Dear Mr.nmnmnmnmn,


Thank you for contacting me regarding fishing and hunting fees. I appreciate your comments and having the benefit of your views.



As you are aware, the State of Connecticut recently decided to double fees for hunting, trapping, fishing and other activities. Because I am a member of the U. S. House of Representatives, I do not have jurisdiction over state laws regarding increases on state administered fees. I encourage you to contact your state legislators to share your views on this matter. You can find out how to contact your legislator at the Connecticut General Assembly's website, http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CGAFindLeg.asp.



That said, I agree with you and as a strong supporter of Connecticut's sportsmen I am concerned about the impact this will have on sportsmen across our state. I personally sent a letter on November 9, 2009 to Governor Rell and leaders in the Connecticut General Assembly sharing my belief that "to balance the budget on the backs of these sportsmen is inherently unfair and should be reconsidered in future budget negotiations".



As a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus I am deeply committed to protecting the historic role that sportsmen have played in our state and our nation. Sportsmen play an integral role in our communities and have contributed substantially to many charitable efforts. One organization, Hunters for the Hungry, has been particularly helpful to many communities especially during these difficult economic times by providing fresh meat to local food banks. You may be interested to know that I cosponsored a resolution, H. Res. 270, recognizing the accomplishments of that organization and even spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives to honor local hunters in Connecticut who participate in that program.



You will also be interested to know that I was the only member of the Connecticut congressional delegation to support the "Coburn amendment," which allows law abiding gun owners to carry firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges where permitted by state law. This amendment was added to H. R. 627 which was signed into law by President Barack Obama on May 22, 2009.



Should you have any additional comments or suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future. For more information on my views on other issues or to see what I have been working on in Congress, please feel free to visit my official website at www.house.gov/courtney and sign up for my e-newsletter.



Sincerely,

JOSEPH COURTNEY
Member of Congress

Old Fart let's settle it, you can be older LOL. However, we both benefit by being older than age 65 because we are exempt from paying for a license. Gotta love this state LOL.

On to more serious matters, Dave Proulx, former SAC Chairman reports:

Our state insiders lobbyist, Bob Crooke and John Larkin said "nothing is moving yet because the legislature is trying to get a grip on what "money bills" they can try to address in the short session, given the gaping budget hole. The good news is that Bob counts 60 rep supporters so far (1/3 of the legislators have weighed in positively, with more to come according to Bob). Overall message from Bob Crooke is that the personal phone calls and letters are the most effective method of getting attention on this issue, since either reps or more likely their aids, must deal with the influx of calls and commuications.

Swifty, my friend, as promised, the Hartford Courant editorial that incorporates some of your points follows. Because the editorial will receive public scrutiny I am looking for edit feedback from any who wish to do so.

The editorial

The General Assembly has increased many Sportsmen’s Fees by 100%. The fees increase is tantamount to a regressive tax on CT’s low income tax payers, student’s, unemployed, and young people; a sector presenting no political/voter risk to our state representatives.
Unfortunately, sportsmen vote with their dollars, when driven away from their hobby. Historically, as Sportsmen are driven from their sport funding for Ct's natural resources is reduced, and state state revenue revenue is negatively impacted.

The legislation was passed as quick-fix to CT’s budget crisis and without benefit of reviewing 2003's "fees" increase data. The historical data demonstrates that Sportsmen Fees are very price sensitive. In 2003 Sportsmen’s Fees were increased 40%. As a result of the 2003 legislation, residential and non-residential, Sportsmen’s numbers declined. A decline in Ct's Sportsmen caused a decline of sportsmen expenditures and non-residential sportsmen tourism dollars spent in neighboring states. The snowball effect of the 2003 Fees increase negatively impact a powerful economic engine.

As a result of the 2003 Fees increase many sportsmen cut back on license purchases and non-resident sportsmen choose to hunt and fish in other nearby states. While 2003 fees increase produced a relatively small gain in fee revenue, it caused the following losses: : (data from- )

• a loss of over 200 jobs
• $14.5m decrease in fishing and hunting retail sales
• loss of $980,000 in Sales Tax
• and, a total loss of $25.3 million to state revenue through a negative multiplier effect.

These 2003 losses project a very negative implications for 2010. 2003’s economic losses occurred in financially good times, while the 2010 Fees increase is imposed in financially bad times. In 2010 the 100% fees increase will dwarf any revenue gains realized from the fee increase.

January and February license purchase records already reveal a dramatic decline in licenses purchased.

Surely there are other strategies that will mitigate Ct's budgetary crisis; strategies that will not harm the already burdened law abiding, lower and middle income classes and strategies that will not damage Connecticut’s already fragile economy.

Consider a few revenue producing strategies, such as:

• increase fines for traffic violations and other misdemeanors-- raise liquor taxes-- raise cigarette taxes
• increase the cost of Lottery Tickets, all none price sensitive, socially beneficial acts.
• Impose a progressive income tax increase. The upside of a small income tax increase will help solve CT's budgetary while. The only downside to an income tax increase is that politicians would have to impose a small burden on a powerful electorate, instead of abusing less powerful constituents.
• Establish toll booths on Ct's interstate highways. MA, NH, ME, NY, NJ, and PA all have toll roads and collect revenues from CT citizens every time they travel through those states.
• Charge a luxury tax for out of state trucks or any vehicle that spend the night in Ct's rest areas. The cost of keeping rest areas open is considerable. Why should CT have to pay for the upkeep, cleaning, and maintenance of rest areas for out of state travelers and truckers?
• Trucks should be fined for parking on the side of the interstate highways when the driver gets caught in the bunk sleeping.

How about more disciplined spending strategies:

1. Impose mandatory drug testing for recipients of welfare and/or unemployment benefits-- abuses have existed for years.

4) Freeze state wages; private industry does. Solicit support of Ct's voters through a PR campaign to fight the state unions and impose a normal 40+ hour work weeks instead of the liberal standards. In these difficult times the norm for private industry is an imposition of 50 and 60-hour weeks for salaried employees or they risk being first in line for the next lay-off. Every full time job I ever had was a 40 hour+ work week.

There are many ways the state could reduce costs and increase revenues with out effecting the leisure time and privileges of a small group.

Raising Sportsmen’s Fees will diminish support for our natural resources and negatively impact state revenue. It makes no “cents”.

I would cut everything that comes after "January and February license purchase records already reveal a dramatic decline in licenses purchased."

IMO, they're all ideas that belong in a different article. No need for us to solve the problem once we have fought to show how this one solution - hiking our fees - is unfair and unsound financially, and hurts wildlife/conservation (where did that go in the article anyway?). After that i think it get's a little derailed and illogical - and just really bad strategy. The toll booth idea is a good one, in a general, not that it has anything to do with fishing, etc. But i think it looks bad for us to say `hey, don't hang us from the neck - i got some other people you can hang instead'. Believe me, the people we're appealing to have no more sympathy for Swifty's luxury of leisure time to fish/hunt than he does for the abusive welfare mom, they would tax it or take it away just as easily and justifiably as he would the welfare benefits for the `abuser'. Or the stuff about increasing taxes/prices on booze, smokes, lottery tickets. If the state is going belly-up, and we're all facing this burden, there is nothing inherently self-evident that would explain why a person buying a beer or lottery ticket should suddenly shoulder a greater responsibility of the debt burden, no more reason than say, a fisherman. Because of that, i don't think it's a successful ploy to use that in the article.

Stick to what is inherent, necessary, and logical - it derives less money for the state in the long run, it hurts the sport (for everyone, child, adult, etc), and it gives wildlife a kick in the balls. They can't argue that. And you won't win an argument trying to say `our problems are greater than yours'. Stick with whatever makes our problems also theirs.

(longer PM to follow Tony)

Chris

Thanks Chris and Jig Head,

Chris, your points are well taken. As offered in your PM, I would welcome your redraft. The objective is to create an editorial for others others to submit to local newspapers.

Please post your redraft in this thread.