Below is my email to my state rep and state senator who both sit on this committee. I have copied the Attorney General's office as an FYI and if they see fit to investigate that probably would be appropriate.

----------------------------------------------------------------

SB 207

This Bill is coming up for a vote tomorrow in a committee that you both represent. It is critical to vote for the Bill to roll back the outrageous doubling of hunting, fishing, trapping and camping fees and licenses.
Both the Elasticity of Demand and the Law of Diminishing Returns have been invoked. YTD, license revenues are at best even with last year but the number of licenses sold is running anywhere from 30% to 50% below historical averages. This means our less fortunate residents and most non-residents are no longer capable of affording to fish or hunt in Ct. This may be illegal.
In general, based upon YTD statistics, it would be reasonable to define these 100% fee increases as an Economic Barrier. Economic Barriers are illegal under Anti-Trust doctrine and under Discrimination Law. It is why any kind of monopoly power is either stopped or highly regulated. When States are allowed certain monopoly powers, such as recreational licensing, there comes with this ability a responsibility for reasonable pricing practices consistent with those found in other states and supportive of full participation by every citizen. When Ct. raised sporting licenses and fees 100% from previously high bases it violated the public trust requirement of responsible government. In that regard, the actions of the Legislature and the Executive Branch may have been illegal.
Further, with regards to non-residents, it may inhibit Interstate Commerce which is covered under the U.S. Constitution.
The State maintains a monopoly on licensing and therefore can price offerings with impunity since there is no competition. When the offering is priced above a fair market value this is a form of Refusing to Deal or similarly, pricing an Essential Facility well above fair market prices. It is a form of Price Gouging.
Rarely is this done though. An example are States with retail authority over alchoholic beverages. Rarely are these alcoholic products priced above MSRP and therefore, constitute NO ECONOMIC BARRIER to accepted retail trade practices. A fee increase for sporting licenses in Ct. of around 20% would be reasonable in our current economic environment and could be considered not an economic barrier to accepted licensing pricing practices.
With Ct. now significantly higher than any other state in the East such that a Ct. resident can buy a non-resident fishing license in Ma. or RI cheaper than he can buy a resident license in Ct., it is clear Ct. is using its monopoly power to impose an Economic Barrier to Ct. sportsmen.
It was not only a poor economic choice with a negative business model, that excluded an entire class of citizens, but it may be illegal as stated above.
Please fix this injustice by passing SB 207.
Thanking you in advance,

George R Buck
New Fairfield
203-746-2389

Guys,

Wanted to share this with you. Just recieved this tonight...

__________________________________________________________________


Don,

I wanted to follow up on this email you sent in December.

Tonight, after months of work, I am pleased to let you know that the House of Representatives is voting to roll back the fee increases felt by sportsmen in Connecticut.

Instead of a 100% increase, most fees will be rolled back to a 35% increase over 2009 levels. I had supported more aggressive fee reductions, but this is a good compromise that will provide real relief to sportsmen.

Thank you again for taking the time to write and for helping bring this important issue to my attention.

Very best,

Matt Lesser

------
Representative Matthew Lesser
One Hundredth District of Connecticut
Middlefield * Middletown * Rockfall * Durham
Hartford: Room 4014, Legislative Office Building Hartford, CT 06106
Tel. (860) 240-8585, Fax. (860) 240-8429
District: 1160 S. Main Street #110, Middletown, CT 06457.
Tel. (860) 344-1230

The roll back passed in the house lastnight... Only one no vote is what I was told!

As mentioned above, fees reduction sailed through the House last night with only one NO vote. Fee rollback to 35% increase from previous 100% increase. Duck Stamp Fund reinstated, although in a somewhat new format. Don't have any details yet.

Bill is going to the Senate this morning, then to the Governor for signature. Target is to have it become law by Monday.

John Larkin told me that this bill was the only bill that carried any amount of tax revenue "reduction" (albeit a theoretical one) that was considered as part of the larger overall Deficit Mitigation plan being worked at the legislature during this session. The fact that this bill got on the agenda, gained strong consensus and FLEW through last night was seen as "nothing short of a miracle" by several folks who were there last night.

More to come after the Senate vote.

Thanks,will do.