Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy
Sunbeam... and others,
Its understandable how people who don't own motorized boats are against this proposal, they have been able to use the public resource of NH lakes, ponds and rivers for free... its in THIER best interest to keep it free (for them)!
But the safety and maintenance of those waterways does have a cost associated with it! During the Great Speed Limit debates this forum saw canoeists and kayakers complain vociferously about the NHMP and its lack of enforcement.... especially of the 150' rule. however they pay nothing to support the NHMP.
So you dont want a fee? How do YOU propose we fund the NHMP? Fuel, personnel and maintenance costs increase 3-5% every year. Should it stay as it is now where only powerboaters bear the burden of funding the NHMP? We see the results of that policy in the doubling of our registration fees.
Short of not paying anything at all, wouldnt you rather a $5 or $10 fee on your kayak instead of a double digit increase in your powerboat and PWC registration again in a couple of years? and again in couple more years?
I do understand that "getting hit" again with a small fee is definiately a pain! But lets try to be realistic... a $5 or $10 fee isnt going to really be all the detrimental compared to your motorized boat registration fees doubling every 2-3 years....
Requiring a NH waterway access decal would raise alot of $$$ for NHMP while minimally impacting EVERYONE who uses the water resources... and doesnt put the financial burden soley on one group.
Woodsy
|
I guess I am a little confused. When the original fee for non powered boats was proposed it was brought forward as a source of additional funding for Fish and Game, not NHMP. When did this change and why did NHMP get into the mix.
I myself would pay the fee, I at this time do not own a power boat (hopefully that will change soon), but I do own a few canoes and I would pay to put a sticker on each, but I would prefer to see my money go to Fish and Game not solely to NHMP, the reason you might ask, well it is simple. I for one do not paddle on large open lakes, mostly small rivers, whitewater and the occasional sail on a small lake. Most of the rivers that I paddle are not handled directly by NHMP but Fish and Game. If a search is needed it is handled by Fish and Game. Now I would be open to a split of the proceeds to benifit both agencies, but a far greater majority of paddlers do not paddle the big waters that NHMP patrols, I know these numbers are growing as more people seem to have kayaks these days. Obviously row boats and small sail craft are a MP issue more than F&G.
I can understand the want of NHMP to have access to more funding to help fund patrol of, lets face it larger craft. But having NHMP take money from a source that has very little need for patrol and regulation, from the agency thats sole mission is to preserve the areas and waterways that see more canoe and kayak traffic per season than the bigger waterways, just does not seem right. Not to mention that Fish and Game has a far more severe funding deficit compared to MP and it does not get any money from the general fund (I do not know if MP does or not).
I don't know, maybe these two agencies should really take a long look at merging and trying to fill the voids with the amount of overlap that would be present.