Lawmaker wants paddlers to pay

Pineedles · 12-12-2010, 05:07 PM

I stand by the belief that there should be a fee. I am not going to debate it, because like all other controversial subjects some people will get ridiculous in their examples of what should be licensed and what should not. Bogey boards, sure. Rubber duckies, if you can ride it, why not. Stick a decal on a hiker's butt, OK. Of course these examples are insane, but I pay a huge property tax, for the privilege of using a house that can never be sold for 2-3 weeks a year. I'm not bitter, but I would like to see the tax and fee burden shared.

If you don't agree, fine I can live with that.

robmac · 12-12-2010, 05:12 PM

Just what I need more things to register

moose tracks · 12-17-2010, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robmac

Just what I need more things to register

If it is powered by muscle then TAX IT! - "Live with Taxes or Die"

Yosemite Sam · 12-12-2010, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I stand by the belief that there should be a fee. I am not going to debate it, because like all other controversial subjects some people will get ridiculous in their examples of what should be licensed and what should not. Bogey boards, sure. Rubber duckies, if you can ride it, why not. Stick a decal on a hiker's butt, OK. Of course these examples are insane, but I pay a huge property tax, for the privilege of using a house that can never be sold for 2-3 weeks a year. I'm not bitter, but I would like to see the tax and fee burden shared.

If you don't agree, fine I can live with that.

Sorry Pineedles....didn't mean to get you upset. I just think that the Federal, State and Local govenments need to stop this tax and spend thought process and get more creative with ways to fund some of their departments.
I'm willing to pay a little to register my 2 kayaks and 2 canoes but when does the taxing of everything that we ejoy doing finally stop?

Pineedles · 12-12-2010, 06:56 PM

I know Sam, where does it stop? I can't answer that, but I still believe that if there IS a TAX or FEE, that it has to be equal. I don't know what will stop the spending of OUR money by GOV'T., but I guess I'm just giving up on trying to control them. Even the recent election doesn't make me very happy about the way things are being done.

Bigstan · 12-13-2010, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I stand by the belief that there should be a fee. I am not going to debate it, because like all other controversial subjects some people will get ridiculous in their examples of what should be licensed and what should not. Bogey boards, sure. Rubber duckies, if you can ride it, why not. Stick a decal on a hiker's butt, OK. Of course these examples are insane, but I pay a huge property tax, for the privilege of using a house that can never be sold for 2-3 weeks a year. I'm not bitter, but I would like to see the tax and fee burden shared.

If you don't agree, fine I can live with that.

That is the point - this tax revenue will not be 'shared'. Your personal payout will never go down. The $ will be used to make up for whatever shortfalls occur in other areas. It is simply a way of generating additional revenue. We need government to live within it's means, not look to expand into a new tax base.

We made it this far without this tax, we can make it the rest of the way. Government needs to cut back like the rest of us. Show me where their layoffs are, or where they have tried to balance their budget without adding additional tax revenue. Show me that and I will consider paying a new tax.

Argie's Wife · 12-13-2010, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I stand by the belief that there should be a fee. I am not going to debate it, because like all other controversial subjects some people will get ridiculous in their examples of what should be licensed and what should not. Bogey boards, sure. Rubber duckies, if you can ride it, why not. Stick a decal on a hiker's butt, OK. Of course these examples are insane, but I pay a huge property tax, for the privilege of using a house that can never be sold for 2-3 weeks a year. I'm not bitter, but I would like to see the tax and fee burden shared.

If you don't agree, fine I can live with that.

I respectfully submit the following:

Then why not a usage fee?

Why not ask the people using the public ramps to pay an entry fee for using the lake?

The lake front property owners already pay a tax - property tax - and shouldn't have to pay again to register a boat, even if it has motor or paddle - period. If the weekend warriors that come up here to camp or whatever (non-property owners/tax payers) need to fork over some money, then do it when they enter the water. It would be easier to maintain, boats could be checked for milfoil, and there would less MP's on the water.

I am not in favor of raising revenue from anything that may hurt tourism in NH, which hurts businesses in the long run - especially small businesses. Taxes have been raised on prepared food (restaurant tax), vehicle registration, boat registration, camping, etc. - this impacts the locals but it really impacts the tourists and the non-voting tax-payers. It really helps no one and in this bad economy is a poor proposal for raising revenue.

RailroadJoe · 12-13-2010, 09:26 AM

Yup, now we can hire a whole bunch more state workers to watch over the ramps and collect money. Think!

robmac · 12-13-2010, 09:49 AM

I agree with AW,I got my tax bill and then boat registration bill. Might be time for a second job that is after I get back to work.

jrc · 12-13-2010, 11:24 AM

There are always two parts of any budget shortfall, spending and taxes. Just because people agree that spending should be cut, doesn't mean that fees should not be adjusted.

I believe that fees addressed at a user of services is more conservative and even libertarian than general taxes paid by the masses to benefit a few.

NH must and will provide rescue services to a drowning kayaker. Should the kayaking community help pay for this service through fees or should everyone in NH pay through general taxes?

SIKSUKR · 12-13-2010, 12:09 PM

Will I have to register my water skis? How about all you divers? Those fin propelled wetsuits fit right into that catagory don't they?

Pineedles · 12-13-2010, 12:13 PM

As for ramp fees, I already pay a fee for my jet ski launched at Center Harbor. Don't other launch sites charge already? I have only seen powerboats launch at CH, no yaks or noes.

I guess I'm looking at this from a non-resident, non-voting, non-local business owner's perspective. That's who I am. Frankly, I am guessing though that this proposal is headed nowhere.

Argie's Wife · 12-13-2010, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

There are always two parts of any budget shortfall, spending and taxes. Just because people agree that spending should be cut, doesn't mean that fees should not be adjusted.

I believe that fees addressed at a user of services is more conservative and even libertarian than general taxes paid by the masses to benefit a few.

NH must and will provide rescue services to a drowning kayaker. Should the kayaking community help pay for this service through fees or should everyone in NH pay through general taxes?

Budgets are based on the previous year's expenses and on expected revenue for that year. Shortfalls can occur when there's unanticipated expenses, such as a sudden increase in fuel prices, and that's when something like a contingency fund can be set up. Money within a budget line item can be transferred to the budget line item where you have an anticipated shortfall - or a municipality may leave that budget line item alone just to show where there was a shortfall for next year's budget planning... Generally speaking, if something within a budget is a MAJOR capital improvement expense (like renovating a town building or purchasing police cruisers), it will be paid for in a fund that extends out over several years vs. a one-time high payment which would result in a tax increase for that year...

That being said...

Personally, I don't place the cost of rescue at the same level as hiring more MP personnel or other use-related activities. It may be that an emergency never happens - or it may be that there are several on a lake in a year - and who can plan on someone just needing a tow back to shore vs. someone needing the DHART (Dartmouth's helicopter) to take them to a trauma center? You can't plan emergencies... and whether it was me, my kids, you, or your loves ones, I don't think you can put a price (or charge) on emergency services provided by municipalities. All towns have a "mutual aid" policy that I know of - they will come to each other's aid at a time of need, with no charge - and reciprocate. You can't put a price on that!

fatlazyless · 12-13-2010, 02:40 PM

Every town, city or the state with a boat ramp on a lake has the opportunity there to install one of those steel fee deposit tubes similar to what's used in the White Mountain National Forest trail head parking lots. They are about 48" high x 10" diameter and get anchored into a concrete base, right next to the launch ramp. Without having to pay a town attendant, it would be there 24/7, and every time someone used the ramp to access the lake with a trailer they could be expected to pay a fee.....say 10-dollars. These would in all likelihood greatly increase the revenue stream and lower the cost of collection.

For security, the local police could stake out the boat ramp from a distance with a pair of binoculars and slap any boat ramp scofflaws with a 75-dollar fine, plus publish their name into the local newspaper police beat column! Plus, just have the local police eye ball the ramp as they roll past as part of their regular routine.

The big question would probably be: Which town employee can be trusted with the key to the all cash, fee tube padlock. No doubt, it would not be a first for so called trusted town employees to undergo a criminal transformation by turning themselves into "ten dollar bill collectors" as a new source for personal income.

So, if it requires a trailer to use the ramp, the fee tube must be fed ten dollarinos.....no exceptions...........period!

Hey...if the town decides to put steel fee deposit tubes down at the town ramps at Lake Waukewan, Big Lake: Meredith Bay, and Shep Brown's....I'll can volunteer myself to be administrate'n the official removal of the revenue stream from the fee tubes ..... !

jmen24 · 12-13-2010, 04:37 PM

Folks, F&G does not have access to the general fund, in or out. They get a $50,000 dollar match per year from the general fund for non-game related use.

I have no problem with paying a fee for my canoes as long as long as ALL of the proceeds go to Fish and Game. Marine Patrol funds their budget from our taxes, F&G does not.

Most S&R is headed by F&G, most (the others are typically on the town level) public access sites in the state of NH are aquired by, developed to a useful standard by and maintained by, Fish and Game. This includes all lakes, ponds, rivers and streams in NH.

The only boats I own are paddle craft and I have no issue with this request, as long as the money goes to the agency that needs and will provide the best use of it, Fish and Game. If MP gets any of this money than I will not hold the same position that I have stated today.

Don't believe me. Do some research.
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Insi..._QandA.new.htm

And before anyone tells me to give them my own money so they can keep theirs. I have conservation plates on my vehicle, I pay over $100 a year in hunting and fishing licenses, as well as OHRV registrations ($50+), I donate information gathered in my time in the woods, to help the state biologists with game management. And I also donate an amount of money each year as a personal contribution.

I somehow believe that this has nothing to do with funding a vital agency in this state that is in serious need of additional funding. And more to do with filling the state coffers.

ronc4424 · 12-13-2010, 05:14 PM

I agree with jmen24 100%. I would think that since the state had to spend extra money on radar guns and manpower to enforce the newly enacted speed limits to improve safety for canoes and kayaks that they would jump at the chance to pitch in. I pay my fair share to recieve the same benifits they do.

fatlazyless · 12-13-2010, 05:34 PM

I'll probably be the first one busted for paddling without a sticker, or for unloading a boat down the ramp without paying. Not paying at the ramp is like a local sport for all the locals....nobody pays....everybody just unloads and ignores the sign down at Shep Brown's town ramp.

Pay to paddle....NO WAY JOSE......Live Free of Die....you gots to stand up and fight for your rights......

Pineedles · 12-13-2010, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

I'll probably be the first one busted for paddling without a sticker, or for unloading a boat down the ramp without paying.:

I think I'll suggest a new provision to the proposed bill. "Shoot the first person who breaks this law."

Sorry FLL, you set yourself up for that one. I am guessing you did it on purpose.

fatlazyless · 12-13-2010, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I think I'll suggest a new provision to the proposed bill. "Shoot the first person who breaks this law."

Sorry FLL, you set yourself up for that one. I am guessing you did it on purpose.

That's no problemo....first time anyone tries to shoot me.....I'll fast bop them over the head with a broom handle......EL KABONG!.........problem solved! ..

So, how do you carry a broom that can be concealed for self protection purposes......use a whisk broom! ..

Argie's Wife · 12-14-2010, 08:36 AM

I spoke with two members of the NH House of Representatives yesterday and both thought this bill wouldn't float, especially in a Republican-majority house. I noted it was a Republican who proposed the bill, and both still thought it was a bit of an obnoxious tax. (My words -- not theirs).

ApS · 01-24-2011, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

I spoke with two members of the NH House of Representatives yesterday and both thought this bill wouldn't float, especially in a Republican-majority house. I noted it was a Republican who proposed the bill, and both still thought it was a bit of an obnoxious tax. (My words -- not theirs).

This 8-foot sailboat is used for instructing our smallest sailors in safe boating.

The largest class of sailboat on Lake Winnipesaukee will be taxed under this proposed bill.

ApS · 12-16-2010, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmen24

Most S&R is headed by F&G, most (the others are typically on the town level) public access sites in the state of NH are aquired by, developed to a useful standard by and maintained by, Fish and Game. This includes all lakes, ponds, rivers and streams in NH.

1) ...including Vermont's very long border with New Hampshire.

2)

Anyone check this year's NHF&G rescue log?

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/newsroom.htm

The majority are lost hikers—many from out-of-state—and a Vermont kayaker who was lost on Vermont's very long border with New Hampshire.

Yup. Let's tax ourselves into Prosperity.

12-12-2010, 05:07 PM	#1
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,548 Thanks: 1,073 Thanked 669 Times in 368 Posts	Imo I stand by the belief that there should be a fee. I am not going to debate it, because like all other controversial subjects some people will get ridiculous in their examples of what should be licensed and what should not. Bogey boards, sure. Rubber duckies, if you can ride it, why not. Stick a decal on a hiker's butt, OK. Of course these examples are insane, but I pay a huge property tax, for the privilege of using a house that can never be sold for 2-3 weeks a year. I'm not bitter, but I would like to see the tax and fee burden shared. If you don't agree, fine I can live with that.

12-12-2010, 05:12 PM	#2
robmac Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Nashua,Meredith Posts: 951 Thanks: 213 Thanked 106 Times in 81 Posts	Just what I need more things to register Attached Images

12-13-2010, 12:09 PM	#11
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Will I have to register my water skis? How about all you divers? Those fin propelled wetsuits fit right into that catagory don't they? __________________ SIKSUKR

12-13-2010, 02:40 PM	#14
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,834 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 302 Thanked 1,033 Times in 752 Posts	...just copy-cat the WMNF fee tubes! Every town, city or the state with a boat ramp on a lake has the opportunity there to install one of those steel fee deposit tubes similar to what's used in the White Mountain National Forest trail head parking lots. They are about 48" high x 10" diameter and get anchored into a concrete base, right next to the launch ramp. Without having to pay a town attendant, it would be there 24/7, and every time someone used the ramp to access the lake with a trailer they could be expected to pay a fee.....say 10-dollars. These would in all likelihood greatly increase the revenue stream and lower the cost of collection. For security, the local police could stake out the boat ramp from a distance with a pair of binoculars and slap any boat ramp scofflaws with a 75-dollar fine, plus publish their name into the local newspaper police beat column! Plus, just have the local police eye ball the ramp as they roll past as part of their regular routine. The big question would probably be: Which town employee can be trusted with the key to the all cash, fee tube padlock. No doubt, it would not be a first for so called trusted town employees to undergo a criminal transformation by turning themselves into "ten dollar bill collectors" as a new source for personal income. So, if it requires a trailer to use the ramp, the fee tube must be fed ten dollarinos.....no exceptions...........period! Hey...if the town decides to put steel fee deposit tubes down at the town ramps at Lake Waukewan, Big Lake: Meredith Bay, and Shep Brown's....I'll can volunteer myself to be administrate'n the official removal of the revenue stream from the fee tubes ..... ! __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! Last edited by fatlazyless; 12-13-2010 at 08:35 PM.

12-13-2010, 04:37 PM	#15
jmen24 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 1,139 Thanks: 223 Thanked 319 Times in 181 Posts	Lack of Knowledge on funding! Folks, F&G does not have access to the general fund, in or out. They get a $50,000 dollar match per year from the general fund for non-game related use. I have no problem with paying a fee for my canoes as long as long as ALL of the proceeds go to Fish and Game. Marine Patrol funds their budget from our taxes, F&G does not. Most S&R is headed by F&G, most (the others are typically on the town level) public access sites in the state of NH are aquired by, developed to a useful standard by and maintained by, Fish and Game. This includes all lakes, ponds, rivers and streams in NH. The only boats I own are paddle craft and I have no issue with this request, as long as the money goes to the agency that needs and will provide the best use of it, Fish and Game. If MP gets any of this money than I will not hold the same position that I have stated today. Don't believe me. Do some research. http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Insi..._QandA.new.htm And before anyone tells me to give them my own money so they can keep theirs. I have conservation plates on my vehicle, I pay over $100 a year in hunting and fishing licenses, as well as OHRV registrations ($50+), I donate information gathered in my time in the woods, to help the state biologists with game management. And I also donate an amount of money each year as a personal contribution. I somehow believe that this has nothing to do with funding a vital agency in this state that is in serious need of additional funding. And more to do with filling the state coffers.

The Following User Says Thank You to Pineedles For This Useful Post:
topwater (12-12-2010)

12-12-2010, 06:56 PM	#5
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,548 Thanks: 1,073 Thanked 669 Times in 368 Posts	I know Sam, where does it stop? I can't answer that, but I still believe that if there IS a TAX or FEE, that it has to be equal. I don't know what will stop the spending of OUR money by GOV'T., but I guess I'm just giving up on trying to control them. Even the recent election doesn't make me very happy about the way things are being done.

12-13-2010, 09:26 AM	#8
RailroadJoe Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 620 Thanks: 259 Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts	Yup, now we can hire a whole bunch more state workers to watch over the ramps and collect money. Think!

12-13-2010, 09:49 AM	#9
robmac Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Nashua,Meredith Posts: 951 Thanks: 213 Thanked 106 Times in 81 Posts	I agree with AW,I got my tax bill and then boat registration bill. Might be time for a second job that is after I get back to work.

12-13-2010, 11:24 AM	#10
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	There are always two parts of any budget shortfall, spending and taxes. Just because people agree that spending should be cut, doesn't mean that fees should not be adjusted. I believe that fees addressed at a user of services is more conservative and even libertarian than general taxes paid by the masses to benefit a few. NH must and will provide rescue services to a drowning kayaker. Should the kayaking community help pay for this service through fees or should everyone in NH pay through general taxes?

12-13-2010, 12:13 PM	#12
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,548 Thanks: 1,073 Thanked 669 Times in 368 Posts	As for ramp fees, I already pay a fee for my jet ski launched at Center Harbor. Don't other launch sites charge already? I have only seen powerboats launch at CH, no yaks or noes. I guess I'm looking at this from a non-resident, non-voting, non-local business owner's perspective. That's who I am. Frankly, I am guessing though that this proposal is headed nowhere.

12-13-2010, 05:14 PM	#16
ronc4424 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Danvers,Ma & Ashland,Nh Posts: 71 Thanks: 151 Thanked 18 Times in 11 Posts	I agree with jmen24 100%. I would think that since the state had to spend extra money on radar guns and manpower to enforce the newly enacted speed limits to improve safety for canoes and kayaks that they would jump at the chance to pitch in. I pay my fair share to recieve the same benifits they do.

12-13-2010, 05:34 PM	#17
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,834 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 302 Thanked 1,033 Times in 752 Posts	I'll probably be the first one busted for paddling without a sticker, or for unloading a boat down the ramp without paying. Not paying at the ramp is like a local sport for all the locals....nobody pays....everybody just unloads and ignores the sign down at Shep Brown's town ramp. Pay to paddle....NO WAY JOSE......Live Free of Die....you gots to stand up and fight for your rights...... __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! Last edited by fatlazyless; 12-13-2010 at 07:50 PM.

12-14-2010, 08:36 AM	#20
Argie's Wife Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Alton Posts: 1,908 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 533 Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts	I spoke with two members of the NH House of Representatives yesterday and both thought this bill wouldn't float, especially in a Republican-majority house. I noted it was a Republican who proposed the bill, and both still thought it was a bit of an obnoxious tax. (My words -- not theirs).

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode