Jump to content

NYS hunting-fishing license restructuring

nyslowhand

By nyslowhand,
in General Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

wheelieman Newbie

wheelieman

Posted
Posted

Just a bunch of crap to help ease over the population he pissed off by the Safe Act, Anybody need any help pulling the wool over their eyes, I'm sure he will help with that too!!!!!! Saving 30 bucks doesn't change the fact the douche bag is still in office and the Safe Act is still in affect!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Experienced

Doc

Posted
Posted

I am still confused about all of this. Just a year or two ago, we hiked the prices way up because of the doom and gloom of the prospect of the whole state fish and game management program crashing down around our ears. The story was sodevastating that we had hunters and fishermen and trappers practically begging for the state to sock it to us with huge increases and exhorbitant fees. A couple years go by and no wwe can afford to consolidate licenses and chop the fees. So which way is it? Do we have "feast" or Famine"? And were they lying then or are they lying now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
landtracdeerhunter Proficient

landtracdeerhunter

Posted
Posted

I am still confused about all of this. Just a year or two ago, we hiked the prices way up because of the doom and gloom of the prospect of the whole state fish and game management program crashing down around our ears. The story was sodevastating that we had hunters and fishermen and trappers practically begging for the state to sock it to us with huge increases and exhorbitant fees. A couple years go by and no wwe can afford to consolidate licenses and chop the fees. So which way is it? Do we have "feast" or Famine"? And were they lying then or are they lying now?

Feast one year and Famine the next. That is how New York operates. One differences this go around, Mr. C is running for president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wheelieman Newbie

wheelieman

Posted
Posted

Whats confusing about it, He is afraid sportsman will respond by not buying licenses and the state will take a big hit in the pocket book, He figures by lowering the fee pm licenses people will forget the Safe Act, He will deny this of course but i don't know a single outdoorsman that will support him in the next election,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Experienced

Doc

Posted
Posted

Whats confusing about it, He is afraid sportsman will respond by not buying licenses and the state will take a big hit in the pocket book, He figures by lowering the fee pm licenses people will forget the Safe Act, He will deny this of course but i don't know a single outdoorsman that will support him in the next election,

No, I remember the panic back then. There were stories of all kinds of major management programs being trashed, and personel being cut below minimum levels, and all kinds of dire consequences if they didn't take those drastic changes in fee structure. The case was made that there was no way the DEC could function without that license fee increase.

Well, if that was anywhere near the truth, there is no way that in this short period of time things could have healed themselves to the point where we could ever make the fee cuts and the license consolidations that hey are talking now. So, either they were lying through their teeth back then which is inexcuseable or they are willing to trash the department now just to acheive P.R. advantages also unexcuseable. So again .... Were they lying before or are they lying now? .... which is it? Are we going to be two seasons into the new license structure and suddenly be threatened with new (perhaps bogus) financial crisis?

By the way, as far as sportsmen forgetting this SAFE gun owner harrassment law, I for one do not intend to let that happen. If you all think the response on this is being over-done right now, just wait until election time approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nyantler Apprentice

nyantler

Posted
Posted

What a slap in the face to NYS tax paying hunters!......He lowers bow and ML a few bucks but then lowers those same fees for out of staters over a hundred dollars...Cuomo...you can go ---- your self...Oh Ya...this ticks me off.

I agree.. that was the first thing that I noticed was how drastic the cost was lowered for out of staters... who come into the state and hunt taxpayer funded public land for just a few bucks more than what residents pay.. you have to wonder what brilliant minds come up with these ideas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WingNut Newbie

WingNut

Posted
Posted

I hunt a little bit of state land early in the season close to Mass and Vermont boarders. It only takes a couple weekends then out of state hunting trashes the place... Not to mention thieves ...

No matter what.... I honestly think the license boycott is the best idea I've heard. I could sacrifice a season for the cause!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Experienced

Doc

Posted
Posted

PS ... It makes sense!

The majority of of NY'S are not going to comply with NYSAFE. So why not boycott license fees.... It's the lessor of two evils and one that will make its mark!

Lol ..... I suspect that there probably won't be as many people interested in becoming felons as you may think. By the way, did you know that a felony as a result of non-compliance with this law could result in all your guns being confiscated and the right to ever buy another one would be forfeited?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Experienced

Doc

Posted
Posted

I hunt a little bit of state land early in the season close to Mass and Vermont boarders. It only takes a couple weekends then out of state hunting trashes the place... Not to mention thieves ...

No matter what.... I honestly think the license boycott is the best idea I've heard. I could sacrifice a season for the cause!

No, the best option is to fight the law in the courts (which is already in progress). The second best idea is to vigorously lobby your legislators to guarantee that if this law does go down in the courts that a brand new one does not get authored and passed that doesn't have the illegal aspects to it. That is a serious option that we should be doing on a regular and repetitive basis already. Another necessary option is to check which ones of your state legislators voted for this law and ensure that you nor anybody you can convince votes against them (regardless of what kind of jerk is running against them). Make it known that voting with anti-gun intentions does cost them.

License boycotts are not reliable because hardly anyone will ever take that action seriously and participate. Also, you have no guarantees that it will be only one season that it will cost you. And also, it is kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face. As hunters, there is nothing to be gained by trying to destroy the agency that is charged with game management. That's the wrong target.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hunter49 Newbie

hunter49

Posted
Posted

I beleive when they raised the fees back a few yrs. ago sportsmens clubs & some people were all for it because the monies were to go back into the conservation fund for fishing & hunting projects, ie. docks, launches, pheasant rearring, etc.. But as we all know that didn't happen or very little did. Now there is $40 million in the fund that NYS wants to take a loan from that is the BS here! Now the sports clubs want the money back & want the fees lowered because the state screwed us again & the plan didn't work as expected! I am all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mike rossi Newbie

mike rossi

Posted
Posted (edited)

I beleive when they raised the fees back a few yrs. ago sportsmens clubs & some people were all for it because the monies were to go back into the conservation fund for fishing & hunting projects, ie. docks, launches, pheasant rearring, etc.. But as we all know that didn't happen or very little did. Now there is $40 million in the fund that NYS wants to take a loan from that is the BS here! Now the sports clubs want the money back & want the fees lowered because the state screwed us again & the plan didn't work as expected! I am all for it.

Can you be more specific about this? Thanks.

A couple of comments if you don’t mind. We can’t really refer to a "conservation fund" anymore, because this fund is comprised of 8 different accounts. Actually it had been like that since at least the early 1990s I think, but with 6 different accounts.

To keep it simple, I will work with the year 2008 to 2009. That year the sales of lifetime licenses spiked from a little over $2 million

up to well over $24 million dollars. First question is why did everyone run out and buy a lifetime license that year?

That $24 million dollars did not go into one of the accounts which the DEC could access for the projects you mention. It went into an account named the fish and game account. Existing policy was/is for the NY State Comptroller to transfer the fish and game account to the short term investment pool were it stays, forever or indefinetly. The interest up to, but not more than 6%, would be returned to an account named the traditional account 12 months after generating interest. Six percent of a lifetime license is approximately the cost of an annual license. If more than 6% is earned, that extra money DOES NOT revert to the traditional account, but is taken by the state comptroller, who tranfers it as well, into the STIP.

The legislative justification for this was to sustain the conservation fund. That doesn’t seem to be necessary, however. Even if it is, conservation projects are like cancer treatment, the earlier they are implemented, the better the prognosis. An investor does not have the same perspective as a conservation biologist. The investor should understand, however, that when a government buys open land each dollar generates five dollars. So that is a 500% return. What is better 500% or 6%?

It gets worse. During at least one year, and there may be other years, the state comptroller refused to return earned interest to the traditional account. The reason was because the investments didn’t even yield six percent. That year, ALL of the interest that was earned was dumped back into the STIP.

I cannot be sure, but I highly suspect that this is the hang up between the DEC and the FWS regarding federal funds. If that is the case, isn’t it just another reason to discontinue this strategy?

Another thing I have a problem with is who or what is stalling a laundry list of conservation plans when not only does the state have its own funds, but can be eligible for around $20 million dollars in federal grants to be used to complete those plans and leverage its own money three to one? When yourself or others say "the state", who exactly do you mean?

State law authorizes an advisory board to steward the conservation fund; another advisory board to make recommendations and perhaps decisions to or for the DEC about cooperative land access as well as management projects. State law also gives an organization, representing sportsmen with some degree more say so than you or I as individuals.

If you consider a number of things together, one can’t help but become suspicious. Conservation can and does balance biology with sociology, but it has become crippled by becoming a political arena; as early as 1957, when NY passed the Fish and Wildlife Management Act (not same as the US Code). This is the act which authorizes the advisory board known as the FWMB. In 1982 NY passed another law which authorized another advisory board known as CFAB. In 1982 a new law was passed which essentially authorized politicians and DEC personal to be "ex offico board members" to "assist" CFAB, when the purpose of the board in the first place was to include stakeholders in policy say-so. Yet, in 1982 it is determined that those appointed by politicians and to represent stakeholders (you and me) need help from the politicians and the DEC? Kind of like after school tutoring... Now I realize that does not bode well for my premise that the DEC is not to blame, but I am willing to go out on a limb and assume the DEC's role is mainly technical advice, if anyone knows, please chime in. I am not sticking up for the DEC, I disagree with much of their policies and strategies. However, like I said, conservation has become a political arena, so why not look at politicians and the people those same politicians appoint to advisory boards, and powerful special interest groups which influence politicians, instead of primarily focusing on the DEC? I think it is about time we nail down exactly who we are talking about when we refer to the "state screwing us". I would't point at the current state comptroller either, because he has criticized the abuses regarding the STIP. Until that is determined, it is only complaining based on conjecture and speculation.

Edited by mike rossi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...