Please help NH F&G this Christmas

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
darren said:
The reason I stay on the Eastern half of Umbagog.... :(

I've said it before on this site, Mass fresh water fishing licenses are out of control - like $30 for in-state. I have made the decision not to fish fresh water anymore just because of the cost. They wonder why the number of fishermen (people) has not kept up with the increase in population and it is because their fees are out of control. Why would Carm and I pay $60 to fish a couple of times in fresh water when I can go down the street and fish in the ocean for free? Hopefully they don't try to put a fee on that
(federal water) or I will have give up on that too. They could have gotten maybe $20 out of us but they certainly are not going to get $60.

- darren

darren - I agree - I used to freshwater fish in RI when I was young and couple of years ago, I wanted to pick it back up and was shocked at the fee's in MA. I said f this.... - actually still have 2 brand new poles in the basement. The fees were more than the poles (granted they ain't top of the line)
and don't get me started on the MBTA fee increase.....
 
FYI - Federal waters begin 3 miles off shore. The state has no jurisdiction here. Striped Bass would be most impacted (from a species point of view) because you cannot harvest one from federal waters. Which means, to keep one, you must catch it inside 3 mi, which means it would require a license if one was imposed. There is also some rule(s) about landing a fish caught elsewhere. Like the stripers have minimum federal size (28" I think) and the states can go above that. At one time, NH was at 36" and ME at 32" (or something, I forget) but even if you caught the fish in ME state waters, you could not come into port in NH and disembark with it. I know I've heard stories about boats landing parties on one side or the other of the Piscataqua (I believe it was the Piscataqua) to avoid this problem.

Or, if you have a boat, you simply fish more then 3 miles out. This would have a definite impact on "making bait" which is often done in the harbor, channel, breakwater, etc., on the way out.

My personal interest in F&G is as a fisherman. Hiking, while an on-again-off-again pass time for most of my adult life, is only recently the focus of my recreational time and money. I've been fishing since I was 5 years old -- tied 10 feet of line around a lincoln log to make a drop line and caught sunfish at the pond at the end of my street. I certainly would be happy to have SAR at my disposal should I need them, but I do buy the license every year so I can fish with my kids while at the lake. Stupid thing is, we mostly catch the non-native, introduced pest known as a "rock bass". Great fun if you're 4 and 6. They request you don't actually throw them back. But you still need a license... and I never target the 'managed' species, like hatchery fish (salmon, trout, etc.)

The state of NH, F&G would have almost no impact on the salt water fishery, as they have like 15 miles of coastline to influence. Charging a fee under the guise of management would not cut bait, never mind fish, to coin a term ;) IF the fee meant the F&G would patrol the harbors and docks and keep the "poachers" from keeping 15" stripers, then it might be worthwhile, but I bet they won't provide services to the fishery just because they get money from it.

One other point Director Perry made on salt water licenses is with 15 miles of coastline, everyone has to head an average of 7.5 miles north or south to avoid having one.

My experience is the head boats (Gauron's, et. al. in Hampton) would be "immune". They already have different bag limits for cod and haddock from the guy with his own boat, in order to not handcuff the head boat captain's living. Perhaps a small fee or a dollar or two for a 1-day license wouldn't hurt too badly.

Tim
 
F&G relies heavily on volunteer rescue teams in the Whites, such as White Mountain Rescue Service out of North Conway, which manages anything on technical terrain, AVSAR for the eastern and northern slopes, and recently PVSART for the western slopes. I have met a lot of F&G personnel at training meetings and they are top-notch.

I have long felt that we are not getting a fair return on our USFS parking passes, and I think that perhaps the USFS should cough up a portion of those fees to support search and rescue on federal lands. The USFS should also consider doling out a portion of our parking fees for trail maintenance, which have essentially abandoned.
 
Dr. Dasypodidae said:
I have long felt that we are not getting a fair return on our USFS parking passes, and I think that perhaps the USFS should cough up a portion of those fees to support search and rescue on federal lands. The USFS should also consider doling out a portion of our parking fees for trail maintenance, which have essentially abandoned.


I couldn't agree more. Both those are done by unpaid volenteers - am I corrrect?
 
Dr. Dasypodidae said:
F&G relies heavily on volunteer rescue teams in the Whites, such as White Mountain Rescue Service out of North Conway, which manages anything on technical terrain, AVSAR for the eastern and northern slopes, and recently PVSART for the western slopes. I have met a lot of F&G personnel at training meetings and they are top-notch.

I have long felt that we are not getting a fair return on our USFS parking passes, and I think that perhaps the USFS should cough up a portion of those fees to support search and rescue on federal lands. The USFS should also consider doling out a portion of our parking fees for trail maintenance, which have essentially abandoned.

for what's it's worth...I just came from meetings with the F&G,Trails Bureau,etc.

The Trails Bureau said there is lot's of money available for non moterized use.

Hiking,XCountry,etc.

Anyone can appy for this money. Go for it before it's gone.
 
Hearing

A hearing on this bill will be held in the Senate Wildlife, Fish and Game Committee at 1 pm on 3/14/2007 in LOB 103. Fish and Game's attempt at funding through the room and meals tax failed.

Here is the bill for the so called "Conservation Decal":

SB 255-FN-A – AS INTRODUCED
2007 SESSION
07-1304
04/05
SENATE BILL 255-FN-A
AN ACT requiring non-motorized vessels to display conservation decals issued by the fish and game department.
SPONSORS: Sen. Barnes, Dist 17; Sen. Gallus, Dist 1; Sen. D'Allesandro, Dist 20
COMMITTEE: Wildlife, Fish and Game

ANALYSIS
This bill requires owners of non-motorized vessels to annually purchase and display a conservation decal.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
07-1304
04/05

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Seven
AN ACT requiring non-motorized vessels to display conservation decals issued by the fish and game department.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Section; Fish and Game; Non-Motorized Vessel Conservation Decal. Amend RSA 207 by inserting after section 62 the following new section:
207:63 Non-Motorized Vessel Conservation Decal.
I. In this section, “non-motorized vessel” means any type of watercraft that is not equipped with propelling machinery and that is used or capable of use as a means of transportation.
II. No person shall operate a non-motorized vessel on any waters of the state, including estuarine and coastal waters, unless the vessel is properly displaying 2 conservation decals as provided in this section or is exempt under paragraph IV of this section.
III. The annual fee for a set of 2 conservation decals shall be $10, of which $1 shall be retained by the issuing agent. The balance shall be deposited into the fish and game fund. Conservation decals shall expire on December 31 of each year.
IV. The following vessels shall be exempt from the provisions of this section:
(a) Non-motorized vessels used as tenders.
(b) Non-motorized vessels owned by a municipal government, the state or federal government, or by a school district.
(c) Non-motorized vessels legally registered in the state.
(d) Inflatable tubes.
(e) Rafts and floats.
(f) Surfboards.
V. Two conservation decals shall be required for each non-motorized vessel. Decals shall be affixed on the front or rear of the vessel visible above the water line, or affixed on the bow below the gunnels but above the water line, or affixed on the inside of the gunnels at the mid-ship point so the decals are visible from both sides of the vessel.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
LBAO
07-1304
02/07/07

SB 255-FN-A - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT requiring non-motorized vessels to display conservation decals issued by the fish and game department.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Due to time constraints, the Office of Legislative Budget Assistant is unable to provide a fiscal note for this bill at this time. When completed, the fiscal note will be forwarded to the Senate Clerk's Office.
 
Hard to avoid politics while commenting on a bill, but I wanted to point out that as I read it:
- the bill would apply to any "nonmotorized vessel" (except rafts and surfboards), which clearly includes canoes and kayaks. It's not clear whether sailboards would be exempted as "surfboards". (It would be interesting - if court is your idea of fun- to argue that a shortboard has no "water line" so must be exempt as it is impossible to comply.)

- the bill applies to vessels used in any "waters of the state". That covers any body of water anywhere in (or off the shore of) the state, including waters entirely within private land.

- The bill doesn't include any enforcement provision, but it gets one automatically. The bill would be an amendment to Section 207, making the enforcement provision of 207:46 applicable. Here's the relevant part:
207:46 Penalties. –
I. Any person who violates a provision of this chapter, or any rule or regulation of the executive director, shall be guilty of a violation, except where otherwise provided...

["Violation" means an infraction that is more minor than a misdemeanor. In New Hampshire the maximum fine for a "violation" (per offense) is $1,000.]
 
nartreb said:
"Violation" means an infraction that is more minor than a misdemeanor. In New Hampshire the maximum fine for a "violation" (per offense) is $1,000.
It isn't so much the fee for registering a canoe or kayak as the principle of the matter and on principle, most out-of staters have too many paddling choices to be bothered with going to New Hampshire. I think it'll result in a small net loss of tourist dollars over revenue gained.
 
I agree with Stan...

In the past I have always purchased a NH fishing license, (currently $53) even though I'd only use it once or twice. Not anymore.
$10 may seem trivial but when you use 3 different boats for different purposes it's time to go elsewhere.
"Paddle free or Die"
 
Last edited:
I agree. Registering 2 kayaks for $20 is ridiculous, especially to use 3 or 4 times during the year. There is no need for this. What is it a "users" fee. For what? We don't generate pollution or noise and I suspect rarely require rescue. There is no justification; I’ll paddle in ME and CT. Plenty of water over the border in ME.

Keith
 
Dr. Dasypodidae said:
The USFS should also consider doling out a portion of our parking fees for trail maintenance, which have essentially abandoned.

We're getting a bit OT, but the USFS parking fees DO support trail maintenance, as well as other on-the-ground activities, such as trailhead improvements. Of the 1600 miles of hiking trails in the WMNF, about 1100 miles are maintained solely by the USFS, so they have a lot to cover. Contrary to popular opinion, Trail clubs (AMC, RMC, WODC, etc.) maintain "only" about 500 miles.

BTW, I'm a WODC volunteer for 15 years, so I know how much is done by volunteers. But the FS carries an even bigger burden, with ever shrinking staff and budgets. Although there is certainly room for improvement in agencies like the FS and F&G, we're critically dependent on the services they do provide.

Edit: To be exact, there are 1465 miles of hiking trails in the WMNF. Of that, AMC maintains 327 miles, RMC maintains about 85 miles, and WODC maintains 42 miles. (This excludes additional Club mileage outside the WMNF)
 
Last edited:
trailhead improvements
Sorry, but I don't consider more roadside kiosks (geared for the RV crowd), log cabin restrooms and more 'fee required' signs improvements
 
Bob said:
Sorry, but I don't consider more roadside kiosks (geared for the RV crowd), log cabin restrooms and more 'fee required' signs improvements
Yes, I have a problem with those too.

But I was referring to "trailhead improvements" for hiking trails.
 
Fitz said:
SB 255 , an act to tax paddlecraft operators a $10/boat fee passed the senate committee that is responsible for it yesterday. Next stop is the senate. Let them know what you think, especially if you are a resident.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/senate/senatemembers.asp

Thanks Fitz,

I was going to look this up myself. I am a property owner and they will hear from me.

Lucky me, my senator is a sponsor of the bill. I'm sure my email will take me far. :mad:

Keith
 
Last edited:
I agree with PS

I agree with you, it seems like they really know how to waste money on frivolous stuff.
 
Bob said:
I agree with you, it seems like they really know how to waste money on frivolous stuff.

The expense of building of kiosks is not busting the budget.

NH F&G funding

Raising liscence fees, new canoes fees, etc., will not get it done. The governor's brilliant idea of auctioning off more moose killing permits won't get it done. Biologists determine how many moose can be killed, then the governor wants to sell 50 more moose to hunters to avoid dipping into the General Fund. :mad:

The NH Congress denied allocating to F&G just 4% of the 8% Rooms and Meals Tax revenues that go to the General Fund, despite the overwhelming role that F&G plays in attracting the people who pay the Rooms and Meals Tax.

These filthy politicians don't want their prescious vote-buying social programs to suffer. Tourists don't vote. The current state government doesn't care about the environment of New Hampshire. :mad:
 
The response

Here is what I got in reply to my email expressing my displeasure at the tax. My wife had mentioned the problems on the Saco a couple of years ago to me, and this is at least some of the impetus for this tax. I still see the tax penalizing the wrong people if it is used primarily for SAR. I do appreciate him writing back though and thought it only fair to display what he had said.

Keith




Dear Keith and _____,

I really appreciate your input on SB255. I also own kayaks and canoes and do not like new fees but know the real needs of Fish and Game. They had said in Committee that they do a lot of work with kayakers and canoeists with search and rescues etc.

I remember the police issues on the SACO river a few years back. I know its asking a lot to add new fees, but for mountain rescue and everything they do in the North Country we have to make sure the agency's whole. I will continue to register my boat, get a fishing license and if need be, pay for my other water craft, not because I want to but because it's needed.

I do really appreciate your getting involved in the process and am sure we will agree on many of the 2000 votes I have to cast a year. Again, thank you.

John Gallus
 
Last edited:
Top