Posted by average jane on October 20, 2003 at 13:19:31:
In Reply to: Re: Why do recreational fishers pay so much more than commercial? posted by Sonke on October 20, 2003 at 08:55:10:
The DFG intentions as you put it are transparent.
Recreational fishers paid almost $50 million to the state of California in 2001 and they took about 50 million pounds of fish, thus $1 per lb. taken.
During that same period, commercial fishers paid $3.4 million and took over 400 million pounds, thus $0.01 per lb. taken.
You propose to raise fees to your recreational constituents that are not proportional to the commercial industry
What is apparent is that you are milking the cash cow of least resistance.
Is there a limit to this imbalance or will the DFG forever continue to increase the tax on the masses, to benefit the few that impact the most?
Let's try this scenario for a change:
Recreational fishers pay $3.4 million to the state of California in the future and they take about 50 million pounds of fish, thus $0.07 per pound
During that same period, commercial fishers pay $50 million and take over 400 million pounds, thus $0.12 per pound
In this case I do not have a problem if you want to increase the recreational fees 150% to obtain parity, and you get more funding!
Post a Followup