Consider enclosing the "State Financial Impact Flyer", located in Thread 9a.

Below are some samples you can use to stir your own creative juices. Keep the letters focused on the single point of rolling back the 100% fee increase, or restoration of the Conservation Fund.

Please review the State Revenue Impact thread. It makes a powerful argument for a fees roll back. The intention is for you to copy, print and enclose the flyer in your letter.

Bullet Points

1. 100% fees increase is a regressive tax that hits young adults, low income, and middle income tax payers. Please read the attached flyer. You hurt me and produced a net loss in state revenue.

2. The cost of out state licenses is a deterrent to sportsmen tourism to CT. Relative cost compared to NY, VT and MA is way out of line. Please read the attached flyer. You hurt me and produced a net loss in state revenue.

3. In the past, I bought a number of licenses for hunting and fishing. Some of the license I use often, and others occasionally. The state has doubled my cost of all licenses and tags from $225 to $400 and that of my 3-sons from $150 to $275. You have forced me to drive an extra 30-miles to get out of this state. Please read the attached flyer. You hurt me and produced a net loss in state revenue.


4. I will be forced to cut back on my hunting tags and eliminate my occasional saltwater fishing. And, when I study the attached flyer, I learned states revenue will be negatively impacted. I respectfully ask, “Has Hartford made an informed decision?”.

5. The license increase hurts those that obey the law and low income folks like me. I can’t afford to enjoy our outdoors as much as I would like and won’t be able to enjoy a sport that has been in my family for generations. Please read the attached flyer. You hurt me and produced a net loss in state revenue.


6- How about increasing fines on non-law abiding citizens? Instead of loosing fees from people like me, you can increase violation fees and benefit the public. At the same time instead of killing my family’s tradition, you may stop a law breaker’s family tradition of law-breaking. Please read the attached flyer. You hurt me and produced a net loss in state revenue.

7. I feel hurt by my Representatives. Please, stop this fees increase. Please read the attached flyer. You hurt me and produced a net loss in state revenue.

8. The reduced revenue will result in fewer sportsmen participating in sports and fewer out of state sportsman fishing and hunting in CT. Sportsmen have the option to hunt/fish in MA, NH, and NY…. Please read the attached flyer. You hurt me and produced a net loss in state revenue.

9. I fear that the legislatures will use a downturn in 2010 licenses sales to further reduce expenditures to our natural resources, while killing a heritage that began at our country birth. Please read the attached flyer. You hurt me and produced a net loss in state revenue.

`10. It’s cheaper to hunt in NJ as a non-resident than as a resident in CT. In NJ, children have a free firearm and bow hunting license which includes free waterfowl stamps and pheasant stamps. I would pay less than ½ the price for deer and turkey permits in NJ. This is one example of options available to CT sportsmen that live close to another state and in CT, almost everyone lives close to another state. You force sportsmen to spend money out of state and that is bad for CT. Please read the enclosed flyer and ask yourself is the 100% fee increase is an informed decision? Please. Share your answer with me.

11. Falconry is the only fee that did not increase. The falconry fee was reduced from $75 to $28 for a non-resident. Where is the logic in doubling other sportsmen’s fees and reducing falconry fees by 66%? Please read the logic presented in the attached flyer. I did. The 100% fees increase is illogical. You hurt me and produced a net loss in state revenue.


12 Cheaper options exist for sportsman by travelling out of state. CT is a small state. Travel distance to other states is short. Compare sportsman’s fess in states with in driving distance of CT: Maine to Ohio; West VA to MD. Please read the attached flyer.

13. I live in western CT. The 100% fees increase is forcing me , my family, and my dollars out of state and will keeping non-residents from coming in.
Please read the attached flyer.
Your actions will produce a net loss of state revenue. Please explain the legislature’s thought process.



14. Free federal registration will apply in Ma and RI next year. CT fees are driving sportsmen out of CT. I’ll be moving my boat 25-miles down the road to RI. Please read the attached flyer. You hurt me and produced a net loss in state revenue.

15. Please support the reinstatement of the Conservation Fund and establishment of a Marine Fishing Account through the fees generated by the Saltwater Fishing License. The protection and enhancement of our natural resources will result in increased licenses, increased tourism, increased sales taxes revenue, and sustained employment from our local tackle dealers.

Please read and try to understand the attach State Revenue Impact flyer. The Legislature demonstrates no understanding of the consequences of their actions.

16. I am upset that my state Representatives are doubling our sportsmen’s fees.
I am outraged that my fees increase then goes to the general fund. Our fees, not
the general taxes protect our natural resources and wildlife.

17. Furthermore, sportsmen’s expenditures nation-wide would rank as the 47th largest in corporate output. We support tourism, tackle sales taxes, tackle business employment all of which generates state income.

18. Young people do not have $80 to buy licenses for fresh and saltwater fishing,plus small game hunting. You are killing a tradition for some families that started with the arrival of the Mayflower and for what. Please educate your self and read the attached flyer.

19. Many will decide to take their children on party boats and charters boats and escape the fees out of protest.

20. Many will decide to be like the Robin Hood of old and just hunt the KINGS land without a license. The legislature is forcing low income citizens into civil disobedience. These should not be a rich man’s sports.

21. The 100% increase in sportsmen’s fees is a regressive tax. And, the diversion of funds to the general fund is a breach of a public contract. The legislature has sent us back to the spark of the American Revolution: Taxation without representation.”

22. As a non-resident last year I spent over $600 for non-resident fees in CT. In 2010 me and my dollars will stay in NH and my brother, his son’s and their dollars will visit me in NH.

23. Hunting and fishing have been a tradition in my family for 3-generations. In 2010 it will cost me and additional $500 to have my 16 & 17 year olds fish and hunt with me. Times are tough with work cut backs. I am struggling to pay my other bills. The 100% increase in sportsmen’s fees really hurts the little guy.

24. I will not buy a saltwater license next year as I only fish saltwater 2-times per year.

25. OLR report 2009-R-0470 produced for Rep. Bryan Hurlburt, Co-Chair of the Environment Committee clearly points out that Connecticut's fees for sportsmen and women are among the highest from West Virginia to Ohio to Maine.

26.I will not be purchasing a Ct fresh and salt water license in 2010.
Now multiply that by many more of our over taxed, jobless, large families, and people on a strict incomes.

27. I, have been out of work, (fill your reason)reasons, and fishing is the only thing I have to keep me grounded. Now that privilege is being attacked.
I feel our rights are being violated, and our fishing fee monies are not being used for the conservation of fishing and hunting for the generations to come.

28. Fishing and outdoor recreation in Connecticut has for years been affordable or free to our residents. Through the implementation of the saltwater license and the 100% increase in our freshwater license a number of residents of Connecticut will be unable to legally fish within our state for financial reasons. In turn, the state will LOSE funds normally generated from those anglers. Aside from the obvious forty dollar license fee the State will not get, local businesses such as tackle shops, restaurants, gas stations, and hotels will be negatively impacted because its normal customers and source of income will no longer be purchasing fishing related goods and services.

Additionally, the fee increase distributes nothing directly into Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection agency (D.E.P.), and instead dumps proceeds into the general fund. The D.E.P. is largely under funded and understaffed, and would benefit greatly from a direct allocation of funds. The enforcement of fishing regulations across the state, as well as providing our D.E.P. officers with the proper equipment, tools and funds to safeguard its angling populous is essential to the future of fisheries and outdoor recreation in Connecticut. Not allocating funds from the cost of our fishing license to the D.E.P. cripples our progress towards improving our fisheries and keeping our public waters clean and safe because it eliminates the D.E.P.’s ability to protect and enforce regulations. No funds = no enforcement! This is not what the anglers of Connecticut want!

I am asking for your support in reducing the fees for fishing within the State of Connecticut. Fishing in Connecticut should be well within the budget of all of its’ citizens, and the monies collected from its fee system should be put back into the protection and preservation of the states outdoor resources.

29.By Taxing recreational hunting and fishing licenses, sportsmen ARE being singled out and this is just plain wrong.

Are there taxes on: hiking, biking, dog walking, snow boarding, horseback riding, bird watching, coin collecting, cooking, pottery, rock collecting, knitting, scrapbooking, sculpting, gardening, paintballing, snokeling, skateboarding, golfing, dancing, camping....and so on..........NO

Then why is my hobby taxible - yet these are not???