IMPORTANT: What would you change about California's fishing license?

[PAL]

In my posts over on Facebook, the idea of a 365-day license is overwhelmingly supported. Some background, there are two bills being considered in the legislature. One, IIRC, adds a 20% fee to the current license price for the privilege. The other, SB518, sets the 365-day license at the same price, but requires optional auto renewal. If you don't choose to auto renew, there's an extra 30% fee.

Which of these, if any, do you support?

[goldenglory18]

Originally Posted by PAL

The other, SB518, sets the 365-day license at the same price, but requires optional auto renewal.

This is perfect, especially for hardcore anglers that are always licensed. Without reading into the whole bill, I'm 100% into the idea.

[Denis_Ruso]

I'd be up for an additional recreational license to fish the MPAs. Gladly pay an extra 50-60$ a year.

Also I've always though that the year from date of purchase was a no-brainer. Would incentivize people to purchase the yearly license throughout the year rather than waiting for January. I don't see the need to raise the fee as you would already have an increase of participants.

[Mr. NiceGuy]

Originally Posted by PAL

In my posts over on Facebook, the idea of a 365-day license is overwhelmingly supported. Some background, there are two bills being considered in the legislature. One, IIRC, adds a 20% fee to the current license price for the privilege. The other, SB518, sets the 365-day license at the same price, but requires optional auto renewal. If you don't choose to auto renew, there's an extra 30% fee.

Which of these, if any, do you support?

They will not vote to cut their source of funds. Bureaucracy does not work like that. They will use every scheme and tax and hidden squeeze of money they can think of to expand, hire more people, do more studies, expand their jurisdiction, have more meetings, drive around, buy more expensive trucks, boats and equipment at exorbitant prices, etc., until they ultimately collapse under their own bloated dead weight. That's the reality of what's happening to us.

Both schemes you mentioned are attempts to increase revenue, no matter how it's spun. We can't be naive about this. They never cut costs. To the people who run our government and rule over us, bloated waste and rampant inefficiency is a luxury of what they do, at the expense of us peasants who are forced to support them.

[battleborn]

Originally Posted by Mr. NiceGuy

They will not vote to cut their source of funds. Bureaucracy does not work like that. They will use every scheme and tax and hidden squeeze of money they can think of to expand, hire more people, do more studies, expand their jurisdiction, buy more expensive trucks, boats and equipment at exorbitant prices, etc., until they ultimately collapse under their own bloated dead weight. That's the reality of what's happening to us.

Both schemes you mentioned are attempts to increase revenue, no matter how it's spun. We can't be naive about this. They never cut costs. To the people who run our government and rule over us, bloated waste and rampant inefficiency is a luxury of what they do, at the expense of us peasants who support them.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Mr. NiceGuy]

Buying a one year license that is good for 6 months doubles our cost. Neat trick, eh Watt? The people who write deceptive laws like this think they are being clever, then it's rammed down our throats whether we agree or not.

To give us a so-called "privilege" for 20% or 30% more for relief from this scam is just as deceptive and disingenuous.