CT Fishing Lic. have been reduced!!!

The roll back of Sportman's fees is included in HB 5545. It passed in the House last night and is set for the Senate today. Could be Signed by the Governor within a few days.


http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/...amp;SUBMIT1.y=5

. 34. Section 26-27b of the 2010 supplement to the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(a) On or after July 1, 1993, no person sixteen years of age or older may hunt waterfowl or take waterfowl in the state without first procuring a Connecticut Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp and having such stamp in his possession. [with his signature written in ink across the face of the stamp while hunting waterfowl or taking waterfowl. ] The stamp shall not be transferable and shall be issued annually. [beginning on July first. ]

(b) The Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall provide for the design, production and procurement of the mandatory Connecticut Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp and shall, by regulations adopted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54, provide for the issuance of the stamp. Stamps shall be sold at a price determined by the commissioner, provided the price of a mandatory stamp shall not exceed [fifteen] thirteen dollars. The commissioner shall establish an additional voluntary migratory bird conservation donation of not less than two dollars that shall be deposited in the migratory bird conservation account established under section 26-27c, as amended by this act. Any agent [or town clerk] issuing such stamps may retain a fee [of fifty cents] established by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection pursuant to section 72 of this act, for each stamp sold and shall remit the balance to the Department of Environmental Protection.

Sec. 35. Section 26-28 of the 2010 supplement to the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the fees for firearms hunting, archery hunting, trapping and sport fishing licenses or for the combination thereof shall be as follows: (1) Resident firearms hunting license, [twenty-eight] nineteen dollars; (2) resident fishing license, [forty] twenty-eight dollars; (3) resident marine waters fishing license, ten dollars; (4) one-day resident marine waters fishing license, [fifteen] five dollars; (5) resident all-waters fishing license, [fifty] thirty-two dollars; (6) resident combination license to fish in inland waters and firearms hunt, [fifty-six] thirty-eight dollars; (7) resident combination license to fish in marine waters and firearms hunt, [fifty] twenty-five dollars; (8) resident combination license to fish in all waters and firearms hunt, [sixty] thirty-eight dollars; (9) resident combination license to fish in all waters and bow and arrow permit to hunt deer and small game issued pursuant to section 26-86c, as amended by this act, [eighty-four] sixty-five dollars; (10) resident firearms super sport license to fish in all waters and firearms hunt, firearms private land shotgun or rifle deer permit issued pursuant to section 26-86a, as amended by this act, and permit to hunt wild turkey during the spring season on private land issued pursuant to section 26-48a, as amended by this act, [one hundred sixteen] eighty dollars; (11) resident archery super sport license to fish in all waters, bow and arrow permit to hunt deer and small game issued pursuant to section 26-86c, as amended by this act, and permit to hunt wild turkey during the spring season on private land issued pursuant to section 26-48a, as amended by this act, [one hundred four] eighty-two dollars; (12) resident firearms super sport license to fish in all waters and firearms hunt, firearms private land shotgun or rifle deer permit, muzzleloader private land deer permit, pursuant to section 26-86, as amended by this act, and private land permit to hunt wild turkey during spring season pursuant to section 26-48a, as amended by this act, eighty-four dollars; (13) resident firearms super sport license to fish in all waters and firearms hunt, migratory bird conservation stamp, and migratory bird harvest permit (HIP), sixty dollars; (14) resident trapping license, [fifty] thirty-four dollars; [(13)] (15) resident junior trapping license for persons under sixteen years of age, [fifteen] eleven dollars; [(14)] (16) junior firearms hunting license, [fifteen] eleven dollars; [(15)] (17) nonresident firearms hunting license, [one hundred thirty-four] ninety-one dollars; [(16)] (18) nonresident inland waters fishing license, [eighty] fifty-five dollars; [(17)] (19) nonresident inland waters fishing license for a period of three consecutive days, [thirty-two] twenty-two dollars; [(18)] (20) nonresident marine waters fishing license, [sixty] fifteen dollars; [(19)] (21) nonresident marine waters fishing license for a period of three consecutive days, [twenty-four] eight dollars; [(20)] (22) nonresident all-waters fishing license, [one hundred] sixty-three dollars; [(21)] (23) nonresident combination license to firearms hunt and inland waters fish, [one hundred seventy-six] one hundred ten dollars; [(22)] (24) nonresident combination license to fish in all waters and firearms hunt, [one hundred ninety] one hundred twenty dollars; [(23)] (25) nonresident combination license to fish in marine waters and firearms hunt, [one hundred seventy] ninety-four dollars; and [(24)] (26) nonresident trapping license, two hundred fifty dollars. Persons sixty-five years of age and over who have been residents of this state for not less than one year and who meet the requirements of subsection (b) of section 26-31 may be issued an annual license to firearms hunt or to fish or combination license to fish and firearms hunt or a license to trap without fee. The issuing agency shall indicate on a combination license the specific purpose for which such license is issued. The town clerk shall retain a recording fee of one dollar for each license issued by him.

(b) Any nonresident residing in one of the New England states or the state of New York may procure a license to hunt or to fish or to hunt and fish for the same fee or fees as a resident of this state if he is a resident of a state the laws of which allow the same privilege to residents of this state.

§§ 34-49 & 64-72 & 74 — DEP FEES AND RELATED PROVISIONS

This bill decreases several sportsman's fees and caps camping and state park fees.
The bill also creates and allows for donations of at least $ 2 to the Connecticut Migratory Bird Conservation account.

The bill requires that funds accruing from any permit, tag, or stamp fees, excluding the migratory bird conservation stamp and fees paid by trappers and anglers, fund the programs and functions of the Bureau of Natural Resources within the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) according to federal regulations. It also requires the DEP to submit an annual report to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service, detailing the funds raised, expenses, and spending purposes of sportsman's fees and stamps.

The bill requires the DEP commissioner to establish (1) procedures and business processes for using the internet and other means for communication to conduct transactions for licenses, permits, stamps, and tags and (2) a schedule of the parts of fees agents may retain.

The bill also increases, to $ 87 from $ 77, the fee for any violation of the sportsmen's statutes for which no other fee is specified.

Connecticut Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp and Donation

The bill decreases, from $ 15 to $ 13, the fee for purchasing a Connecticut Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp which a person must have to hunt waterfowl (CGS § 26-27b). It also eliminates the (1) requirement that the stamp have the hunter's signature written in ink across the stamp's face, (2) July 1 issuance date, and (3) town clerks' ability to retain a $ . 50 fee for stamp issuance. It allows the DEP commissioner to set the issuance fee that agents may retain instead of the current $ . 50 fee. It requires the Citizens' Advisory Board for the Connecticut Migratory Bird Conservation Stamp to advise the commissioner on the expenditure of funds generated from the sale of stamps and art products.

The bill also creates and allows for additional donations of at least $ 2 to be deposited into the Voluntary Migratory Bird Conservation Donation subaccount, within the Connecticut Migratory Bird Conservation account. The account is a separate, non-lapsing account maintained by the state treasurer within the General Fund. Funds in the account must only be used for (1) developing, managing, preserving, conserving, acquiring, purchasing, and maintaining waterfowl habitat and wetlands or acquisition of related recreational rights or interests or (2) designing, producing, promoting, procuring, and selling prints and related artwork.

Decreased Sportsman's Fees and Supersport Licenses

Resident Sportsman's Licenses. The bill creates two new resident firearms supersport licenses: (1) all waters fishing, firearms hunting, firearms shotgun or rifle private land deer hunting, wild turkey hunting in spring on private land, and muzzleloading on private land for an $ 84 annual fee or (2) all waters fishing, firearms hunting, migratory bird conservation stamp, and migratory bird harvest permit for a $ 60 annual fee.
With two exceptions, the bill decreases resident sportsman's fees as shown in Table 2 (CGS § 26-28). The exceptions are for resident firearms supersport fees, which the bill establishes.

Camping and State Park Fees

The bill caps the fees for leasing state campsites and buildings and parking, admission, boat launching, and other uses to no greater than (1) 135% of the fees charged April 1, 2009 for residents and (2) 150% of the fees charged April 1, 2009 for non-residents. The DEP commissioner must set these fees by May 1, 2010.

Restoration

Current law states that Connecticut assents to the provisions of the congressional acts entitled “Pitman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act” and “Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act,” which provide that no funds accruing to the state from license fees paid by fishermen or hunting licenses shall be diverted for any other purpose than the protection, propagation, preservation and investigation of fish and game and administration of the functions of the related department. The bill includes funds accruing from any permit, tag, or stamp fees, excluding the migratory bird conservation stamp and fees paid by trappers and anglers; real or personal property acquired with a license, permit, tag, and stamp fees; and interest, dividends, or other income earned from the license, permit, tag, and stamp fees. The bill requires the fees to fund the programs and functions of the Bureau of Natural Resources within DEP according to federal regulations.

The bill requires the DEP to submit, by October 1, an annual report to the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program chief, within the Fish and Wildlife Service of the federal Department of the Interior. The report must include, for the year ending June 30, the (1) total license, permit, stamp, and tag fees paid by hunters, trappers, and anglers, excluding the Connecticut Migratory Bird Stamp, and any interest, dividends, and sale or lease payments from assets purchased with license, permit, stamp, and tag revenues; (2) amounts expended on fish and wildlife programs; and (3) purposes for the spent funds. The report must also include the total expenditures amounts for (1) protection, propagation, preservation, and investigation of fish and game; (2) operation, administration, and maintenance of fish and wildlife facilities; (3) operation and administration of wildlife management areas, fish and wildlife access areas, and angler and hunter education and outreach programs; (4) restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitats; and (5) administration of fish and wildlife technical assistance programs.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Upon passage, except the camping and state park provisions, which are effective upon passage and apply to fees collected after May 1, 2010.


Here is the new fees schedule.

"Effective on Passage" - they may have to deal with refund issues. Or they may not - who knows ? ?

Interesting.

Whoever made the play of getting the fee rollback packaged in HB 5545 made the play of the season. My guess, Bob Crook in the background. If so . . . . . well played sir !

Refunds? I highly doubt it.

Your right - what was I thinking ? ? ?

I should have bet Dusty his house.

That's funny right there!

Still got to make it through the Senate and then hope the Goobernor doesn't veto the whole package.

All indications from the Gov's office are that she will sign.

Let's just see if it's before opening day for trout and/or turkey seasons.

Good job guys, a lot of folks on the site put a lot of energy and time into this one. A real team effort.

As Zyg has said, believe that the Governor's office is on board with this package. Hope we're right.

Another positive sign is that last night at the CAC meeting, we were advised that the BNR has been alerted to be prepared to change the online licensing system to reflect new rates. They went on to say that this presents a timing challenge, since it will probably require a system shut down/restart to implement the rates. The current plan is to do this work overnight to minimize disruptions to anglers, since this is such a busy time for purchases with Opening Day upon us.

Regarding refunds, the DEP has no mechanism or staff for this activity, and said it would be extremely difficult for them to process refunds.

My opinion: As a practical matter, I don't see refunds happening unless the Governor's office or the Legislature decides to apply pressure to the Dept to figure out how to refund monies paid by anglers in 2010.

AWESOME!!!

Great news. If they don't have the mechanisms in place for refunds, how about a credit toward next year's licences?

Or perhaps, a credit on our income tax returns? Probably wishful thinking.

capitol_watch - fishing fees reduced


Fishing Fees Cut For Season That Starts Saturday; Hikes In Motor Vehicle Fees, Including Seat Belt Violations
By
Christopher Keating
on April 14, 2010 6:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

With fishing season starting on Saturday, the state Senate unanimously granted final legislative approval Wednesday to reduce hunting and fishing fees that were hiked last year because of the state's ongoing budget crisis.

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who crafted many of the ideas in the multi-pronged fiscal bill, immediately signed the measure early Wednesday evening - days before the fishing season starts.

The bipartisan, consensus bill that cuts the fees was originally passed 147 to 1 in the state House of Representatives on Tuesday night. Shortly after 5:45 p.m. Wednesday, the state Senate voted 36 to 0 to approve the bill that reduces 47 different hunting and fishing fees while raising 15 different motor vehicle fees to pay for it. About 180,000 people pay the hunting and fishing fees each year.

Some lawmakers were stunned that Senate Democrats and Republicans - after disagreeing for the past 18 months on many budget issues - had voted unanimously for a budget bill.

"We should take a picture for posterity purposes of that vote on the board,'' said Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat.

The cuts in the sporting fees would only be for future payments. If someone, for example, bought a fishing license last week, they would not be able to get the fee reduced retroactively, officials said.

Overall, the sporting fees statewide would drop by $5.35 million, but the legislature would raise other fees and make moves to cover that exact amount.

Some of the most common motor vehicle fines would be increasing under the bill. For example, the fine for failing to wear a seat belt would jump to $50, up from the current level of $15. The seat-belt fines had been low because they have not been changed since 1985.

In addition, the minimum fee for speeding would increase to $50, up from $35. Those failing to carry their registration or insurance card in their car would pay a $50 fine, up from the current $35.

Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican who pushed for the fee cuts, said it was a positive move that a hunting license for a Connecticut resident would be going down from the current $28 to $19.

"I know that the hunters, sportsmen and campers in my neck of the woods are going to be happy when they read what we did,'' said Kissel. "I would like to have seen this happen months and months and months ago, but I'm reasonable enough to know that half a loaf of bread is better than nothing at all.''

He also praised Sen. Donald DeFronzo of New Britain, who has been pushing for the proposal since December 2009.

"This is a wonderful step in the right direction,'' said Sen. L. Scott Frantz, a Greenwich Republican. "Mick Jagger hit it all wrong. Time is not on our side when we are facing large deficits. ... We have to keep in mind that Connecticut lags the national economy by 12 to 18 months to come out of the recession. ... The important thing is this sets the tone for moving forward.''

The two top Senate leaders - Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams of Brooklyn and Looney - issued a joint statement, saying, ""Today, the Senate unanimously approved a budget mitigation plan that essentially eliminates the current deficit - without raising taxes on the middle class and without shredding the social safety net. By working together, we have been able to accomplish what few thought possible just three weeks ago. Of course, our fiscal challenges are far from over. We must continue to work together and try to find common ground as we grapple with Connecticut's fiscal crisis."

The bill also reduces the state parks and camping fees by 32.5 percent for in-state residents and 25 percent for non-residents. For example, the fee for Connecticut residents at Hammonasset State Park on weekends and holidays is currently $20. That would be reduced to a maximum of $13.50, according to a calculation from the bill. The final fees will be set by the state Department of Environmental Protection, which had not released the final numbers on Wednesday night.

In the House, state Rep. Karen Jarmoc, an Enfield Democrat, was among those pushing for the rollback of the fees, and she organized a meeting with various sportsmen's organizations to obtain feedback on the fees.

The deficit-mitigation debate, including the fee cuts, started in the Senate at 4:45 p.m. Wednesday in an effort to wipe out the projected deficit of about $350 million in the current fiscal year that ends on June 30. The legislature wanted to act before the fiscal year had ended so that lawmakers would not be forced to borrow money to cover the deficit.

The bill includes about $139.3 million in spending cuts and balances the budget without any tax increases. Republicans and Democrats have clashed sharply over proposed changes in the estate tax and creating a new gross receipts tax on hospitals, but those debates were put off for another day.

"We shouldn't pat ourselves on the back too hard. This was the easy part,'' said Sen. Leonard Fasano, a North Haven Republican. "Our obligation is much, much more than 2010. We have an over $700 million deficit in 2011. We waited until April 14 to tackle 2010's problem. Before we get too jubilant and excited about doing our job, we have a big deficit ahead of us.''

Fasano told his colleagues on the Senate floor that Connecticut needs to change its image that it is not a "business-friendly'' state. One of the problems, he said, is that the tax-writing finance committee has continued talking about the "unitary'' tax that is strongly opposed by major corporations and the Connecticut Business & Industry Association.

"The policies that we put out there tells people what we're thinking,'' Fasano said.

"I stand today in support of this bill and stand here very pleased that we have been able to come together ... on spending cuts, rather than taxes,'' said Sen. Dan Debicella, a Shelton Republican who often votes against Democratic budgets. "This is not slash-and-burn cutting. ... I'm very pleased that the hospital tax and the estate tax are gone. I hope they are gone for good.''

Sen. Edward Meyer, a Guilford Democrat who has become a key swing voter on budget issues, said that school transportation, biomedical research, and school-based health centers were preserved as lawmakers used "a surgical knife'' to make the cuts Wednesday.

Looney said the deficit-cutting measure was a judicious package of improvements that closes the gap for the current fiscal year.

Both Republicans and Democrats rhetorically slapped each other on the back for a bipartisan plan that came in marked contrast to previous budget battles over taxing and spending.

"It certainly is a new day from when we last met at 5:30 in the morning,'' said Sen. Toni Boucher, a Wilton Republican who referred to the major battle on the morning of March 27 in which the Senate approved a budget-mitigation bill that was never approved by the House after Rell vowed to veto that bill.

"After that painful night, Gov. Rell stepped forward with her own program,'' said Senate GOP leader John McKinney of Southport. "That has to be the momentum we take forward in the next few weeks. ... There are tough decisions to be made. ... I'm happy that we are here with a bipartisan solution.''

Williams, the highest-ranking senator, said plenty of work was done behind the scenes in recent weeks to find savings in the state budget.

"It is a milestone,'' Williams said late Wednesday afternoon. "Three weeks ago, people would have been surprised if they were told that there would be an agreement'' that was supported by Republicans, Democrats, and Rell.

In other matters, the Senate voted 24 to 11 to approve a minor reform in the new campaign finance reform law that had been previously approved Tuesday by the House. The law currently says that if a court found the new law to be unconstitutional, the legislature would have only seven days to respond.

The bill was immediately sent to Rell, who signed it Wednesday.

The fix to the law would allow the state to have 30 days to act, rather than seven.

"We need more than seven days to digest an opinion'' and make proper changes, said Sen. Gayle S. Slossberg, the co-chairwoman of the legislative committee that oversees elections.

Currently, the state is waiting for a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Second Circuit, which is among the most powerful appeals courts in the nation.

Fasano, a deputy Republican leader, said the legislature has avoided making any decision since the original federal court ruling last year by Judge Stefan Underhill. He noted that McKinney had successfully predicted that the bill would be ruled unconstitutional.

"This decision has been here since August, and we have done nothing,'' said Fasano, a North Haven attorney.

The rules, Fasano said, should apply to the "Green Party, yellow party, Working Families, whatever.''

Fasano and Sen. Edith Prague, a liberal Democrat who often disagrees with the Republicans, said they would not accept public financing for their campaigns.

"I believe in my heart of hearts that we need this money for other things,'' Prague said on the Senate floor.

Williams, of Brooklyn, said the law is designed to "eradicate the influence of special interests'' in state politics. The rules for minor parties were modeled on the presidential public financing system that has been upheld in the courts, he said.

Welp!!!! nice job you guys!!!! and ALL who took a few minutes to make a phone call,.I will go to sleep knowing that my 100+emails, and easily 150-200 phone calls made a difference,..and to all of you that sat there on your asses,........You can thanks the few who cared enuff to make it happen.......zyg, TOny, Bob, and all the others THANK YOU!!!

We had an avenue to made a voice heard and I think we did a great job..........

Nice work done by lots of people to make this happen....

That's great news. I paid the new fee already but have out of state friends that were not going to pay the new fees just to go a couple of times.

Freaking awesome!

You guys & gals know who you are... THANK YOU!!

The post from passinthru63 named, Is it True - new License fee reduction bill passed, (Link Below)

When you read the article, The 6th paragraph states the following.

The cuts in the sporting fees would only be for future payments. If someone, for example, bought a fishing license last week, they would not be able to get the fee reduced retroactively, officials said.

http://www.ctfisherman.com/ubbthreads/ub...red#Post1201980

Unfortunately, Anyone who bought a fishing license before the bill was passed and signed today, Will not get their money back.

Great news!!!

Sooo...The freshwater is now 28 from 40..I didn't see any mention of the Saltwater license so I'm assuming it's still 10?

Just in case anyone hasnt heard the state reduced the license price was just reduced to $28.00....

There are NO PLANS to refund residents that have already been bent over and violated with a previous purchase!!!

I guess we won....FOR THE MOMENT!!!!

That's ok on the no refund or credit deal. Some of us will note it as the "donation" it was when filing our state income tax returns next year. With interest (compounded) of course .

Oh and thanks to the online licensing system i have multiple receipts.

So, in laymans terms, does this mean that the freshwater license is now $28 as of today, or does it need to pass further?

The fee is currently at $28.00

Paid for one tonight at Cabelas for a friend...

Everyone thought it would be a few a few days but it changed tonight!!

Eric D, The Salt water license was the one right after the resident fishing license and it remains at 10.00, Below is what i copied and pasted from the list of the fees.


(3) resident marine waters fishing license, ten dollars

it is still on the DEP website listed as $40. One question, does this mean the non-resident prices will go down as well?

Non Resident inland from 80 to 55. Non resident marine from 60 to 15, its about time people woke up..Congtrats to everyone involved that made this happen, this sets the stage for the other states in the future

Good news!! I guess I made my donation like Paul D. I guess they do listen sometimes.

Nice job and thanks for all the hard work. SUCCESS!!

Homepage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.ctfisherman.com/

Hey Dusty

Don't be so negative the next time this issue pops up.
Politics suck, but the squeeky wheel still gets a bit of grease.

A total team effort spearheaded by a bunch of hard working guys and gals. This only happened because of the effort of the sporting organizations and many of our members are members of other big lobbying groups like DU and the bass organizations. They were doing double duty.
Our members and leaders deserve a tip of the hat and a curtain call. This was maybe the most forceful lobbying effort ever put on Hartford. No one wanted to go against thousands of sportsmen and women especially when any fairminded person can see that doubling fees is unreasonable. But to have a bi-partisan 100% vote is unheard of, maybe this will help them get together on the other budget issues.
And we can never forget Bob Crook and CCS. If you are not a member give it some consideration, he is our number one lobbyist in Hartford.
You guys and gals are difference makers.

So happy about this.

good now my outta state buddies can afford to come fish!!!!!!!

How do I get my 12 bucks back?? The way I see it those extra 12 were worth it! I couldn't pass up on a season of icefishing.

Price paid for my all-waters fishing license a few weeks ago: $50
Number of hours using license so far: 4
Number of fish caught with 2010 license: 0
Money I could have saved if I'd waited: $18
Knowing that maybe the letters I wrote helped make a change: Priceless

So glad to see this news! THANK YOU to all the guys and girls on here who wrote letters, made phone calls, attended meetings and HELPED MAKE A CHANGE! I'm glad to see they were able to get it done before this weekend, too. Hopefully word gets around quickly. It's nice to see the government do the right thing for a change.

I KNEW WE COULD DO IT!

guys, at the winter banquet this season, Bob Crook has to be there and we HAVE to put somthing together for him...

Great News !!!

Thanks to Everyone who took the time to write a letter or make a phone call to their Rep.

One idea to recognize Bob Crook's efforts on behalf of Sportsmen might be to attend Bob's annual Coalition of Ct Sportsmen's awards dinner at the Aquaturf, usually held on a Sunday in October. Proceeds go to support Bob's lobbying efforts.

Article in the courant:
Connecticut Legislature Cuts Hunting And Fishing Fees

Of course, the antis are already posting comments. Let 'em rot. Ha ha! We won this battle!

Fantastic job everyone!

License hike reduced for Saturday’s opener
By Bob Sampson

Fishing Fees Cut For Season That Starts Saturday

Just in time for start of the season, legislators trim fishing license fees

Could this be the best tax day (Apr. 15) news of all time? Almost makes you forget about writing those checks to the government today. Almost.

Awesome!
It feels to good to know that my letters could have made the differance!

Great job boys & girls!

Great job, everyone ! ! Wonder if the extra we all paid is considered a donation and we can use it as a tax deduction ?

Are the proceeds still going to the general fund? If so that's what we really need to get changed. I would gladly pay double if I knew the money was going somewhere useful.

Wow! Boy did I ever make a bad call. I never imagined the bill to reduce license fees would pass for this year but it did. Congratulations and much appreciation to all of the sportsmen out there who got off their duff and wrote letters, attended rallies, or generally advocated for sportsmen to get these obnoxious fees lowered. The new fees are already set up on the DEP online license web site.
Here is the link: https://ct.outdoorcentral.net/InternetSales/ or https://ct.outdoorcentral.net/InternetSales/LicenseSale.aspx

Best deals and odd prices.

Archery - $41
Hunting (firearms) - $19
All water fish - $32

All water with archery - $65
All water with hunting (firearm) - $38.

So if you want all water plus hunting firearms plus archery you can get it three ways.

1 – each separately $41 + $19 + $32 = $92
2 – all water with hunting (firearm) + archery $38 + $41 = $79
3 – all water with archery + hunting(firearm) $65 + $19 = $84

Now why would you pay more by purchasing option 1 or 3. It really doesn’t make any sense. Maybe we should chip in and purchase a calculator for the folks over at the state legislature.
Me? I’m picking the $79 option.

Way to go Felt good to know all the calls that I made and the letter may have helped . I already paid out the big bucks months ago but this will help my kid and a few of his friends with all the stuff they need for hunting this year . In fact he just called me to see if I had heard the news AGAIN hats off to all those who did their part

Great news and efforts!!!! So for us that paid already are we screwed??????

YUP....NO REBATES FOR ICEFISHERMAN!!!

I have not read through all the posts on this subject, but I would think that an easy solution for those that paid the $40 in January (like I did) for their license is that they get a $12 break on their licenses next year. The computuer system should easily recognize when and how much you paid in 2010 for a license. And as far as these legislators slapping themselves on the back in regards to "helping out" the state's sportsmen, I for one intend to try to help all of them out in November-out of office.

No. Last years' debacle has been corrected.

From the summary:
The bill requires that funds accruing from any permit, tag, or stamp fees, excluding the migratory bird conservation stamp and fees paid by trappers and anglers, fund the programs and functions of the Bureau of Natural Resources within the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) according to federal regulations. It also requires the DEP to submit an annual report to the federal Fish and Wildlife Service, detailing the funds raised, expenses, and spending purposes of sportsman's fees and stamps.

Current law states that Connecticut assents to the provisions of the congressional acts entitled “Pitman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act” and “Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act,” which provide that no funds accruing to the state from license fees paid by fishermen or hunting licenses shall be diverted for any other purpose than the protection, propagation, preservation and investigation of fish and game and administration of the functions of the related department. The bill includes funds accruing from any permit, tag, or stamp fees, excluding the migratory bird conservation stamp and fees paid by trappers and anglers; real or personal property acquired with a license, permit, tag, and stamp fees; and interest, dividends, or other income earned from the license, permit, tag, and stamp fees. The bill requires the fees to fund the programs and functions of the Bureau of Natural Resources within DEP according to federal regulations.

The bill requires the DEP to submit, by October 1, an annual report to the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program chief, within the Fish and Wildlife Service of the federal Department of the Interior. The report must include, for the year ending June 30, the (1) total license, permit, stamp, and tag fees paid by hunters, trappers, and anglers, excluding the Connecticut Migratory Bird Stamp, and any interest, dividends, and sale or lease payments from assets purchased with license, permit, stamp, and tag revenues; (2) amounts expended on fish and wildlife programs; and (3) purposes for the spent funds. The report must also include the total expenditures amounts for (1) protection, propagation, preservation, and investigation of fish and game; (2) operation, administration, and maintenance of fish and wildlife facilities; (3) operation and administration of wildlife management areas, fish and wildlife access areas, and angler and hunter education and outreach programs; (4) restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitats; and (5) administration of fish and wildlife technical assistance programs.

Handgun Hunting????????

Nope, handgun deer hunting was in SB 207. That bill will go nowhere now that the fee issues were taken care of in HB 5545

GREAT NEWS,WTG to all on this site who made the effort with letters phone calls and even makeing a showing in hartford to try to get this changed

awesome news...thanks to all of those who made it happen. Looks like I dont have to by my out of state salt lisence from new york now.

Governor signs bill, cutting fishing, hunting, park and other outdoor fees

Thanks to everybody who took an active role and thanks to the legislators. I made sure I sent all those I called and emailed a big thank you.

Thanks for the hard work...Already spent my out of state $$ up in NH (being from Ma.),taking a pay cut this yr. after no raise last yr. don't think can swing the bucks for both..oh well theres always next yr. once again thanks guys

Mikey is right, send a thank you to your state reps and senators, this was a unanimous vote both both parties.

finally some sense out of Hartford.

Im glad I only bought a $10 sw license so far.

Great job by those who really put their time in.

Great news, but I think they missed the state land permits Muzzle loader and shot gun.
I was just on the DEP site and these fees have been reduced too.

I Want My 18 Dollar Refund for an all water license I bought in January!

Here is the official release from DEP:

I rarely rant and rave-
I paid the extra money so I could hunt and fish this winter and I am very very happy that the increases got repealed but.....

I agree with the CTFer- with the exception of the one gent who tried to and got the thing repealed-
vote the rest of them out of office
lets not get soft- lets get them out- this is temporary- they will try this again and again and again.

Now as far as NOT refunding the money- that is a load of crap
it would be easy for the state to run a report showing
those of us who wanted to be legal and bought our licenses.
Its not the money- its the right thing to do-
Bad business for all.

My thanks to those who made the noise and got this done.
Remember the old saying
I fish,hunt and I vote.
Thanks to Mitch and everyone for all of their hard work

Again great news but I did the hunting, salt and inland for the tune of $60. I really hope we get a credit for next year.

thanks to all who had something to do with this,GOOD JOB

The dems and reps finally agreed on ONE budget thing over the last 14 months and I'm glad it was this bill

Fishing fees: What went up comes down

A big thanks to all who worked so hard and a big thanks to everyone who took the time to email, write, and phone there reps.

Great job everyone! That just goes to show what phone calls and letters can accomplish.

Thanks for the article Mitch! John said it well. It would be easy enough since the peole that already bought are in the computer. Do I smell a law suit for the people that bought it early????? LOL!

Got porked for 50 too, but oh well. It's not I was going to give up ice fishing for a year over 20 bucks. Hell, we have more than that in beer invested on the occasional trip.

If someone decides to get a petition or e-mailing going, I'll be happy to include my voice. Otherwise, i really don't give a sh!t. I'm on the good side of the soil, employed, and the earth is warming again. Everything else is secondary.

Good point Bri!

Great Job by all of you who made this happen!!!

Shame it took CT government this long to resolve since I've had my NY license since the new year. I would have purchased the CT license for the same $$ ...

$38 for my all water fishing and firearms license. I can stop b!tching and whining now and go fishing.

Awesome, its good to see a large community of people come together on a common goal, and get the politicians to listen to the people.

You will be seeing me driving down the highway on 91 South early in the coming days with this behind me.

well said!

Mytequinn88

You nailed it girl! "PRICELESS!"

Glad all of you made this happen.

Life is Good!

Thank you all.

Anglers net bargain on licenses

bought my license today.

the Catholic in my feels much better now that im legal, but the badass in me feels justified and victorious!!!

20 dollars in beer,.... Sipper, ....who gives a crap is right, SHUT UPPA you face , get your stuff and go fishin,......yes it is an increase but what isn't,....Well said Propane Chucker'.....the world is full of complainers , always has , always will be!

The letters and work were worth it!

It was NEVER about the money for me, it was about the principle.

How about that, our state Legislature lowered the the license fee to $28.00. If you paid the $40.00 large you get mext years free?

I stand corrected - SB 207 is still alive. Hopefully this too will make it through.

It's now only about a new $5 permit/tag that will allow deer hunting with a handgun.

446 [said sections] this section and section 26-
447 86c, as amended by this act. The commissioner shall issue, upon
448 payment of a five-dollar fee, to the owner of ten or more acres of
449 private land or a resident of this state, who has the consent of the
450 owner of ten or more acres of private land, a private land pistol or
451 revolver permit that allows the use of a pistol or revolver, as defined in
452 section 29-27, to hunt deer from November first to December thirty
453 first, inclusive, pursuant to the bag limit established for a private land
454 deer permit under this subsection. Any person authorized to hunt deer
455 by pistol or revolver pursuant to this subsection shall use a cartridge of
456 .357 caliber or larger for such purpose.

It's great they decided to do something smart up in hartford.I was literally filling the tank with gas in preperation for my trip to vermont for an out of state lisc.Was going to boycott ct.out of spite.the only thing that bothers me is the wording in the bill that states any acrued revenue from any increases will go to the dep with the EXCLUSION OF FEES PAID BY TRAPPERS AND ANGLERS , THESE FUNDS WILL GO TO THE GENERAL FUND not back into fishery or any other wildlife program.........still gettin screwed just not as much

thats great news..but what about us who were ripped off for 40 or even 50.00? are we gonna get refunds?

as I understand it....no refunds

This is interesting - I just overheard the manager at Dick's Sporting Goods in Plainville telling a customer that they will offer a store credit to those who bought licenses at the higher rate. This applies only to the licenses sold at Dicks, not online or town hall etc., and the credit would be for the difference in price.

Even though this is great news, I really frosts my b*lls to know I just spent 60 dollars on an "all waters" combo license- even though I may only fish the salt 2-3 times a year max I figured I'd do the "right thing" and just buy it. 3 weeks later they decide to reduce the price. Thanks.

In any event, hats off to all the people who worked so hard to push this through.

Apparently waiting until the last possible minute to get your fishing license this year was the way to go.
Shortly after 5:45 p.m. on April 14, the state Senate voted 36 to 0 to approve a bill
that reduces 47 different hunting and fishing fees!
Freshwater license reduced from $40 to $28! Saltwater license $10.

NOTICE!! Please be aware that as of April 14, 2010, pursuant to the recently adopted deficit mitigation plan (HB-5545), many of the fees for licenses and permits have been reduced. The new bill does not include provisions for making refunds for previously purchased licenses. Application forms are being updated to reflect the new fees.

I might have missed it but what are the results of the Lobster and Gill Net fees??

I won't celebrate anything until I know about these.

The bill didn't include those - No reduction on those fees John.

So it looks like the CT House, Senate and the Governor all finallyapproved the reduction in fees bill this Thursday. Looks like our efforts paid off with the state leaders. Any one else hear about this? Finally our voices are heard. Amen.....

Having paid an extra $18 for my fresh water and marine license because I went ice fishing once in January, I'm not pleased. I'm happy for the folks who held out 'til the last minute and got the new rate but that's what all of us should be paying.
Since the licensing system is now all computerized, it should not be an overwhelming task for the State to give a credit to the folks that bought licenses at the higher rate toward their 2011 license. Everyone has a "discreet" identity on the system. It shouldn't be a problem.

Going fishing: Fees drop just before trout season opens

STAMFORD -- It paid to procrastinate in buying my fishing license. The savings: $10 for a three-day, non-resident license.

Within Stamford, there are only two ways to purchase a license -- online or at Pete's Place on Jefferson Street.

When I stopped at the bait and tackle store late Thursday morning, owner Pete Miller said he learned some fishing license fees had dropped when he arrived earlier that day.

In October, when the state budget went into effect, fees for outdoor recreation doubled -- the resident inland fishing license went from $20 to $40, for example. On Wednesday evening, the state Senate passed a deficit mitigation package rolling back some of the increase, which Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed. As of Thursday morning, the same permit cost $28.

"I look at this whole thing and call it a regressive tax," Miller said, pointing out that a $40 fee is much tougher for a day laborer than for someone earning millions. But fishermen had no choice but to pay the higher rates, he said. "We're all hooked, we're going to pay for it," Miller said.

As I waited, he sold a saltwater fishing license and received a photo of a 10-pound brown trout from another customer buying lures.

"It's an inspiration for the rest of us," he said of the photo, which would join others on the shop's walls.

Mitch Passero, who publishes the Web site ctfisherman.com, said fishermen were ecstatic at the news.

"With this economy, and the way things are, they are surprised that this happened," he said. Passero called the fee reductions a "win-win" for both the angler and the state, since the more reasonable fees will result in more licenses and more revenue over the long term.

Unfortunately, anyone who already paid $40 for the permit is out the added $12. The budget mitigation package does not include a provision for refunds. And to compensate for the reductions, motor vehicle fines increase, with a ticket for failing to wear a seat belt going up from $15 to $50, for instance. So, drive carefully.

On Saturday, after sunrise, I will attempt to catch my first fish on the Mianus River as the trout season opens.

Jeff Yates, secretary of the Mianus River chapter of Trout Unlimited and a fly fishing guide, has generously offered to introduce me to the sport. His offer, however, came with a caution about opening day.

"There's going to be people who are standing at the pool they want to fish at 4 a.m., and they can't fish till sunrise," he said.

He cited a 1999 angler survey conducted by the state Department of Environmental Protection, which found fishermen catch 58 percent of the season's fish during opening day and the following two weeks.

"To fishermen, this is the start of spring," he said.

While I anticipated slippery rocks and cold water, crowds with flying hooks weren't a concern that had crossed my mind before this conversation.

My chances of catching a fish on Saturday morning?

I hike and consider myself "outdoorsy," which seemed to encourage Yates. However, I am not a particularly athletic person, which is not so good.

"It's hand-eye coordination," he said.

I agree, one damn icefishing trip and I didn't even catch a keeper. I should have taken a chance and not got my licenses. Honesty looses again, at least my conscience is clear. We should get a credit for next year. Thanks for all of the efforts put into getting the fees lowered though, at least we'll save some $ for next year.

I have a Marine Fishing License and an Inland License. What is the difference between that combination and an Al Waters License besides price if any?

I still feel a little sold out here. There really are two problems with the fishing license fees. The saltwater license and the doubling of freshwater licenses. Its really just too funny that all the same people who supported the saltwater license, who are not really even saltwater fishermen, were all very active to reduce freshwater fees which actually effects them.

Please use this momentum you have found to get rid of the saltwater license. Its the same concept, people wont go out, even for 10 and whatever it is eventually raised to. Anyone notice the federal registry turned out to be free?? And that many states near CT are not charging. ie RI, NJ. OMG.. Had this website been like the one in NJ or RI, not having mixes of freshwater and saltwater anglers, I feel this 2nd problem would have never happened.

No refunds thats BS.

do we get a refund if we already got one at higher rate?

If we over paid we should get the a refund otherwise the state is just ripping us off.

The state of CT is constantly ripping you off. Why should this be any different?

Early Bird Doesn't Get Worm For Fishing Licenses

Lower license fee marks opening day for fishing

Conn. fishing, hunting, fees reduced

Lower License Fees Marks Opening Day for Fishing in Connecticut

For the folks who are complaining about paying the higher earlier fee's, one important thing to keep in mind:

Many of us held out on buying a license because we knew that money talked the loudest. MAKE NO MISTAKE, IF WE ALL HAD PURCHASED LICENSES, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ROLLED BACK THE FEE'S NO MATTER HOW LOUD WE WOULD HAVE COMPLAINED!

They knew that sales were way down and if they didnt lower the price by Opening Day they would have lost a TON of revinue for the rest of the year.

I would have liked to do some ice fishing earlier in the year and some freshwater fishing too but for many of us it would have been worth the price of missing a whole season to send the message.

There are some things more important than hunting and fishing.

Spot on Old School!

While your point has merit, it sets aside the critical and most significant factors in the fees rollback as attested by those who worked mostly on the issue. Please view the thread
http://www.ctfisherman.com/ubbthreads/ub...uto#Post1202158

While a boycott on licenses would have been an important message in the long run, it is doubtful that the DEP, let alone the legislator, would have collected, digested, and promulgate the fees-renewal numbers in 3.5 months or 6-months. The Coalition of CT Sportsmen, Rep Miner, phone calls,emails and letters, carried the victory in this short period and will in future fights..

The only reason I qualify the merit of your post is because there are and will be many sportsmen-legislative issues and the key tools to influence the legislature need to be kept in the forefront.

Let's recognize the "complaining for what is; symptomatic CTF group bitching that probably gives the participants a sense of group belonging and bonding but has no effect on the real world.
It is harmless and good entertainment.

Well said Old School!

Tony, just to clarify, I was writing multiple letters to all my reps too, so I am not lessening the effect of that other effort including Mitch using this site as a springboard, but neither am I ignorant of the true mothers milk of politics $$$$

Old School,
I think you are right on the mark with this one. It's all about money and the state was using the raised license fees to make money. It's just like another tax on us. As soon as they thought they might loose money because of the reduced number of buyers they lowered the license fees.

The financial impact to the state due to 100% license fee increases was a major part of our site initiative. The entire "Preserve Fishing in Ct." section is all about the efforts of sportsmen to roll back the license fees. Zyg posted a thread with a PDF file that explained the impact to the state in lost revenue, jobs, retail sales, etc which could be printed and included in your letter or included in an email. Entire threads were centered around whether to buy licenses or not, what the YTD sales numbers were, etc.
The letter campaign, phone calls and the message that this will cost the state money, eliminate entire groups of fishermen from the sport, and send residents to surrounding states was a main theme.
Lots of us gave up seasons. I by-passed the March deadline for state land deer lottery and will miss that season for the first time ever. I did not buy the spring turkey tags and still won't. I won't do muzzleloader in the fall or fall turkey.
All of the info about this entire fees issue was on the site for months. Just look at the topic titles in this section, it is all laid out. You only needed to know how to copy/paste and hit send to be a part of the campaign.

Old School,

We are on the same page. It takes a lot of bullets to win a war.

Your phrase , "the true mothers milk of politics $$$$" could be broadened. IMO the "mother milk" of most motivation is "what's in it for me" WINF. For those responsible for balancing the budget, increasing revenue is a WINF motivator. (although many of us would like to see budget cuts; unfortunately there are to many special interest to fight.) For politicians seeking reelection, attracting financial supporters and votes from the populace are a WINF motivator. For sportsmen the $20 fee-increase issue was a WINF motivator. WINF drives human behavior and makes the world go round.

In the fees fight it seems to me that the WINFs worked to towards our victory in a "perfect storm".
At the center of the storm was our lobbyist, the Coalition of CT Sportsmen, CCS. CCS focused all the WINFs in Hartford to our benefit.

My WINF for commenting on your post was to bring back to focus a key player in the fees-fight, our lobbyist, Coalition of CT Sportsmen and to use this "soap box" to ask CTFers to support the CCS by becoming members. Click on http://www.ctsportsmen.com/

How about a forty dollar license with no closed season and a twenty eight dollar license that has to wait until the third saturday in april?

Something fishy going on with licensing fees
Richard Golden Uncasville

Three cheers for the Connecticut General Assembly for lowering the fishing-license fee after hearing the complaints of their constituents.

But once again in the rush to pass legislation just in time for opening day of trout season, they forgot the tens of thousands of Connecticut outdoorsmen who had already laid out the higher fee on or about Jan. 1 so we could ice fish and hunt the remainder of hunting season.

There is no provision in the bill to refund those who paid the higher price.

I suspect those who waited until opening day to purchase fishing licenses were a very small percentage. Was the real intent to get all the money possible at the higher rate and then all the money possible at the lower rate? The vast majority of fishermen already had their license before the fee reduction went into effect, ensuring the discounted licenses went only to last-minute procrastinators.

So I contend the General Assembly did not respond to its constituency in a positive fashion, but rather developed a scheme to collect more money.

An interesting theory, but seems far fetched. The fishing license reduction was a part of the overall passing of the 2010 State budget, wasn't it? They may have held off on reconciling the State budget to get the fishing license fees, but that seems a bit crazy to me.

The goal of the sportsmens groups was to get the fee rollback done as soon as possible to create a positive effect as for as many license buyers and users as we could. That is what drove the fees legislation. The earlier the better. December would have been perfect but the legislature is not in session. To suggest that the state was clever enough to optimize both ends of the buying spectrum is giving them too much credit. No one was giving them that kind of latitude, this fees reduction work went as fast as it could with all of the revisions, committee discussion, House vote, Senate vote, etc. Remember, they would have done nothing if they hadn't been pushed into this by the sportsmens groups.
All of the license info is in the state's computer systems, processing a credit on account, which is easier than cutting checks for a rebate, is not rocket science and does not affect this year's budget. Therefore, it can be taken into account for the 2011 budget with an offset. Whether they will take that next step is unknown, I have not seen any kind of discussion on that topic from the state or in articles. But it could be a new initiative if enough are so motivated.

Msg sent to CCS Email list from Bob Crook last night:

FEES: Comments on many of the news sites, e-mail/calls to CCS relate mostly to reimbursement of previously paid fees. We sympathize, but those who bought licenses, other than those who ice fish, trappers, and January hunters, should have listened to their club officers, CCS, and sportsmen in the know, who were advising not to buy licenses until absolutely needed. The Legislature is always unpredictable and virtually anything can happen including a revisit of the fees. Be Positive: There is NO other group that got a fee reduction except for Parks (included in the bill). Please, be satisfied that the moderate fee increase was passed – a 35% increase is far better than 100%. There is NO way DEP could possibly refund fees due to cost and administrative requirements. CCS will not engage in modifying the bill that passed. We urge you to communicate with those legislators you wrote, called, e-mailed and THANK THEM for their support!

Fishermen on the hook for higher fees
Kent Pierce

Hartford, Connecticut (WTNH) - Some fishermen are upset after the state lowered the fishing license fees after they had jacked them up.

Fishermen who bought their licenses in the past few months probably noticed that the price had doubled from last year. But then, just before the beginning of the freshwater fishing season, the price dropped dramatically.

“I paid $50 for the combination freshwater and saltwater,” said Patrick Davis of Seymour. “If I went now, it would be $32.”

The fees were increased last fall as the state tried to close the budget gap, but fishermen didn’t like being on the hook for all that extra money.

“Two years back it was $20 and you didn't need a saltwater license. Now I paid $50. That's a 150-percent markup there,” said Davis.

The hunting and fishing lobby was so strong, it got the legislature to pass a bill to lower the fees. Governor Rell signed it and it went into effect last week, just before fishing season began on Saturday. Some lucked out and got their licenses at the new, lower price.

"For the people who did buy it at the higher rate there should be some type of reimbursement down the road,” said Jamie Leffler of Southbury.

A spokesman for the DEP says he understands that some people feel like victims of a bait-and-switch, but that new law says nothing about reimbursements, and the DEP can only obey the law.

First, I'd like to thank those who paid the higher price as they help cover the expense of my free senior license. Second, thanks to all the sportsmen whose strong voices made this change happen. Third, thanks to the legislatures who actually heard those strong voices and finally acted rationally.

Now that we all have our licenses, regardless of the cost, let's get out and enjoy our fishing and hunting priveledges. Moaning and groaning is NOT enjoyable.

....but it took some moaning and groaning to make this reduction happen, so it's not necessarily always a bad thing.

DEP's statement regarding refunds:

Evidently Economics 101 was not a prerequisite college course at any of the University attended by our elected officials. Jacking the fees was a slippery slope. Same license revenues, reduced consumptive users would (and has ) equals(ed) less taxed goods and service in the very near future. Sorry to , but it ain't "rocket science".

To protest the none credit, non -refund policy, I will be doing a business on a cash basis for the remained of the year,

To all of our overly intelligent elected officials that shafted us again:

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
-- Samuel Adams

If this is the case why does the money go to the general fund and not directly to the DEP? Will this money be used by the DEP or is this just BS???

Lovin the shirt Paul.

Paul, you look very different from the last time I saw you.

Stress does that Jon, wait till your kids become teenagers .

dahhhhh hahahahhaha!!!! THat is one of my favorite saved pics!!!!!

Actually, there is a guy here in New Fairfield that I used to hunt with until he had some leg problems and he looks just like the guy in Pauls photo. He used to work the JigNPig quite a few years ago when it first started. Everything is the same; the hair, the beard, his size, the clothes, his face, etc. Spitting image.

An email received from Bob Crook.

FYI: Be sure to read the Fiscal Note below.

General Assembly
Amendment


February Session, 2010
LCO No. 3732





*SB0012103732SRO*

Offered by:


SEN. MCKINNEY, 28th Dist.

SEN. BOUCHER, 26th Dist.

SEN. CALIGIURI, 16th Dist.

SEN. DEBICELLA, 21st Dist.

SEN. FASANO, 34th Dist.

SEN. FRANTZ, 36th Dist.
SEN. GUGLIELMO, 35th Dist.

SEN. KANE, 32nd Dist.

SEN. KISSEL, 7th Dist.

SEN. MCLACHLAN, 24th Dist.

SEN. RORABACK, 30th Dist.

SEN. WITKOS, 8th Dist.





To: Senate Bill No. 121
File No. 230
Cal. No. 157


"AN ACT CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF GENERAL PERMITS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. "

After the last section, add the following and renumber sections and internal references accordingly:

"Sec. 501. (Effective from passage) The Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall issue a credit to any person who purchased a license, permit or tag described in sections 34 to 49, inclusive, of public act 10-3, between October 1, 2009, and April 14, 2010, in the amount of the difference between the amount that such person paid for such license, permit or tag, as indicated by proof submitted by such person, and the amount of the fee for such license, permit or tag, as established in sections 34 to 49, inclusive, of public act 10-3. Such credit may be applied against the fee for any such license, permit or tag purchased by such person on and after October 1, 2010. "

http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/...amp;SUBMIT1.y=9

OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS

Legislative Office Building, Room 5200

Hartford, CT 06106 ↓ (860) 240-0200

http: //www.cga.ct.gov/ofa

SB-121

AN ACT CONCERNING THE EXTENSION OF GENERAL PERMITS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

AMENDMENT

LCO No.: 3732

File Copy No.: 230

Senate Calendar No.: 157

OFA Fiscal Note

State Impact:

Agency Affected
Fund-Effect
FY 11 $
FY 12 $

Department of Environmental Protection
GF - Revenue Loss
Up to 1, 150, 000
None


Note: GF=General Fund

Municipal Impact: None

Explanation

The amendment, which credits sportsmen for the purchase of certain licenses, permits, or tags purchased between October 1, 2009 and April 14, 2010 results in a revenue loss of up to $1.15 million in FY 10.

This amendment affects approximately 60, 000 individual licenses, permits, or tags purchased between these dates, and represents approximately 96, 000 distinct transactions.

There could be additional costs to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for temporary staff to process these transactions.

Very Cool.

Doest anybody know if this has passed? or is it still in the works?

SB 121 (proposed credit applied to purchases after October 2010) is on hold in the Senate. It was placed on the foot of the calendar last week.

so those of us who bought a license jan 2nd just grabbed our ankles??

I for one think i and those like me should get a credit or SOMETHING!!!

Agreed Mike ~ cred towards next years licence.

CT Senate offers credit for fishing, hunting fees
Associated Press
April 29, 2010

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Early birds who purchased their Connecticut fishing and hunting licenses before the General Assembly reduced a recent price increase are moving closer to getting a credit for next year's license.

The Senate passed the provision on Thursday evening. The bill now moves to the House of Representatives.

Earlier this month, Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into law a budget bill that rolled back some unpopular fee increases that became effective last October. Instead of $40, a fishing license will now cost $28.

The rollback took effect on April 17, opening day of trout season. But some legislators said it was only fair that the Department of Environmental Protection provide a credit next year to those who paid their license fees early.

The House has until May 5 to approve the bill.

From Bob Crook:

Today the State Senate PASSED Amendment “B” to S.B. No. 207 (RAISED) ENVIRONMENT. 'AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE HUNTING OF DEER BY PISTOL OR REVOLVER', which Establishes a credit to those who purchased a license, permit or tag between October 1, 2009, and April 14, 2010, to be applied against the fee for any such license, permit or tag purchased by such person on and after October 1, 2010. The vote on Amendment “B”, License Credit, was 34-0. The bill passed with Amendment “A”, removing the word “Pistol”, and “B” on a vote of 25-9. The bill now moves to the House for debate.

It appears there is also significant support in the House. E-mail, and Write, and Phone Call YOUR State Representative. You can find your CT legislator at http://www.cga.ct.gov/maps/townlist.asp or in the Blue pages under “ Connecticut , State of” then “Legislators”.

Batched e-mail addresses can be found http://www.ctsportsmen.com/ under “Legislation”.

I can use that 12 dollars toward renewing my subscription to CTF!

Latest from Bob Crook, received Sun, May 2nd:

Three days left in this Legislative Session – concludes Wednesday @ midnight. NOW is your opportunity to get a twofer! The bill below has passed the Senate and is ready for debate in the House providing more opportunity for Hunters (Handgun Hunting), and more important, a credit for those who paid the outrageous doubling of fees. For those who had contacted their legislators FOLLOW UP Now. With the plethora of bills being addressed, some Representatives may not be aware this bill passed in the Senate. For those who did not communicate-Do IT NOW. Support the sportsmen effort to get a credit on license fees and an additional hunting opportunity. This bill could be debated tomorrow (Monday)!



We have had several contacts on Handgun Hunting asking: If this passes, will a Permit be required? You WILL need a State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers. There will be NO special hunting-only handgun permit. Many responded they will begin the Pistol Permit process immediately.



On Thursday 04/29, the State Senate PASSED Amendment “B” to S.B. No. 207 (RAISED) ENVIRONMENT. 'AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE HUNTING OF DEER BY PISTOL OR REVOLVER', which Establishes a credit to those who purchased a license, permit or tag between October 1, 2009, and April 14, 2010, to be applied against the fee for any such license, permit or tag purchased by such person on and after October 1, 2010. The vote on Amendment “B”, License Credit, was 34-0. The bill passed with Amendment “A”, removing the word “Pistol”, and “B” on a vote of 25-9. The bill is now ready for debate in the House.

It appears there is also significant support in the House but YOUR contact is needed. E-mail, and Write, and Phone Call YOUR State Representative NOW! You can find your CT legislator at http://www.cga.ct.gov/maps/townlist.asp

Three days left in this Legislative Session – concludes Wednesday @ midnight. NOW is your opportunity to get a twofer! The bill below has passed the Senate and is ready for debate in the House providing more opportunity for Hunters (Handgun Hunting), and more important, a credit for those who paid the outrageous doubling of fishing/hunting licenses. For those who had contacted their legislators FOLLOW UP Now. With the plethora of bills being addressed, some Representatives may not be aware this bill passed in the Senate. For those who did not communicate-Do IT NOW. Support the sportsmen effort to get a credit on license fees and an additional hunting opportunity. This bill could be debated tomorrow (Monday)!

We have had several contacts on Handgun Hunting asking: If this passes, will a Permit be required? You WILL need a State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers. There will be NO special hunting-only handgun permit. Many responded they will begin the Pistol Permit process immediately.

It appears there is also significant support in the House but YOUR contact is needed. E-mail, and Write, and Phone Call YOUR State Representative NOW! You can find your CT legislator at http://www.cga.ct.gov/maps/townlist.asp .

I just emailed mine.

I spoke to my rep yesterday and he indicated fee credit and pistol bill will probably get voted on today.

The Antis are busy in Hartford today. They're getting ammendments added to the bill that may kill it. You may want to pick up a phone or get an e-mail off and let your Representative know you want to see SB 207 passed without the new ammendments.

Last chance for a credit guys and gals.

Just in from Bob Crook:

The FEE CREDIT Passed by the Senate has a good chance of being DEFEATED! Amendments placed on the bill by legislators Opposed to hunting may kill both Handgun hunting and the Fee Credit. Go to the Legislative website http://www.cga.ct.gov Enter @ the top Bill number 207 and read the following Uncalled Amendments.




House LCO Amendment #5230 [pdf]


House LCO Amendment #5233 [pdf]


House LCO Amendment #5236 [pdf]


House LCO Amendment #5235 [pdf]




Numerous amendments kill bills. We want this bill to be Passed clean with only the Senate Amendments. As the Hunting amendment reads now, DEP would write Policy or Regulations before implementation. Who better to decide the criteria? Leave implementation to the experts! Communicate with the sponsors of these amendments http://www.housedems.ct.gov/Hornish http://www.housedems.ct.gov/Megna designed to kill the bill which will eliminate remove the Fee Credit you’ve been requesting and with which most legislators agree. Request they Pull the Amendments and NOT call. Contact your own House Representative expressing your opinion. Be outraged but courteous.

DO IT NOW!



The Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall reserve a credit for any person who purchased a license, permit or tag described in section 26-27b, 26-28, 26-37, 26-39, 26-40, 26-42, 26-45, 26-48, 26-48a, 26-51, 26-52, 26-58, 26-60, 26-86a or 26-86c of the general statutes, or subsection (b) of section 26-49 of the general statutes, between October 1, 2009, and April 14, 2010. Such credit shall be equal to the amount of the difference between the amount that such person paid for such license, permit or tag between October 1, 2009, and April 14, 2010, inclusive, and the amount of the fee for such license, permit or tag, charged to such person on or after October 1, 2010. Such credit shall be applied against the fee for any such license, permit or tag purchased by such person on or after October 1, 2010. "



S.B. No. 207 (RAISED) ENVIRONMENT. 'AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE HUNTING OF DEER BY PISTOL OR REVOLVER', SUPPORT. Public Hearing 03/08. CCS Testimony. JFS 03/17 (w/Fee Chart). File Number 244 Senate Calendar Number 176 04/01. Referred by Senate to Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding 04/08. JFS 04/14. DELETE BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY EXCEPT FOR HANDGUN HUNTING. Title Change. New File Number 616 04/22. Amendment LCO No.: 4297 Establishes a credit to those who purchased a license, permit or tag between October 1, 2009, and April 14, 2010, to be applied against the fee for any such license, permit or tag purchased by such person on and after October 1, 2010. Senate PASSED as Amended by Senate Amendment Schedule A & B 04/29. Senate "A" removes the word Pistol; Senate "B" provides the License Credits. House Calendar Number 453.

It just passed in the House!

So now we need the Governor.

I just emailed mine

I'm glad it passed ......my rep emailed me back

"Hi Jim

Although I supported that part of the bill( the fee reimbursement), included in it was hunting with pistols large enough to bring down bigger game. MA and RI do not have this type of pistol hunting due to the the density of development and the size of the state. I felt that was also true in CT . However I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment


Thanks so much for contacting me

Diana ( Rpe Urban) "

What kind of logic was she using? You can hunt in all three states with a shotgun and slugs but not a handgun because of density of development and the size of the state? The reasons against handgun hunting are simply an objection to handguns so there goes the BS about being a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
Being able to reply in double talk does show great political potential. She will probably be Governor one day.
So she supports the 2nd Amendment and the section of the Bill that reimbursed those who bought at the higher price but voted against the Bill because of the handgun hunting provision. So she was a NO vote. What a hypocrite. Someone in her district should let her know her cover was blown open.

Yeah, thats about it.

Macattack: two reps who are consistently on the wrong side of sportsmens issues are Rep Urban and Rep Megna.

With that said, here's a note I received today from Bob Crook that lays out who the key legislative players were:

It’s a pleasure to be wrong! After passage of the 65% Sportsmen’s fee reduction in the Deficit Mitigation Bill H.B. No. 5545, many contacted me concerning a REBATE. I was very pessimistic about any such action and made my position known through membership e-mails. After a conversation with State Senator Tony Guglielmo, (R-Stafford) we decided a CREDIT might pass. He and all Republican Senators submitted an Amendment followed by an identical amendment by State Senator Eileen M. Daily (D-Westbrook) Co-Chairman of the Finance Committee and Co-Chairman of the Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, which was key. The amendment passed the Senate 34-0. After moving to the House for debate, 4 amendments were proposed from animal rights oriented legislators which would have killed the bill. Negotiations in the House were primarily controlled by Representative Craig Miner (R-Litchfield), Treasurer of the Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, and supported by Representative Linda Orange (D-Colchester, East Haddam ), Co-Chairman of the Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, and other sportsmen oriented House members in both parties. Among our other efforts three amendments were proposed to be placed on their major bill S.B. No. 274 'AN ACT PROHIBITING THE UNREASONABLE CONFINEMENT AND TETHERING OF DOGS' which had been amended in the Senate, and through CCS negotiation, did not affect Sportsmen. Included in our threatened amendments was Sunday Hunting which at the late date/time constraints would have killed their bill. Our negotiators did an admirable job and agreement was reached with proponents on both sides and leadership that NO amendments would be called on either bill. Both bills PASSED.



S.B. No. 207 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE HUNTING OF DEER BY PISTOL OR REVOLVER. PASSED



FEE CREDIT: The Commissioner of Environmental Protection shall reserve a credit for any person who purchased a license, permit or tag described in section 26-27b, 26-28, 26-37, 26-39, 26-40, 26-42, 26-45, 26-48, 26-48a, 26-51, 26-52, 26-58, 26-60, 26-86a or 26-86c of the general statutes, or subsection (b) of section 26-49 of the general statutes, between October 1, 2009, and April 14, 2010. Such credit shall be equal to the amount of the difference between the amount that such person paid for such license, permit or tag between October 1, 2009, and April 14, 2010, inclusive, and the amount of the fee for such license, permit or tag, charged to such person on or after October 1, 2010. Such credit shall be applied against the fee for any such license, permit or tag purchased by such person on or after October 1, 2010. "



The credit will affect fishermen, hunters, trappers, & others who purchased their licenses after October 1 last year or in the early months of this year prior to April 14. When they purchase new licenses/permits/tags they will receive the credit.



HANDGUN HUNTING: Many questions have been asked concerning Why we accepted such a basic HG Hunting provision. When the bill came out of Committee it was not as we would have preferred. Some Senate opposition to HG Hunting can be seen by the 25-9 vote v. the 34-0 credit amendment. When it was considered by the Senate it was determined that only removing “pistol”, a point of controversy, from the bill was all we could do rather than expanding it to what was preferred (below).

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective from passage) The commissioner shall issue, upon payment of a five-dollar fee, to the owner of ten or more acres of private land or a resident of this state, who has the consent of the owner of ten or more acres of private land, a private land [ pistol ]or revolver permit that allows the use of a [ pistol ] or revolver, as defined in section 29-27 of the general statutes, to hunt deer from November first to December thirty-first, inclusive, pursuant to the bag limit established for a private land deer permit under subsection (a) of section 26-86a of the general statutes. Any person authorized to hunt deer by [ pistol ] or revolver pursuant to this section shall use a cartridge of .357 caliber or larger for such purpose.

No person may use a handgun for the pursuit, taking or attempted taking of deer on privately owned lands pursuant to Sec. 26-86a, except under the following conditions: (1) the handgun shall be limited to revolvers and single shot pistols with a minimum barrel length of 5.75 inches and not exceeding 12 inches and chambered for and using straight-wall handgun ammunition in .357 to .50 caliber. (2) Full metal jacket bullets may not be used to harvest deer (3) the handgun must be carried openly on a sling or in a holster and not concealed while hunting; (4) handguns shall be used exclusively during any rifle/shotgun season as applicable during which deer may be taken. Handgun use shall only apply to Connecticut residents holding a valid Connecticut permit to carry a pistol or revolver.



DEP will be working to implement this bill, probably with expanded criteria.

I see Daily given credit for submitting this bill. Wasn't she the one who submitted the bill for the initial increase? She is my Senator, and never once replied to my emails on this matter.

So now the Governor has to sign off on it?

Jon H: Believe last year's original 25% increase proposal may have been submitted by Sen Daily, after negotiations with CCS and others. The 25% deal came undone around Labor Day, as the legislature worked overtime to come up with a budget. To get a budget deal done, the Governor's original across the board 100% fee increase was reinstated (believe by Secretary Genuaro of the Governors office)and agreed to by Senate/House Leadership as part of the overall negotiations. Even Craig Minor voted for that bill in order to get a budget deal done, though he didn't like it. I don't deal with the legislature, but I will tell you that Bob Crook has said several times that Eileen Daily is "one of our friends" in the legislature.

Bob's Coalition of Ct Sportsman website has more information.

Mac: believe so.

Can we review the seasons again?
What I am reading is that there is a handgun season for deer on private land only of ten acres or more starting on November 1st and running until December 31st, exclusive unto itself in early November until the shotgun/rifle season start date and then inclusive with the separate seasons of shotgun/rifle, muzzleloader and archery. So in effect, there is a handgun season for the entire month of November and December and it changes the "lessor weapons" rule in the respect that you can now handgun hunt during the shotgun/rifle season on private land. Actually the lessor weapons rule may have been modified already for some of the archery season extensions.
I would think this will make it easier to handgun hunt in NY and Pa. too.

I really didn't think the handgun bill would pass. No reason not to but the anti-gun, anti-hunting sentiment, animal rights groups, in the state is very strong and they simply got rolled over on this. It would never have happened even two years ago. It happened now because we all came together as sportsmen and rolled back the fees. Add up all of the members of CTF, CCS, DU, TU, the Bass Federations, the Ct. Federations of sportsmens clubs, the saltwater fishing organizations, etc. and you have a coalition of maybe 50,000 sportsmen.
If you told any state rep or senator last fall, after they passed the 100% fees and license increases, that sportsmen would organize and get this rolled back they all would have laughed, and in fact, until the second meeting at Cabelas in November, most of them were still laughing. But a few of these reps and senators saw the light and that we would not be denied and took a leadership roll.
A by-product of our political actions is this new handgun hunting season that never would have been approved in the past. Sportsmen will forever be respected as a political action group and we will not be denied anymore. We are now more powerful than the "Antis" and as long as we stay active and attentive it will remain that way. Never become complacent. We have accomplished a paradigm shift that I don't think we have really grasped yet but for sure our politicians have. We need to keep up our activism and promote our agendas.

Buck - you're right on target as usual.

I am thinking back to the Sept 8th CAC meeting, when a small group got together after the meeting to discuss how devastating the fee increase would be and to figure out what, if anything, could we do about it? This certainly was a low point for sportsmen. We called Cabelas to set up the first meeting and didn't think anyone would show up, because sportsmen(myself included) have historically been an apathetic constituency. Once the wider sportsmen's audience became aware of the impacts, and they began to understand that "hand to hand combat" was needed to win, we gained momentum. To me, the shift from whining about the fees to doing something about it was key: WRITING LETTERS, MAKING PHONE CALLS, ATTENDING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SB207, SHOWING UP AT THE CAPITAL ON SPORTSMEN'S DAY.....these things mattered.

Even those legislators who didn't believe us or care about the issue couldn't deny that we were visible. This made the lobbyists jobs easier.....and it also brought about surprising changes in behavior from some legislators, such as Rep Urban, who, though strongly opposed to hunting, LED the initiative to REINSTATE the DUCK STAMP PROGRAM based on the conservation arguments put forth by DU, CWA and other interested parties. That was nothing short of a miracle!

So, for me, it showed that we have to be at the table to win, or even keep our share. This problem ain't over...one look at next year's yawning budget gap tells me if we're not paying attention, someone else will try to eat our lunch.

But for now, enough of this budget stuff. Time to catch fish and train retrievers.

AWESOME JOB FOLKS!!!

Truly unbelievable that not only did we get a fee rollback credit but got Handgun Hunting also?!?!!? OUTSTANDING.

Jon, if I'm not mistaken the Gov has to sign off on it.

Whats going on with the Governor?

She is probably planning her retirement.

Actually, I believe she is home careing for her very ill husband. She has not been in Hartford very much at all this session.

Public Act 10-99 posted today.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00099-R00SB-00207-PA.htm

That is awesome. So how do we apply for the credit?

Is this a done deal now?

I believe it is a credit on account to your personal DEP ID. When you buy your next license the credit will be applied.

Does anyone know if the refund applies to deer hunting permits also?

Any word if this handgun thing is official?

I think the Governor still has to sign it. Does any one know for sure?

A lady that I work with told me this morning that her boyfriend got a refund from the state on his combo license . I was not sure what to say . Has this passed ? Are they doing it or are her or her boyfriend full of crap ?

Looks like refunds will happen next season.
The people who over paid this year, will get the money knocked off next season.

I Still don't know if this has passed yet.

It has passed. If you buy more licenses this year the rebate is SUPPOSED to apply automatically.

The House and the Senate passed it. It is Public Act 10-99


http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/ACT/PA/2010PA-00099-R00SB-00207-PA.htm

I believe that the Governor still has to sign it. I have been asking the question but have not gotten any answers. Anybody know for sure?

It did pass the legislature last month but only went to the governor on 5/19. She has 15 days (not including Sundays or Memorial Day) to sign it, let it sit to become law, or she can veto it. No credits will be issued before October 1, 2010.

Thanks for the confirmation Zyg. Thanks what I thought.

Thanks for the info guys . It was like throwing a M 80 into a bees nest when I told the lady at work that ethier she or her boyfriend was full of crap for saying that he already got a refund

But Bill, I'm sure you said it in the kindest way.........how was Glasco?

Does anyone know what the Govenour decided to do? Did she sign it, veto it, etc. I am most interested in the handgun hunting for deer aspect and hope (as a secondary issue) that I get some money back for liscences). I'm guessing we'll get reductions on next years lescences if we buy them rather than an actual refund, but in reality I look at that as a bonus.

I havent heard anything yet. If the Governor got it on the 19th, she has until close of businee this Saturday. We'll probably know next Monday.

Fee credit & hand gun hunting bill has been signed by the Governor.

Very Cool but I havent found anything on the govs web site. Where did you hear this?

I just found it. She signed it on 6/2/10.

Details here on how to get your refund:

http://www.ctfisherman.com/ubbthreads/ub..._10#Post1221188