Interesting fishing-related referenda map

[RBH]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That Amendment passed 72-28, but with some pretty staunch opposition from fishing areas.

Now that's a map.

[??????????]

I'm assuming green = yes and red = no. Interesting really there RBH, the area that voted "no" isn't as big of a fishing area as you'd think. More fishing is done from the big bend south along the west coast and over towards Miami. When was this amendment passed? I can't recall voting for it or not.

[RBH]

I'm assuming green = yes and red = no. Interesting really there RBH, the area that voted "no" isn't as big of a fishing area as you'd think. More fishing is done from the big bend south along the west coast and over towards Miami. When was this amendment passed? I can't recall voting for it or not.

It was passed in 1994.

I'd imagine that the red area has some sort of interest in that amendment, if they're voting overwhelming against it.

[??????????]

I'm assuming green = yes and red = no. Interesting really there RBH, the area that voted "no" isn't as big of a fishing area as you'd think. More fishing is done from the big bend south along the west coast and over towards Miami. When was this amendment passed? I can't recall voting for it or not.

It was passed in 1994.

I'd imagine that the red area has some sort of interest in that amendment, if they're voting overwhelming against it.

Well, I wasn't here or able to vote in 94. Things have changed a lot since 94 in Florida and I'd imagine this amendment would be a lot closer then it was back in 94.

[minionofmidas]

I'm assuming green = yes and red = no. Interesting really there RBH, the area that voted "no" isn't as big of a fishing area as you'd think. More fishing is done from the big bend south along the west coast and over towards Miami. When was this amendment passed? I can't recall voting for it or not.

Fisher peoples in the South would have been hopelessly outvoted, I assume.

[??????????]

I'm assuming green = yes and red = no. Interesting really there RBH, the area that voted "no" isn't as big of a fishing area as you'd think. More fishing is done from the big bend south along the west coast and over towards Miami. When was this amendment passed? I can't recall voting for it or not.

Fisher peoples in the South would have been hopelessly outvoted, I assume.

Well, it would really depend on the state. I'd imagine not much so in Louisiana but Florida on the other hand probably has more ranchers and farmers.

[minionofmidas]

I'm assuming green = yes and red = no. Interesting really there RBH, the area that voted "no" isn't as big of a fishing area as you'd think. More fishing is done from the big bend south along the west coast and over towards Miami. When was this amendment passed? I can't recall voting for it or not.

Fisher peoples in the South would have been hopelessly outvoted, I assume.

Well, it would really depend on the state. I'd imagine not much so in Louisiana but Florida on the other hand probably has more ranchers and farmers.

Sorry. I meant in South Florida, as opposed to the areas where the no side won in this referendum.

[??????????]

I'm assuming green = yes and red = no. Interesting really there RBH, the area that voted "no" isn't as big of a fishing area as you'd think. More fishing is done from the big bend south along the west coast and over towards Miami. When was this amendment passed? I can't recall voting for it or not.

Fisher peoples in the South would have been hopelessly outvoted, I assume.

Well, it would really depend on the state. I'd imagine not much so in Louisiana but Florida on the other hand probably has more ranchers and farmers.

Sorry. I meant in South Florida, as opposed to the areas where the no side won in this referendum.

Aye, I'd imagine so.

[RBH]

I found the following referenda from Georgia

Amendment 5, 2002:

"To allow different tax rates for commercial dockside facilities used to land and process seafood. (HR 364)

“Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that commercial dockside facilities consisting of real and personal property whose primary use is the landing and processing of seafood may be classified as a separate class of property for ad valorem property tax purposes and different rates, methods, and assessment dates may be provided for such dockside facilities?"

Question D, 2002:

“Shall the Act be approved which grants an exemption from ad valorem taxation on commercial fishing vessels whose primary use is the catching of seafood?”

5 failed 43/57

D failed 33/67

But, while we're on the politics of fishing.

This amendment wanted to authorize tax exemptions for commercial fishing boats and it failed 62/38, but it was approved of by 8 South Texas counties.