Letters/Online Comments

Letters/Online Comments

Re: SB 187: Questions Abound About Fishing License Bill’s Failure (Oct. 20-Nov. 2 issue)

Pass the bill already!

Members of the state legislature:

I have been licensed as a broker with the California Bureau of Real Estate since 1989. My license is active from Dec. 3 and expires on Dec. 2 – four years later. All real estate licenses are for a non-calendar period. Thus, when I pay $300 for a license, I get $300 worth of time to use the license.

Driver’s license, auto registration and a number of other licenses are based on a non-calendar period as well, all providing full value when fees are paid.

Common sense says a fishing license should be good for a non-calendar year as well, right? But it’s not. The fishing license I purchased in July gave me half the value of those who purchased their license in January. Does that seem fair?

For whatever reason, SB 187 won’t get passed to solve this fishing license discrimination issue. There’s been no opposition to the bill and the recreational fishing industry has been slowly whittling away over the years. One reason is the fishing license fee structure.

Don’t you people have any common sense? For Pete’s sake, pass the damn bill!

Steve Cozforus


Re: Recreational access initiative will be on 2018 ballot (Nov. 3-16 issue)

Taxed and Tired

As a California native, I am very tired of Gov. Brown doing as he pleases with my rights and my tax moneys. This initiative goes hand in hand with me now having to pay an additional 12-cent fuel tax on my fuel bill for my boat, even though it only goes in the water. I find it hard to pay for the fuel in the first place and considering just giving up the boat all together or moving to perhaps Texas. As a lowly poor citizen, I don’t have a limo or a boat supplied to me by the tax payers like you do and now you want to add another fee???

Victor La Fountaine


Re: Newport Beach granted $125,000 to clear harbor of derelict vessels (Nov. 3-16 issue)

Surrendered Sign

It would be nice to see a large tag or other sign indicating the boat has been designated owner-surrendered or abandoned. There could be wannabe boat owners looking for a fixer-upper and willing to remove it from the water until it has been restored and worthy — at no cost to anyone other than the new owner.

Jim Voelkl


Re: California Boater Card: The Case for Boater Education (Oct. 20-Nov. 2 issue)

Free boating course

There’s no better way to learn than for free: California Boaters Can Now Take Free Boating Safety Course: bit.ly/2yTQjwa.

Scott Croft


Re: The Cult of Personality: Re-envisioning Southern California Waterfronts (Oct. 3-19 issue)

Shops don’t need ocean views

You wrote: “It is fair to say change is good. It is also fair to question whether such changes come at the expense of personality and uniqueness.” It is IMPERATIVE to ask if waterfront change will promote recreational access to and on the water – not just shopping and dining and what-have-you along the waterfront. California has a lot of coastline. It doesn’t have a lot of harbors – which are the entrance to the ocean for boaters – whether their boats are yachts, kayaks, SUPs, whale-watch vessels, fishing excursions, mega-yachts, tall ships or even cruise ships. Whole Foods, movie theaters, dining establishments, hotels – they don’t have to be in Tidelands to have a view. They can be adjacent or even blocks away. Recreational access is being lost in favor of tourist tax dollars and it doesn’t have to be that way.

Share This:


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *