Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Senator Wagoner's new dipnetting license to be introduced in the Legislature

  1. #1
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Senator Wagoner's new dipnetting license to be introduced in the Legislature

    http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stor...l#mdw-comments

    The above is a link to the Peninsula Clarion's article talking about some fishery related bills to be filed in this years Legislative session. I'm a little lost on his quote on the enforcement issue since there were over 700 hours attributed to dipnetting enforcement on the Kena last year. That is according to AST who I spoke with just a little over a month ago.
    We have discussed this before but I'm more in favor of a Red Salmon stamp over and above the fishing license requirement.
    Thoughts?
    If a dipnetter dips a fish and there is no one around to see/hear it, Did he really dip?

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thewhop2000 View Post
    http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stor...l#mdw-comments

    The above is a link to the Peninsula Clarion's article talking about some fishery related bills to be filed in this years Legislative session. I'm a little lost on his quote on the enforcement issue since there were over 700 hours attributed to dipnetting enforcement on the Kena last year. That is according to AST who I spoke with just a little over a month ago.
    We have discussed this before but I'm more in favor of a Red Salmon stamp over and above the fishing license requirement.
    Thoughts?
    This is just something that will cost most dipnetters extra money and won't necesarily put any more money to the management for the fishery. The sport fishing license price is currently $24. If you have that, you will still need the "personal use" permit he is proposing, so anyone who gets a sport fishing license otherwise will now be paying an additional $25 for dipnetting. People who are just dipnetting and don't sport fish otherwise will also be paying the $25 "personal use permit" fee, so they are not saving anything by not having to get a sport fishing license, actually, they are paying more by $1. Top all this off with the fact that the funds from this go into the general fund since they are restricted from creating a dedicated fund for use on this fishery and there is no reasonable guarantee or expectation that the money will help the fishery in any way. It might, but I have my doubts. Most likely, it would go to some other unrelated aspect of their operations and the dipnetting will see just what it has every year, yet be paying more for it.

  3. #3
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    I skimmed through the article and Sen Wagoner claims the "$25 dollar personal use fee would be more fair to dipnetters because w/ the current system they support hatcheries that aren't related to fish they want to catch" Who elected this bozo? Apparently he's never heard of Trail lakes, Crosswind lake, Gulkana or fish creek hatcheries, all of which are harvested w/ dipnets. I don't know if the current system is good or not but I wouldn't support anything this guy says because he knows not what he's talking about. Ken a dipnet stamp or sockeye stamp may be the answer. It shouldn't cost over a dollar IMO.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fullbush View Post
    I skimmed through the article and Sen Wagoner claims the "$25 dollar personal use fee would be more fair to dipnetters because w/ the current system they support hatcheries that aren't related to fish they want to catch" Who elected this bozo? Apparently he's never heard of Trail lakes, Crosswind lake, Gulkana or fish creek hatcheries, all of which are harvested w/ dipnets. I don't know if the current system is good or not but I wouldn't support anything this guy says because he knows not what he's talking about. Ken a dipnet stamp or sockeye stamp may be the answer. It shouldn't cost over a dollar IMO.
    It's funny that he uses the reasoning that yout state to justify the need for his dipnet permit fee, so people aren't contributing to things they supposedly aren't using, but then admits right away that there is no way to control where the money from the dipnet permit fee goes. Nothing is gained except for more money paid by people who do both dipnetting and sport fishing.

  5. #5
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    My first thought; another tax, proposed by a senator who sees another opportunity to add money to government coffers. Now I'll read the article.

  6. #6
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    After reading the article, I hold to my first impression. How is paying for a different, additional license, that costs more than the current requirement, more fair to dippers? Truly a masterful example of government excess and double speak! Without being able to dedicate the funds, it just allows the state to skim more money from the public to support their own pet projects.

    The only way I would support a dipnet license is if the cost is low, and its need is nullified by ownership of a sport fishing license. That way, if all the person does is dipnet, he will not have to pay as much as would someone who is both sportfishing and dipnetting, and if he does sport fish, he will not have to bear additional cost to dipnet. So I would support a couple changes.

    1) Charge $5 for the dip net permit, instead of issuing it free. This will help cover the cost of printing, distribution, and data entry associated with the cards. Sportfish license still required.

    2) Dipnet license required- $15 per person who is holding a dipnet, but not required for non fishing household members or children under 16. License fee waived if person already holds a sport fish license. This way, it does not incur additional cost to people who already have a license, and is a lower cost to those who will only dipnet.

    I believe that is what the discussion in the legislature should be. It addresses the arguments for having a permit. The current bill does not- it uses the current debate to introduce a new tax on fishermen that does nothing to solve the issue; having to pay for a pricey sport license to fish personal use.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default not so good

    I find it inevitable that they would begin to charge for it.

    But it doesn't sit well with me that I'm not hearing of any specific additional benefits it will bring to us. Not to education, habitat preservation, nuthin'.

    Which makes it look more like a money grab from a group (dipnetters) that will for the most part, pay.

  8. #8
    Member Derby06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    437

    Default

    willphish4food,
    #1 Thanks for reading it and the synopsis...No need for me to waste time reading it.
    #2 Though I like your charging options/ideas.....STOP IT. Common Sense is not allowed when you are discussing any government issue/mandate...LMAO

  9. #9
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,365

    Default

    LOL@Derby06

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •