I don't want to divert the menhaden bill thread so I'll start a new one.

You may or may not know that the recently enacted Magnesson-Stevens act calls for a "registry" of saltwater anglers to be established and for the feds to work with the states in developing state licensing plans that the feds can use for their registry. New Hampshire has already cited that provision while defending its current salt water licensing proposal. I have some views on the issue, but beofre I state my views I would like ot hear what everyone else thinks. what say you?

i hope with the revenue the licences bring in we can get some wardens out and checking for short fish

Thats easy. 100% return of licensing fee's to fisheries protection. But what we can expect is the promise of that minus the 95% cost of administering the licensing program.

All moneys stay in the fishery, More Wardens, More access to the water, Dragger's out past 3 mile limit, Only hook fishing inshore to protect the inshore fishery!

Enforcement :tm:

NO LICENSE. There are not enough people now to enforce the regulations,there certainly will not be enough money to hire enough officers to go through the exercise of checking all of the fishermen out there.The ocean is there for all of us to fish ,we should not need permission from the state to do so.

Let's see, I live in VT and last year fished in ME, NH, Mass, RI and NY.
How much will this cost me? Which states will go first cause they will be the first off my list for economic reasons.

a salt water license is riddled with problems, not the least of which is that it is just basically another tax we will have to pay that will most likley just go into a general fund and maybe 1% will go towards our already underfunded wildlife enforcement. It's like, we pay 5% in Mass in sales tax at the B&T and the license fee, same thing.

ACCESS.. Keep what we have open and get more back..
And by Access, I mean, ORV, foot, and the ability to launch a boat.
More Parking.. for fishermen, More Ramps, and areas to park your rig with trailer, hassle free.
Enforcement of existing laws, i.e. poachers, and highgraders..
And Education, so people know the laws....
Also.. the $ should go into a dedicated fund.. for DEM, or F&W.. whoever is going to enforce the regs.. NO GENERAL FUND.. if the $ goes into the GF.. not one penny will come back to the fishermen...

I was thinking along the lines of bluefishercat and maybe reciprocity should be considered. I guess the funds could go to the state in which the license was bought, but going to another state wouldn't mean buying a new license, just obeying thelaws of that state.

I think the best case would be if the states used the money for enforcement, education, clean ups, etc. But I don't think that will happen. I'm not trying to be senselessly negative, but NJ, MA, RI haven't historically done a very good job of spending money on society's "givers".

So, assuming the money will be wasted anyway, I'd rather there be a federal license so that fishers can move between states without needing separate licenses with as small a fee as possible. If the registration is done online, meaning no people are involved, my Kentucky windage math says the license should cost about $5.

Here is an idea, the rec. license will allow that the holder of such license to sell their fish to regulated seafood buyers with a percentage of the monies going back to the fund.

i was thinking of a federal license to fish in any states waters.
that way.... a lawbreaker (poacher) can't fish anywhere without it.
otherwise... no salt license at all.

and....
a web site to report violators and submit photo's too
...even short video's of violators and or poachers in the act.

just my .04 cents

and what Karl Said :btu:

Funny....the thought have having to pay another fee to fish in the ocean! I pay $150.00 to fish Race Point (when I can get out there because of the freakin birds).......so on top of that I will have to pay another fee? How about the guys with boats??? They have the boat payment, gas, insurance, maintenance, slip fees if they have them and....oh yeah.....now they will have to pay for the priviledge of fishing off the side of their boat!?!?!?!?! Sorry....I think some things in life should be unencumbered and.....FREE!!!! Like fishing!!!! When is enough enough??? Us poor shore guys can't get enough freakin access as it is and they are gonna want us to pay for the right to fish the few places we can go now???? They want to open up more access to folks to fish from shore.....I am all for it but as it stands now.....NOPE!:splat:

Funny....the thought have having to pay another fee to fish in the ocean! I pay $150.00 to fish Race Point (when I can get out there because of the freakin birds).......so on top of that I will have to pay another fee? How about the guys with boats??? They have the boat payment, gas, insurance, maintenance, slip fees if they have them and....oh yeah.....now they will have to pay for the priviledge of fishing off the side of their boat!?!?!?!?! Sorry....I think some things in life should be unencumbered and.....FREE!!!! Like fishing!!!! When is enough enough??? Us poor shore guys can't get enough freakin access as it is and they are gonna want us to pay for the right to fish the few places we can go now???? They want to open up more access to folks to fish from shore.....I am all for it but as it stands now.....NOPE!:splat:
%$#@! 'em Larry, let 'em find us..:zup:

Read my signature.

In other words, the federal gov't can screw.

Some things were just meant to be public and free.

Read my signature.

In other words, the federal gov't can screw.

Some things were just meant to be public and free.

NIIIIIIIIIIICE,Pete.It was only a couple months ago they refused to change our constitution for a casino.

You need a license to hunt bambi and friends , a license for freshwater and soon ( so it seems) one for Saltwater. One day you will need a license to get a license.....

I am against a saltwater license but if they pass the law for one, then it should be one federal nationwide license, not state.

And what Big K said :claps:


ACCESS.. Keep what we have open and get more back..
And by Access, I mean, ORV, foot, and the ability to launch a boat.
More Parking.. for fishermen, More Ramps, and areas to park your rig with trailer, hassle free.
Enforcement of existing laws, i.e. poachers, and highgraders..
And Education, so people know the laws....
Also.. the $ should go into a dedicated fund.. for DEM, or F&W.. whoever is going to enforce the regs.. NO GENERAL FUND.. if the $ goes into the GF.. not one penny will come back to the fishermen...


A license will most likely hurt the economy by discouraging the casual rec fisher from bothering to buy fishing stuff to only go on a whim or once or twice a year, so it better not be a lot of dough to buy one , or it should last 2 or 3 years maybe.

I going to fish with out it!! If they no like they can put me in Jail and feed me 3 times a day for free, O yea and put my kids on there pay roll also!

I No PAY!!:behead:

no way do we need to pay to fish in our bay,,, can you see the wait at the boat ramps,,,, just don't see what it would do for me

As much as I am against it, it is coming so like it or not may as well shoot for something positive, I would rather see a state licence so long as the money generated goes into perserving and maintaining the marines fisheries, they just want to put the money in the "General fund" to bail out other areas.Thats why it failed last time..

But I do think the Ocean should be free to fish.....

The only reason I don't like the idea is that I don't want to have to buy a lic. for every state I fish in 3 fresh water Lic. 3 saltwater lic. it gets costly

It is just another way for big brother to keep track of us, and remember only the honest people follow the rules.

Instead of a license for everyone, the money can be raised by increasing the fees for boaters since they use more of the states resources as oppose to a man or child that just wants to catch a few fish from the shoreline.

Having said that.
I'll oppose any salt water license and any increase in boater fees.

What Karl said................:tm:

a license is only one ,ore tax that will never go back into the fisheries . just like freshwater , clamming etc etc all goes into general fund so they can waste it .

I carry way to many now and there are a # I dont have .

How come there isnt a license for people to be parents and even a test . I know I wouldnt have passed .

Instead of a license for everyone, the money can be raised by increasing the fees for boaters since they use more of the states resources as oppose to a man or child that just wants to catch a few fish from the shoreline.

Having said that.
I'll oppose any salt water license and any increase in boater fees.

RST,
Not singleng you out, but your post seems to representative of some of the posts on this thread. I don't know what I have to do to get through to you guys ITS ALREADY PASSED, IT"S THE LAW, YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE A LICENSE What I'm trying to get a feel for is what would you like the licensing system to be like. While we have lost the battle over whether or not we should have a license we can influence what the system will ultimately look like.

Instead of a license for everyone, the money can be raised by increasing the fees for boaters since they use more of the states resources as oppose to a man or child that just wants to catch a few fish from the shoreline.

Having said that.
I'll oppose any salt water license and any increase in boater fees.

Vic;
you have got to be sh-tting me!
Fees for boaters only?
The mindset of 'he has a boat he can afford it?'
What about taxes, registrations, safety equipment, gas etc.. and you think guys in boats should pay more? What about the man or child that wants to take his 13ft whaler out and catch a few fish... I live for the surf but spend a fair amount of time boating as well... thats beyond ignorant...

Like most have said I'm not pro-license, but if it is passed as a law then so be it. I go to Florida, I pay the fee to fish. for people to say they aren't going to pay, good luck, hopefully the license pays for more enforcement, just hope you don't get caught. 'I wont pay until all dragger's are 3mi out isnt a viable defense....)

I Hope they don't shaft out of staters... F'ng stickey fingered B@$tards.

Personally I just do not trust any federal,state or local goverment to use the entire proceeds of a fishing license towards our fishery..

Somehow,Someway those funds will get lost somewhere.....

It would be great to see the funds go into better law enforcement
and to help protect the enviorment inwhich we fish,not to mention
research to help protect and continue our fisheries for the future...

Prove to me that these things will be 100% completely funded buy this additionial fee/tax ,and I will signup and be pro-active about it around my home waters....

i know what I stated was probably off the mark but there is some truth to it as stated below.
The money from the general fund will be used for more access to the shore (more boat ramps and parking lots) along with updating such ramps, increase enforcement (harbor patrol, coast guard), pollution control measures (engines/oil spills).
The shore surfcaster will get a fishing pier and maybe a white bucket but that will cost extra.

"Increase enforcement", we'll the money used for increased enforcement will be used to enforce the license law, easy target. Instead of them saying, " do you have undersized fish", they will say "license"

MakoM, if it passed and its the law then we have no leverage.
Bryan, if we all ban together like the time in years past and refuse to pay what they going to do. Confiscate thousands of fishing rods, boats trailers.
If you consede (sp) there is no turning back.

I'm going to carry a printout of Pete_G's signature and stand my grounds.

I hate the idea of it.
I like PeteG's sig and will take my chances till I get busted.

I would like to see a significant return of revenues from licensing fees go towards salt water fishing related projects (i.e. wardens, habitat, conservation, access, handicap access, repairs, etc) and not use the license revenues generated towards the respecive State's General Fund.

Possible-yes, probable-no

I hate the idea of it.
I like PeteG's sig and will take my chances till I get busted.

I know for a fact that during my travels during the year I would get busted.. I have run into a Fish & Wildlife Officer on more then one occasion every year for the last 5. And this is between the hours of Mid-night and 6AM.. And personally I know a few of them pretty well and it wouldn't look good if I thought I was above the law...

It's sad. The end of the way things were and should be in RI if it really comes to pass.

Ri license is 10 million billion bagillion dollars for out of staters :hihi:

:hee: or 1 dozen of your finest canoli

I only have 10 will that work ?

I thought it was a federal salt water fishing license.

I hate the idea of it.
I like PeteG's sig and will take my chances till I get busted.

Be advised they've conveniently updated it a bit over the years. Lots more wiggle room now to add laws to keep us off the shoreline:


Article 1, Section 17. Fishery rights -- Shore privileges -- Preservation of natural resources. -- The people shall continue to enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore, to which they have been heretofore entitled under the charter and usages of this state, including but not limited to fishing from the shore, the gathering of seaweed, leaving the shore to swim in the sea and passage along the shore; and they shall be secure in their rights to the use and enjoyment of the natural resources of the state with due regard for the preservation of their values; and it shall be the duty of the general assembly to provide for the conservation of the air, land, water, plant, animal, mineral and other natural resources of the state, and to adopt all means necessary and proper by law to protect the natural environment of the people of the state by providing adequate resource planning for the control and regulation of the use of the natural resources of the state and for the preservation, regeneration and restoration of the natural environment of the state.

Lets face facts, the cost of administering the license system has to come from somewhere, and with the way all governments are scrambling for money they aren't going to pay for it out of the general fund. But I think part of my idea may address that issue.

Surf fishing in my opinion is the last best "free" activity that we have available to us. That said, I agree that pressure will continue to be applied to implement some sort of SW license along the whole coast. Now some would say what's 20 bucks a year to fish...., I agree but consider this. I fish with my wife and we fish in Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and will probably try Maine, New Hampshire and New York. If each state has a license and it costs $20 and there are two of us (8 states * $20 * 2 family members = $320) it starts to add up. That's just the first year. As the years go by license fees will go up and $320 becomes $640 or more. Check out the license fee increases in your own state or the increases in the Chesapeake Bay license. All of a sudden my last best "free" activity is becoming expensive and that's without equipment costs, beach permits, gas costs etc. So what am I saying - if we believe that SW licenses are going to be a reality, then let's work together on a proposal to implement SW licenses that would benefit state programs and not hurt anglers too much. Some things that might be considered: Reasonable license fees that cannot be increased by more than a certain percentage over a certain number of years, Reciprocal agreements among states from Maine to North Carolina.

You could buy your license in any of those states and the revenues would be tied to the state where the license was bought, and license fees could only be used on programs that improve access and enhance saltwater fishing opportunities
What do you think?

This is by no means a done deal,you can read about it herehttp://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/meetings/2006_02/docs/Pro%20and%20Con%20Fishing%20License.pdf

OSSCA,
Wasn't a done deal when that booklet was drafted but it is now. The question is what will the new system look like, and that's where we need to direct our efforts.

You need a license to hunt bambi and friends , a license for freshwater and soon ( so it seems) one for Saltwater. One day you will need a license to get a license.....

You kinda do now, you have to produce some id

I hate the Idea yet like already said it would be alot easier to pay If I know it would come back to us in one form or another,it will probably be set up much like the freshwater system,hopefully with out a stamp.As far as not paying and still fishing, no way!I'll really be in trouble if a e.p.o. trys to take my outfit.:nailem:

How about a fish stamp, sorta like a duck stamp. goes on your state fishing license. entitles you to fish in salt water.
Naa too easy.

How about a fish stamp, sorta like a duck stamp. goes on your state fishing license. entitles you to fish in salt water.
Naa too easy.
now that would make it alittle easier kill two birds with one stone, one license for booth fresh and salt a combo fishing license.

Just dont charge me for the freshwater part!

I don't see how they could charge you to fish in each state.

My drivers lic. is good in all 50 the last time I checked.

Jeff

I don't see how they could charge you to fish in each state.

My drivers lic. is good in all 50 the last time I checked.

Jeff
but my fishing license is'nt of course the theory there is that the license pays for stuff related to...

I HATE the idea...one of the last free things to do
and what Karl said

I just think if this is going to happen it has to be one licence for all states.

Say you are out in your boat and drift into anothers state's waters are you going to be in viloation of that states law?

Who will inforce the open waters?

The Coast Guard. ,I think they already have their hands full.

I'm against licenseing for almost ANYTHING unless the fees are for the betterment of the activity or sport or what-ever.

The license will be here soon, I understand that, so what can a license accomplish.
Lets say, that eels are on the verge of being extinct for arguments sake and there needs to be some way of controling the amount being purchased for fishing. There can be x-amount of eels allocated be license per week with no roll over eels (like roll over minutes).

Pete is right! I don't think it is legal for the State of Rhode Island to require a saltwater fishing license. I thought they already settled that a while back when trying to get more tax revenue.

Pete is right! I don't think it is legal for the State of Rhode Island to require a saltwater fishing license. I thought they already settled that a while back when trying to get more tax revenue.

I have no idea whether I'm right or not. I'm just reading the law in a way that fits how I'd like things to be. ;) All I know is I don't like it.

As long as Lic. fees stays out of the General Fund in Massachusetts and the money goes towards Evnviromental Police overhead and fisheries managment-restoration, I am all for it.

Recreational lic. fee should be a small fee for the year. Let the commerical anglers fork out a higher fee.

It's unlikely that any of us will notice any difference in policing after the law is passed. We can only hope that a good chunk of money will go into more research of the bait fisheries habits and protection.

Article 1, Section 17; The people shall continue to providing adequate resource planning for the control and regulation of the use of the natural resources of the state and for the preservation, regeneration and restoration of the natural environment of the state.

Regardless of what state your in, somehow we're all bound to except the new saltwater licensing..... Like it or not!

I don't see how they could charge you to fish in each state.

My drivers lic. is good in all 50 the last time I checked.

Jeff

freshwater licenses are sold per each state... but that doesnt apply
to driving in each of those states.... true....

there must be something given back to the sport or resource.

all though i have envisioned already....fishermen in numbers
marching down the streets... i'd rather we didn't have to resort to
throwing dead fish on the court house steps to be heard.

States can easily manipulate these funds. They can promise you the monies will go back into fisheries and not into the general fund. Then they can turn around and appropriate that much less to the DEM budget therefore amounting to the same thing. If you don't think this sort of thing happens, I've got a great deal on a bridge for you. It the one that connects Newport to Jamestown and the price is a steal!!!. Catch'em up, ThomCat

Excellent Point TC.
It would be interesting to see if the state funding in Florida stayed the same in reference to increases.Or leveled off after they implemented the saltwater licensing down there..

I'd be in favor of a FEDERAL saltwater fishing license IF they got rid of the Fishing Excise Tax. By Federal I mean $20-30 a year and good anywhere in the country, Feds dole out the $$ like they do for the excise right now.

NO LICENSE PERIOD. If no one bought one and we all/everyone still fished, what could they possibly do?

They might as well tax you every time you flush, because at some point in time what you flushed ends up in the aquafier. Once water use becomes a source of revenue watch out.

NO LICENSE PERIOD. If no one bought one and we all/everyone still fished, what could they possibly do?

I bet they'd fine us, if we don't pay the fine, then we won't be able to register our cars or renew drivers licenses and crap like that. I guess if they catch you fishing you just give them a fake name right? ;)

I want to know why this is already happening. makomike must know something he's not telling us

I want to know why this is already happening. makomike must know something he's not telling us

Not at all. I told you the law than enacted it at the federal level, the fact that NH has already cited that law in introducing a salt water license. I hear "through the grapevine" that CT will introduce a licensing bill next week. The federal law opened up the floodgates on this and I'm hoping that if we can get enough people motivated before this train leaves the station we may be able to influence what the new systems look like. See my next post where I'll lay out some more details.

More parking and access.
Towns could be required to create more parking and/or remove those "no parking" signs in areas that are mutually agreeable.

O.K. I just posted a poll on the subject, please let me have your views on that thread.

this article by Charley Soares

http://http://www.fishingthesalt.com/previous_tips.htm
http://www.fishingthesalt.com/article_month.htm

I am beginning to get a more clear perspective....

especially the difference between a conservationist
and a preservationist....

and another good point he made is that a Saltwater license
regardless of the first fee... for it... will make us all more
politically involved in the whole process.

I'd be in favor of a FEDERAL saltwater fishing license IF they got rid of the Fishing Excise Tax. By Federal I mean $20-30 a year and good anywhere in the country, Feds dole out the $$ like they do for the excise right now.

I'm not sure but I think your talking about what is known as he "Pittman-Robertson Act". This is one tax I don't mind paying. It goes into the restoration of wildlife. Not sure it effect fishing. I'll have to check.

[QUOTE=NIGHT STRIKES;457274]Personally I just do not trust any federal,state or local goverment to use the entire proceeds of a fishing license towards our fishery..

yes night strikes ...you strike again!!

no trust=no liscense....they'll take the money and protect the plovers.

or worse feed the seals.:fishslap:

to hell with it. let the bird lovers pay for the liscense.