Fly the Team Iceshanty Flag! Iceshanty Proshop
Mudchuck! Are you going? That is too far for me tonight but I am very eager to learn more about the option 3 proposal that seemed to be liked. Can you ask them what the price range would be if VT passes the proposed "wild bait fish endorsement" that will allow angler to transport wild harvested bait fish in their zone? Thanks a bunch and please update this thread if you go. Tight Lines.
First post of the year, here we go.Personally, I would have zero problem paying a nominal fee for an endorsement on my license to trap my own bait. Having to complete a 10-15 question quiz in order to get the endorsement is even better in my mind. I see it as the only way of insuring the person obtaining the endorsement has received the information they should regarding proper bait harvest, transportation, and use on VT bodies of water. Whether or not that person decides to practice proper bait harvest, use, and transportation from that point on is on them. You can put the information in the law book, post it on a website, post it on bulletin boards at boat launches, it still doesn't mean people will read or see it. This would make them look pretty daft when they make the "Well, I didn't know that!" comment as they are being ticketed by the Warden, because they were given the information in the endorsement quiz. We're all entitles to our own opinions. That said, why should I have to pay for what you perceive to be a privilege to trap my own bait, especially if I'm only using it for personal use, much like those in the pond and stream at my or my kids properties, that I've had chubs and fatheads for as long as I can remember.As for what I also brought up in the meeting, is that we can potentially be allowed to sell smelt (and possibly other baits?) to bait dealers, and THAT I feel should require a fee, in that money is being transacted, and the ramifications of someone trapping bait and selling to someone is what I'd be more concerned about.Being able to trap our own bait I see as a privilege. I am not one for more fees and regulations, but it could be worse. The regulations could stay as is, or fisherman be banned from using live bait all together.
Fishing is becoming more like solving a rubiks cube that cost a lot of money! It's no wonder less and less young people are involving themselves. I agree Mudchuck; the endorsement should not cost money- however my bottom line, I am glad that they are trying to find a solution to the ridiculous regulations they have now. I think they should charge for the endorsement to catch smelt/suckers/shiners & then sell to bait dealers only...all other catch and personal use should be fee free.Is it illegal to transport crawdads? NOT YET!
Guessing - I think the state may allow us to trap baitfish in Champlain zone and then again possiblyMagog drainage at least that was discussed years ago. blacklisted zones will have the restriction of not moving trapped bait off those bodies of waterSalem/Magog smelt like it not are being used in many of the NEK lakes that eventually flow into Magog. Same is true for Champlain so hopefully state will refine current bait laws to allow use with thosewatersheds.
I would welcome a little quiz, there are a lot of stupid people out there, and if we give them free reign lord knows what could happen. Fee? Meh I guess if I have to pay $20-30 one time to save me $100 every weekend at a bait shop, I probably would fork out the money to the state. I think that the current bait laws suck, but what would suck worse is if things like VHS got into our inland waterbodies.
a short quiz ounce a year does not seem like a big deal. fee... would rather see a small fee on people that sell fish for profit . mudchuck....your red font is stuck on
I agree with Mudchuck. If fish and wildlife want more revenue, how about having kayakers pay for a sticker to use boat ramps.
I'm not opposed to registration fees for kayaks, canoes or other watercraft, however, if the people using those are actually fishing, then they've already paid to use the public launches, so not sure how this would be handled. If they're just using the launches to pleasure craft the waters, then they should have to pay for access since we all paid for them thru our fishing licenses.
Just as unfair to target another group - public boat ramps are open to all watercraft - Now a flat fee to all registered (motorized) watercraft (5$) for boat ramp maintenance is not insane. Seems this maintenance should come out of boat registration fees in my opinion. Doesn't make sense to take it from fishing license fees since many pleasure boaters use the ramps.
Watercraft that are powered, along with fishing licenses pay for public launches, watercraft like kayaks, canoes, windsurf do not, unless they're fishing from said craft, then the person's fishing license helped pay for the launch.Getting facts straight. Also, just for clarification, any craft that is powered requires registration that involves a fee which covers paying for launches.
"The anlgers/hunters have the priority at State Controlled Access Areas."
I hate having to sit at the top of a ramp with my registered boat while kayakers are di%$ing around on the ramp. For one example, spent almost 25 minutes waiting to get my boat into Harriman while 3 carloads of non fishing kayakers were screwing around on the ramp. Gale can be just as bad.