Govener Veto's Saltwater fishing license

[borntafish]

Just saw this on the tube. However, the democrats have enough votes to override him. Looks like it's a definite.

[njdiver]

Carcieri vetoes saltwater fishing license legislation
10:15 AM Thu, Nov 05, 2009 Amanda Milkovits

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Calling saltwater fishing in Rhode Island "a birthright," Governor Carcieri vetoed legislation that would have imposed a $7 annual license fee for saltwater fishing.

The General Assembly approved legislation last week that would, for the first time in Rhode Island's history, impose a license fee on anyone angling in the saltwater along the state's coast, starting Jan. 1. The state already charges $18 for a freshwater fishing license.

Congress mandated the licensing of all saltwater fishermen several years ago, aiming to establish a more reliable way of tracking recreational fishing. Any state without a registry would have to submit to federal licensing, which costs more than the proposed $7 fee for Rhode Island.

But in his veto message to Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed on Thursday, the governor said the federal government was going too far.

"This is the Ocean State," Carcieri stated. "It is a place where people have been free, up to now, to cast a line into Narragansett Bay without government intrusion."

Carcieri cited the 10th Amendment, which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

To which Carcieri added, "Mandating that all persons seeking to cast a fishing line in Narragansett Bay for the purposes of recreational fishing should be required to pay an annual licensing fee and register with the government is excessively intrusive."

http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/11/saltwater-fishing-license-unco.html

[bdowning]

With all due respect to the guv, this one's been in the satchel for a while, like it or not. If RI doesn't enact a SW fishermen's "registry," the Feds will impose one at a price. This sounds more like political posturing than anything else.

-bd

[riarcher]

Watch that guy!
Don't believe for a minute he's doing it for our best interest.
He's up to something.

Waited until the last minute to come out with that? He must of found a way to put it to us deeper!

Perhaps he's wanting the Feds to do it for him,, recieve a kickback,, and not support the program at all with state funds. (.... sounds about right)

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by bdowning

With all due respect to the guv, this one's been in the satchel for a while, like it or not. If RI doesn't enact a SW fishermen's "registry," the Feds will impose one at a price. This sounds more like political posturing than anything else.

-bd

See my reply in the other thread. The feds really can't impose one, either legally or practically.

[The Gremlin]

Originally Posted by riarcher

Watch that guy!
Don't believe for a minute he's doing it for our best interest.
He's up to something.

Waited until the last minute to come out with that? He must of found a way to put it to us deeper!

Perhaps he's wanting the Feds to do it for him,, recieve a kickback,, and not support the program at all with state funds. (.... sounds about right)

In reality it puts us in deeper if we don't pass it for $7. As in we will have to pay the Feds $25 instead.....and CT a non res. fee and NY and so on.

[BigBillJettyJockey]

We WON'T have to pay the Feds. They have no enforcement power or collection power. The fee, no matter what the amount, violates the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The state says no, we won't impose a fee, and no, you can't supercede our will in the matter. The Govenor instructs the DEM not to enforce any unconstitutional mandate from the Feds. Now, the state senate might overrule the Gov's veto, but it would still be unconstitutional and the fishermen of this state would have the legal means to challenge the new regulation in court. Remember, it violates the 10th Amendment on a Federal level, and our own state constitution bars the imposition of any fee too.

It's just a power grab by the Feds, and way too many sheeple are willing to get in line, bend over and say,"Thank you Sir, may I have another." The Feds are trying to do to the recreational fishing industry what they have done to the commercial fishing industry.

[IanCT]

So what happened in CT? Is there a chance to reverse what already happened in CT and what is about to or already happened in NY? Seems fishy, pardon the pun. How will this affect reciprocity between the 3 states?
Kudos to the Governor for taking a stand, hope the bad doesnt outweigh the good.
I am a CT resident, and have not and will not be buying a SW license. I dont fish popular spots, or easy spots to get to, nor do I keep more than 1 or 2 a season. The non-english speaking population who fish with numerous rods, keep shorts and so on will probably not be buying one either. How is this going to help?

[Pinhead]

Originally Posted by njdiver

The General Assembly approved legislation last week that would, for the first time in Rhode Island's history, impose a license fee on anyone angling in the saltwater along the state's coast, starting Jan. 1.

Maybe we should vote these jerkweeds out of office?

[bdowning]

Was not my understanding but, hell, I hope you're right. So what does RI risk by not complying (with a registry)? Loss of fed funds? Anything?

-bd

Originally Posted by MakoMike

See my reply in the other thread. The feds really can't impose one, either legally or practically.

[UPSmanMatt]

Still not buying a license when it happens.

[MDC]

The feds can enforce it on fed lands and with the CG. Most states have reciprocal enforcement agreements with the feds. so they will have to enforce fed regs, or risk that agreement. if they still refuse, then the feds can cut funding for almost all of the marine stuff you have, meaning all federally derived funds. Those funds are needed to do the monitoring of catch and fish stocks mandated by ASMFC.

If ASMFC finds RI out of compliance, then all interstate transport of fish stops. All federal registered boats won't be able to land in RI (and that includes any com, party boat, or HMS permits), and all RI boats won't be able to fish outside of 3 miles, or in the jurisdiction of any other state.

Then the feds can start cutting other funding, like education and roads, if it starts to really get out of hand....but it won't.

The legal briefs I have read on the subject suggests it's not against the 10th amendment. http://www.stripersonline.com/surfta...=693110&page=5

Have you noticed the drinking age in RI is 21? and that most other states have the same age? That's because the feds told the states they would cut transportation funding to them if they didn't raise it from 18 to 21

[splions]

So does this mean that the feds will recipricate and not send MY money back to Rhode Island? Then I should be able to not give them MY money in the first place by not paying taxes!

Who's money do you think it is that the govt' is using? Mine, yours, and unfortunately our kid's for years to come!

[tpp23201]

I was in New York :East End Long Island in October when their License went into effect. According to news reports down there some of the tackle shops
have banned together and are REFUSING to sell the license. On top of that,
some of their local Politicians are going to file a Federal law suit since
they have a similar law going back to the 1700's. Just like the RI Constitition: Art. # 17. Their law goes all the way back to a Compact with England giving them the rights and soverinty to the resources of the waters and shoreline. JUST LIKE THE RI CONSTITUTION : ART # 17 . And it has been held up in Court Cases. Since NY Politicians it appears have the B****
to fight the Feds in court, maybe it will be thrown out for all of us !!

[rocket500]

Its political posturing. He knows that the veto will be overturned.