Proposed fishing license fee increase

[hendeylathe]

http://paindependent.com/2015/09/anglers-could-be-on-the-hook-for-public-pensions/

Spotted this at www.keystonereport.com

Any thoughts and or opinions?

 

[Fishidiot]

While the issue with pensions is a sticky one and one which we can disagree about. . .I think many of us CAN agree that a modest fishing license fee increase is overdue.

 

[SteveG]

Increases!? What happened to "catching the value"? But seriously, licenses would have to be more expensive to support their put and take agenda. Just shows how #censor#-backwards that organization is run.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

How about a license for people who fish the month of April that sells for $ 20.00 (would about cover the people who are after mostly stocked fish) and one that goes for a yr at $50? Serious anglers would gladly pay it. Think what they already spend on all the gear and boats and coffee and gas.

 

[wildtrout2]

I'm fine with a license fee increase. Heck, for all the enjoyment I get out of fishing and the beautiful places I get to see, whatever they charge is a small price to pay.

 

[PennKev]

Still completely reasonably priced IMO.

A full year of basic licensing is still under $30

A $14 trout stamp is a reasonable price for keeping a couple limits of trout.

Combined, it is still cheaper than a single night out at a good restaurant. Heck, a family of four can hardly eat for that at a cheap chain restaurant.

 

[Reeder]

They could double it for all I care, I would still only be paying pennies per trip. I'd pay more money just to return to the old licenses with unique artwork on the stamps. I always enjoyed collecting those from year to year. The new yellow ones look terrible, and remind me even more of how foolish it is that we have to display our license.

 

[salmonoid]

Increase the license fee by $1/year for five years. Or increase the license fee by $5 every five years. The net increase is the same after five years. Everyone can understand inflation, but it's easier to swallow if it is incremental, instead of a step function. There will be those that balk at the $5 increase but would bat an eye at paying a dollar more each year. They are at least looking at incremental increases after 2017, finally.

It's still a drop in the bucket of most families' finances. But oh the hand-wringing that drop will create.. And it doesn't solve the pension obligation. That will only continue to balloon.

 

[Zak]

Sign me up. Make the license $50. It's LOOOOONG overdue.

 

[greenghost]

Wow... Amazingly, this is the first time I ever remember a majority acceptance of a price increase of anything. And I've been around for quite a few yesrs.

 

[salmonoid]

greenghost wrote:
Wow... Amazingly, this is the first time I ever remember a majority acceptance of a price increase of anything. And I've been around for quite a few yesrs.

Hang on. 10 posts is not a majority of anglers in PA

 

[lestrout]

Compared to many commodities and goods, the rez PA fishing license is sinfully cheap.

 

[KeithS]

Increasing the annual resident to $50.00 is perfectly acceptable to me. I get 4-8 hours each week doing what I enjoy. If I take an average, that's 312 hours a year. That's $.16 / hour.
The only problem for some who fish out of state is the
reciporical (sp) pricing on licenses.

 

[laszlo]

I guess dropping the price last season thinking was once everyone was "hooked" an increase wouldn't seem so bad. I have no problem with an increase, it's less than a round of golf.

 

[troutbert]

The writing of the article is highly slanted, biased. Just watch out for that when reading it.

 

[phiendWMD]

"Something similar here could help the commission invest in boating and fishing and attract more people to the pastimes, Arway said. Instead, it’s considering raising fees, which has been proven to drive people away. Fee increases usually result in an 8 to 10 percent loss in sales that do not come back, Arway said."

To me, this means we will be facing more increases in the near future. Which will cause more people to not purchase a license. That will lead to more increases. It just seems like a circle, increase fees result in less anglers which forces another increase. In 50 years maybe a resident fishing license will be $500 to cover the pensions.

 

[McSneek]

"The Fish and Boat Commission finds itself in the predicament largely because of its own business model. It operates on a “users pay-users benefit” system in which license fees comprise about 70 percent of its total budget."

"Pointing out that anglers and boaters spend $1.2 billion a year in Pennsylvania, Arway believes it would be reasonable for the commission to receive a chunk of the state’s sales tax revenue."

I can afford a $30+ fishing license (projected 2022 cost). What bugs me about the increase isn't the amount, it's that it seems to be nothing more than a band-aid on the huge open wound known as public pension liability. The issue goes far beyond the PA F&BC. Until that situation is fixed this is going to continue to be an issue.

It seems reasonable to me to direct sales tax revenue from sales of fishing related goods to the agency charged with fisheries oversight.

 

[Troy]

I don't have a problem with paying a little more for my license. I get my monies worth and more. I do have a problem with a license fee increase if it is strictly to help increase trout stocking. I fish for stocked trout about 5% of the time I am trout fishing. I also haven't kept a fish in about 25 years.

Why can't the people who keep fish pay more than the people who never keep fish? I don't think I should have to pay the same as a fisherman who harvests 100 trout per year. Maybe they could charge harvesting fishermen more than catch and release fishermen. It would be simple to do.

I know some people will say that it will be too hard to enforce. It is no different than when people fish without a license. There is always a chance to get caught even though it is tough to monitor. If you want to take the chance, that is on you.

 

[Camp]

I am fine with a license increase. What I am strongly opposed to is any youth license requirement. It is tough enough to get kids out, making them pay is not an option. I will pay more to cover those costs.

 

[troutbert]

Troy wrote:

Why can't the people who keep fish pay more than the people who never keep fish? I don't think I should have to pay the same as a fisherman who harvests 100 trout per year. Maybe they could charge harvesting fishermen more than catch and release fishermen. It would be simple to do.

A large number of the people who are keeping a lot of fish are those with senior licenses.

If anyone doubts this, go to streams when inseason stocking is being done, and see who is there catching and keeping fish.

The senior license was a budget buster. Does anyone remember when the senior license began?