STATEWIDE — California has often thumped its chest as being a trendsetting state, the notion being concepts and ideas originating here eventually becoming the norm everywhere else within a matter of
Menu
Menu
Menu
Menu
7 Responses
Added this comment to last year’s story, but meant to put it here.
There’s a third option that seldom gets mentioned that would restore some revenue: proration. There must be some number of casual anglers who look at the calendar during the summer and fall and just skip buying the license for the remainder of the calendar year. Instead, there should be tiers of cost that decrease through the season. This is how some some sports channels (NBA League Pass comes to mind). This would bridge the gap between one- and two-day passes and the annual cost which just doesn’t represent a good value during summer, when fishing has maximum appeal.
Again California screws us. I was gone all summer working so I didn’t buy a licence. I would have bought one when I returned in October but I’m not paying the full price for a few months. The reasons Ca. gives for not changing the law is rediculous. I bet more people would be purchasing licences throughout the year if it was good for a year from the time purchased. Again California’s reason for not changing the law is more money, according to some “expert”.
California is not willing to change their policy because the right to fish in California is written into the State’s constitution. No license is required, yet they legislated the privilege in anyways charging a fee. See the Article 1 Section25 of the Cal Constitution. Furthermore, in accordance with Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943), the State cannot turn a “right” into a privilege and charge a fee. With the advent of social media and this information going viral, the State is unwilling to shake that tree for fear of disturbing the hornets nest rather than harvesting more fruit (fees). IMHO
I’m an avid fisherman and a veteran living in California, I buy my fishing license the first or second week in January every year. My wife and I go fishing all over the state throughout the year legally. I do agree that the state could use a 12 month fishing license system and believe that it could boost fishing license sales not hurt it.
In the year 2018 I asked more then 90 people while fishing in different places across California if they had purchased a fishing license. 85% said no because it was to expensive and they were only going fishing that day. The Governor of the State of California is planning to give out health insurance to illegal aliens, using California taxpayer money to do so, recovering those funds could be done by the Dept. of Fish and Game officers ticketing those fisherman who fail to comply with state fishing regulations and abuse this states fishing areas. This will allow the targeted funds (fishing licenses and hunting licenses sales dollars) to be used planting fish and taking care of wildlife areas. Having a 12 month fishing license program would benefit California greatly, reducing the cost wouldn’t hurt either.
excellent thoughts until illegal aliens 🙁 which makes less credible.
No, Glenn is spot on about the illegal aliens as well as his thoughts about the fishing laws. Let me guess JJ, you are a democrat?
You couldn’t be more correct about unfairness of CA’s 31 Dec fishing license expiration, ESPECIALLY for non-residents paying from near States’ (UT, WA, NV, AZ) whose 365 Non-resident annual licenses are 30-45% LESS than CA’s! Add in that many CA fishing visitors are “seasonal” and it makes it even worse!! 🙁