Tidal Fish Forum banner

Boat Registration Fees to Increase

4029 Views 24 Replies 17 Participants Last post by  paxfish

As you all have seen there is a bill HB 1037 that will increase the boat registration fees. Here at MSSA we oppose this bill. MSSA is asking all members and all anglers that oppose the increase to click on the link below. This link will take you to our website. At the site you will see the letter we have composed and where you can input you name and address on the right. When you enter this informationa and hit send the message, an email will be sent with that letter in your name to the Govenor and your state delegates that you oppose the increase and asking them to oppose it also. . It will also send a message to numerous newpapers.

MSSA needs your help to stop the increase. If you oppose the increase please follow the link below..

Thank you.

Vince Ringgold
President MSSA.

1 - 20 of 25 Posts
I don't understand why the MSSA opposes the increase? Wouldn't the additional funds go towards the DNR and more importantly the NRP? It appears to me that the DNR is playing catch up with the rest of the state agencies.....
I don't understand why the MSSA opposes the increase? Wouldn't the additional funds go towards the DNR and more importantly the NRP? It appears to me that the DNR is playing catch up with the rest of the state agencies.....
Frst, I don't speak for the MSSA

These funds will not go directly to DNR, NRP. The increase is supposedly to pick up where the Army corp. of engineers has left off since they will no longer be directing the dredging and maintenance of navigate able waterways. With slow economy and dwindling boat sales, funds are at an all time low. To begin with there is no oversight of the current system, at the least no audits or delegation of priorities have been set. So do the funds need to be raised? The state has not demonstrated at this time a clear and present need other than we need to have it. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. Also there are no assurances that this is not a fee and that the monies can't be raided by the general fund. Additionaly, a increase of such proportions may have other adverse affect on the states boating industry directly as well as the indirect supporting industry.
My understanding is that the COE will continue to be responsible for dredging waterways that support commercial traffic. Waterways that support industry and security type traffic. Is this correct?
Pat in Joppa
If the increase is meant to go towards the General Fund of the State to try and balance their budget or recoup some deficit, I completely understand why anyone is against the increase. But, if the increased revenue is to go towards helping maintain waterways or support the enforcement of laws on those waterways I am willing to pay the extra money. But I also want to see where the funds are appropriated and a measurable benefit. I, like most on here probably, pay the DMV a lot of money in tag renewals so I don't see this increase as anything detrimental.
Thanks for the responses. Understand that the increase for a small boat from 16' to 32' is a 500% increase. This is a hugh increase that is not acceptable. And like said before the monies are sleighted to go to the general fund and there are no assurances that the monies can’t be raided by the general fund. We just do not know with this bill if the monies will ever get to be used for the proper purpose. These concerns are why MSSA is opposing the bill.
you are right. sorry fat fingers. Bill HB1307 not 1037. thanks for the ocrrection
I have already e-mailed my local reps. and they have responed to tell me they are against the bill.
This present governer is trying to raise any and everything he can. Sales tax, liquor tax, septic tax and I could go on and on. This state is out control with spending and trying to make us pay for it. I would not be surprised if the pention plans are underfunded also and I forgot about the gas tax. Hold on guys we are in for a rough ride until he gets out.
Thanks Vince. As I posted in the other thread:

In an activity where participation levels drive the economic benefits, large fee increases only stand to discourage participation.

Remember the federal luxury tax on large expensive boats. It was not that people couldn't afford the tax, it just discouraged their sale. Growing up in NJ with a number of large boat manufacturers, the lux tax certainly hurt the local economy. I see the same potential here. Will the guy who didn't use his older boat that much the last few years spend the money on parts, service or repair when faced with a big increase in state fees. The fees may be enough to discourage his participation. Whether or not they are, I don't know. But if enough do, the fees will stand to hurt commerce. (And the state stands to lose ramp fees, gas tax revenue, sales tax on parts, service, etc. - all while small businesses lose profit) Remember fees don't have to be enouh that one cannot afford, just enough to discourage participation.
The real issue here isn't increasing the fees, it's ensuring that the funds are earmarked to be used exclusively by DNR--in a fiscally responsible manner. If that would be the case, we should all be FOR the increase, as they would be used for the enforcement of our fisheries laws. Given that it's the government, the reality is that the funds would get evaporated into the general fund to patch up some historical spending deficit. So...why not work on pinning the government down to allocating the funds appropriately, rather than looking like we only care about enforcing fishieries laws when it doesn't cost us more? IMO, the MSSA is missing an opportunity here and is exposing itself to coming off as hipocrites.
I want to thank all that have participated with this. We have had over 400 anglers respond to this link. It has sent over 400 emails to the govenor, state delegates and newpspers. We are getting our voice heard.

I have personnally received email responses from my state delegates and they both say that this bill would deter our anglers from thier passion. They have both assured me that they would vote against this bill. They have also ask that we continue our plan to oppose this bill. . Please if you have not done so and you oppose this bill, follow the link and send the emails to your delegates.

Again, Thanks for all of the help. Your voice is being heard.

MSSA is missing the boat here. I am a member. Can I get some background of how MSSA comes to positions like this? Let's be clear, I am opposed to fee increase going to general funds, but am 100% in favor of a fee increase to support the DNR/NRP. I believe that would be the proper stance for MSSA. We need accountability for the fee increase not just a blind opposition as in the letter provided. This as Nacho described above is a missed opportunity in my opinion. The letter on the link is poor, and the message is poor.
The direction fuel is headed fees are the least of your worries,for the forseable future.
For a guy wearing a cape, kneepads, and spandex, ol' Nacho man makes sense every so often.
Let me try to explain.

MSSA is not opposed to a rate increase. MSSA is not opposed to monies going to DNR/NRP.

What MSSA is opposed to is this bill 1307. It has a 500% increase to the fees for boats between 16 to 32 feet. The money raised by this will go into the general fund where the govenor can use it anyway he see fits There are no assurances or gaurantees that the money will be used for its intended purpose.It does not have to go to the DNR/NRP.

Emails sent. BOAT/US has a similar email mechanism in effect.
For a guy wearing a cape, kneepads, and spandex, ol' Nacho man makes sense every so often.
I'm more than just brains, looks, charm, style, sense of humor, and humility.
Then I am opposed 100%. However, I would like to see the letter expanded upon to reflect our interests and willingness to pay more money to support the DNR/NRP and recreational fishing and boating interests.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.