65 and older license exemption

[springhillwantabe]

Fish Taxi, You made alot of valid and good points. I mostly agree with everything you stated. If a retired person can afford to fish 3-5 days a week they can darn well afford a $20 liscense, after all they are using the resources more than those of us that fish 15-20 times a year! KDWPT needs the money for upkeep, enforcement(badly), maintenance and a load of other things. Read Craigs thread on the "ask the biologist" part of the board and maybe you'll understand, if not, well????

like i say i can agree with taxi however the oldtimers money is prolly not bein well spent a lot of times

[springhillwantabe]

after payin in for 49 years the exemption should stay in place if they do away with the exemption they ought to do away with lifetime lic. also

[imajigger2]

I think it should also stay in place until an accounting is held for where this money is spent. For those of you in favor of making retirees pay for their license, here is some food for thought. Why would you single out a group when the numbers are not even known. If a guy has been a lifelong fisherman, he has been paying his dues for 49 years, keep in mind about how much money this guy has spent on his liesure time in 49 years. If he lives to fish another 20 years, (most won't) it deprives you of 400.00 bucks. If he quits fishing it deprives you of well over that if the guys continues to purchase other things associated with the sport. I am going to assume that you guys would want an across the board fairness on this issue. So lets go a couple steps further and deny our Veterns with at least a thirty percent disability a free fishing license, lets not think about the fact that just maybe they got that disability protecting your right to charge for fishing licences after all we want to be fair to all those paying now. Then lets move on to those who can show 1/16 or more Native American in their heritage, we simply must yank their privledges shouldn't we? And last but not least perhaps we could even get more money for OURSELVES by doing away with frivolous spending on Urban fishing programs, kids ain't using them anyway, only adults by the numbers and while we are on the line item veto lets do away with the F.I.S.H. Program, there are more of us who doesn't benefit from this than do. In the end, so be it if you have to pay more for your license now, all you're gonna do is complain about fishing and the costs associated with it. When I hit 65 I hope the sportsmen of this world don't begrudge me a free fishing license, as for right now I don't care what you raise it to to be able to continue on, I'm willing to pay it and pay for the aforementioned groups also. Hope it's not too harsh on you youngsters, but man up and do the right thing!!

[Blackdog40]

Not all retired folks that fish go out 4 to 5 times a week. Mostly it is a Couple going to a local lake to spend an Sat/Sun afternoon and enjoy the outdoors. There are a lot of older folks the enjoy a little fishing that are only on SS and any increase in anything impacts them greatly. Yes I know those of us on C.com fish a lot but we are in a minority. I actually fished more when I was working because I wanted to get away and relax.

So when you think about the retired folks just remember not all and probably not many are the 5 day a week fishing persons.

[Blackdog40]

Just another thought, when I was working I had my son and tried to take him fishing as much as possible, now he is gone most of the time working for the railroad and we do not get that many opportunities to fish together. Just another reason I do not fish as much now as I did before I retired.

[Kansasoutdoorsman]

This is going to be an interesting debate for sure.

As someone who has 30 years till I may get there and own's a lifetime hunting and fishing license my view I guess is a little jaded. Our parks are in such a dier need of funds that I think it's a good idea to have everyone who used the parks and fisheries help fund some of the resources they use. I think a reduced cost permit of $10 or $15 would not be to much to ask for someone who uses our already limited resources...

[Blackdog40]

I am not there yet but close. I would be more than willing to a low cost charge so that Fed matching funds would be in play. I wish I had the money to buy a life time when it made since but some of us were not that fortunate.

[Blackdog40]

Not all "retired" folks fish 3 to 5. Most just want the opportunity to fish on the weekend, maybe with a grandchild, just a few days a year. You want to charge these folks full price?? That is what you are saying.

[crappiedoc]

Hmmm, all this comes after they put a broken down, bankrupt tourism department in the mix. Your money for licenses never, ever goes back to W&P, it goes in the States General Fund (a whole other debate). The money from excise taxes on sporting goods trickles down and is distributed out. Part of that problem is the State using money for fishing "items" like operations and fishing lakes and then restricting access because of hunting refuges. I'll agree with Fish Taxi on property taxes, however look at all the boats registered out of state by Kansas citizens, cha-ching. They're raising retirement age because of mismanagement of the funds and just doing the same here. Tell your elected officials to pack their bags and look for replacements in public appointed officials. Thats a message that they might here. Now you know why I distance the T in KDWP-T.

[kingfish387]

I think it should also stay in place until an accounting is held for where this money is spent. For those of you in favor of making retirees pay for their license, here is some food for thought. Why would you single out a group when the numbers are not even known. If a guy has been a lifelong fisherman, he has been paying his dues for 49 years, keep in mind about how much money this guy has spent on his liesure time in 49 years. If he lives to fish another 20 years, (most won't) it deprives you of 400.00 bucks. If he quits fishing it deprives you of well over that if the guys continues to purchase other things associated with the sport. I am going to assume that you guys would want an across the board fairness on this issue. So lets go a couple steps further and deny our Veterns with at least a thirty percent disability a free fishing license, lets not think about the fact that just maybe they got that disability protecting your right to charge for fishing licences after all we want to be fair to all those paying now. Then lets move on to those who can show 1/16 or more Native American in their heritage, we simply must yank their privledges shouldn't we? And last but not least perhaps we could even get more money for OURSELVES by doing away with frivolous spending on Urban fishing programs, kids ain't using them anyway, only adults by the numbers and while we are on the line item veto lets do away with the F.I.S.H. Program, there are more of us who doesn't benefit from this than do. In the end, so be it if you have to pay more for your license now, all you're gonna do is complain about fishing and the costs associated with it. When I hit 65 I hope the sportsmen of this world don't begrudge me a free fishing license, as for right now I don't care what you raise it to to be able to continue on, I'm willing to pay it and pay for the aforementioned groups also. Hope it's not too harsh on you youngsters, but man up and do the right thing!!

X2 well said.