Adirondack Legislative Watchlist

[Dick]

Bills still before the NY State Legislature, many pertaining to the Adirondacks:

http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/20...ck+Almanack%29

Probably not much here that's worth discussing.


Dick

[fisher39]

Originally Posted by Dick

Bills still before the NY State Legislature, many pertaining to the Adirondacks:

http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/20...ck+Almanack%29

Probably not much here that's worth discussing.


Dick

I was about to agree with you until I saw this:

Establishes Invasive Species Stewards, Paddling Fee
Establishes the aquatic invasive species volunteer steward program within the office of parks, recreation and historic preservation; such program shall use volunteers to collect information on alien plants and animals in state water, and educate boaters thereon; imposes an annual $6 permit fee upon non-motorized vessels and requires the revenue to be deposited into the I love NY waterways vessel access account. Referre to Senate Finance Committee in February; no assembly sponsor. (S3519 JOHNSON)

I'll have to read the details, but I think it is about time more groups pitched in a bit.

[adkman12986]

I have been saying this right along that it was comming and now looks like it may be closer then we thought.

[redhawk]

$6.00 a year?? That will break me for sure.

I suppose if I were a drinking man that would deprive me of one six pack a year.

Hawk

[fvrwld]

Originally Posted by fisher39

I was about to agree with you until I saw this:

Establishes Invasive Species Stewards, Paddling Fee
Establishes the aquatic invasive species volunteer steward program within the office of parks, recreation and historic preservation; such program shall use volunteers to collect information on alien plants and animals in state water, and educate boaters thereon; imposes an annual $6 permit fee upon non-motorized vessels and requires the revenue to be deposited into the I love NY waterways vessel access account. Referre to Senate Finance Committee in February; no assembly sponsor. (S3519 JOHNSON)

I'll have to read the details, but I think it is about time more groups pitched in a bit.

No problem with that especially since it is going to fund a much needed program. I just hope it can be purchased easily throught the DECALS program. Going throught the DMV might make it too much of a hassle for the few times I now paddle a year.

[colden46]

Originally Posted by redhawk

$6.00 a year?? That will break me for sure.

I suppose if I were a drinking man that would deprive me of one six pack a year.

$6 per boat. So, between all the canoes and kayaks I own, I would be paying $30/year, which is more than my car registration costs. Just throwing that out there.

And further, it sounds like the money goes into a fund that primarily goes toward building boat launches. In the past few years, I can count on 0 fingers the number of times I've taken advantage of a boat launch. I don't have a big problem with paying something; it would just be nice if it went to something a majority of paddlers might actually use. This proposal (at least judging from the 2 sentence description) just sounds like a revenue grab.

(After reading the proposed legislation, up to 25% of the money in that fund can go towards administrative costs for the proposed aquatic invasive stewards program. On the other hand, there are grumblings online that the state has been raiding this fund in recent years to fill gaps in the General Fund.)

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by colden46

$6 per boat. So, between all the canoes and kayaks I own, I would be paying $30/year, which is more than my car registration costs. Just throwing that out there.

No it's not more then your car registration is. If you had 6 cars you would pay $117.00 a year to register them.

Originally Posted by colden46

And further, it sounds like the money goes into a fund that primarily goes toward building boat launches. In the past few years, I can count on 0 fingers the number of times I've taken advantage of a boat launch. I don't have a big problem with paying something; it would just be nice if it went to something a majority of paddlers might actually use. This proposal (at least judging from the 2 sentence description) just sounds like a revenue grab.

(After reading the proposed legislation, up to 25% of the money in that fund can go towards administrative costs for the proposed aquatic invasive stewards program. On the other hand, there are grumblings online that the state has been raiding this fund in recent years to fill gaps in the General Fund.)

Probably doing the same with the DMV fees too. So elect different legislatures. Lets all elect independents.

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by backwoodsman

I wish they would do away with all these petty permits for everything,next thing they'll want a yearly safety inspection done on your canoe for another 5 bucks.

Why not have just one permit that covers everything,they can call it theYou can leave your house permit $500.00 a year. Without it you can't even walk outside.With it you can do whatever you want.

Because a lot of people who have say one canoe or kayak or whatever would then be vastly overpaying.

Way I see it, if one can afford to buy say 6 canoes, then one can afford $30.00 for permits.

Hawk

[fisher39]

Originally Posted by colden46

$6 per boat. So, between all the canoes and kayaks I own, I would be paying $30/year, which is more than my car registration costs. Just throwing that out there.

And further, it sounds like the money goes into a fund that primarily goes toward building boat launches.....

I take it you're not a hunter and fisherman who has had to come to terms with the $47 fee for a sportsman license! And as Hawk says, if you can afford that many boats (and keep them in steady rotation all year)...

I'm with you on the use of the fees - I'd like to see them used for more general purposes or even just broader waterway uses.

I know backwoodsman is joking, but I kind of like the idea of general using public land permit where you pay say $10 to hike and paddle, you tack on a little more for fishing, then you tack on more for hunting.

[colden46]

Originally Posted by redhawk

No it's not more then your car registration is. If you had 6 cars you would pay $117.00 a year to register them.

Yes, it is more than my car registration is. I don't own 6 cars, I own one. One car fulfills all my needs, one boat does not. I just renewed the registration, it was $50 for 2 years. Actually $40 for the registration, then a $10 fee. Fees on top of fees. This nickel-and-diming is what pisses people off, and it just keeps getting worse.

And I don't own 6 boats either.

Originally Posted by redhawk

Way I see it, if one can afford to buy say 6 canoes, then one can afford $30.00 for permits.

Of course I can AFFORD to pay $30. I don't think that's the point. I could AFFORD to pay twice as much as I do right now in income taxes (if I never wanted to retire...). I suppose if that was proposed, I should just accept it, right? Are you really saying we should all pay every spare penny in taxes and fees, just because we can afford it? Especially if those fees go into funds that provide us little or no benefit whatsoever?

My point is, that many people own multiple boats, because as is often mentioned in this community, one boat does not fit all needs. So yeah, $6 doesn't sound like much, but multiply it a few times, and it adds up to something greater than $6.

Originally Posted by fisher39

I take it you're not a hunter and fisherman who has had to come to terms with the $47 fee for a sportsman license!

I was a casual fisherman who bought a license every year, until they raised that fee to $29. I can't justify that, and haven't fished since. I'm sure I'm not the only one, so I'd be curious to know if raising that fee actually generated any more revenue. Yes, I think sporting licenses are excessively expensive. And now they'll be even more expensive if heaven forbid you want to fish out of a canoe.

[rollinslover64]

Since they raised the fees I don't fish or hunt anymore,I also have no intentions of paying the fee for my kayaks because I'm about 100% sure the money will not go where it is supposed to.If all of the taxes we pay in this state went where they were supposed to the state might not be in the mess it is in now.

[adkman12986]

The $6 is just a start. Look at all the other fees they have have placed on us and how much they have gone up. Hunting and fishing licenses used to be around $20 a year. What are they now? Are the conditions for hunting any better then they were before the increase? And does anyone really think the money will actually go to where they say. Don't forget the administrative cost $5 out of the $6.

[ADKHUNTER]

It never will end. NYC is gonna start registrations for bicycles. How far behind will the state be on that?

Ed

[fvrwld]

Originally Posted by colden46

And further, it sounds like the money goes into a fund that primarily goes toward building boat launches.

Where did you find this information?

[colden46]

Originally Posted by fvrwld

Where did you find this information?

By googling for I love NY waterways vessel access account, which is where the original link says the fee money must be deposited. The top hit is the current law which set up this fund, and says:

The "I love NY waterways" vessel access account shall consist of the revenues derived from the vessel access surcharge collected upon the registration of vessels ... and shall be available for the creation, enhancement or maintenance of state or municipal facilities or services to provide boating access to the waters of the state

Another hit is the proposed legislation, which says that:

NOT MORE THAN TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE REVENUE IN SUCH ACCOUNT EACH FISCAL YEAR [shall be used for] THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES VOLUNTEER STEWARD PROGRAM

(Sorry for the all-caps, the changes to the existing law are listed in all caps and I'm too lazy to re-type it.)

And, another hit from that same search, from the "Empire State Marine Trades Association", complaining about the mis-use of the funds:

For a while, this program pumped about $600,000 per year into the account to fund transient docks and boat launch ramps at State parks and municipal sites. This is a good program; boaters’ money being used for boaters.

Tragically, state budget officials thought the money would be better spent on the State Budget deficit, and for several years now, the State has been raiding the fund and using the vessel registration money for General Fund relief. No more ramps and docks are being funded from this account.

[fisher39]

Originally Posted by colden46

Fees on top of fees. This nickel-and-diming is what pisses people off, and it just keeps getting worse.

I hear you and everyone else who has said the same on that to some degree, but I'd much rather pay for what I use (and have others do the same) than simply have it folded into my income tax bill.

Originally Posted by colden46

I was a casual fisherman who bought a license every year, until they raised that fee to $29. I can't justify that, and haven't fished since. I'm sure I'm not the only one, so I'd be curious to know if raising that fee actually generated any more revenue. Yes, I think sporting licenses are excessively expensive. And now they'll be even more expensive if heaven forbid you want to fish out of a canoe.

Agreed, $29 is just way too steep. I'm sure plenty of people who'd be willing to pay $10 see that figure and decide to fish anyway and take the risk.

The hunting license fee is getting to the point where I know a lot of casual hunters are wondering if it is worth it to spend that much money for the privilege of carrying a gun around the woods for a few days a year. The penalties for hunting without a license are no joke so that's not an option.

The DEC should have some college kids taking Econ 101 do a study of the elasticity of demand for licenses.

[Holdstrong]

One of Betty Little's bills was shot down today.

Little’s land purchase bill dies in Senate committee

[chairrock]

Despite all of the comments, I still think it would be money well spent to protect the lakes from the spread of invasives ... WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY OR DO? It seems cheap to me to keep that crud out of the lakes..

[colden46]

Originally Posted by chairrock

Despite all of the comments, I still think it would be money well spent to protect the lakes from the spread of invasives ... WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO PAY OR DO? It seems cheap to me to keep that crud out of the lakes..

The problem is, I doubt the proposed steward program would actually protect our lakes from the spread of invasives. Heck, the proposed legislation itself doesn't even claim it will! It says the program is "designed to collect information and data on alien plants and animals in the waters of the state and to educate boaters." Stewards are supposed to inspect boats and "remove and collect" plant or animal material, identify invasives, and record information about the boat involved (such as where it has been operated in the past, etc).

They specifically do NOT have the power to force an owner to submit to an inspection, or to answer any questions the steward asks about anything, including where the boat has been operated. Stewards have no ability to prevent the launching of a boat with visible invasives on it. Private marinas are not required to allow access to stewards.

So a steward could see a boat pull up with water milfoil all over the trailer, and could do absolutely nothing about it, except politely ask the owner to not launch.

For better or for worse, the proposed legislation has no teeth. Which is probably why it was proposed by ESMTA, a group that advocates for motor boaters -- they proposed a useless system in order to prevent someone else from proposing a system that might actually do something(*). And the icing on the cake, they want someone else to pay for it.

The proposed Senate bill can be read here: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S3519-2011

(*) By the way, this is not some wacky conspiracy theory. The ESMTA says this right on their website:

We are currently discussing this legislation with Assemblyman Sweeney in an effort to be proactive on this issue and head-off attempts by environmental bureaucrats to have introduced in the legislature an IS [invasive species] bill that would negatively impact the marine industry.