Fishing license bill gutted
The bill has been cast and is in the water, the bobber went under, but they just ate the bait and left an empty hook.
Senate Bill 345, the Sportfishing Stimulus Act of 2015 aimed at reforming sport fishing licenses and boost lagging license sales, passed the State Assembly on July 24 but a key provision was gutted by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill would have changed the length of time a license is good for from the date of purchase to the end go the calendar year to a 12-month expiration regardless of when it was purchased, like a driver’s license. This was the line item left on the table as entrails.
State Senator Tom Berryhill, the bill’s author, said the committee just took it out without asking him and it doesn’t have to.
“We were stunned,” Berryhill told The Sheet. He explained the bill had easily passed two policy committees and had no resistance; “We thought we had it greased up.” But the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), previously Fish and Game, had the Appropriations Committee amend the bill at the last minute.
“It’s frustrating,” Berryhill said. “I don’t understand where Fish and Wildlife is coming from.”
Dan Yparraguirre, Deputy Director of the Wildlife and Fisheries Division for DFW told The Sheet that while Department policy is not speak about legislation still working its way through, he wasn’t sure if a change in license structure is the right cure for the decline in sales.
The decline in sales could be due to economics, the drought or the price of fish food used at hatcheries that has gone up four times, he explained while trying to transfer The Sheet to a public relations person. He added that licenses are of great interest to the Department.
A report by the California Sportfishing League and cited by Berryhill states that license sales have dropped by 55 percent since 1980 and continue to decline. That amounts to 35,000 fewer license sales per year and loss of revenue that supports fish hatcheries.
Given the current rate of decline of sales, Berryhill said that in less than five years the State could fall below mandates to be eligible to receive federal funding to help with fishing.
Berryhill said his bill was penned similar to bills in states such as Utah that saw an increase in sales after reform.
“This bill works,” he said.
He said he sent a letter to the Department asking them what it planned on doing about boosting sales. He said its “B.S.” response was that it was going to boost its “email outreach.”
Yparraguirre said he was unaware of any “explicit alternative” to Berryhill’s proposal by the DFW.
Berryhill said he’s going to hold onto the bill until August when opportunities may allow the bill another chance. The bill would be re-amended to include the proposed expiration dates. If that doesn’t pan out, he said he would “aggressively go after it next year.
“This bill is my mission,” Berryhill told The Sheet, adding that fishing is a major economic driver for the Mother Lode Country he calls home as well the rest for the State.
The bill would also lower the cost of licenses for 16 and 17 year olds, an incentive for low-income kids to get out of doors and throw a line in, the State Senator said. He told a story of when he was a kid and going fishing in well stocked waters and the thrill of catching a fish. “It hooked me for life,” he said, “but if there’s no fish …”
The CSL report from March 2015 claims to be the first and perhaps only study that “compares the cost and value of annual fishing licenses, state-by-state,” Berryhill said. The report sheds light on some facts about the state’s licenses.
California’s fee, for example, is 66 percent more expensive than all other coastal states, the average being $28.30, while the Golden State fee is $47.01. California’s license is 84 percent higher than the national average.
According to the U.S. Census, 10 percent of Californians fished in 2001, ranking the State with one of the largest coastlines, more than 4,000 lakes and thousands of miles of streams, 46th for participation out of 50.
“Furthermore, fishing license fees have been subsidizing the cost of regulating the State’s commercial fishing industry as far back as 2007, which is disingenuous to anglers at best, and potentially unlawful at worst,” the report states. “If such funds were allocated properly, an additional $17 million a year, or more, could be invested in the State’s fishing programs.”
Commercial fishing generates $1.7 billion in economic revenue for the state. Recreational fishing is a $5 billion business in the State.
The report’s conclusion is that the high cost of licenses coupled with regulatory barriers is the cause for the decline of sales and anglers.
The CSL was not optimistic about the latest decision: “The fact that California is facing an unprecedented decline in fishing license sales is an ominous sign that anglers find fishing too expensive and less accessible than in years past,” CSL’s Executive Director Marko Mlikotin said on its website. “Yet, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife continues to defend the status quo and has failed to engage the angling community in reversing a dangerous trend. Unfortunately, this failure of leadership will undermine the amount of revenue generated from fishing license sales that fund fishery management plans, fish hatcheries and conservation programs. Absent meaningful reform, fishing license sales face a death spiral.”
