present to provide testimony?

Opposition by organizations often counts for more than any number of individuals. Since there will never be more than a handful of individuals, it is easy to dismiss them given the total number of people affected. Harder to dismiss an organization which represents a large number of people.

Ed Lawson

[donperry]

I wonder if an exhaustive email list including chambers of commerce and tourism agencies might help here. If this bill passes, some tourist’s dollars will be driven elsewhere. It certainly won’t do anything to increase overall revenues.

[Ptrish]

I received a reply from Senator Letourneau. He feels very stongly that this bill "is not in the NH fashion" and he intends to vote against it. Now to convince the rest of the senate...

Patricia

[EEL]

>I emailed Senator Letourneau and he feels very stongly that

>this bill "is not in the NH fashion" and he intends to vote

>against it. Now to convince the rest of the senate...

Remember folks there are only 24 of them. Need to write soon as things are moving fast this year in the general court. The version of the bill discussed at the hearing on the 14th was created on the 12th.

Ed Lawson

[JMo]

This was sponsored by Senators Barnes, Gallus, and D'Allesandro. In the committee meeting, Gallus and D'allesandro voted to send this to the Senate, Gatsas voted against. Gallus is from District 1 (Berlin), D'Allesandro is District 20 (Manchester), Barnes is from District 17 (Raymond) and Gatsas (the good guy, who voted to reject this in committee) is District 16 (Manchester).

If you want to email State Senators about this, here are the 24 email addresses: john.gallus@leg.state.nh.us; deb.Reynolds@leg.state.nh.us; joseph.kenney@leg.state.nh.us; kathleen.sgambati@leg.state.nh.us; peter.burling@leg.state.nh.us; jacalyn.cilley@leg.state.nh.us; harold.janeway@leg.state.nh.us; rpojr@aol.com; sheila.roberge@leg.state.nh.us; molly.kelly@leg.state.nh.us; peter.bragdon@leg.state.nh.us; david.gottesman@leg.state.nh.us; joseph.foster@leg.state.nh.us; senclegg@aol.com; sylvia.larsen@leg.state.nh.us; Ted.Gatsas@leg.state.nh.us; jack.barnes@leg.state.nh.us; betsi.devries@leg.state.nh.us; robert.letourneau@leg.state.nh.us; dalas@leg.state.nh.us; iris.estabrook@leg.state.nh.us; michael.downing@leg.state.nh.us; maggie.hassan@leg.state.nh.us; martha.fullerclark@leg.state.nh.us

[raddog]

The local AW rep, Mark LaCroix handed each reporter covering the Jan 1 Icicle paddle oon the Winni in Franklin & Tilton the following booklet. Not a single "reporter" mentioned it.

NH has only 16 miles of coast line. I pointed asked each rep where non-residents would paddle, where its free and a lot longer coastline, or here where the coast line is short and might be taxed.

>Boat Tax

The New Hampshire Fish & Game department is attempting to get

legislation to apply a $10 conservation fee for all paddle craft.

This is not a bill yet but may be soon. Fish & Game commissioner Lee

Perry is seeking new revenue sources to augment a budget deficit in

his department. Although paddlers are sympathetic to the plight of

Lee Perry we also believe his targeted revenue source objective

(human powered craft) is unfair and incompatible with the main focus

of Fish & Game which is the management and programs related to

hunting, fishing, ATV's, snowmobiles, and power boats. All these

activities run counter to the healthy and environmentally friendly

sport of paddling.

Unfortunately, it looks as though Lee Perry is attempting to use

paddlers as a revenue source to boost spending on these other

programs. Take for instance the new proposed ATV park to be built

near Berlin NH. According to the December 14th edition of

the "Mountain Ear" New Hampshire Fish & Game will be transferring

$2.2 million from ATV registration fees they collect to help build a

7200 acre ATV park. NH F&G will also be responsible for enforcing

rules and maintaining the trails. Such a destructive program will

essentially be subsidized by paddling fees. Nowhere else is the

fairness issue more pronounced than in this instance. ATV

registration is approximately $50 per year, according to

the "Mountain Ear" article the park entrance fee will be set at $5 a

day. One day of ATV use in the park will create more environmental

damage than a paddler could possibly do over a lifetime of paddling

yet if that paddler owns 6 or more boats (which is common especially

among families) he/she will be paying more than that ATV'er .

Paddlers do not need nor do they desire costly infrastructure, all

that is needed is a place to park a right of way to attain access to

a particular body of water. Paddlers have nurtured and maintained

good relationships with land owners abutting river runs.

For the most part paddlers are very environmentally conscience. They

choose paddling over power boating for a reason. Some of those

reasons are economic but most partake in paddling as a healthy and

environmentally friendly way to enjoy the outdoors.

Just the talk of a potential registration fee has done damage.

Paddlers internet message boards are talking of boycotting New

Hampshire, many have changed their summer paddling plans to visit

other neighboring states instead. A recently scheduled spring

meeting of the board of directors and staff of American Whitewater

was relocated to Atlanta Georgia. The American Whitewater meeting

would have been the first one in the northeast and would have

highlighted boating in NH through their membership magazine with a

national circulation of approximately 40,000.

If the New Hampshire Fish & Game proposal becomes law it will be the

only such taxation of paddlers in the east. It will also be the most

expensive for paddlers in the country. Currently only six states

require boater registration, mostly in large Midwestern states.

Registration requirements for Arizona paddlers was repealed in 2000

due to lack of funding, high cost of administration, and ineffective

ability to return services to the paddlesports community at a level

corresponding to the fees. Not only is the NH Fish & Game proposal

the most expensive but it applies to boats rather than boaters. This

is the equivalent of registering each gun a hunter owns or each

fishing pole a fishermen uses.

To reiterate Mr Perry's bias favoring his hunting and fishing

clientele, he has proposed one free boat registration with any

hunting or fishing license purchased. Once again we can see how

paddlers will be subsidizing hunting and fishing.

The number 1 reason against boat or boater registration is the

inevitable destruction of the paddlesports industry in New

Hampshire. New Hampshire is a small state that is easily passed

through or by-passed to other neighboring states that do not require

registration of any kind and offer equivalent or superior paddling

opportunities.

What can paddlers do about this?

As mentioned earlier this is not an official bill on the state docket

at this time, but Lee Perry has the support of a few legislatures and

is asking them to introduce a bill in the 2007 legislative session.

There are currently 5 members on the Wildlife, Fish and Game

committee that should be receiving letters to vent our displeasure

with this potential bill. See below.

John T. Gallus (chairman)

292 Prospect Street

Berlin, NH 03570-2137

Lou D'Allesandro (vice chairman)

332 St. James Avenue

Manchester, NH 03102-4950

Harold W. Janeway

225 Tyler Road

Webster, NH 03303

Iris W. Estabrook

8 Burnham Avenue

Durham, NH 03824-3011

Theodore L. Gatsas

20 Market St

PO Box 6655

Manchester, NH 03104-6052

When and if the bill comes up for debate then paddlers will need to e-

mail or send letters to their representatives. Paddlers from outside

the state can also send letters or e-mails to state representatives.

Unfortunately, NH has one of the largest state representative bodies

in the country, which means lots of letters to many state reps. For

a list of NH state representatives go to:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/whosmyleg/

Sample Letter

The following is a sample letter / template that could be modified

with your argument then sent to the appropriate person..

[insert Date]

Senator [First Name] [initial] [Last Name]

107 North Main Street, Room ???,

Concord, New Hampshire, 03301

RE: Senate Bill ????: Bill to establish New Hampshire Boater

Registration Fee

Dear Senator [Last Name],

I urge you to oppose Senate Bill ??? or amend the current language so

that watercraft powered by paddle are exempted from the $10.00 decal

registration requirement. The bill is simply an attempt to generate

revenue for the Department of Fish and Game but promises nothing in

return to the non-motorized paddling community.

Clearly, river runners and in particular whitewater boaters will be

taxed but receive no benefits. Most importantly, this Bill will

discourage river recreationists from coming to the state causing a

decrease in tourism revenues further impacting the state economy.

This Bill is simply a funding mechanism with no clear management plan

in place for administering the funds fairly and equitably to those

that are taxed.

I urge you to oppose or amend this bill so that canoes, kayaks and

rafts are exempted from the registration. The bill was drafted

prematurely without a management plan in place identifying the user

groups that should fund the program as well as allocation of the

revenue fairly and equitably.

Sincerely,

Your name

Address

phone number

email

Following are some of the arguments that could be used in your letter

or you could make up your own.

1. Multiple boat registration: Kayaks and canoes are relatively

inexpensive outdoor recreational vehicles that very in design to

allow maximum performance for a particular set of paddling

conditions, i.e. lake, river, rapids, creeks, etc. For this reason

most paddlers have several boats. A family of four could have a dozen

or more boats. Requiring registration on all these craft is extremely

unfair. It would be the equivalent of a fisherman registering each

fishing pole he owns or a hunter registering each gun

2. The state of New Hampshire should be encouraging healthy and

environmentally friendly outdoor activities. Boat registration will

discourage these activities and steer tourist away to surrounding

states. New Hampshire is a "convenient" paddling destination close to

Boston, but not the most desirable. Once the "convenience" of

paddling in NH is taken away by boat registration paddling tourist

will avoid NH. New Hampshire is a small state that is easily bypassed

or passed through to other prime paddling destinations in Maine,

Vermont, and yes even Massachusetts. There is no place in NH that is

over a 1 hour drive from a neighboring state. A family of four

looking for a kayaking destination will see the $40 registration fee

plus the aggravation of physically registering their boats as a huge

deterrent to visit. This theoretical family would spend their tourist

dollars in other states depriving NH of other income including rooms

and meals taxes, gasoline taxes, and business taxes that their visit

would chip into

3. A few other states have tried registration but some such as

Arizona have repealed this tax because of the high cost of

administration for the moneys received. Paddlers in these other

states are demanding new programs and infrastructure to show some

return on their fees. A similar situation can be seen in NH when the

federal government initiated a recreational parking fee for national

forest lands within NH. Rivers and lakes that were accessed from

these lands showed a sharp decrease in visitors once the program was

implemented.

4. Paddlers are not a drain on the resources of Fish & Game.

Cartop access with foot trails to a river or lake launch is all that

is necessary or even desired by outdoor enthusiast. Most paddlers

are very environmentally conscience and do not desire any

infrastructure. Most of the time all that is required is right of

passage and a roadside shoulder to park. These parking and access

points have been negotiated by paddlers with various landowners over

the years. A boat tax will disrupt this relationship as boaters head

out of state. New Hampshire paddlers will actually loose access with

a boat tax.

5. Search and rescue operations are best done by paddlers

familiar and experienced with conditions normally found on rivers

with rapids. Support of local fire departments and rescue services

would be the next best thing. If Search and Rescue is the reason for

this tax then other groups would need to be considered as revenue

sources. It is not fair to single out paddlers for Search and Rescue

revenue enhancements since most of those operations are conducted for

other groups not affected by this tax.

6. Organized river cleanups by paddling groups will vanish. A

lot of these efforts are spearheaded by out of state enthusiasts who

have adopted a favorite river to organize yearly cleanups. These

people are also instrumental in negotiating with landowners to gain

access to many river launch points throughout the state. The domino

effect of boaters heading out of state to avoid the boat tax will

surely mean fewer boaters at these access points therefore less

desire to maintain this relationship with property owners and more

trash at public rights of way.

7. Even in state boaters will be heading out of state to boat

with friends rather then try and convince them to come to NH and pay

the boat tax.

8. Registration will become a safety issue. Resident NH boaters

will undoubtedly travel to neighboring states to do most of their

boating but may choose to register only one craft in NH. That one

craft may not be the best choice for certain types of boating

depending on conditions.

9. Paddlers provide an environmental service to the state of

NH. Boaters have in the past and continue to reported suspicious

activities along the waterways that could be detrimental to the

ecological health of the river or lake.

10. There will be a huge impact on paddling related rental

businesses. Many paddling businesses have emerged over the last few

years. Many of these are in the north country and have a very short

summer season to recoup their expenses and earn a meager profit to

survive. Some canoe and kayak liveries would need to register in

excess of 100 boats. This will cut into their profits and probably

force them out of business.

11. Paddling gear retailers will no longer offer demo boats for

prospective buyers to try because of the high cost of registering

dozens of boats each year.

Despite the paddlers disagreement over the boat tax, we are not

unconcerned about the plight of New Hampshire Fish & Games budget

problems. We realize they have been burdened with many task

unrelated to their original mission including search and rescue

missions and land and water resource protection. It is for this

reason we believe the State of New Hampshire should be funding such

programs from the general budget coffers. After all, every state

resident benefits from these services. However, we believe other

revenue sources should be explored if the general budget cannot be

tapped.

1. Search & Rescue insurance: New Hampshire Fish & Game should

promote and sell this type of insurance to all outdoor enthusiast

including bikers, hikers, paddlers, bird watchers, etc. This would

only be effective if it was well known that any search & rescue

performed would have to be reimbursed for cost if the rescued does

not hold this insurance or a valid fishing/hunting license.

2. A bottle bill: Although there would be a lot of opposition

to this, a bottle bill with a 5 cent deposit would generate some

revenue from unreturned containers. Additionally, this would help

keep shorelines and waterways clean. A 5 cent deposit on fishing

bait containers would reduce the second most common trash found and

removed by paddlers at riverside fishing sites.

3. A development tax: Any large scale development such as

shopping malls or housing developments should be assessed a fee to

offset the loss of habitat caused by that development.

[EEL]

>

>The following is a sample letter / template that could be

>modified

>with your argument then sent to the appropriate person..

>

Thank you for this post as it provides some useful points in the letters I am writing. However, I suggest that any letters send to the legislators be personalized and not simply a copy of any sample. Tends to have a greater impact that way.

Ed Lawson

[Paul Sylvester]

I am going to get on the phone monday as a follow up to the letter I sent.

It might go to a vote on the 22nd according to the docket.

Please call or mail and help us out on this one.

thanks, Paul Sylvester

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SENATE

2005–2006 Biennial Session -- March 18, 2007

New Hampshire Senate Roster

District Name and Address Contact Information

01 John Gallus

292 Prospect Street

Berlin, NH 03570-2137 (H) (603)752-1066

(O)None Specified

john.gallus@leg.state.nh.us

02 Deborah Reynolds

5 Chaddarin Lane

Plymouth, NH 03264 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-3569

deb.Reynolds@leg.state.nh.us

03 Joseph Kenney

PO Box 201

Union, NH 03887-0201 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-3073

joseph.kenney@leg.state.nh.us

04 Kathleen Sgambati

25 Pine Street

Tilton, NH 03276 (H) (603)286-8931

(O) (603)271-3074

kathleen.sgambati@leg.state.nh.us

05 Peter Burling

20 Lang Road

Cornish, NH 03745-4209 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-2642

peter.burling@leg.state.nh.us

06 Jacalyn Cilley

2 Oak Hill Road

Barrington, NH 03825 (H) (603)664-5597

(O) (603)271-3045

jacalyn.cilley@leg.state.nh.us

07 Harold Janeway

225 Tyler Road

Webster, NH 03303 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-3041

harold.janeway@leg.state.nh.us

08 Bob Odell

PO Box 23

Lempster, NH 03605-0023 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-6733

rpojr@aol.com

09 Sheila Roberge

83 Olde Lantern Road

Bedford, NH 03110-4816 (H) (603)472-8391

(O) None Specified

sheila.roberge@leg.state.nh.us

10 Molly Kelly

89 Colonial Drive

Keene, NH 03431 (H) (603)352-5605

(O) (603)271-7803

molly.kelly@leg.state.nh.us

11 Peter Bragdon

P.O. Box 307

Milford, NH 03055 (H) (603)673-7135

(O) (603)271-2675

peter.bragdon@leg.state.nh.us

12 David Gottesman

18 Indian Rock Road

Nashua, NH 03063-1308 (H) (603)889-4442

(O) None Specified

david.gottesman@leg.state.nh.us

13 Joseph Foster

9 Keats Street

Nashua, NH 03062-2509 (H) (603)891-0307

(O) None Specified

joseph.foster@leg.state.nh.us

14 Robert Clegg

39 Trigate Road

Hudson, NH 03051-5120 (H) None Specified

(O) None Specified

senclegg@aol.com

15 Sylvia Larsen

23 Kensington Road

Concord, NH 03301 (H) (603)225-6130

(O) (603)271-2111

sylvia.larsen@leg.state.nh.us

16 Theodore Gatsas

20 Market St

PO Box 6655

Manchester, NH 03104-6052 (H) (603)623-0220

(O) None Specified

Ted.Gatsas@leg.state.nh.us

17 John Barnes

PO Box 362

Raymond, NH 03077-3062 (H) (603)895-9352

(O) (603)271-6931

jack.barnes@leg.state.nh.us

18 Betsi DeVries

14 Old Orchard Way

Manchester, NH 03103 (H) (603)647-0117

(O) (603)271-2104

betsi.devries@leg.state.nh.us

19 Robert Letourneau

30 South Avenue

Derry, NH 03038 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-8631

robert.letourneau@leg.state.nh.us

20 Lou D'Allesandro

332 St. James Avenue

Manchester, NH 03102-4950 (H) (603)669-3494

(O) None Specified

dalas@leg.state.nh.us

21 Iris Estabrook

8 Burnham Avenue

Durham, NH 03824-3011 (H) (603)868-5524

(O) (603)271-3042

iris.estabrook@leg.state.nh.us

22 Michael Downing

7 Darryl Lane

Salem, NH 03079 (H) (603)893-5442

(O) None Specified

michael.downing@leg.state.nh.us

23 Margaret Hassan

48 Court Street

Exeter, NH 03833-2728 (H) (603)772-4187

(O) (603)271-4153

maggie.hassan@leg.state.nh.us

24 Martha Fuller Clark

152 Middle Street

Portsmouth, NH 03801-4306 (H) None Specified

(O) (603)271-6933

martha.fullerclark@leg.state.nh.us

[Brian Nystrom]

- First, compose your letter, leaving the email address and the salutation blank.

- Next, save the email as a template.

- To send an email, double click on the template (in the Templates folder), copy and paste the email address, fill in the salutation and send. It took me less than 10 minutes to email all the NH state senators on Paul's list.

If they get inundated with emails from paddlers threatening to boycott NH, it will get their attention. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

[EEL]

It appears the Senate voted today to put this bill aside as inexpedient to legislate. As a practical matter it is unlikely to be brought up again, but it is possible.

I would expect a different approach to arise in the next session or maybe even this session. Apparently fees for kayaks and canoes are being sought in more states that you might think this year.

Thanks to all who wrote or called.

Ed Lawson

[Brian Nystrom]

...is for those of us who live in NH to push the legislature for an alternative source of funding for the Fish & Game Department. Until the department is properly funded, we can expect proposals like the canoe/kayak fee. Their work is important and they need to get their funding from somewhere. Hunters and fishermen have paid more than their fair share.

I suggest a bill to make the state employees retirement fund responsible for Fish & Game employees, too. This is really the crux of the F&G's funding problem. It seems ridiculous for an important state agency and its state employees to not be covered and have to fend for itself.

Here are some other ideas:

o Increasing fines for violations of Fish and Game regulations.

o Increasing fines for violations of environmental regulations, preferably dramatically.

These first two approaches would also have a beneficial deterrent effect.

o Increasing fees related to environmentally detrimental activities that consume Fish and Game Department resources, such as power boating and OHRV use. Increasing fees on trailers would be an effective way to do this, since the people who use them are the ones who should be paying for the infrastructure they require (and that paddlers don’t need).

o Increasing fees on land development to compensate for the environmental destruction it causes.

I've communicated with Director Perry and he's appreciative of any efforts we can make on his department's behalf. By helping his cause, we're helping ourselves, so while we're still thinking about this issue, let's see if we can get something positive done for F&G.

[Guest _rick]

Brian

Your assuming that off road rv and powerboats consume. There are lots of things that do consume that dont have engines. I am not sure what NH has but that is partly why MA has excise tax payable to the town of principle usage. For instance I live in one town but my boat is in Newburyport for more that 60 days a year I pay excise to Newburyport.

Other practical issues aside I see lots of "non consumers" creating litter, trash, and use facilities too.

FWIW.

_rick

[Brian Nystrom]

They consume fuel, they consume land and shoreline needed for the infrastructure they require and they consume Fish & Game resources. They also pollute the air and water with their exhaust, and create plenty of noise pollution to boot. For NH F&G to encourage power boat usage at the expense of benign activities like kayaking is not just ludicrous, it's irresponsible. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to enjoy your boat if that's your choice, but not at the expense of activities that are less consumptive and destructive.

[Guest _rick]

All I want you to consider is the fact that so called non-consumers do expect and consume resources. Look at swimming beaches, Campgrounds,Hiking trails. It does cost money to staff, place signage, trashcans, pick up the garbage that they cant put in a trashcan, and other things for them.

Did you know the fine for littering on the water is a federal offense? Not that way on land.

Yes boats do consume Breaux Wallop and other laws assess fees to support these things. I think you will find that the average boat equipped fisherman/duck hunter or atv equipped hunter do in fact spend their fair share.

_rick

[Paul Sylvester]

Spoke with several senators and they all said they had received many notes or calls against this..Thanks for all your calls and letters.

One senator thought that it was time to get F&G merged with another state department which would help with the funding and oversight.

Not enough people hunting and fishing or a bloated agency???

Who knows, just keep your taxes off my yak.

thanks again,

[Brian Nystrom]

"Not enough people hunting and fishing or a bloated agency???"

Hunting and fishing license sales have dropped off significantly in the past few years. Some of this is due to general attrition in these pursuits, but increased license fees are also to blame. Those fees have been the primary source of revenue for the F&G Department for decades. They have obviously reached the breaking point and further increases would likely lead to even lower participation and less revenue. Regardless of one's position on hunting and fishing, the fact is that hunters and fishermen have effectively subsidized OUR activities for LONG time and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

F&G is anything but "bloated". In fact one could reasonably say that it's grossly understaffed considering the size and scope of its mission. The problem is that unlike other state agencies, F&G is responsible for funding the retirement of its former employees, who are STATE employees. That's what's caused their budget crisis. If the state would take over their retirement program, as it arguably should have from the beginning, the problem would be solved and we wouldn't be fighting kayak registration schemes. Those of us who live in NH would be doing ourselves a favor if we help F&G secure the funding it needs by pushing our reps to do the right thing. F&G is NOT our enemy, it an agency that oversees the waters we enjoy and it deserves our support. We can fight unfair and misguided proposals such as the one we just helped to defeat, while still supporting the agency and its vitally important mission. Director Perry understands this and he has repeatedly told me that he's grateful for any assistance we can provide in solving his budget problems. While it's easy to think otherwise, I'm convinced that he has nothing against canoeists and kayakers, he's just trying to find the funding he needs from whatever source he can. It's a desperate situation and we should be pushing our reps to resolve it.

[EEL]

>Hunting and fishing license sales have dropped off

>significantly in the past few years. Some of this is due to

>general attrition in these pursuits, but increased license

>fees are also to blame.

I enjoy fishing for unstocked "native" brook trout in remote mountain streams, but since I could only do it a few times a year, the license fee just got too high for limited use and haven't bought one for a few years now.

>While it's easy to think otherwise, I'm convinced that he

>has nothing against canoeists and kayakers, he's just trying

>to find the funding he needs from whatever source he can.

One of the bill sponsors I talked to owned several kayaks and enjoyed the sport. They are just trying to find money the good ole NH way which is to load up fees here and there as opposed to a systemic approach.

Ed Lawson

[djlewis]

>"Not enough people hunting and fishing or a bloated

>agency???"

>

>Hunting and fishing license sales have dropped off

>significantly in the past few years. Some of this is due to

>general attrition in these pursuits, but increased license

>fees are also to blame.

Roughly how big are those fees?

>The problem is that unlike other state

>agencies, F&G is responsible for funding the retirement of

>its former employees, who are STATE employees. That's what's

>caused their budget crisis. If the state would take over

>their retirement program, as it arguably should have from

>the beginning, the problem would be solved

Solved? Not really. It would just be shifted to the state, which is already pretty strapped itself, no? So, you'd have everybody else in the state subsidizing F&G. Of course, the state might see fit to cut the F&G budget even more to help make up for the shortfall.

Anyway, this F&G retirement thing sounds like a historical artifact, but which is nonetheless built in to everybody's budgets and probably has been forever. To change it now is essentially to request a new subsidy from the state -- very un-libertarian, if ya aks me.

Say, how about a modest graduated income tax in NH -- oh, sorrrrrry... said the diiiiirty worrrrrd. Arrrrrgh. Live free AND die!

--David.