Thanks for feedback. Chris ad Jig Head suggested all revenue point should be removed from the editorial for other reasons. Chris (Cblanc) is redrafting the editorial, since his writing skills are much better than mine.

I thought you were going to sunny Florida. I am in Florida and it is cold for here-high 50's and 60's. Staying near the Harris chain of lakes. Put on shorts once in 8-days.

My flight is on the 14th, will be back up on the 19th. I usually try to goto Arizona or Florida in mid to late March (although it's been a few years now...) because I find the weather is usually very good around then and Spring Training Baseball is better then the first couple weeks of March.

Well I have to go with my poor writing skills. Thanks for the input,I did receive. This is a redraft of my letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant. Hopefully, the letter is something other CTFers will send to their local papers and or their reps..

If you are not sure how to send an letter to the editor, I well do it for you. Just PM me your newspapers name, and your name and address. I'll be sending the editorial under your name.

The Letter

Sportsmen’s Fee Increase Negatively Impacts CT’s Budgetary Crisis

The General Assembly increased many Sportsmen-Fees by 100% for 2010 in order to help raise state revenue. However, Sportsmen Fees are sensitive to price increases, because CT and non-resident Sportsmen have buying options. CT imposes the highest Fees of any contiguous state, so, many sportsmen will purchase licenses out of state and many sportsmen will give up their sport. The loss of CT sportsmen will result in a loss of tourism and sportsmen’s expenditures in our state. History demonstrates that a loss of sportsmen expenditures will cause a loss of state revenue.

In 2003 Sportsmen’s Fees were increased 40%. The Fee increase caused a loss of licensed sportsmen and sporting goods expenditures in CT. As a result of these state losses CT realized a relatively small gain in fee revenue, while the following losses were realized:

• A loss of over 200 jobs from sportsmen related businesses,
• $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 economic multiplier effect.
*** Data source: www.asafishing.org


Beware, 2003’s state-revenue losses occurred in financially good times, while 2010’s, Fee increase is imposed in financially bad times. Alarmingly, 2010’s revenue a gain from the Fee purchases will be dwarfed by unintended, state-revenue losses.

Surely, there are many ways the state could increase revenues without imposing a disproportionate financial burden on a small group of hobbyist, while not doing damage to CT’s already fragile economy. (Re-installing toll booths on the Merit Parkway and I-95 come to mind. I have to pay for tolls traveling through MA, NJ, NY, ME, PA. I just paid $28 to pass through Florida.)

Raising Sportsmen’s Fees will diminish support for our natural resources and negatively impact state revenue.

It makes no “cents”.

Tony Melito
72 Timberwood Rd.
West Hartford, CT

Just received a reply to my email from Rep Bly.

Dear Representative Bye,

I am very disappointed in your representation of “representative government". Your response to my letter is a form letter response that does not address the input I provided. My message to you is copied below.
Your closing Paragraph is an embarrassment to one who voted for you and degrades representative government; “I would consider supporting a decrease in the fees if and only if a fair and equitable budgetary offset can be found".

Sportsmen’s Fee Increase Negatively Impacts CT’s Budgetary Crisis
The General Assembly increased many Sportsmen-Fees by 100% for 2010 in order to help raise state revenue. However, Sportsmen Fees are sensitive to price increases, because CT and non-resident Sportsmen have buying options. CT imposes the highest Fees of any contiguous state, so, many sportsmen will purchase licenses out of state and many sportsmen will give up their sport. The loss of CT sportsmen will result in a loss of tourism and sportsmen’s expenditures in our state. History demonstrates that a loss of sportsmen expenditures will cause a loss of state revenue.

In 2003 Sportsmen’s Fees were increased 40%. The Fee increase caused a loss of licensed sportsmen and sporting goods expenditures in CT. As a result of these state losses CT realized a relatively small gain in fee revenue, while the following losses were realized:

• A loss of over 200 jobs from sportsmen related businesses,
• $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 economic multiplier effect.
*** Data source: www.asafishing.org


Beware, 2003’s state-revenue losses occurred in financially good times, while 2010’s, Fee increase is imposed in financially bad times. Alarmingly, 2010’s revenue a gain from the Fee purchases will be dwarfed by unintended, state-revenue losses.

Surely, there are many ways the state could increase revenues without imposing a disproportionate financial burden on a small group of hobbyist, while not doing damage to CT’s already fragile economy. (Re-installing toll booths on the Merit Parkway and I-95 come to mind. I have to pay for tolls traveling through MA, NJ, NY, ME, PA. I just paid $28 to pass through Florida.)

Raising Sportsmen’s Fees will diminish support for our natural resources and negatively impact state revenue.

It makes no “cents”.

Tony Melito
72 Timberwood Rd.
West Hartford, CT

Here's the Reply from Sandy Nafis

Hi Michael

Thanks for your email regarding the fee increases that occurred for parks and fishing. Several of us have been working to get these rolled back, and I want to see if happen in the next few weeks when we go in so as not to impact the spring visits to our parks. We are in a difficult position with the economy, but these are a place for all of our residents and should be affordable and accessible for everyone.

Sandy