sb 345 Ca fishing licence fee

[cmcdhuibh]

Looks like the fee for a license may get cheaper but you will have to wait until 2018 although they are calling it a 2015 stimulus.
I like the part that non- cal residents will drop from 126+ to 84$
resident to 31$ and change
It was trying to make the license for 12 months instead of calender year but it got the ax so far.

[Darian]

There's a bit more involved in this bill than adjustment of licensing age/fees for licenses. One of the changes involved is allowing over limit possession of game fish caught by a licensed fisherman for donation to an intermediary for final donation to a non-profit, charitable(??) organization. Seems like there's potential for some mischief in this process. Check out the latest Senate Comm. analysis:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0301-0350/sb_345_cfa_20150602_221520_sen_floor.html

Also, note who supporters are (commercial fishing organizations??) and that there's no opposition.

[Darian]

After thinking about this bill a bit, I'm wondering if the continued decline in number of fishing licenses issued is indicative of a decline in the level of voluntary compliance on the part of fisherman, in general??? The analysis asks if the proposed reduction in license fees will actually result in increased sales of licenses and make up for the loss of revenues due to the reduction of the fees?? I'm not sure that the decrease will increased license fees if, as I suspect, the decline in sales of licenses is due to increased non-compliance on the part of the public.

I'm guessing the outcome of this will be that non-compliance (fishing without a license) will continue to grow in numbers over time. The small numbers of enforcement staff at CA DFW and pressures of the current economic situation probably contribute to this as people who're not making a lot of money are able to feed their families by fishing without buying a license and without the danger of being caught.

If all of that's correct, is it so difficult to see the potential for possessing fish over the allowable limits and then saying they're for donation if challenged?? All of this relies on documentation at each step of the way provided by fisherman, an intermediary and a non-profit or charitable corporation. Also, there doesn't seem to be any limitations on the type of fish caught for donation but it dose seem to be targeting Stripers for this purpose. Intended or an un-intended consequence??? Damn, I can't believe I've become so paranoid....

[Lew Riffle]

The proponents of this bill tried to pull one but alas it seems most of us have become smart (or paranoid :)not to jump on board such band wagons any more. Define evil as the miss use of good. Why we can't have a license good for 12 months from date of purchase never really got addressed and quickly axed. It is a good idea right along with a junior license as well; but then stick this non-profit/charitable exemption along with it and that sent most of us sensible folks to poke the BS Button and suspect that some other agenda was up here. Candy coating nothing more to get us to support their true incentive. Non profit does not necessarily mean charitable. Why do our precious fisheries stocks have to support charity?....because there is a job in it for somebody if they get a loop hole to work with allowing them "free fish bucks". A bad idea with good intentions at best .