Thanks, California. No Progress on Fishing License Purchase Plan

[carpanglerdude]

Remember the law that was supposed to allow us to purchase fishing licenses that always lasted 365 days at any time, rather than just on January 1st?

Well, Lorena Fletcher out of SD shot it down, for no apparent reason.

Read about it here https://www.sportfishingmag.com/california-legislator-denies-anglers-12-month-fishing-license#page-5 , and feel free to contact Lorena here:

https://www.facebook.com/lorena.gonzalez.942/ or https://a80.asmdc.org/article/contact-lorena

[JustJames]

That suck, it has been going on for what 5-6 yrs in order to change to year round instead of year end. Anyway I will buy my fishing license in January, don't know how much it's gonna cost this year, hopefully not my arm nor my leg.

[DarkShadow]

I understood this policy when it was also policy that we had to have our licenses visible above the waist while angling.

I personally loved that. It was a rather quick way for wardens to do a spot check by checking that year's color on someone's person.

Why they removed THAT policy is beyond me, but now that my license can be in my wallet or in my fishing bag, why not make it calendar year?

If I warden has to physically approach you now to make a license check, it doesn't matter what color the yearly license is anymore.

[Lady Quagga]

Remember the law that was supposed to allow us to purchase fishing licenses that always lasted 365 days at any time, rather than just on January 1st?

Well, Lorena Fletcher out of SD shot it down, for no apparent reason.

Read about it here https://www.sportfishingmag.com/california-legislator-denies-anglers-12-month-fishing-license#page-5 , and feel free to contact Lorena here:

https://www.facebook.com/lorena.gonzalez.942/ or https://a80.asmdc.org/article/contact-lorena

Carpanglerdude, I share other angler's disappointment in SB187's failure. And like you and others, I will certainly make my opinion known to Assemblymember Gonzalez Fletcher.

But to clarify, she did not "shoot down" the bill. It died without vote in committee, and we don't know what if any motivation there was behind it.

I realize that may be nitpicking, but these are politicians we are dealing with, and if you come at them with that sort of accusation, they will dodge it with little effort, and no progress will be made.

So yes, voice your opinion folks, do it sternly, but do it wisely.

https://www.facebook.com/lorena.gonzalez.942 or https://a80.asmdc.org/article/contact-lorena

EDIT: Incidentally, this news is a little old (of course it's never too late to contact your state legislature), and there is another great article from October on SB187's failure:


SB 187: Questions Abound About Fishing License Bill’s Failure
Parimal M. Rohit
October 19, 2017

Shifting to a 12-month fishing license cycle had broad support and no opposition, so why did it fail?

SACRAMENTO — It’s no secret money and politics go together. What remains secretive is how money dictates the policies directly governing our lives. Some questioned whether money was a factor in the sudden demise of a proposal to overhaul California’s fishing license system.

No sooner did the bill fail to emerge out of the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee did California’s anglers look to the board’s membership and question why they failed to recommend Senate Bill 187 (SB 187) for passage.

Some pondered whether Assembly member Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, who chaired the Appropriations Committee, had incentive to kill the bill. Gonzalez Fletcher, interestingly enough, represents San Diego, which is one of California’s top destinations for anglers.

The Log reached out to Gonzalez’s office and made initial contact with one of her staff members, hoping to gain some perspective as to why SB 187 failed to cross the finish line despite overwhelming support and no known opposition.

When asked for an explanation as to why SB 187 was not recommended to move forward out of committee, her office went radio silent; her press representative, Alex Roth, has not yet responded to The Log’s questions. We specifically asked why SB 187 did not make it out of Appropriations despite having no opposition on record or during any stage of voting.

We also asked why the bill was killed in Appropriations Committee when five of its members voted in favor of SB 187 while sitting on another committee.

Of course there might well be a reasonable answer for why SB 187, which many of its proponents considered to be a common sense proposal, was killed in the Appropriations Committee. The Log will continue searching for answers beyond this particular story. Readers are also encouraged to reach out to members of the Appropriations Committee and ask questions of their elected representatives.

As we pursue our quest for answers, let us look back on how we arrived to today’s current predicament.

http://www.thelog.com/snw/sb-187-questions-abound-about-fishing-license-bills-failure/

[DarkShadow]

So yes, voice your opinion folks, do it sternly, but do it wisely.

So, the ALL CAPS and a bunch of "!!!!!!!!!s" was not wise?

[mstr fish]

You know in all my years if fishing I have never been approached and asked to show it. Even when I forgot to put it on. Makes me wonder how many out there do not even buy one yet us honest people buy year after year. I don’t mind doing so as it suppose to help with the cause just thinking of those that take advantage of it. I agree it should be 365 starting the day you buy it

[old pudd fisher]

You know in all my years if fishing I have never been approached and asked to show it. Even when I forgot to put it on. Makes me wonder how many out there do not even buy one yet us honest people buy year after year. I don’t mind doing so as it suppose to help with the cause just thinking of those that take advantage of it. I agree it should be 365 starting the day you buy it
I have been fishing for many years also and have been asked to show my license only one time and that was at the pudd 2009 I think it was. And I too think a good number of people don't even buy one. A lot of the people that were fishing the shore seen the ranger checking and packed up and took off.

[Fourtogo]

It's just amazing at how screwed up Ca. Is with fishing licenses .

[sodapop]

You know in all my years if fishing I have never been approached and asked to show it. Even when I forgot to put it on. Makes me wonder how many out there do not even buy one yet us honest people buy year after year. I don’t mind doing so as it suppose to help with the cause just thinking of those that take advantage of it. I agree it should be 365 starting the day you buy it

I get asked for a fishing license all the time, not just me but everybody fishing.
The last couple of months I have been asked at the Silverwood dock, DVL, Little Lake in Hemet,
Rancho Jurapa, Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake. The crazy thing is that every single person had a fishing license.
I have never seen anybody get a ticket.

[JustJames]

Before when I occasionally fish for trout or catfish I felt bad to buy fishing license and have it expired within a few months. Now I fish a lot for bass so buying license first thing in January is the way to go. I understand the color coordination to the year so it is easier to see/check for fish and game warden. The thing is how many time I got check, none until this year and got asked 4 times all in Canyon Lake. Every time I just point at my backpack where fishing license always attached to.

[mstr fish]

I have been fishing for many years also and have been asked to show my license only one time and that was at the pudd 2009 I think it was. And I too think a good number of people don't even buy one. A lot of the people that were fishing the shore seen the ranger checking and packed up and took off.

My buddy was at Lake Cahuilla today and saw three people get ticketed for no license and fishing in the nonfishing zone. I was stoked to hear this news.

[mstr fish]

I get asked for a fishing license all the time, not just me but everybody fishing.
The last couple of months I have been asked at the Silverwood dock, DVL, Little Lake in Hemet,
Rancho Jurapa, Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake. The crazy thing is that every single person had a fishing license.
I have never seen anybody get a ticket.m

That’s awesome to hear that some lakes do ask. Guess I’ve been lucky even though I buy every year. Makes me less aggravated to hear that those whose don’t follow the rules get what they deserve. I stopped going to my local lake because of this amongst other things like keeping shorts and leaving trash. Unfortunately I don’t know how to keep my mouth shut but the boss (My Wife) suggested that I leave it alone. Even though I don’t agree. I’ve learned happy wife happy life. I was raised that you leave it cleaner then you found it. I have taught my kids the same. Looking forward to the holidays to end. That’s when work slows down until Valentines Day. Looking forward to Skinner and DVL. Will make sure to post.

[John Harper]

I just renewed my Lifetime License. The license is the same green color as last year.

John

[Ssortasober]

I've been checked during lobster season at Dana Point a few times. On my own boat.
Never by a warden, just someone with a clipboard not a gun.
Once in Long Beach harbor. Boarded with guns, always in compliance. Never in freshwater,
Where are the fees going?
To maintain the roads?

[etucker1959]

I've been checked during lobster season at Dana Point a few times. On my own boat.
Never by a warden, just someone with a clipboard not a gun.
Once in Long Beach harbor. Boarded with guns, always in compliance. Never in freshwater,
Where are the fees going?
To maintain the roads?

To answer the question where are the fees going, I assume you're talking about License fees. The DFG budget is something most Hunters and Anglers greatly over exaggerate their contribution to the budget. The DFG budget is over 400 million dollars a year. If you add up how much of that comes from license fees of both hunters and fishermen, we are all just welfare recipients. Where we receive much much more then we pay in.

[etucker1959]

I never really gave the 12 month license thing any great thought. I would just buy it Jan 1st along with my Orange County Regional Park Seasonal parking pass. However, on this website and others, it really riles people up to the politicians who voted against it, "calling them all kinds of names." So I began to wonder, what is their position on this matter. (where is their logic) I did come up with something and does anybody want to hear what I came up with???

What's that in the Back? Seal from Lake Silverwood wants to hear what I came up with? Ok then, "I tell you people what I came up with." lol

Here is one possible reason the politicians keep shooting down the 12 month license. (this isn't my opinion but it might be theirs)

In the first year someone doesn't buy their fishing license till March and it goes for 12 months. The next year that same person doesn't buy his license till June and it goes for 12 months. The third year that same person doesn't buy his license till Sept and it goes for 12 months. Then in the 4th year that same person doesn't buy his license till Dec and it goes for 12 months. By the 5th year the DFG would have lost 20% of it's revenue from fishing license sales. Now the DFG wants to be fiscally responsible, so it would have to reduce it's services to match the lost revenue. (which it doesn't want to do)

So the only logical solution is, "KILL THE 12 MONTH FISHING LICENSE IDEA!!!"

If I was a Attorney defending the State for killing the 12 month license idea. That is the best defense I could muster to defend the states position!!! How would you attack that argument, if you were in favor of the 12 month fishing license??

[5shot]

Hunters and Fishermen are not welfare recipients. Actually the rest of the state is. Over the last decades the DFW has had to take on many duties that have little or nothing to do with hunting and fishing. Having to work toxic spills, and other environmental crimes. Having to work on preserving species that are not hunted or fished for. Having to work on habitat issues in areas where hunting and fishing is not done, etc, etc. All these things are important, but the costs should be paid for by all Californians.

[DarkShadow]

All these things are important, but the costs should be paid for by all Californians.

Let me play both sides of the coin:

Fishermen and hunters: "Right on! These are issues that affect all Californians, not just the people who hunt and fish."

People who don't hunt and fish: "What? Expect ME to pay for protecting a Golden Trout I don't fish for or an oil spill that I didn't cause?!"

[etucker1959]

Hunters and Fishermen are not welfare recipients. Actually the rest of the state is. Over the last decades the DFW has had to take on many duties that have little or nothing to do with hunting and fishing. Having to work toxic spills, and other environmental crimes. Having to work on preserving species that are not hunted or fished for. Having to work on habitat issues in areas where hunting and fishing is not done, etc, etc. All these things are important, but the costs should be paid for by all Californians.

Everything you said, "I basically agree with." But there is a belief (with some people) that Hunter's and Fishermen pay for all of the funding of the DFW with their license fees. (which is just not true) Then some of these same people then believe, some of that funding is then siphoned off for totally unrelated programs. That's why I came up with that Welfare crack.

[seal]

Everything you said, "I basically agree with." But there is a belief (with some people) that Hunter's and Fishermen pay for all of the funding of the DFW with their license fees. (which is just not true) Then some of these same people then believe, some of that funding is then siphoned off for totally unrelated programs. That's why I came up with that Welfare crack.

Stirring the pot again just to stir it? Dude your comparison was just plain dumb, there are a lot of descriptors I have thought define you but dumb wasn't one. Without the hunters and fishermen there would be no DF freaking W! This state has completely lost any credibility it had left from most outdoorsmen's perspective. I still respect the workers but at the management level they are completely corrupt and are altering the purpose that defined what the DFW's role was, notice I used the word "was".

This state is going to continue to lose people to other states that actually value fishermen and hunters. The population bases that elect our government officials do not represent a large chunk of this states populace yet those population bases continue to drive all decision making for the entire state, this is a recipe for disaster for this state. There are no checks and balances when only one portion of society is in charge, this is what is driving decisions at the the DFW and you and anybody with a small portion of their brain cells left knows this (luckily I think I still have one or two cells left, I think). The trout plant situation is a perfect example, the excuses being used were beyond predictable and if the DFW actually gave a damn about us those responsible would be fired for complete incompetence.

[etucker1959]

Stirring the pot again just to stir it? Dude your comparison was just plain dumb, there are a lot of descriptors I have thought define you but dumb wasn't one. Without the hunters and fishermen there would be no DF freaking W! This state has completely lost any credibility it had left from most outdoorsmen's perspective. I still respect the workers but at the management level they are completely corrupt and are altering the purpose that defined what the DFW's role was, notice I used the word "was".

This state is going to continue to lose people to other states that actually value fishermen and hunters. The population bases that elect our government officials do not represent a large chunk of this states populace yet those population bases continue to drive all decision making for the entire state, this is a recipe for disaster for this state. There are no checks and balances when only one portion of society is in charge, this is what is driving decisions at the the DFW and you and anybody with a small portion of their brain cells left knows this (luckily I think I still have one or two cells left, I think). The trout plant situation is a perfect example, the excuses being used were beyond predictable and if the DFW actually gave a damn about us those responsible would be fired for complete incompetence.

Look the rank and file members of the DFW are fine people. It's the top leadership which some are appointed are the problem. If good moderate Republicans candidates such as former Governor Pete Wilson were to run and win the Governorship. That would help make for a more balanced political environment here in the state. But if all you get is Ideology candidates from the Republicans, Californians from a sportsmanship standpoint will still be getting the royal shaft!

To address your stirring the pot just to stir it statement, I do want to address it. Every article or statement I read coming from sportsman want a 12 month license. (yet it keeps getting shot down by the politicians) There has to be a reason for that, yet I haven't heard a good reason on why their doing it. I'm going with the Republican catch phrase, "FAKE NEWS." I'm going with fake news being reported in the sporting community publications. (which many are Russ Limbaugh protege's) Their having you believe the politicians out of pure meanness to the sportsman are shooting this down for no good reason. I do think they have their reasons but no one is reporting that!! I'll keep an open mind on the subject, waiting for their explanation!!!

[seal]

Look the rank and file members of the DFW are fine people. It's the top leadership which some are appointed are the problem. If good moderate Republicans candidates such as former Governor Pete Wilson were to run and win the Governorship. That would help make for a more balanced political environment here in the state. But if all you get is Ideology candidates from the Republicans, Californians from a sportsmanship standpoint will still be getting the royal shaft!

To address your stirring the pot just to stir it statement I do want to address. Every article or statement I read coming from sportsman want a 12 month license. (yet it keeps getting shot down by the politicians) There has to be a reason for that, yet I haven't heard a good reason on why their doing it. I'm going with the Republican catch phrase, "FAKE NEWS." I'm going with fake news, being reported in the sporting community publications. (which many are Russ Limbaugh protege's) Their having you believe the politicians out of pure meanness to the sportsman are shooting this down for no good reason. I do think they have their reasons but no one is reporting that!! I'll keep an open mind on the subject, waiting for their explanation!!!

It's not all about political ideology it's California political ideology. Many liberals are sportsman. I have spent a lot of time up in Washington state, very liberal state, very outdoors oriented with a large amount of outdoors types that love to hunt and fish. Because of this I suppose they are not anti sportsman in much of their decision making, at least nothing like good old Cali.. Hell my sister is a Washington state politician that can't be more liberal in her ideology and I still love her to pieces and believe it or not have great respect for (oh and she works in immigration law also, lol).

My point is this states direction, no matter the side of the aisle as a sportsmen you fall into, is disastrous for us. They have been infiltrated by the far left environmental groups to the point that in an organization that is suppose to support the hunting and fishing community they are doing in many cases the polar opposite. I don't know the solution because you just can't convince even the moderate left into voting for a moderate republican to get the balance back to where it should be. No hope for the future I can see unfortunately.

[drifter023]

Sadly I agree with this ( No hope for the future I can see unfortunately.) Calif. sucks I have lived my whole life born and raised in So. Cal. when I retire moving to Arizona sad but true.

[Egster]

Well, let's put it this way. If you are a politician, an Assembly member like Gonzalez Fletcher. What are the reasons for supporting SB187? Sure it'll makes some (or lots) CA anglers happy. But at the same time, it costs time, money, and effort to update the fishing license system. Not to mention the possibility of wrath from some extreme environmentalist that are against fishing. Are the anglers going to remember your political career and vote/support you because of your support for SB187? Or perhaps it's safer just to remain the status quo and don't mess with it.

Basically, how many people (anglers and non-anglers) are going to the link carpanglerdude provide and give feedback to Lorena? I believe the answer is: Not enough that will matter.

I simply believe that the fishing economy and its political influences are diminishing, in CA. Look around your neighborhood sporting stores, most don't seem to carry much or any angeling merchandise unless it's near a popular fishing area. Sure, one can blame Amazon, the internet, for stealing sales. But still, from what I see, most millennial and future generations in CA are losing interests in fishing. On the contrary, there seems to be a growing number of hate comments whenever there's news about a trophy fish that was caught and killed. Another proof is go to the DFW website and look at their license sale numbers. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Licensing/Statistics. We all know for sure that the CA population are growing, but the license sales are not. The ration/proportions of license sales to the populace are shrinking every day. Which means any motive for a politician (or California's interest) to please the anglers are getting less and less every day.

So to answer Seal, one possible solution comes to mind, though the immediate effect is minimal, is to go and influence as many people out there about the joy of fishing. Show and make others fall in love with fishing and spend their hard earn dollars in the fishing economy. Nothing speaks louder to politicians than voting support and job market. Although, the downside would be losing the privacy of your favorite fishing hole, thanks to the additional fishermen that if you decide to create. A double edged sword perhaps, and we all know how we fisherman loves to keep our secret fishing spots, well, a secret.

[Brewcrafter]

Wow! A thoughtful, insightful, respectful discussion with Lots of varying viewpoints - this is really cool! My $.02, in no particular order:
I suspect that I am like most folks out there - I have been doing this for so long that sometime in the next couple of weeks I am going to go get my license (usually as a Christmas "present" from the family) so truthfully, the "one year" thing really doesn't affect me directly. Long enough that I remember when your basic license once needed things like "trout stamps", "ocean enhancement", and "Colorado River use" that were actually very pretty colored stickers that were pasted onto ones license. I like the viewpoint above that when we used to have to wear the license visibly, that the color coding and Jan 1-Dec 31 timing made sense. I will say that the fact that this would make overall enforcement easier (a Warden with binoculars can quickly check a whole lake, plus everyone on a lake can look around and tell who's legal and who isn't) is/was a good thing. Anything to make a wardens job easier so that they can be more effective and get more done I would be in favor of. I can also say I was one of those selfish anglers that HATED wearing my license and was glad when that went away. Whether I wore it on my hat, the front of my jacket, or at my waist I always seemed to keep getting it snagged, torn, and hung up on stuff.
Etucker's financial analysis, in which we as anglers basically allow our licenses to unintentionally "lapse" for a couple of months each year, with potentially resulting in lost revenue to the Department over a series of years, was intriguing and makes sense. But then the businessman in me looks at the current situation (continually declining license sales and revenue) and asks "What needs to be done to reverse this trend?" I do suspect there are quite a few folks on the water that literally poach because of the point about getting to a certain point in the year where it just doesn't make sense to buy a license; or maybe they are legal and just go with a limited "weekend" license, either of which would have the same effect financially - lost revenue - versus buying a "365 day" license. In that respect it would seem that the "365 day" license might actually increase revenue in that more folks would be inclined to purchase them than currently do. And I do recognize that there are scum that are going to poach, regardless of how easy/cheap it would be to be legal.
The political conversations above and their many points made also seem to make sense. My overall feeling is that the vast majority of folks here in The People's Republic of California would openly prefer to turn our Ocean into an Aquarium and our game lands into "petting zoos". And these are the folks who pump dollars and votes into Sacramento. While conservation and management of our resources is essential; much of the way that the MLPA process was managed by non-sportman/non-scientists and rammed down our throats still stings and I think illustrates this.
Also along the political ideology discussion - I know when I go out to spend my $$$$ whether on actual fishing, in buying tackle in one of the many great saltwater shops down in Orange County, my local Turners, or the "Brass Hoe" in Rancho Cucamonga one thing seems to jump out - when I look around I overwhelmingly see...people who look pretty much just like me. And while I will not pretend (and have no scientific evidence) that folks of other ethnicities do or do not participate in outdoor sports at a greater or lesser rate than folks of my ethnic backround, I would postulate that as folks such as myself (Old White Guy) continue to become less of a population/political force in this state (whether because of people coming in, or of folks such as myself retiring and fleeing the economic madness) and hence we become much easier to ignore at the state level.
How to reverse this trend? Well, the most obvious/easiest step would be to bring more folks into the sport (in spite of the increased difficulty with more expensive licenses, more difficult fishing conditions due to vastly reduced stockings, reduced habitat, onerous "boat inspections", etc). On a positive note, this in theory should be easier since anyone UNDER 16 doesn't need a license! But then the flipside of that (and I speak from personal experience) it is damn difficult to get "the next generation" involved, when you have to compete with the "virtual world" of digital screens, and the "instant gratification" that seems to be a hallmark of the younger folks. Egster is 100% correct - we need to be open to letting loose information ("secret" techniques, "hidden" glory holes, etc) to help provide a measure of success for first timers/rookies/the younger set to help them enjoy success and "get the fishing bug". And while I am sure there are many similar programs out there, supporting programs like the Dan Hernandez Youth Foundation that help introduce the next generation to the joys of our sport is a good thing (as I type this I am looking at a quiver of rods/reels sitting in my rack that I have long ago retired, and probably would be better served being donated to some "first timers" as opposed to gathering dust in my shop).
In spite of all these infernal and miserable winds, I think I may just wander down the street to my local (Rancho Jurupa Park) to look at the whitecaps and soak a bait for a few hours...

[Brent]

Very well said Brewcrafter.
We are very similar in this situation. The far left are as batpoop crazy as the far right. Extremism will ruin everything for everyone regardless of left or right.
With the massive population in CA there will always be issues dealing with it and I fully understand the need for conservation of our resources, but this kind of nonsense with the fishing licenses from the department that's supposed to help anglers and hunters is frustrating. The 'treehuggers' and 'teabaggers' need to go fight each other and leave the rest of us alone to work things out.

[Brewcrafter]

BTW, at Rancho on Sunday if I would have had my fly rod, I'm sure that with enough line I suspect I might have been able to cast all the way to Matthew's, Prado, or SARL! On the other hand, fishing the other side of the pond if I was using my 30# tuna outfit casting an iron into the wind there is a distinct possibility that I would have been knocked unconscious by the jig being blown back at me before it reached the water. :LOL: In actuality, a spent about 24 oz. of time walking the (mostly empty) shore with my ultralight tossing mini jigs. Unproductive, but definitely worth it!

[Ssortasober]

So when was the last time your license was checked by a game warden? Freshwater fishermen don't need a license nobody checks anymore

[sodapop]

So when was the last time your license was checked by a game warden? Freshwater fishermen don't need a license nobody checks anymore

I have been asked six times in the last three months freshwater fishing, all at different lakes.

[Brewcrafter]

SSortasober has a good point. While freshwater fishing I have not been checked this year (but then again, I don't fish as much as a normal person should). Saltwater I get checked fairly frequently. Only my opinion, but with the continued under/mismanagement of the DFG (yes, used "G" intentionally) anyone involved in field enforcement is probably over tasked. And their best use of their time is "touching" as many folks as possible in a the limited time they have available (yes, I am mixing Business metaphors with regards to a Public Service organization, I apologize in advance). So being at the launch ramp in Dana Point or hitting the Trout Derby at Rancho Jurupa Park is going to net a lot of interaction, with potential for enforcement (revenue? yes I wrote that) but at the very least as a Public Agency they can say they met with "X amount of sportsmen today". And that may make sense. And here is where my "Public Agency as a Business" analogy goes sideways. Because to be honest the Mission Statement of the DF(G) is pretty nebulous: The Mission of the Department of Fish and Wildlife is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. That's a little bit like me saying that my job is to get up every day, go to work, and survive. It's pretty vague.
To Ssortasobers point, I get it and you could extend it across the entire political spectrum in the People's Republic of California: Basically there are NO consequences for unacceptable behavior. When Auto Theft is pretty much now deemed a misdeameanor, and when the Governor signs into law that "if you cannot afford to pay your traffic fines your license is not suspended, because it does not appear to make any difference anyway if you do not pay" (my interpretation of the law, BTW) it makes it seem kind of silly that we are going to hand somebody a ticket because "you caught too many fish, or you don't have a license ". I can remember as a young man working the docks (proudly with my License since I was 16!) in Morro Bay seeing the local warden (who was a fixture in the area) take not just the fish and the gear and write a "ticket", but seized their boat as well as "evidence of a crime". Again, once upon a time there were consequences...And I can understand why as such we would not spend the appropriate amounts of money to actually ENFORCE and MANAGE the resources. From the political side there is no "return on investment".
Enough of my pontificating. I can saber rattle as much as I like and it most likely will not change anything. Do I know if the situation can be improved? I do not. Hell, our schools are challenged enough as it is. But since I don't own a time machine to turn it back to 1970, the only thing I can throw out there is:
1. We need Increased services to the fishing/hunting/camping community.
2. We can Justify by increasing the level of involvement in the sport: I could be dramatic and say that if someone could show a causal relationship between increased fishing/hunting/camping opportunities and reduced drugs/crime/better grades etc...then maybe the state would pony more money...The truth of the matter is this all needs to be "ground level" because what we all know this to be true - the "State" (caps intended) on the other hand would probably want to fund a million dollar study to figure out if this is right and get nothing done in the process...
Now that my Blood Pressure is up, I guess I need to go down to Rancho in the AM and toss some mini jigs again..."Many Men go fishing all their lives without knowing it is not fish that they are after" Henry David Thoreau

[mstr fish]

I get asked for a fishing license all the time, not just me but everybody fishing.
The last couple of months I have been asked at the Silverwood dock, DVL, Little Lake in Hemet,
Rancho Jurapa, Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake. The crazy thing is that every single person had a fishing license.
I have never seen anybody get a ticket.

That’s good to hear. I don’t mind paying for mine every year even though I have rarely got to fish this year. Looking forward to next year and committed to more time on the water.