*THE HULL TRUTH is the world's largest FREE network for the discussion of Boating & Fishing. Whether you're researching a new boat, or are a seasoned Captain, you'll find The Hull Truth Boating & Fishing Message Forum contains a wealth of information from Boaters and Sportfishermen around the world.
Welcome to the updated THT!
If you are having trouble signing in, please email feedback@thehulltruth.com with your username and we will help you. We thank you for your patience as we help you access the new site!
Random Quote: I don't sweat the petty things, I just pet the sweaty things......
I just read through the license, or what I think is the latest version of the license bill in the House.
This is a section that caught my attention:
"§ 113-175.3. Allocation of investment income of the
Fund; other powers and duties.
(b) Applicants. - Any of the following are
eligible to apply for monies from the Fund:
(1) A State agency.
(2) A local government or other political
subdivision of the State or a combination of such
entities.
(3) A nonprofit corporation whose primary
purpose is the conservation, preservation, or
restoration of the marine resources of the
State.
Section 3.... is PETA a non profit? What about the Sierra Club? What about some radical left wing polical organization like peta, that just sets up a state division with motto of "conservation, preservation, and restoration of the NC marine resources".. Does this mean they could receive funds from the Saltwater fishing license?
Your hunting and fishing license has the same provision. Example given today during discussion the introduction of wild turkey and the help from non profit such as grants given to the NWTF for restoration. Also an example givin of some of the Brunswick co. fishing clubs which are non-profit creating offshore and inshore reef programs and restoration projects.They must be approved by commitee.
Im a little rusty on this part but I beleive this was the third reading in the 2nd house and I might be wrong but this would be the last reading and since it passed this vote it should become law. I beleive that this is the way it works. Maybe someone can clarify this.
Im a little rusty on this part but I beleive this was the third reading in the 2nd house and I might be wrong but this would be the last reading and since it passed this vote it should become law. I beleive that this is the way it works. Maybe someone can clarify this.
I don't understand, either -- just that it passed the 2nd reading 54-50.
So I called Rep. Gibson (the sponor's office), and his secretary explained that it had to pass
a 3rd reading, possibly later today, tomorrow or Monday, depending on the calendar, and
that yes, it was extremely close -- not a good sign.
I couldn't listen the entire time, this morning, but I'll reiterate for those that didn't
listen at all, how ignorant and biased some of our legislators are. The bill isn't
*that* hard to read, yet some House Members were asking questions that betrayed
a 5th grade level of comprehension, which didn't keep them from spouting off like a**holes,
despite being completely wrong.
And among other gems from this morning: "Fish ain't like people. Just 'cause there's
no fish, don't mean something's wrong -- they've swum off to another State!"
I'm not sure how the process works in NC, but I believe it has to have another House vote before it goes anywhere. Some say that could come as early as Monday. If thats the case, and its almost an even vote now, could go either way.
I would hope that every organization that applies for funding would have to have a formal grant proposal outlining their objectives and their ability to carry out such proposals. You have to trust the board to filter through those proposals and spend the money wisely. That's why they are called Trustees. I encourage everyone who is either enthusiastic, or paranoid, to attend every public hearing they possibly can and have some input. The commercials always get their people there.
Time is of the essence. Email your Rep. today and tell him or her to vote for it.
Our Rep., Jean Preston voted against it. We hope to bombard her with emails.
__________________ 2002 US Anglers Champ-46.03 lbs. SKA 2004 Sportsman Award, 2005 SKA 23 Class National Champions-42.47 & 39.91, total 82.38 lbs. an SKA aggegate record for the Atlantic, 2nd SKA 2008, 14th-2009, 15th-2003. Director Onslow Bay Open KMT raised $212,484 in 11 years for KIDS Charities.
feralcat - you gotta tell us who the dufus was that you quoted from today's debate...
It was a gravel-voiced woman from Carteret County....Jean Preston, perhaps?
She spoke against it, twice. Also said she walks the beach all the time, and every time she's asked folks about it [the RSWFL], they're horrified. I can imagine how the question was voiced: "You realize the GOVERNMENT wants to charge you FIFTEEN DOLLARS so you can fish??"
There were some gems.
Apparently violation, if it becomes law, will be a ClassII misdemeanor, punishable with up to a $200.00 fine. A big deal was then made about Grandpa and Grandma getting whacked for two bills when their darling granddaughter picks up a few clams on our lovely North Carolina beaches....
That fishing from the shore wasn't exempt, was a big objection, for some. Also, one representative was "infuriated" that some poor people would have to prove, via H&HS, or other means, that they couldn't afford the $15 -- or presumably $1, for a week -- and were thus exempt.
Sh*t. I've seen some of those same poor folks leave more than $15 of empty beer cans and food containers, after fishing from the bank. The absolute irony is, this Bill would increase the chances that THEY would bring home a nice dinner in future years!!!
At the end of this message, I'll leave a list of who voted for what. It's also very clear to me that not a lot of representative are hearing from their constituents, and if you don't fish, nor have heard a word from your folks...why would you support a $15 fee? Seriously.
As Captain Stanman says, send an email, or better yet, call and leave a message.
http://www.ncleg.net, and you can click on 'who represents me to get phone numbers and email addresses....
Enough....I'm heading to Morehead, tomorrow, and doing some fishing, myself.
I'll be on Channel 68 -- boat's name is the Feral Cat.
Steve
Voting: YES
Black Dickson Johnson, C. Ross
Morgan Ellis Jones Sauls
Alexander England Justice Sherrill
Allen, L. Farmer-Butterfield Lucas Stam
Barbee Fisher Luebke Stiller
Bell Gibson McComas Tolson
Bonner Glazier McGee Wainwright
Bordsen Goforth McLawhorn Warner
Brubaker Hackney McMahan Warren
Carney Haire Miller Williams, A.
Crawford Hall Miner Womble
Culp Hunter Munford Yongue
Culpepper Insko Pate
Daughtridge Jeffus Rapp
Voting AGAINST:
Allen, B Earle Justus Setzer
Allred Eddins Kiser Sexton
Baker Fox Lewis Starnes
Barnhart Frye Michaux Steen
Blackwood Gillespie Mitchell Walend
Blust Goodwin Moore Walker
Bowie Grady Nye West
Capps Gulley Owens Williams, K.
Coates Harrell Preston Wilson, G.
Cole Hilton Ray Wood
Creech Holmes Rayfield Wright
Decker Howard Rhodes
Dockham Johnson, L. Saunders
On Monday sometime after 7pm the 3rd reading will be held on H-831. If it passes this vote it will become law. If any admemdments are added then there will have to be a House-Senate conference to work them out.
I agree that there arre a lot of problems with this bill, but I want it to pass. I think it will be a lot easier to get changes made later on than it will be to start over again next year if it is voted down.
WHY would you want it to pass? If it does pass, what percent of the monies collected do you think will go towards conservation etc. Lets face it...the guy with the rod and reel in his hand aint the one who is harvesting the great numbers of fish. Size limits?...all for it. Number limits?... all for it. Limiting how close to shore commercial fishermen can "net"?...all for it. Fishing license for someone standing on the shoreline that may catch 2-3 keepers in a days fishing?... aint for it. (just my thoughts and feelings.)
I also e-mailed Rick Eddins and Russell Capps, both of whom voted no.
IF it passes the third reading, it goes to Gov. Sleasly to be signed into law - so we have 2 hurdles remaining. Not sure where the Gov. stands on this one - anybody heard any feedback from him?
Bail -
I can see your point. But, what you have to understand is that Marc Basnight has single handedly crushed any effort to help the recreational fisherman for years. He has finally cracked the door - however so slightly, so that we can get things moving in the right direction. Step one is this license. Let them see that it will work. Step two will be the net ban. Step three will be vastly improved fishing for all of us.
I do not want any more taxes or fees any more than anyone else. But I also want my children to be able to enjoy better fisheries. The current HB 831 is far from perfect and has been significantly watered down by the Senate fromthe original version passed by the house (which is why it has to pass all these readings again) - but it is by far batter than what we have and will get the ball rolling in the right direction.
Bail- If you are for size limits, number limits and getting rid of inshore netting, then the RSWFL is about your only hope. Right now the only ones paying permit fees and license fees in saltwater are commercial fishermen. So they, and a few powerful processors, are the squeaky wheels who are getting all the grease right now. They are making the political contributions, getting their people to the public hearings, and influencing the decision-making process in their favor. They are not about to put in those limits you favor, except maybe on you and the other recs.
The state, on the other hand, is like an addict. Once it gets a taste of millions of dollars a year in license fees, it won't be able to give it up. Once we have a data base of license holders, then we will have some leverage. We will outnumber the commercials by the thousands. We will be outfunding them by the millions. And when we can finally point to some solid figures, this state will see where the value lies in fishing interest in North Carolina.
Wouldn't it be something if 5 years from now, that guy fishing on the shoreline had a shot at catching a limit in a days fishing, not just 2 or 3 fish?
gla - you make some good points. Personally I'm neutral but leaning against. As written, its ok, but many want to include blankets for piers, charter and headboats. The headboat guys and piers esp. want a blanket fee. If a blanket fee is put back in, then sure the 100 ft. headboats would benefit, as thier fee would be the same as a 6 pack charter over 25 ft. Make sense? No. If we institute a license, then it should apply to each person using the resource. How else can the state know how many people are fishing saltwater, be it surf, charter, pier or headboat. BTW, the fee as previously written was $400 for any charter or headboat over 25 ft. Thats what the headboats are trying to get back in. Sure, they can afford it with 100 passengers/trip, but not even close to fair for the 6 pack charters. If implemented, make all obtain a license, no exceptions.
__________________
2005 McKee 23 TE/FS with 200 Zukes
50 Ton Masters with Towing Endorsement.
__________________ 2002 US Anglers Champ-46.03 lbs. SKA 2004 Sportsman Award, 2005 SKA 23 Class National Champions-42.47 & 39.91, total 82.38 lbs. an SKA aggegate record for the Atlantic, 2nd SKA 2008, 14th-2009, 15th-2003. Director Onslow Bay Open KMT raised $212,484 in 11 years for KIDS Charities.
gla - you make some good points. Personally I'm neutral but leaning against.
Out of curiosity, what alternative are you supporting? Or none at all? I'm genuinely
curious.
There are things I don't like either, but...What else is out there? *If* it passes, changes can
be made, but the big hurdle is over. Otherwise, how soon do you think Basnight will allow
the Senate to vote on another version? I believe him, when he warns, "If the House doesn't
pass this, it will be a long time before they see another."
Quote:
Thats what the headboats are trying to get back in. Sure, they can afford it with 100 passengers/trip, but not even close to fair for the 6 pack charters. If implemented, make all obtain a license, no exceptions.
As it is written, there aren't blanket licenses. Headboats and charters are upset because they don't want customers having to "hassle" with getting a $1, or $15, license by phone. Or, if their customers *don't* obtain one, and get a ticket upon returning, the experience might bitter the taste, and they won't return in the future.
That argument doesn't overwhelm me particularly, and I'm sure details can be worked out in the future, but if nothing else, it's illustrative of the commercial mindset -- they could give a f*ck about recreational fishing.
I don't think this bill is a panacea, but it's at least a noticeable step in the right direction, and again -- what else is out there?
I just sent a letter to all the house of represenitive member in hopes that they would support this bill! Here are all the E-Mail addresses if you wish to do the same. Just copy and paste in your send to window.
My only problem with License is and maybe I'm reading it wrong is that if I take my family members fishing maybe once or twice a year that live inland that means they have to shuck out 15 for a 1 day in a year trip, but if I could by a license for my boat that would cover anyone on my boat that would be fine. I just don't think its fair in the above situation, but I'm open to opinions and I agree something needs to be done our fishing sucks around here compared to 20 yrs ago.
My only problem with License is and maybe I'm reading it wrong is that if I take my family members fishing maybe once or twice a year that live inland that means they have to shuck out 15 for a 1 day in a year trip, but if I could by a license for my boat that would cover anyone on my boat that would be fine. I just don't think its fair in the above situation, but I'm open to opinions and I agree something needs to be done our fishing sucks around here compared to 20 yrs ago.
If your family members are under 18, they don't need any license.
Otherwise, they could pick up a 1-week license for $1.00.
My only problem with License is and maybe I'm reading it wrong is that if I take my family members fishing maybe once or twice a year that live inland that means they have to shuck out 15 for a 1 day in a year trip, but if I could by a license for my boat that would cover anyone on my boat that would be fine. I just don't think its fair in the above situation, but I'm open to opinions and I agree something needs to be done our fishing sucks around here compared to 20 yrs ago.
If your family members are under 18, they don't need any license.
Otherwise, they could pick up a 1-week license for $1.00.
they could only pick up that $1 for one week fishing license one time though. If they come down once in spring and once in fall, they will have to buy the $15 deal...
Saltwater License Question for NC 
