State senator introduces Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015

[melillo3]

FROM: http://www.fishrapnews.com/Features/...g-Stimulus-Act

State senator introduces Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015


Posted On April 24, 2015 By: Parimal M. Rohit


SACRAMENTO — A state senator from the Western Sierra region introduced a bill earlier this month to address a reported decline in recreational fishing participation across California.

State Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Twain Harte) authored Senate Bill 345 (SB 345) in an attempt to revitalize recreational fishing in California. Fewer anglers participate in fishing within California than any other state in the country, according to the California Sportfishing League (CSL).

The Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015, which was introduced April 7, also aims to sustain outdoor recreational activities in communities dependent upon anglers and boaters to support the local economy with jobs and tourism. Fishing activists urged anglers to attend an April 28 committee hearing of the bill in Sacramento.

“California has some of the best fishing holes in the nation but some of the highest prices and antiquated regulations,” Berryhill said. “It is no wonder we come in dead last nationally on the percentage of people actually fishing. Those numbers keep slipping too. You have got to ask yourself why a state with thousands of miles of coastline, lakes, rivers and ponds is experiencing such a steep decline in an activity. Price and convenience come to mind. Making licenses more affordable, practical and convenient is one step we can take right now to begin reversing that trend.”

Berryhill, who identified himself as a “lifelong sportfishing enthusiast,” said the Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015 would protect jobs supported by recreational fishing, increase tourism dollars and maintain revenue for habitat restoration and protection.

The bill also proposed to do away with the state’s practice of issuing fishing licenses on a calendar year basis, where the license expires Dec. 31 regardless of date purchased. Instead, fishing licenses would be valid for 12 consecutive months from the day it was purchased.

Charitable organizations would also benefit from SB 345. Whenever an angler catches fish for charity, the charitable group receiving the catch would be granted an exception to exceed possession limits and not be fined by the state.

Finally, young anglers could be offered a reduced-cost junior fishing license at a base price of $8.25 if SB 345 becomes law.

CSL published a study in March citing statistics from the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), which showed the number of annual fishing licenses sold in California declined from about 2.26 million in 1980 to an estimated 990,000 annual permit sales in 2014. DFW also estimated about 40,000 fewer annual resident licenses were sold in 2014 compared to 2013.

The number of fishing licenses issued within California could drop another 47 percent in the next 10 to 15 years if the current trend continued, CSL estimated.

The U.S. Census recently reported about 5 percent of the state’s population participated in fishing despite California being home to the third longest coastline and largest population in the United States. CSL added California is home to more than 4,000 lakes and reservoirs in the state, plus the Pacific Ocean and thousands of rivers and streams.

“The decline in the state’s fishing participation rate reflects the fact that California fishing licenses are among the costliest in the country and, remarkably, are not valid for a full 12 months,” CSL President David Dickerson said. “If a resident’s car registration is valid for a full 12 months, then fishing licenses should be, too.”

Marko Mlikotin, executive director of CSL, previously told The Log the recreational fishing industry annually contributes more than $4.9 billion to California’s economy.

Assemblyman Frank Bigelow (R-Fresno) co-authored SB 345.

“Recreational fishing has a tremendous impact on our local economy and tax base, contributing billions of dollars to our tourism industry. SB 345 will ensure that our communities can continue to provide premier tourism and recreation experiences for all Californians,” Bigelow said.

SB 345 is set to be heard April 28 in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. Stay tuned to FishRap and The Log as the bill moves through the legislature.

[etucker1959]

FROM: http://www.fishrapnews.com/Features/...g-Stimulus-Act

State senator introduces Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015


Posted On April 24, 2015 By: Parimal M. Rohit


SACRAMENTO — A state senator from the Western Sierra region introduced a bill earlier this month to address a reported decline in recreational fishing participation across California.

State Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Twain Harte) authored Senate Bill 345 (SB 345) in an attempt to revitalize recreational fishing in California. Fewer anglers participate in fishing within California than any other state in the country, according to the California Sportfishing League (CSL).

The Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015, which was introduced April 7, also aims to sustain outdoor recreational activities in communities dependent upon anglers and boaters to support the local economy with jobs and tourism. Fishing activists urged anglers to attend an April 28 committee hearing of the bill in Sacramento.

“California has some of the best fishing holes in the nation but some of the highest prices and antiquated regulations,” Berryhill said. “It is no wonder we come in dead last nationally on the percentage of people actually fishing. Those numbers keep slipping too. You have got to ask yourself why a state with thousands of miles of coastline, lakes, rivers and ponds is experiencing such a steep decline in an activity. Price and convenience come to mind. Making licenses more affordable, practical and convenient is one step we can take right now to begin reversing that trend.”

Berryhill, who identified himself as a “lifelong sportfishing enthusiast,” said the Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015 would protect jobs supported by recreational fishing, increase tourism dollars and maintain revenue for habitat restoration and protection.

The bill also proposed to do away with the state’s practice of issuing fishing licenses on a calendar year basis, where the license expires Dec. 31 regardless of date purchased. Instead, fishing licenses would be valid for 12 consecutive months from the day it was purchased.

Charitable organizations would also benefit from SB 345. Whenever an angler catches fish for charity, the charitable group receiving the catch would be granted an exception to exceed possession limits and not be fined by the state.

Finally, young anglers could be offered a reduced-cost junior fishing license at a base price of $8.25 if SB 345 becomes law.

CSL published a study in March citing statistics from the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), which showed the number of annual fishing licenses sold in California declined from about 2.26 million in 1980 to an estimated 990,000 annual permit sales in 2014. DFW also estimated about 40,000 fewer annual resident licenses were sold in 2014 compared to 2013.

The number of fishing licenses issued within California could drop another 47 percent in the next 10 to 15 years if the current trend continued, CSL estimated.

The U.S. Census recently reported about 5 percent of the state’s population participated in fishing despite California being home to the third longest coastline and largest population in the United States. CSL added California is home to more than 4,000 lakes and reservoirs in the state, plus the Pacific Ocean and thousands of rivers and streams.

“The decline in the state’s fishing participation rate reflects the fact that California fishing licenses are among the costliest in the country and, remarkably, are not valid for a full 12 months,” CSL President David Dickerson said. “If a resident’s car registration is valid for a full 12 months, then fishing licenses should be, too.”

Marko Mlikotin, executive director of CSL, previously told The Log the recreational fishing industry annually contributes more than $4.9 billion to California’s economy.

Assemblyman Frank Bigelow (R-Fresno) co-authored SB 345.

“Recreational fishing has a tremendous impact on our local economy and tax base, contributing billions of dollars to our tourism industry. SB 345 will ensure that our communities can continue to provide premier tourism and recreation experiences for all Californians,” Bigelow said.

SB 345 is set to be heard April 28 in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. Stay tuned to FishRap and The Log as the bill moves through the legislature.

What a clueless person!!!!! He only has to go to the DFG to figure out what's wrong. I can tell him in 2 minutes if the DFG wouldn't tell him to the Truth. What is the truth????? The DFG with a 500 million dollar budget is really no longer in the job of enhancing angler opportunity's. They are merely "AN ENFORCEMENT ARM FOR LAWS!!!" Not just fish and game laws either, I watched enough of the wild justice TV program to know they do more then enforce fish and game laws. It amazed me how many times wardens were called in to back up Marijuana busts!!!!!! What in the Hell does DFG having anything to do with POT!!!!!!

To give you some examples of the DFG no longer caring about enhancing angler opportunity's, I give you the urban catfish stocking program. Which as since been canceled by the DFG. (if anybody know a thing or two about that program it's me) The urban catfish program was designed to stock over 40 different waters a month for 7 months out of the year. At a cost of a little over $500,000 a year!!!!!! Yes only $500,000 a year!!!!!!! With a budget of $500 million dollars, you can't find $500,000 dollars!!!!!!!! You can't find it because you DON'T CARE!!!!!!!! Same thing for the trout, they can't find 2 million dollars for the Trout stocking program!!!!!!! Instead they will cut the plants in half, and reduce the size of the trout!!!!!!!

Now what was this clueless person trying to do now!!!!!! When in reality all's he has to do, is find away for the DFG to replace 2.5 million dollars out of a 500 million dollar budget and restore the fish stocking plants to their former levels. This is not a total cure all, but it's an easy first step!!!!!

[PokerFish]

What a clueless person!!!!! He only has to go to the DFG to figure out what's wrong. I can tell him in 2 minutes if the DFG wouldn't tell him to the Truth. What is the truth????? The DFG with a 500 million dollar budget is really no longer in the job of enhancing angler opportunity's. They are merely "AN ENFORCEMENT ARM FOR LAWS!!!" Not just fish and game laws either, I watched enough of the wild justice TV program to know they do more then enforce fish and game laws. It amazed me how many times wardens were called in to back up Marijuana busts!!!!!! What in the Hell does DFG having anything to do with POT!!!!!!

To give you some examples of the DFG no longer caring about enhancing angler opportunity's, I give you the urban catfish stocking program. Which as since been canceled by the DFG. (if anybody know a thing or two about that program it's me) The urban catfish program was designed to stock over 40 different waters a month for 7 months out of the year. At a cost of a little over $500,000 a year!!!!!! Yes only $500,000 a year!!!!!!! With a budget of $500 million dollars, you can't find $500,000 dollars!!!!!!!! You can't find it because you DON'T CARE!!!!!!!! Same thing for the trout, they can't find 2 million dollars for the Trout stocking program!!!!!!! Instead they will cut the plants in half, and reduce the size of the trout!!!!!!!

Now what was this clueless person trying to do now!!!!!! When in reality all's he has to do, is find away for the DFG to replace 2.5 million dollars out of a 500 million dollar budget and restore the fish stocking plants to their former levels. This is not a total cure all, but it's an easy first step!!!!!

If your numbers are correct, I think it's horrible that they cut that urban catfish stocking program. If the trout program really costs 5 times as much, I would be happy to give that up. I really see no point in stocking 6" trout to feed the cormorants at our local lakes. Trout are not hardy and have 0% chance of surviving and adding to the fish population of a lake. At least whatever catfish are not caught can potentially improve the fishery.

What's your background and how do you know what you wrote? Not doubting you, just want some context.

[etucker1959]

If your numbers are correct, I think it's horrible that they cut that urban catfish stocking program. If the trout program really costs 5 times as much, I would be happy to give that up. I really see no point in stocking 6" trout to feed the cormorants at our local lakes. Trout are not hardy and have 0% chance of surviving and adding to the fish population of a lake. At least whatever catfish are not caught can potentially improve the fishery.

What's your background and how do you know what you wrote? Not doubting you, just want some context.

I like the question of my background, most people think I'm the MAD HATTER around here. (If you don't believe that ask Seal & Cutbait) lol Let's just talk about the Catfish program that the DFG use to run. My background was my experience in mastering HOW the program worked and taking full advantage of it. People that know me know, "I am the King of the park catfish." Just like Al Bundy was the king of Polk High. (scored 4 touchdowns in a single game) lol I for a decade chased those things down like no other person I saw. I got so good at it, the last year the DFG ran the program my personal catch was 950 catfish all C&R. (that doesn't even count what my friends caught) In a decade me and my buddy's caught close to 15,000 catfish!!!!!! Enough of my boosting. I'll prove the cost of the program by logic!!!!!!!

The DFG catfish program worked like this, they had 3 zones they would stock once a month. (They would only stock 1 zone each week.) The program ran May-Nov which is 7 months. The DFG didn't raise the catfish they purchased them from Imperial Catfish Farm. (the same fish SARL stocks) The average amount of lakes the DFG would stock in a week was 13. (you can check that by some old stocking schedules are still posted) I have signed the Imperial Catfish Farms receipts before, they needed a witness to prove they stocked that lake that day. Written right on the receipt was the cost of the catfish plant. ($1,200 per lake) Now let's do the math, we times $1,200 by 13 lakes = $15,600 a week. They would stock 3 weeks out of the month, so we times $15,600 by 3 = $46,800 per month. They would stock 7 months out of the year, so you would times $46,800 a month by 7 = $327,600 per year. Yep that's all it cost per year. I used the figure of $500,000 for inflation and cost over runs, so I am right in the ball park. Any more questions or signing autographs lol I'll be at Carbon Canyon Regional park this weekend. Their having a catfish derby, I'll be easy to spot, I'll be using a bobber releasing catfish after catfish!!!!! lol