State Mistakenly Sells Saltwater Fishing Licenses

There are 69 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Jun 19, 2009, titled State Mistakenly Sells Saltwater Fishing Licenses. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

It's one of the simplest things you learn in civics class: A legislative bill doesn't become a law until the governor signs it.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
coax

West Haven, CT

#1 Jun 19, 2009
Schain said that DEP officials had good intentions when they decided to start selling the new licenses.

>>>"The staff in charge of the licensing system was motivated by a desire for the best public service because the bill had an effective date of June 15," he said. "They wanted to be certain it was available, and didn't recognize the amount of time that can pass between a bill passing and the formal process of when it reaches the governor's desk."<<<<

I see the I D O I Ts are still employed at DEP.
coax

West Haven, CT

#2 Jun 19, 2009
oops! it appears I r one too;
"I see the I D O I Ts "

I meant I D I O Ts
Shawn

Warrenville, IL

#3 Jun 19, 2009
Lets see here, cost of freshwater license up 2 yrs ago to $20. Cost of gas and taxes on fuel up and not a saltwater license. It is a slap in the face of us in the fishing community. So how does DEP plan on paying back those who bought a license if Gov Rell does not pass this law??

“Quality is always an accident”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#4 Jun 19, 2009
Shawn wrote:
Lets see here, cost of freshwater license up 2 yrs ago to $20. Cost of gas and taxes on fuel up and not a saltwater license. It is a slap in the face of us in the fishing community. So how does DEP plan on paying back those who bought a license if Gov Rell does not pass this law??
By people being so eager to shell out the money ahead of time, it's a given she'll sign it. I mean, if it was signed into law, there would be an effectivity date. Duh.......The sky is fallin..the sky is fallin....
Top Cat

Wallingford, CT

#5 Jun 19, 2009
I wish I could afford a boat, mooring slip, fuel, etc and you're saying that $10 is going to really bust the budget. Pay up like the rest of us. Not much sympathy here for the recreational fisherman.
Old Navy Gunner

Winsted, CT

#6 Jun 19, 2009
If the bill passed on June 3, why has it taken herself 3 weeks to sign it? Why has such a simple bill taken so long to be "prepared"? Get the legislature off it's butt and stop stalling around and the state would function better.
Par For The Course

Tuxedo Park, NY

#7 Jun 19, 2009
You will need a license to walk on public sidewalks soon! Corrupt morons!
Rick Shaw

Hartford, CT

#8 Jun 19, 2009
Sorry Guys... Anglers need to be stewards of the fish we catch... So what if we shell out 10$- marine, 20$- Fresh. You are supporting the protection of the waters that give us the fish we catch and meals in the BBQ.
Take that protection away and see where we will be in 5-10 years. Cuz you know big business doesnt care about the environment and it will be a mess (again) in no time.

OK so the DEP screwed up, I am not denying that.
Big Suprise

Hartford, CT

#9 Jun 19, 2009
Top Cat wrote:
I wish I could afford a boat, mooring slip, fuel, etc and you're saying that $10 is going to really bust the budget. Pay up like the rest of us. Not much sympathy here for the recreational fisherman.
You're missing the point.

1) The state of CT has little continutity between what our lawmakeres decide we "need" and policy implementation.

2) GENERAL FUND.
Please show me how my $10 contribution is going to the help the resource for which I am paying. Otherwise why is it fair for one segement of hobbyists to contribute to the state coffers any more than another? Where is the extra tax on golfers? Bowlers? Runners?

I (and many other anglers) would gladly pay more $$$ for a license if we could directly see the results of our contributions. More enforcement, more conservation, anything.

Or,

If there is not enough $$ for increased services then set up a special fund for this $$ to go into and instead take less of a balance from the GF to fund fisheries management and enforcement so at least we know our $$ are not funding road building re-election projects for incumbents.
PapaRod

Naugatuck, CT

#10 Jun 19, 2009
Why are we 2.5 years early on this?

I appreciate the DEP conservation officers in the field, but this goes straight to the General Fund...
Bill

New London, CT

#11 Jun 19, 2009
Rick Shaw wrote:
Sorry Guys... Anglers need to be stewards of the fish we catch... So what if we shell out 10$- marine, 20$- Fresh. You are supporting the protection of the waters that give us the fish we catch and meals in the BBQ.
Take that protection away and see where we will be in 5-10 years. Cuz you know big business doesnt care about the environment and it will be a mess (again) in no time.
OK so the DEP screwed up, I am not denying that.
You could more easily have said that environmentalists don't care about business - big or otherwise.

Problem is, if you tree-huggers keep busting businesses and making life difficult for them here, they'll move someday soon.

When that happens, believe me, you'll be paying a whole lot more than $10 or $20 for your fishing licenses.
Ray

East Berlin, CT

#12 Jun 19, 2009
These posters seem to be missing the most disgusting part of this: The state is so eager to throw out new taxes and fees on just about EVERYTHING that the people who must do the actual work collecting and enforcing have been tuned to treat it like building a big mac. Just another reason why people should leave this state. CT doesnt OWN these waters, and the revenue does nothing to support our hobby. VOTE YOUR LEGISLATOR OUT AS SOON AS YOU GET THE CHANCE.
FAV

East Hartford, CT

#13 Jun 19, 2009
Maybe Governor Rell is seeing the light and will veto this bill which just hassles people for no cause. If fisheries need protection, the gov must look to the feds to control commercial fishing.
Rick Shaw

Hartford, CT

#14 Jun 19, 2009
"Looks around" I dont see any trehugging here..
I just see business *always* screwing the environment at every turn cuz it costs too much money and that would mean the execs have to take first class flights instead of the private jet.. and watch out if that happens.
And who is against Big busniess? I am against business that are unresponible for their environmental impact. There is a reason that CT had one of the *worst* I repeat *worst* air quality ratings as reported by the EPA. Lets not thread drift here "Repbulican Bill".

I guess it would be a moot issue when ther are no fish to catch.
Angered Citizen

Hartford, CT

#15 Jun 19, 2009
how greedy can this state get!!? I'll just take my boat far enough out so I'm in "New York" waters and I'll laugh at any state police patrol boats haha while im enjoying numerous coronas and cigars
Angered Citizen

Hartford, CT

#16 Jun 19, 2009
and Did you guys hear the new tax being proposed by our GENIOUS LEGISLATORS??? They are going to start taxing us beginning September 1 of this year on the air we breathe! That's right we will be paying money for the air we consume so if you play sports or go running or anything you will pay more. Great Idea right? One day I'm going to go to the LOB and give all of them a piece of my mind...
TIG

West Medford, MA

#17 Jun 19, 2009
This is nothing more than raising taxes. It's not like saltwater fish are stocked fish that the government provides for us. These fish come from our planet earth just like the air we breath. Will they tax us for how much air we breath next? The restrictions for keeping fish we catch are already too strict and fishing is pretty expensive. The return on my investment in fishing is pretty much a zero. We already pay sales tax on the fishing equipment we buy. I already pay too many taxes on the gas for my boat and everything else. Why raise taxes on what God has created. Is there nothing left to tax? This is yet another example of our broken government gasping for its last breath of tax money like a fish out of water gasping for its last breath of oxygen. I hope the governor vetos this. The government doesn't deserve the right to tax what little that God has left for us.
Bill

New London, CT

#18 Jun 19, 2009
Rick Shaw wrote:
"Looks around" I dont see any trehugging here..
I just see business *always* screwing the environment at every turn cuz it costs too much money and that would mean the execs have to take first class flights instead of the private jet.. and watch out if that happens.
And who is against Big busniess? I am against business that are unresponible for their environmental impact. There is a reason that CT had one of the *worst* I repeat *worst* air quality ratings as reported by the EPA. Lets not thread drift here "Repbulican Bill".
I guess it would be a moot issue when ther are no fish to catch.
Oh, yes, delusional Rick, that day - when there'll be no fish left to catch in the rivers and oceans - is right around the corner. That'll come just before the sky falls and the sun rises in the west, right nutjob?

Typical tree-hugger hysteria. Just like the global warming hoax. Yep, here we are, enjoying another week of 60-degree weather in mid-June. Oh, the horror of global warming! LOL!

Now, a message to Ricky from the Real World while we're all being careful not to step on bugs:

Connecticut ranks last - dead-last - in private sector job growth. Not "one of the worst," like in that phony air-quality survey. Worst. Number 50 out of 50 states. EPA isn't that the same agency that won't allow for the completion of Route 11 because it could interfere with wetlands? Translation: swamps. Ah, yes, allow humans to die on out-dated, overcrowded Route 85, but that's OK as long as the snakes, rats and mosquitos are safe.

Proportionately, we also have the worst state budget deficit in the country. Not "one of the worst." THE WORST. That is due to lack of private-sector jobs and private-sector business and individual tax revenue. See, Rick, if people don't have jobs in Connecticut, they don't pay taxes in Connecticut and that means that all your favorite little environmental initiatives like open space purchases and bike path development won't get funded. What a bummer!

So while DEP continues to practice "gotcha" enforcement of the state's onerous environmental laws and regulations, and the Democrat legislature continues to pile on tax increase after tax increase, just watch all the businesses close and move. That way our No. 50 ranking in private-sector job growth will be safe.

Perhaps then all the people who have lost their private-sector jobs can go to work for the DEP. Or maybe just go fishing if there are any fish left.
Tuna

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#19 Jun 19, 2009
Sorry, Charlie.
Brubaker

Haddam, CT

#20 Jun 19, 2009
The state isshort funds.You may declare the purchase as a donation to the state. I do not know if the IRS will allow it but Jody Rell will look better on the bottom lined like another goverment bottom feeder.
She should have taken the buy out

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 26 min John Galt 1,232,042
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr red and right 53,456
News The 10 commandments of cancer prevention (May '09) 2 hr usherhollens 17
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 3 hr TOASTER 19,919
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 3 hr State the Obvious 309,851
News Conn. Gay Couple Accused of Molesting Adopted Sons (Dec '11) 14 hr George 592
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 15 hr TRD 70,012
More from around the web

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]