Would You Support This Legislation?

[ness]

Way to pay attention. I said that yesterday.

Yeah, well Wayner said it better and didn't have paragraph after paragraph of other people's posts smack dab in the middle of it.

[Chief Grey Bear]

So no one likes the floating license idea? You pay once at the beggining of the year and that is it. The outfitters don't have to do anything besided check the license If you rent from them.

It doesn't sound too bad on the surface. What agency will be issuing the license??

[zander]

should probably be MDC since they have all of the stuff in place for licensing already, retail locations, computer networks etc.

[stlfisher]

On the surface I would say the MDC would issue the license. Kids let's say under 16 don't need a license. I envision the floating license being an add on to the fishing license. So you buy one you get both. This way current fisherman, who float, aren't paying twice. The floaters who currently aren't paying anything would be the only ones who need to purchase the license. The bonus for them is they would get to fish as well. Since so many seem against any additional fees I figured this would would be a fair, affordable option that takes it out of the hands of the outfitters. When a license is purchased the MDC would provide a small booklet/brochure that just covers the basics of fishing/floating/conservation practices much like a fishing license.

The MDC would incur some processing and administrative fees so that would have to be figured in. I am envisioning a license fee in the $7-$10 range per year.

The logistics on how that money is spent should be split between conservation/habitat improvements and cleanups, conservation education, and if there are any extra funds then increased enforcement would be ok too.

I am sure details i am missing details that would need to be worked out as well....so this is my rough draft so to speak.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Sorry stlfisher, but there are problems with your logic.

The floaters who currently aren't paying anything would be the only ones who need to purchase the license.

But they are paying, remember the 1/8th cent sales tax and the accesses it has made possible? I would hate for it to go down next time it comes up because people say they are already paying for a float license.

conservation/habitat improvements and cleanups, conservation education

Isn't this already being done?

There have been signs telling people not to leave plastic can ties, cans and bottles in the streams for decades, but you can only reach so many and then you have to go hands on. The bottle law is a good example.

You can say I'm a cynic, but I've been around these waters for a long time and the big boost in trash and unruliness has followed the overcrowding. Cut the numbers and add some law enforcement and that will help. Many of the other problems need to go to other agencies, but many have been brought to battle and been defeated by other self interests with more money.

Like it or not, money drives most of the DNR actions.

[stlfisher]

Sorry stlfisher, but there are problems with your logic.

But they are paying, remember the 1/8th cent sales tax and the accesses it has made possible? I would hate for it to go down next time it comes up because people say they are already paying for a float license.

Isn't this already being done?

There have been signs telling people not to leave plastic can ties, cans and bottles in the streams for decades, but you can only reach so many and then you have to go hands on. The bottle law is a good example.

You can say I'm a cynic, but I've been around these waters for a long time and the big boost in trash and unruliness has followed the overcrowding. Cut the numbers and add some law enforcement and that will help. Many of the other problems need to go to other agencies, but many have been brought to battle and been defeated by other self interests with more money.

Like it or not, money drives most of the DNR actions.

I am paying the 1/8th sales tax too as well as the the fishing license. I don't see why some should pay for a license and some should not. That seems very illogical to me.

The money generated can be used in many different ways, if enforcement and regulation of floaters is on your agenda i am ok with that being encorporated as well. Whatever ever the final apporach would be it does need to be an approach accross several disciplines.

[Feathers and Fins]

Just a thought but, How can any fee be put on a floatable river aka navigatable waterway. There may well be a legal issue with it we havent thought of.

[Al Agnew]

I suspect the license idea might be a nightmare in several ways. For one thing, a lot of the rental floaters don't hunt or fish so have not had any experience with buying licenses for such, and they won't have a clue that they need a "floater's license". No matter how much the "new" requirement is publicized, there will always be a whole lot of people that show up at the livery not knowing they need the license, let alone already having it. So that leaves it to the livery people to check them for the license, tell them they need one, and then sell them one. All on a busy weekend when there's a line of people waiting to rent a boat. So the liveries get the grief of hearing people complain, they have to be the bad guys in asking for the license, and they'll need more manpower or equipment to sell the licenses over the counter. Meanwhile, if MDC, for instance, is the license provider, then they will insist upon the money all going to them and not part of it to DNR, Water Patrol, etc. And even if they are required to divvy up the money with the other agencies, that will mean they need to allocate manpower to do the collecting, accounting, etc.

And...a lot of the renters only make one or two trips to a river a year, if that, while others go floating regularly. The people who only go once a year are not going to be happy to be required to get a license to do so that they have to keep track of, and to pay out the same amount of money as the guy who goes every weekend. Nor are they going to be happy about having to pay for a license while somebody with a fishing license doesn't need to buy one.

Not that it wouldn't be doable...but I think it would end up being more complicated than just paying a daily use fee if you rent.

I wasn't hot on the idea of a yearly sticker on rental boats, but this would be an easier thing to do than a yearly license for floaters. At least it's a once a year cost to the liveries, which they could probably recoup by raising their rates by a dollar or so. Maybe. You could figure that if the yearly sticker cost $10, that would mean that with a $1 raise in rates, the boat would have to be rented out ten times a year.

[Gavin]

Canoe rentals only make their real money in a 3-4 month span..A surchage on renters would make more sense....charge them and extra buck or several to fund XYZ everytime they rent a boat. Demand is elastic in that area...Renters want boats and they dont have them...an extra buck or several would not be an issue...give the outfitters a cut of the take to finance the extra compliance costs. Reports to do, possible report audit costs, and another check to write on a regular basis. Plus the governmemt will incur more costs... More gov't people to do XYZ, adminster the tax, audit the tax. Increased Pension costs and OPEB's....It's really cheap and simple, LOL!

[Feathers and Fins]

I talked about this with some friends at dinner last night just to see where they would be, non-hunters, non-fishers and a couple that could hunt and fish when they had time. They were 100% against the idea! they do float and enjoy using the waters when they have time. I tried to express the best I could that it would benifit the streams and them. and was goven the Reagan Line NO NEW TAXES!

People are tired of user fee's this and taxes this. I doubt this would have a prayer in the world, there were 10 people there last night and all of them were strongly opposed to it, one an attourney was laughing saying " so you want to make goverment even bigger when their are already goverment agencies that are suppose to be doing what you propose ". That comment kinda sunk it home with me that it is not the time for this. Idea and concept is good but John Q Public wont support it and Mike was right its just growing goverment again.