Kayak Legislation

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by AC2717

how will they know when I come off my private land with my kayak that I did not come off of a launch? or a friend was visiting with their kayak and came off private land

that to me is a major flaw here

Since you are not using the launch ramp you are not affected. Since it is voluntary you can choose whether to participate, or not.

The explanation by the State Representative said the intent was to have users of the ramps pay something towards maintenance. It was felt that the ramps are currently maintained using motorboat registration fees and that was unfair since there are other users of the ramps that do not contribute towards their upkeep.

Although I am not in favor of more government regulations and fees, with the explanation the intent of the legislation makes sense to me.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Since you are not using the launch ramp you are not affected. Since it is voluntary you can choose whether to participate, or not.

The explanation by the State Representative said the intent was to have users of the ramps pay something towards maintenance. It was felt that the ramps are currently maintained using motorboat registration fees and that was unfair since there are other users of the ramps that do not contribute towards their upkeep.

Although I am not in favor of more government regulations and fees, with the explanation the intent of the legislation makes sense to me.

Agreed on all points.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Since you are not using the launch ramp you are not affected. Since it is voluntary you can choose whether to participate, or not.

The explanation by the State Representative said the intent was to have users of the ramps pay something towards maintenance. It was felt that the ramps are currently maintained using motorboat registration fees and that was unfair since there are other users of the ramps that do not contribute towards their upkeep.

Although I am not in favor of more government regulations and fees, with the explanation the intent of the legislation makes sense to me.

fully understand that, but how to the "enforcers" of the law know that

[Descant]

Originally Posted by AC2717

fully understand that, but how to the "enforcers" of the law know that

If the amendment passes, it is voluntary. Nothing to enforce. I expect to see more amendments since the amendment to give funds to public water access is different from the original bill which gave money to MP and lake protection (milfoil control).

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Descant

If the amendment passes, it is voluntary. Nothing to enforce. I expect to see more amendments since the amendment to give funds to public water access is different from the original bill which gave money to MP and lake protection (milfoil control).

even more foolish, yes let's waste time on voluntary fees but pay someone real tax dollars to process it

[Descant]

Originally Posted by AC2717

even more foolish, yes let's waste time on voluntary fees but pay someone real tax dollars to process it

The overhead is covered from the fee, not tax dollars. Fish and Game, like the parks division at DNCR, is essentially self-supporting and does not rely on tax dollars.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Descant

The overhead is covered from the fee, not tax dollars. Fish and Game, like the parks division at DNCR, is essentially self-supporting and does not rely on tax dollars.

all realized, but in reality is there enough "voluntary fee payments" going to cover the costs associated

never understood the purpose of "voluntary" when it comes to fees. Either it is a required fee or not? otherwise its a donation, and its something that can be done on end user level and not at the state level where as previously posted by others, won't amount to much more than an toe in the door for more to come.

C'mon people it is a kayak

[Descant]

AC2717: The original bill charged a fee. The amendment changed that to voluntary. Don't cross the two.
The example they're following is other voluntary plans in the parks division such as a "Parks" license plate and a "Hike safe" card. The "Moose" plate has raised substantial funds for conservation. The parks also use "Iron Rangers" to collect parking fees at trail heads. It's mostly an honor system. Seems to work. Carry in Carry out, mostly works, although I guess there will always be some people who leave trash and litter. I giggle at the (local) park that has a Carry in Carry out sign next to a trash barrel. I guess for people who can't read.
The reason for such a ramp fund bill is that it enables Fish and Game to print and sell the stickers and it mandates where the funds will be allocated. I'd say they don't have that specific authority now. So, it's as much to direct F & G as it is to encourage sticker purchase.

[MAXUM]

Just remember that this is as previously pointed out the important part for now is putting a framework into place. At some later time with another amendment "voluntary" becomes "mandatory".

I see this as a multi year and slow walked effort but let's not be naïve here, the end game is clear and not voluntary. I'm sure some would love to charge you a fee just because you exist and other to what extent you exist.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Just remember that this is as previously pointed out the important part for now is putting a framework into place. At some later time with another amendment "voluntary" becomes "mandatory".

I see this as a multi year and slow walked effort but let's not be naïve here, the end game is clear and not voluntary. I'm sure some would love to charge you a fee just because you exist and other to what extent you exist. :rolleye2

You may be right in the long run. I recall around 2001 when $3 was added to the boat registration fee to help control Milfoil and other invasive species. I think it is up to $9.50 now. However as lake association members know, the public has been asking for more help with milfoil control. Those who use F & G ramps are asking for more improvements, better parking, etc. There is some sentiment that yakkers should participate in managing our waters instead of just saying they cause no harm (except the cost of SAR as discussed above.) I'd rather pay a directed fee where I see direct benefit, than a general tax where we trust the legislature to pick and choose my priorities.

[Descant]

We're up to post #70+ on this thread and have stayed pretty much on topic. Thank you all. It's been a good conversation.

[MAXUM]

The state could always consider adding a option on every boat registration renewal to donate $$

There is no option to donate to this when purchasing a fishing license, there are other options but not this specifically.

The state could also consider using the lottery to raise money where certain special games could be introduced specifically benefitting the F&G.

[AC2717]

if we are really looking at accepting a charge or voluntary fee then
instead of a kayak fee, charge a parking fee for the vehicle in the parking areas for ramp access
now it becomes - not a on water enforcement or a ramp enforcement. and you do not need people to run it, just a pay station in the parking lot, and when they don't pay the police can ticket and generate revenue that way for the town as well.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by AC2717

if we are really looking at accepting a charge or voluntary fee then
instead of a kayak fee, charge a parking fee for the vehicle in the parking areas for ramp access
now it becomes - not a on water enforcement or a ramp enforcement. and you do not need people to run it, just a pay station in the parking lot, and when they don't pay the police can ticket and generate revenue that way for the town as well.

Difficult to enforce.

How would you know if they had launched a kayak and owed the fee?

What if the vehicle owner is just there to jump on a friends powerboat for the day? That friend would have already paid his "fee" through registration.

Would you exclude vehicles with trailers that might have hauled a boat, but could have brought in a kayak?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Difficult to enforce.

How would you know if they had launched a kayak and owed the fee?

What if the vehicle owner is just there to jump on a friends powerboat for the day? That friend would have already paid his "fee" through registration.

Would you exclude vehicles with trailers that might have hauled a boat, but could have brought in a kayak?

simple, just like a regular parking lot, doesn't mater if boat or kayak, your car is in the lot you pay to use it. I'm not deciphering between boat or kayak

[rick35]

Originally Posted by AC2717

simple, just like a regular parking lot, doesn't mater if boat or kayak, your car is in the lot you pay to use it. I'm not deciphering between boat or kayak

What lots would I need to pay to use? I already pay taxes to Meredith for poor parking at Shep Browns. Would you have me pay again? This is a very complicated topic. Every idea that has been discussed has flaws. If you can’t do it equitably the best solution is to not do it at all.

[fatlazyless]

Down at the parking lot at the Weirs Beach sandy beach area, the City of Laconia has a $2.00/hour pay-to-park parking lot system in place that uses a single pay station, takes quarters or credit cards, and has numbered all the different parking spaces with space numbers.

It seems to work very good, especially with using 2-quarters for 15-minutes, or 8-quarters for one hour.

A pay-to-park system seems like a doable situation for getting users to pay, at your local boat launch ramp ......... like, why not!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Descant

AC2717: The original bill charged a fee. The amendment changed that to voluntary. Don't cross the two.
The example they're following is other voluntary plans in the parks division such as a "Parks" license plate and a "Hike safe" card. The "Moose" plate has raised substantial funds for conservation. The parks also use "Iron Rangers" to collect parking fees at trail heads. It's mostly an honor system. Seems to work. Carry in Carry out, mostly works, although I guess there will always be some people who leave trash and litter. I giggle at the (local) park that has a Carry in Carry out sign next to a trash barrel. I guess for people who can't read.
The reason for such a ramp fund bill is that it enables Fish and Game to print and sell the stickers and it mandates where the funds will be allocated. I'd say they don't have that specific authority now. So, it's as much to direct F & G as it is to encourage sticker purchase.

Was it FLL who was seen reaching into that barrel and carrying some items out?