Those crying about the "Proposed" Tourney fee's

[hardestyeric]

What makes everything that comes out of your mouth fact? And whatever anyone that disagrees with you conjecture? How does that work?
Eric H.

[lov2fish]

When I actualy researched the numbers. Ever tried it? It's not rocket science, everything is on the web to see. Plus it helps I have a few connections @ the IDNR through ISC Conservation.


The first thing to come out of peoples mouths when their "Opinions" are proven wrong, personal attacks. Prove me wrong and I will eat crow for the entire world to see. It is highly unlikely you will, but if you do my embarrassment is there for the world to laugh at.


Ray Rigby

[TI]

Ray,

C'mon brother. There is some legitimate concern and it's healthy for progress to have these debates. Everyone raises a lot of legitimate questions and hopefully those questions will be analyzed and addressed by the DNR/State in their next course of action. I mean this in a friendly manner my friend but your posture here is a little over the top.

TI

[hardestyeric]

Not sure if you read your post before you sent it but you started the personal attacks with the tone and sarcasm of your first post. The rest of us are just responding to it.
I believe that team9 pretty well proved you wrong on that other web page. He explained the facts of where the extra tourney fees came from. He explained that it didn't have anything do with management resource, exotic species, or lake resources. It shows that your "opinion" about where the extra tournament fees where coming from is wrong.
For those of you that don't get on that other page, the extra fees are coming from all the paperwork that goes into having the tourneys and the meetings to schedule the tourneys. It also isn't the huge dollar amount jump that some (including myself) have speculated.
Eric H.

[Team9nine]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-06 AT 09:33AM (EST)[/font][p]Eric, not proving anybody wrong here. Unfortunately, there are a lot of different fees for a lot of different reasons all being argued over in the same post. Many of these don't have anything to do with each other, but it is easy to understand how two guys could be arguing over 2 different fees and where that money goes and not realize it.

Money from the tourney permit stuff is different from money for the launch permit and different from the DNR fees and LARE fees on a boat registration. All have their reasons and their respective budgets they get assigned to, just hard to argue all of them in a single post without getting everyone confused :) The DNR is a pretty huge group with lots of different departmental budgets.

-T9

[lov2fish]

TI/Eric, etc. Yes I came off as pompus and for that I apologize. I still stick to my guns about how I arrived @ my numbers. I got them directly from the DNR. It just irked me to no end when reading the other thread that nobody ever took the resource into consideration, not once. Everyone formed an opinion that bass fishermen are the only one's who count in any process regarding monies and the IDNR. Our resources are not a renewable comodity. They need managed and properly taken care of and this has to be paid for by somebody. This was never mentioned, just finger pointing that the IDNR was ripping us off once again.

I just wanted to shed light on the fact they we are not the only people who fish or use the resource and we are responsible for our own actions. If this bothers some people so beit. I won't apologize for wanting to protect what I consider a privledge and not a right (Using our resources)

You can think of me what you will, won't loose a minutes sleep over it, but I won't stop pointing out glaring observations.


Ray rigby

[hardestyeric]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-06 AT 10:09AM (EST)[/font][p]Nobody has ever questioned you points about the resources. Nobody has ever said that you didn't make valid points. I don't see how the points you made pertain to just tourney fisherman, they cover all fisherman. If the DNR is going to raise licenses across the board to cover management fees, stocking fees, or improvements you wouldn't hear me say a word about it. I know that they are trying to become self supporting and I have a pretty good hunch that they are underfunded. Where the controversy started is when you said that they were charging more in the tourneys to cover the costs for ALL fisherman. That is what I had a problem with. If they are doing things that benefits the resource as a whole then they should charge all the fisherman. If the tourneys cause extra fees then charge the tourney fisherman for just those extra fees. I'm fine with that. I am completely against charging one group more money to benefit all the groups. It does happen but it doesn't make it right.
Eric H.

[idbefishing]

I agreed with Eric! A while back there was a thread of someone complaining about the cost of park entry, ramp and camping fee. I was supportive of those costs because I understand that those fees were neccessary for operation and IT HAVE TO BE PAID FOR BY EVERYONE USING THE LAKE. What we're "crying" about is not because the extra 5-10 bucks or whatever. It ain't fair for one group to pay for everyone. If I can afford $2.80/gal of gas to drive 200 miles to the lake, I can definetely spend the extra 5-10. If they say, bend over, I won't say how far unless everyone else have to.

[MikeAxsom]

Eric, stated the way you just did, I am in agrement with your position on fees of all types. It should never be acceptable for one person or group of people to force another person or group of people to pay for their recreation. That is what I see as the primary fault of tax based recreation. But I'm not sure that is really what is going on with this fee. I think your research on the matter should include checking what the DNR and the Natural Resources Commission have in their own study materials that led to the establishment of the fee in the first place. I've been in some of those types of process, and I'm pretty sure a plan to just rip off tournament anglers to help fund some wild-hair idea elsewhere would have a very hard time getting through the process; despite what some guys on the internet, or at the bait shop might tell you.

[hardestyeric]

Mike,
That was more or less the point of my last post. The entire time I have been trying to find where these extra fees for tourneys where coming from. Someone has been kind enough to enlighten me and I'm fine with it. Ray presented the material in a way that would lead you to believe that the increased tourney fees were to help the overall resource and not just to cover the cost of the tournaments themselves. If it has to cost more to play then so be it. As long as the cost is spread to the users that are benefiting from it.
Eric H.

[MikeAxsom]

Eric, I have to say that I don't know the reasoning behind the new IDNR tourny fee myself, and was not involved in how it came about. My observations were intended to be about the process that I havee seen in these tings for many years in the business.I see IDNR today growing toward a more user focused funding model, i.e., specific fees for specirfic activities, and I assume this fee is in keping with that trend. At the same time it is true that any funds that get addd to the total dollar pie will benefit all of the resources under IDNR management. For example, if a fee for boaters was to be implemented specifically to build modern restrooms near ramps, that would also benefit bank fishermen that use the same area. In other cases it is just a matter of a tagged fund freeing up some other money for an unrelated program or project. It is all part of the same plan at some level.