Update: License Fee Increase

[James_R]

I doubt our forefathers would approve of armed law enforcement officers herding decent people through roadside checkpoints on the mere suspicion of having weed debris or faded AIS stickers on our boats. I think they still had a healthy mistrust of government at that time. No one is saying that outdoors regulations and enforcement are not needed but let's quit giving the DNR additional money without well defined parameters and stop adding more and more ill-conceived laws on top of previous bad laws.

[pushbutton]

I agree you might as well use the money spent on AIS bafoonery as toilet paper, but are you going to be the new "well defined parameters and ill-conceived laws" Czar? Its a more complicated system than what just you or I want or think we should have, and do not think the current bill should be held up because of it. No bill would ever be passed then....leaving us, again, without any.....and then, again, with not so many fish, game, parks, WMA's public accesses, ect.....

[James_R]

Law Czar? I'm not the one advocating compulsory measures. Why do you believe that creating 1000s and 1000s of pages of new laws creates a better fishing environment? We all love the outdoors on this site and would most likely act in a manner that serves in our interests. It seems like a lot of you assume that everyone else is poaching vast quantities of fish and should be dealt with harshly. I do alot of fishing and don't really come across too many game hogs or weed covered boats. Most other fishermen I meet on the rivers or lakes are conscientious and respectful of bag limits. They like the outdoors and just want to be left alone. Fishing license sales have been declining for a number of years now. If we keep adding more and more superfluous laws to the books we'll eventually have lots of fish but no fishermen. It just won't be worth the hassle.

[pushbutton]

Well, I guess I could try to restate my point for the third time, but have a feeling that would not be anymore successful...good luck to ya!

[James_R]

Your point seems to be that we have a flawed system and that it's ok to have a slew of bad conservation laws as long as 1-2 of them are beneficial to the outdoors. I suppose if my argument was as flawed as yours I would leave the forum as well. All I've been asking for are some details and assurances as to where these extra license fee dollars will be used.

[pushbutton]

Ha! Nope, again, my point is that, unlike you I do not have all the answers, and also unlike you, I am completely comfortable with the the outdoor opportunities that exist in this state, and have no problem with my tax dollars going to support them even though I may not agree with everything it is being spent on. You can't always get what you want, thats a direct result of coexisting with others.

[pushbutton]

Lmit have you started another account?

[James_R]

I agree with coexsisting with others but please don't advocate picking other peoples pockets in order to generate revenue for unknown purposes. If we want to do that we can all voluntarily donate to the states general fund and hope for the best.

[fishnowworknever]

Trollolololol

[jb426]

Well said! If you look at our income taxes, sales tax, property tax, fuel tax, tabs for your boats, atv, trucks, camper, fish house licsense, fishing licsense,(yes I pay all of these every year) and all the other "user fess" when do you say enough is enough? Wow thats alot of money going out every year for fishing just on user fees, hope my wife doesn't read this.

[Scott M]

See all the points and counterpoints already discussed at any one of the 5 threads from 2012:

1

2

3

4

5