With the slow part of the season upon us, I’ve had some time to read up on a number of issues, the saltwater license in particular. The more I educate myself on the issue, the more sense it makes to me that we implement one.
Previously I reacted the same way as many would, fully dismissing it as “just another tax”, and another avenue for wasteful spending and creation of unnecessary beauraucracies. If you look at what some of the southern and gulf coast states have accomplished via the saltwater license, it’s reasonable to expect we’ll do the same at some point.
I’m not going to list all the pros and cons in this first post, but let’s get some informed debate started here and cover as many facets as possible.

Saltwater fishing license……Why or why not?

Why: Increased funds for enforcement, conservation, access etc.
Why not: It will go to the general fund and not help for any of the above.

I have no problem, even on my income scale of paying a few to fish, IF it helps out to the 'Why' above. I just don't want it to be 'another tax' to grease a state general fund.
(Must be slow at the course, huh Mike :D)

Why not: It will go to the general fund and not help for any of the above.

Cool, lets start with that issue, because its a big one for everyone. Just so we don't inundate people here with too much info, one state in particular (NC I think) has a license revenue allocation breakout that mandates (legally) all license revenue be used soley for fisheries management. I think the G and A portion is about 8% of the revenue. The reference I'm using is "something's fishy" by Ted Williams, in case anyone has access to it or wants to quote some stuff here. There are well laid out arguments in favor of it and Williams takes a fairly objective position on it.

Would gladly pay for it IF and only IF it would NOT go in the general fund. If the law stated that if 1 cent of the money was to be put into the general fund the license fee would be removed.

I believe that Mass has something similar where all license monies must be used for the fisheries budget.

Because of the new federal regulation we are going to get a license whether we like it or not. If we had a New England coast wide license than I would be much more willing to support it. The biggest difference up here as compared to the gulf states is it is much more common for people to fish in 3 to 5 states. Knowing that the states are always looking for ways to get more money, especially from people who aren't in their voting district. I'm afraid of what the non-resident fees might be.

What we should be fighting for is a reciprocal agreement between the Northeast states where they accept each others license or at least allow you to buy a resident license, in each state, if you hold a license from your home state.

My only reason for not wanting it is simple......nothing in this world is free anymore! Nothing! "Land of the Free"?????? Not anymore! The simplest thing in the world....fishing....should be free! The money never goes where its supposed to go...its just another ploy for the powers that be to have some more "play" money! There are other funds that go directly to support the fisheries such as the 10% Dingle Johnson tax that is paid on all items sold that are fishing related! That surely generates Millions of dollars! Just grabbing a rod and a can of worms and heading for open water can no longer be done......without it costing someone a ton of money in taxes!!!! Enough is enough in my opinion!!

Just say "NO" to a saltwater fishing license!!!!:af:

IIRC, Rhode Island's state laws call for all funds to be only destined for the general ledger and it is illegal for this to be set aside for something else first. Sounds stooopid but it is Rhode Island Government At Work

What we should be fighting for is a reciprocal agreement between the Northeast states where they accept each others license or at least allow you to buy a resident license, in each state, if you hold a license from your home state.

A degree of reciprocity would be in order. I know they do it in a number of inland areas. Lots of people, particulary boaters, who launch in one state and fish another.

One of the other points to ponder is would you rather fish under federal or state mandate?
Remember there are some big,powerful, and well funded environmental lobbies at work. They frequently use the fed as a vehicle to further their agenda. Look at CCNS for example.
With the fed's impending actions it would make more sense to me that we get ahead of the curve and take the license in house on a local level=proactive.

Last year I fished in Maine, New Hampshire, Mass and Rhode Island. I did'nt make the usual trip to NY.
If there come to be state liscenses what will that cost me?
Which states will I choose not to fish in?

My only reason for not wanting it is simple......nothing in this world is free anymore! Nothing! "Land of the Free"?????? Not anymore! The simplest thing in the world....fishing....should be free! The money never goes where its supposed to go...its just another ploy for the powers that be to have some more "play" money! There are other funds that go directly to support the fisheries such as the 10% Dingle Johnson tax that is paid on all items sold that are fishing related! That surely generates Millions of dollars! Just grabbing a rod and a can of worms and heading for open water can no longer be done......without it costing someone a ton of money in taxes!!!! Enough is enough in my opinion!!

Just say "NO" to a saltwater fishing license!!!!:af:

I'm with the big guy!!

I don't know, I mean I grew up fishing and the saltwater element is the last free frontier. Will the funds generated go to the right causes?
Can it be enforced? Given the undermanned EPO force now in place will it stretch it too thin, more than that department is now?

Can we really license something where the resource is really a national one rather than inherent to the state as in the case of the Striped Bass?

Do we really need it? Take for example the guy who comes down to the Cape for one week a year and traditionally would spend one or two evenings casting for Bluefish at West Dennis Beach with his children or buy a box of seaworms and sit with his son on the jetty at Menahaunt for one morning of thier vacation.

Should a license be required so the two of them could spend a little time together just sitting and talking about things a Dad and his kid speak of when alone and just enjoying something a bit different than life back in the city and it really doesn't matter what they catch?

Should they have top pay to enjoy that memory? Most people, the overwhelming majority are casual or better yet occasional at best fishermen. The local shops rely heavily on that type of business to get by each season. The local pros are not the ones that sustain thier business. A license requirement would only impare thier ability to stay in business as opposed to the #^&#^&#^&#^&'s, Bass Pro, Cabela's and Wally world stores.

How would this benefit the stocks of fish we have left?

There are way too many negatives as opposed to positives.

A lot of shops make some money renting rods to casual fisherman. Some of those become avid fisherman. If you make the entry more expensive you immediately cut the numbers. I think this is thought up by Peta.

I'm not near the salt. I'm against it. I don't trust the politicians to keep their word. Example: they just amended a local 10 year old law regarding land use because it didn't fit the "NEW" plan. Land or water they will slowly get their hands on the money for their own purpose when it suits them.:af:

I agree with both mike and big fish about multiple states and the money going to places other then fishing.To add a little to this, I have a small boat and a kayak and still fish from shore mostly. Maybe they could take some of the cash and by waterfront property and use it for a park that is acessable for fishing with a boat launch in multiple towns.Were running out of shore spots to fish because of private property.Also maybe hire more D.E.M. officers for enforcment and garbage removel from these fishing areas, then I wouldnt have a problem buying a freshwater and saltwater license.

I don't know, I mean I grew up fishing and the saltwater element is the last free frontier. Will the funds generated go to the right causes?
Can it be enforced? Given the undermanned EPO force now in place will it stretch it too thin, more than that department is now?

Can we really license something where the resource is really a national one rather than inherent to the state as in the case of the Striped Bass?

Do we really need it? Take for example the guy who comes down to the Cape for one week a year and traditionally would spend one or two evenings casting for Bluefish at West Dennis Beach with his children or buy a box of seaworms and sit with his son on the jetty at Menahaunt for one morning of thier vacation.

Should a license be required so the two of them could spend a little time together just sitting and talking about things a Dad and his kid speak of when alone and just enjoying something a bit different than life back in the city and it really doesn't matter what they catch?

Should they have top pay to enjoy that memory? Most people, the overwhelming majority are casual or better yet occasional at best fishermen. The local shops rely heavily on that type of business to get by each season. The local pros are not the ones that sustain thier business. A license requirement would only impare thier ability to stay in business as opposed to the #^&#^&#^&#^&'s, Bass Pro, Cabela's and Wally world stores.

How would this benefit the stocks of fish we have left?

There are way too many negatives as opposed to positives.

Lots of good points Steve.
But, remember, there is already a license in place from Maryland south around through the gulf. Would be interested to hear if these issues presented themselves down there and how they were dealt with.
I'm not one for more EPO's either, but if the license revenues were to be directed by a collective voice, the potential impact is huge. Right now the recs are highly fragmented and unorganized in the northeast. A small, but organized group of commercial interests basically controls the bulk of our saltwater (MA) fishery now. Why? Because they are licensed, serve as a data source, and pay fees. Government knows who they are.
Right now nobody knows for sure who the recs are, how large their numbers, or what they really contribute(or take). The federal registry will be the first step in reversing this scenario. With the federal license a probable certainty within several years, I'm saying we get ahead of the curve and consider manging on a state/regional level before the feds(who cater to special interest $$ in many cases) do it for us.

if the monies derived from such sales were to go into fish related fund only, i would be for it.
if the monies were to go into the general fund, forgetaboutit. we do not need to be putting more monies into politicians pockets for them to do as they wish.
there is way to much n.i.m.b.y. stuff going on as it is. jamestown fishing pier, etc. my 2 cents

What will we do if each state enacts a license? All of us will have to stop fishing at the next states border. We are not going to buy several licenses, I doubt. I am with Larry on this. Everything we buy fishing related has a 10% tax on it now. What happens to that money? Probably the only reason we doubt have one is the elected officials haven't figured out who is going to get what job yet. Sorry for the cynicizm.

Then there are many who would most likely fish without a license. The same group that enforcement has always had trouble enforcing.

Salt Water license – always a popular topic. I remember taking part in the discussions on this topic here in Rhody a few years back. One of the biggest issues was a dedicated fund – the state reps said they could make it a dedicated fund but when pressed further they also admitted that any Governor could declare a state of emergency and use the funds for something more important. Knowing what great shape Rhody is in financially at this time and you can see that the dedicated funds may not be dedicated for long.

There was also a question of offsetting DEMs budget – another words the state would use the money generated by a license to fund DEMs budget. This would then allow the state to take away the “general fund” money that would normally fund DEM. So it basically would be a wash.

And as Flap says those that just want to spend some quality time on the beach with family may not spring for it. But then again, spending quality family time in sweet (fresh) water already has costs associated with it in every state.

Some advantages – weeding the amount of fishermen - part timers may give it up.

Using the license to guarantee access: RI was very receptive to the idea of allowing a salt water fishing license to provide free access to all state parks and camping areas such as Charlestown Breachway, Fort Adams.

One more comment - if one New England State does go for it - we all will. It will be reciprocal at least in bordering states.

There was also a question of offsetting DEMs budget – another words the state would use the money generated by a license to fund DEMs budget. This would then allow the state to take away the “general fund” money that would normally fund DEM. So it basically would be a wash.

Good point too.
I would counter with how big is the budget now, and what is the potential revenue associated with the license? It may be much larger than what the state currently allocates and thus not a wash, but incremental revenue.It may also, but not likely, be smaller.

I think we may be missing the point, in that having some form of saltwater license is no longer a question. By the end of 2009 we will have one in some form or other due to new federal regulations. The real issue now is how will it be implemented.

I do not think that the states will expect to see a real decrease in the number of vacationers who will fish due to the need to purchase a license. People are willing to spend 400 for a family of four to see a three hour ball game, what would make them think the same wouldn't be true for fishing.

Agree with others. As long as the money stays in fishery management, education and enforcement and not in a general fund I am for it.

I am against a SW Fishing License -

Whether is be that year or this year, the monies will NOT go where promised. We can discuss this all we want, but behind the scenes, the money will disappear...and nothing will get better for the TRUE fisherpeople -
It will not open access, nor will it stop from losing access to "spots".
Law enforcement, even if slightly increased...is not going to make the difference that one would think.
We all know we can poach/illegally harvest Bass without a problem....heck, look at the hours that most of us fish. Will it stop the weekend warrior??? ...:huh:...maybe, will it make a difference in regards to the fish population/stock/status?....:hs:...what it will do is make the newspaper so it seems that this new license is in fact helping.....when in reality, it's not. And once they realize the revenue, more politicians will find ways to getting their piece of it.

We don't have a choice, it will happen -

...and when it does, I will illegally fish as long as I can. :yak:

If you don't have legal status to be in the usa do you still have to buy a fishing license or will you be exempt?:gf:

I think we may be missing the point, in that having some form of saltwater license is no longer a question. By the end of 2009 we will have one in some form or other due to new federal regulations. The real issue now is how will it be implemented.

I do not think that the states will expect to see a real decrease in the number of vacationers who will fish due to the need to purchase a license. People are willing to spend 400 for a family of four to see a three hour ball game, what would make them think the same wouldn't be true for fishing.

What federal regs? The states control the waters out to a certain point, no?

The impact will be to casual fisherman, people who's family go to the beach for a day and the dad brings along his rod, stops at a bait shop for sandworms, etc. Look how many guys run out to a bluefish blitz, now they need a liscence?

is the license for all fish, or just fishing in general? I could see if there is a liscense for keeping certain fish, maybe stripers, fluke, tautog,but only if you keep them, not just for fishing. Again, as long as the $ goes to preserving or protecting the fsih

Oh!! And never mind the absolute lack of access from shore and we are losing more and more all the time! The powers that be want to raise more money through a license and the same "powers that be" do all they can to limit access!!! You pay big dollars to access the beaches on the Cape with your 4 x 4 and they spend most of the season keeping it closed because of the stupid plovers!!!:hs:

Not for any more taxes. I just don't trust the politicians, especially in MA. I'm already buying fishing licenses in MA, RI & NH. Where does that money go?

So what I'm hearing is that I'll have to buy freshwater license AND a saltwater license? No way. If there is going to be a license required, it should be applicable to both salt and fresh water.

:yak6:

I don't know, I mean I grew up fishing and the saltwater element is the last free frontier. Will the funds generated go to the right causes?
Can it be enforced? Given the undermanned EPO force now in place will it stretch it too thin, more than that department is now?

Can we really license something where the resource is really a national one rather than inherent to the state as in the case of the Striped Bass?

Do we really need it? Take for example the guy who comes down to the Cape for one week a year and traditionally would spend one or two evenings casting for Bluefish at West Dennis Beach with his children or buy a box of seaworms and sit with his son on the jetty at Menahaunt for one morning of thier vacation.

Should a license be required so the two of them could spend a little time together just sitting and talking about things a Dad and his kid speak of when alone and just enjoying something a bit different than life back in the city and it really doesn't matter what they catch?

Should they have top pay to enjoy that memory? Most people, the overwhelming majority are casual or better yet occasional at best fishermen. The local shops rely heavily on that type of business to get by each season. The local pros are not the ones that sustain thier business. A license requirement would only impare thier ability to stay in business as opposed to the #^&#^&#^&#^&'s, Bass Pro, Cabela's and Wally world stores.

How would this benefit the stocks of fish we have left?

There are way too many negatives as opposed to positives.

Flaps point about the Father and son wanting to wet a line and spend time together is just perfect! Say its sunset...6:00 pm......Dad and the boy want to do a little fishing before the sun goes down!!! "Sorry son...we can't.....we need a license and there is no place open right now to go get one....so I guess we can't!":doh:

I'm against a saltwater license also. Anything Massachusetts politicians get a hold of they ruin for their own personal benefit. It's like inviting the Devil over for dinner. Then the animal rights activists will some how weasel their way in because of a loophole some tree hugging lawyer from cambridge found. The majority of people in Mass/RI don't stay up all night fishing from shore for stripers or skip work and fish all day from a boat. We are a minority group of people. We can't even take on the Bird watchers for christ sake.:devil2:

We must aready pay .60 cents of every dollar we earn to the government for taxes......when will it end????:mad:

I think the politicians will just add the cost on to a freshwater lic. and make it 1 lic. for both fresh & salt. I'm against it for the same reasons as posted by others. But I was against a 50% hike on my electric bill and all the protesting did not do sh!t. The same will happen here I think it's comming and no amount of argument against it will matter

I am not for it or any lic for that matter dogs, firearms, fishing ect...... the only one I think is ok is a drivers lic. all others just a way to create money for the state then create a job to enforce it

Congress, through the recently reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act, called on NOAA to take the lead in creating a national registry of saltwater anglers. This requires a tracking system for people fishing in federal waters and in state waters when fishing for anadromous species (stripers). The law does not require a license but how else do you think the states will handle it. Below is from a document trying to explain the requirement:

"Don’t most states already have a saltwater fishing license?
Many states do have some kind of fishing license for saltwater anglers. In those states, the actual requirements for who has to have a license vary from state to state. States that are currently without any saltwater fishing license include Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and the western Pacific and Caribbean territories.

Are there any exemptions from the federal registry requirement?
Yes, Congress gave anglers who are licensed or registered by the states an exemption from the federal requirement, but only if a state can provide NOAA with certain information about anglers in their state. The Magnuson-Stevens Act says that a state can get a pass on the federal registry if 1) it already has a program to count all of its saltwater anglers (e.g. through a comprehensive saltwater fishing license) or 2) “the Secretary of Commerce determines that information from the State program is suitable for the Secretary’s use or is used to assist in completing marine recreational fisheries statistical surveys, or evaluating the effects of proposed conservation and management measures for marine recreational fisheries.” In other words, the state has to be able to either account for their anglers themselves or provide information on their fishing activity to the federal government. "

Documenting the numbers of voters involved in recreational saltwater fishing will likely have a huge ancillary benefit.

The only problem I have is it's a big ocean and I fish NH, Mass, & RI
Does this mean I have to buy 3 states Licenses? if so I am against it.

If it does work for multiple states and the money goes to the right place and fund the sportsman funds then I will want it.

Just think of all the extra money made buy fining none license holders

Documenting the numbers of voters involved in recreational saltwater fishing will likely have a huge ancillary benefit.

Exactly. People keep calling it "another tax" but it really isn't. Its ammunition for the recreational fishery. Its ammunition to eliminate habitat destruction and by catch in our waters too by commercial netters/draggers. It’s happened in other states like Florida and Texas already. Guess who the most outspoken opponents were to the license in those states? The commercials were due to the perceived threat (which later materialized into reality) to their livelihoods.
Bottom line is that it makes sense to support a license for our own good. What will happen is that eventually the federal registry will lead to a federal license for us. Our license dollars will go directly to the feds and never be seen again. Take this thing on a local level and keep the control on a local level with a state license. To me if you are a recreational fisherman and oppose a state license, you haven’t done your homework on the subject or you've been mislead.
Oh yeah, I'm not anti commercial, but the wrong gear usage in the wrong place at the wrong time is one of the things that needs to be addressed further. Look at our cod stocks, or what used to be cod stocks.

Its a done deal, the feds have already seen to that. Now we just have to work out the details. Reciprocity among all the atlantic states is paramount for me. I don't want to have to buy five o more seperate licenses. That should be doable, since the feds don't want to have the same people multiple times in their database, we need to get the feds to speficiy that the state licenses must be reciprocal in order for them to qulaify as exempting the state from the federal licensing requirements.

i'd rather they bring back Atlantic Salmon. There used to be Salmon almost every river north of Long Island.

i'd rather they bring back Atlantic Salmon. There used to be Salmon almost every river north of Long Island.

Wow.
you lost me on that one.

IM POd that the feds want to know if i fish or not, none of ther GD business!

"Don’t most states already have a saltwater fishing license?
Many states do have some kind of fishing license for saltwater anglers. In those states, the actual requirements for who has to have a license vary from state to state. States that are currently without any saltwater fishing license include Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Oregon, Hawaii and the western Pacific and Caribbean territories.

Those that do are Alaska, Alabama, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, California, and Washington

11 don't have them and 12 do, and Alabama isn't even a coastal state (their license is for Mobile bay only).....that Most States comment is a little suspect.

so that's a 50/50 split between the coastal states.

I prefer to keep my money in my pocket...I don't need to dish out yet another licensing fee. I already buy Freshwater liceneses for 3 state...I don't need to buy 3 or 4 more for the Saltwater access.

[QUOTE=The Dad Fisherman;550286]
11 don't have them and 12 do, and Alabama isn't even a coastal state (their license is for Mobile bay only).....that Most States comment is a little suspect.

You miss read what was posted. The site I got the information from was in a question/answer format. The question was " Don't most states already have a saltwater license?". The answer followed noting which ones don't.

Be that as it may, the feds gave the states an excuse to put a license in place and be able to blame someone else. So we will be getting them no later than the end of 2009.

Having been stationed with the Navy in alot of states that require a license to fish the salt, I have seen the Pro's and Con's. The biggest concern anywhere is where the money collected for the license will be utilized.

"Pro" if it will be used to improve the access points, Ramps and enforcement of recreational angling .

"Con" = it ends up in the general fund, the fishermen will never see a penny put into to recreational fisheries, enforcement etc.

I just left Virginia and they required a license, and by law, the money was soley used for the improvement and enforcement of recreational angling, You could buy a license for a boat and that license covered everybody fishing in the boat and the owner could go surf fishing and still be covered by the boats license. This helped the charter boat industry from having to increase their fees and adding on a 1 day license for each angler onboard.

Also the state owned boat ramps charged to launch a boat(Nice Facilities) but if you had a fishing license the fee was reduced. the jet skiers and pleasure boaters had to pay double to launch since they didn't contribute to the construction and maintenance of the Ramp.

It's coming, No doubt about it. One way or the other we all will be digging deeper into our wallets!!

Documenting the numbers of voters involved in recreational saltwater fishing will likely have a huge ancillary benefit.

That's the biggest benefit to a license, and the one that 90% of the people don't realize ;)

I realize that there is a fear of any regulatory body and a saltwater license in just one more example of Big Brother gaining another way to gain control. Never the less, it is coming and, if we are smart, we will have some say in how the resulting funds are used. The recreational fishing community has a lot of pull and can effect how the monies are allocated.

[QUOTE=The Dad Fisherman;550286]
11 don't have them and 12 do, and Alabama isn't even a coastal state (their license is for Mobile bay only).....that Most States comment is a little suspect.

You miss read what was posted. The site I got the information from was in a question/answer format. The question was " Don't most states already have a saltwater license?". The answer followed noting which ones don't.

Be that as it may, the feds gave the states an excuse to put a license in place and be able to blame someone else. So we will be getting them no later than the end of 2009.
Not only that but in the states without Vermont is counted, I will have to go and check but I have yet to find any saltwater here, unless it's in the spaghetti pot.

RI is simply on the verge of going broke.The state would be forced to funnel those funds generated by a license into the general fund.Hell RI wants to start tolling the Mt.Hope Bridge again!

RI taxes are some of the highest in the nation.I'll be damned if I have to pay to fish so that the state can pay for the I-WAY bridge,the so far non-existent new Sakonnet River bridge and freakin welfare programs.

Nah.I'm against it.

My questions are "How Much?"
20-25 bucks, well that's ok by me, if they're asking for 100, that's another story. What will the fine for non-compliance be? Equal or greater than a license? I think it should be. I also think that one license should cover all US shores. We're already paying 10% on our gear, where does that go?

RI is simply on the verge of going broke.The state would be forced to funnel those funds generated by a license into the general fund.Hell RI wants to start tolling the Mt.Hope Bridge again!

RI taxes are some of the highest in the nation.I'll be damned if I have to pay to fish so that the state can pay for the I-WAY bridge,the so far non-existent new Sakonnet River bridge and freakin welfare programs.

Nah.I'm against it.

I agree.
If a license can be used in adjacent states I would get a MA license instead of supporting the crooked state of RI. The best part of RI is the fishing.

Do we really need it? Take for example the guy who comes down to the Cape for one week a year and traditionally would spend one or two evenings casting for Bluefish at West Dennis Beach with his children or buy a box of seaworms and sit with his son on the jetty at Menahaunt for one morning of thier vacation.

Should a license be required so the two of them could spend a little time together just sitting and talking about things a Dad and his kid speak of when alone and just enjoying something a bit different than life back in the city and it really doesn't matter what they catch?

Should they have to pay to enjoy that memory?

Sadly, but truly, the answer is yes for several reasons................

The main conondrum facing our recreation/sport, as it moves forward, is what to do with the monies that licensing will produce? The fact that the feds won't stay out of this debate, and they will have their numbers ~one way or another~ alarms me more than just a little bit....................

That being said, if it truly is about finding out how many of us there are ~though we certainly suspect that it is much more than that, then why not put a box and a question on each IRS Form right next to the CREEP, Save a Tree, US Olympic Fund boxes that already litter those forms? I mean we ALL pay our taxes, right :tooth:???? Will such a method provide a national census of saltwater anglers? Yes.

Will it help with the vacationer's of Flaps above scenario? No.

For me to fish in FL, I must go to the local Bait shop/Wally world and purchase a non-resident rec license. It cost me $7.00 for three days access to ALL of Florida's salt last year!!! A mere pittance, imo! No snook stamp required, which I believe is still in the neighborhood of $25 anually for FL residents. I could have purchased a single day, seven day, etc. Not too much to pay and most reasonable considering the impact and pressure that non-resident anglers can apply to our local fisheries. Certain areas of FL get hammered by the "vacationing" fishing community just as hard as RI does; yet currently RI has no way to realize manageable impact dollars to help to off-set said impact. In my view this is what hurts the most.......................

People are going to impact the shoreline, the fishery, and the Bay/Ocean. The weekend warrior is responsible for pressuring our species and coasts in numerous ways, so I'll just take one of them, here. People are going to fish. People bring garbage with them ~stuff for them to feed their faces and "their" fishes with. And this is what damages our shores/oceans/fishery with stagerring frequence and detrimental consequence. We definitely need dollars for research and fisheries management and development related to fishing pressure from both ~resident and non-resident. So, let's use the 10% they already get. I am willing to pay between $5 and $15 to MA ~annually and reciprocally~ in order to help police and clean up our shores. A small non-res of NE fee (sorry NY'ers and beyond, but hey iffin ya have a beef with it, step up to the plate and move to NE :heybaby:) should also be required to generate funds that could go to State Parks & Recreation budgets in the interests of shore access development/maintenance of both the old and some new facilities, alike. These funds must be, BY LAW, untouchable and allocated strictly and solely for the enforcement and enrichment of the Recreational Experience. Simply put, without whom the monies would not be there in the first place. Hell, I'd even purchase a yearly Resident Striper Stamp ($20) if I knew that the funds were being managed effectively. $10 to the fishery/conservation/public education side of the coin and $10 to enforcement/access/maintenance part of the equation.

Wouldn't it be nice to see 55 gallon trash barrels, or even a freakin' dumpster that gets regular service at say the East Wall, WHLT, CTown, The Q, or WKPG Bways? I removed so much garbage from all of those places it was sickening last year. At 3 of the 4 I had nowhere to put the garbage??? I ended up schlepping it in my feeshmobile to the nearest dumpster or barrel, that wasn't very close :af:!! The Aves have trash barrels at least, and so aren't the beaches at Gansett and Scarbo set-up nicely. And this is why I think that we should beat the feds to the punch. Each state could collect a resaonable fee from their residents, reciprocate to the rest of NE, and go non-res license for everyone else, the key word being reasonable. Say, 3 bucks a day for the non-residents? This is some huge dollars, but AS LONG AS IT IS MANAGED PROPERLY, it could do us some real good.

As an example, FL has many State funded areas of access that are absolutely beautiful, well maintained and actually make one feel like much more than a third world citizen because one likes to fish. I am not saying that we'll get our Bass stands back (why not in your more general places?); but some of the State Parks in FL are well lit, provide ample parking, plenty of places to remove and place yer garbage (& heavy fines if you don't), places to leave a shat (and I doan mean porta-johns), boardwalks leading to the beach, playgrounds for kiddies, rinsing stations to remove sand and salt, and cafes even!!! Of course, none of the general public stuff would be available at night, but i cannot tell you how many times the porta-johns at singing beach have saved the night for this surfcaster :kewl:.

While this is only one possible positive result of a regular stream of revenue, surely by our concentrated efforts and the resourceful minds of NE we could at least equal this level of results ~dependent upon effective leadership and smart supervision of such a revenue resource.

Just some ideas gentlemen, for as certain as BIG Eeeeeels brang tha BIG Gurls ~change is coming. So, why not effect the change ourselves on a local and regional level, restricting Big Brother to a tiny little box on the IRS forms and providing our own improvements designed to enhance the surfcasting experience? If done properly each state could dramatically effect the business and enjoyment of recreational fishing.

Are any of us even remotely pleased with the mountain of issues we see going unadressed each year along our magnificent stretch of The Striper Coast? More importantly, these issues will not improve/go away by themselves, as each one requires FUNDING. How else are we to generate these funds? A donations box at our parking lots? How's about a yearly car wash and paper drive to increase revenue?

I'm joking, of course, but I will gladly buy two less plugs, purchase two less rounds of eeeeeeeels, or pass on a coupla less pkgs of pogies to contribute to strictly targeted dinero. Consequently, if we see our licensing dollars at work, then won't we be more willing to comply and better able to pass our beloved sport and moonlit obsession on to our children and their children's children? One concern nags at me, though, does better access lead to undue pressure to our species and a possible return to the 80's?

I was interviewed by a rep of the DEC ( the usual questions i.e. catch, time, frequency of trips, how much spent per trip) When I asked about a SW lic they said Maine was not willing to impose one in 2008 so the Feds will in 2009. I have no other verification of this.

If its a Fed thing will they also control the process of those states in compliance now?? Would it be like the duck stamp?? a fed stamp and individual state stamps??? I've bought FW lics for the last 40 years and I see where the money goes (hatcheries and stocking programs).

In MaineI have been checked 3 times in 16 years by wardens during duck season and 3 during 20 fishing seasons. How well will this process be inforced. Every member of this site will buy SW lic if required but I think we would like to see it inforced. There is not enough enforcement of the existing bag limits now will my-your 20$ make it any better?? I don't think so.
Will the money go to SW hatcheries and release programs??? The Atlantic Salmon Fish-farming in Maine has suffered because of the possibility of introducing diseses .What about the commercial guys???

I really don't know much on where the funds will "truly" go,now from what I've read here on this topic other State fisheries have benefited by implementing licence's that's great & I belive it should work that way.......But here in MA.It seems to me that MA. is one of a kind,the kind that "miss manages money",example the Big Dig or more relevant the Pike,now this roadway was paid off a looooooong time ago & has fell subject to the chopping block to stop paying,and every time it remains the same but this time around the rate's have gone up.Only in MA.WTF!

Deep down Mike, I don't have a problem paying,in fact I know this will be a real topic for all of us anglers down the road,sooner than later,so my beef is,there shouldn't be a joint fresh/salt water one. like the State implemented 19 yrs. ago. example,Fresh water fishing licence & water foul)I don't hunt so why should I pay for it,secondly I only fresh water fish "when I take my kids" & IM not really fishing,I just monitor it so for me shell out extra money for some thing I don't do is a waste,A waste of my $$.

The State should categorize licence's into 3 different licence's,example salt,fresh,water foul ,we work hard for our money so the State should spend a l'il time and curtsey on how to "Serve" us better,we will be the subscribers of this new law so we should have the right to "choose"what we want,if it's to be forced onto us to pay for a recreational sport,they shouldn't create a generic consolidated bill,something that some of us don't need or want,we shouldn't have to pay.
Open for debate down the road...........

Mike,the one thing that really burn's my Arse is,when I fished South Boston (yrs. ago) I remember watching these older Asian guys (I'am not stereo typing) fishing they were reaping tons of schoolies & I mean tons, they were catching & giving them to the runners (their own kids) they were running back and forth to there cars hiding them into coolers,now what they were going to do w/ them is beyond me & not the point,but the point is these guys wouldn't buy a licence nor keep legal bass or any legal fish,they'll keep anything they catch!!!!!!!!!!
Also I've seen some fish the Canal catch bass toss them in the rocks,then 1/2hr. goes by they catch a bigger one throw back the smaller of the 2.WTF!

IM not a whistle blower,but this is going to fall in the same scene of a "speeder" a lot of people do it,a lot of us see it,but do they/we drop a dime?No because it's so frequent and nobody's getting hurt......On the fishing aspect of it,some call some & some do nothing,but the bottom line is we all will suffer if something isn't done to control it.Something will be done when it's too late.

I like to play thing's by the numbers, I also expect other people to do the same.......People today have no respect for themselves & there not going to give a rats Arse about you(everybody)& anything down the road......


5/0

ill move to antartica before i have to pay for a saltwater license

I'd gladly pay for one, just have a hard time justifying 5.
Might be better for me if I stuck to fewer spots anyways

I for one will never pay!!

Everything cost all the time now!!

Is the ocean man made? NO!!

Are the fish stocked?? NO!!

Are the State ramps I paid for free?? NO!!

If I pay for a lic. will I get to use them for free?? NO!!

Are we going to get more state ramps?? Are they going to remain state ramps, or be given to the town after a while and then be for res. only??

I pay for a beach sticker that I can't use 1/2 the time because of birds, is that going to be free?? NO!!

Are we going to get more shore access? NO!!

Is the state going to band dragger's to the 3 mile limit to protect the inshore fishery so that we have fish to catch?? Cause at this rate we will be paying $$ to fish for nothing!!

So what am I going to get for my money?? Nothing thats what!! Just going to line the pockets of the state thats it!!
And once we say yes one time then we are going to have to pay increased fees all the time not to mention all the new fee's that will be made cause of this fee!

Nope you are never going to see me pay for my god given right to fish a god given natural resource!

This is a free country suposeably!! So I say let the people decide!! Thats the way it works!! Tired of all these taxes and stuff just shoved in are face and just have to lay down and suck it up!

FIGHT FOR ARE LAST FREE RESOURCE!! DON"T JUST LAY THERE AND TAKE IT!!

Ok I am getting mad now!

My problem with this is that they can't enforce the regulations they already have, how can they enforce this? How many times have you been to jetties in ri and seen guys with buckets full of 4 and 5" scup? You think those guys will buy licenses? You think they'll fish any less? I don't. Just another way for the gov't to fleece us. If getting licenses meant they'd have more people to enforce the laws, I'd be all for it, but as it is they're spread to thin. I'm dead set agianst this.

My problem with this is that they can't enforce the regulations they already have, how can they enforce this? How many times have you been to jetties in ri and seen guys with buckets full of 4 and 5" scup? You think those guys will buy licenses? You think they'll fish any less? I don't. Just another way for the gov't to fleece us. If getting licenses meant they'd have more people to enforce the laws, I'd be all for it, but as it is they're spread to thin. I'm dead set agianst this.


That's how I feel about it too,there are alot of "these"people who supposedly don't speaka da english and poach away with everything & anything they catch,it makes me:yak6:

If the state elects to pass this,will there be enough Badges to enforce it,or will Massachusetts pull the usual....line there pockets,then tell us we don't have enough to "Truly enforce"!

Sorry,IMI have No Faith for the politicians here in MA. C'ome on look @ Deval what a Fu(king joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


5/0

I've vented about this before, so I'll be more concise for this thread.

If I lived in a land of fantasy, and the money from said license went to better enforecement, better research, stocking??, etc., then I'm all for it.

I've lived in RI and MA, and I don't trust either state with public money. I've never lived in NJ, but the same goes there. On top of that, I'm from PA and fish in NJ, RI, and MA, so what I am supposed to do, pay 3 for 3 licenses to fish in the same "pond"?

Federal is the only way to go, since at least then I'll only have to pay once, and I'm convinced the money will be wasted anyway.

You guys seem to have a lot of political views on the subject. As a CT residence my friends and I are all for a saltwater license. Right now the DEP of CT is putting regulations on Strippers that are basic guestimations of what would promote a healthy fishery and boy are things starting to turn into a mess. The stripper population is starting to make a serious come back in all our tidal rivers and as a result other fisheries are starting to be deplited.

The alwifes of our state are all but extinct due to wide use as a bait fish that went unregulated for too long and with strippers populations growing in these areas their almost all gone. The strippers are also believed to be eating other fresh water species such as white perch, the american eel and many of the predominant game species such as larger mouth bass. Can you believe that one of our nuceular power plants, as part of it's environmental contribution, is developing a lock system for the Housatonic river to keep them from being so severly depleted.
The point I'm making in all of this is the DEP in this state needs significant funding in order to observe and tabulate appropriate actions in this state to keep and maintain a healthy fishery. The stripers are great no complaints here but if the bait fish aren't around then how long will they stick around for. Hell, even seeing a school of bunker around here is becoming a fluke as opposed to the everyday occurance that I remember growing up. I think a saltwater license is the least that I can do on my part.

The stripper population is starting to make a serious come back...


i wish strippers were making a comeback :lm::lm::lm:

No ... Get Your Hand Out of My Pocket !!!! You get paid .. you pay taxes ,, state, fed ,,That should be it .. But No ... you keep paying with that same money getting taxed over and over again..sales ,excise,luxury... How far can you strech your pay check, paying taxes infinite amount of times with the same money . Did I say gas ? I would like to know for real, what a person ends up paying in taxes per income ... Then there's fee's .. I'm bent over all the time . Saltwater fishing is my only relief .. We going to get 100% access ?

I don't post often actually ever but I do feel strongly about this topic so here is my two cents worth:
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 quite expensive and that's without equipment costs, beach permits, gas costs etc. So 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

That was said on the radio today, the aravger person works from Jan 1 till end of April just for all the taxes they pay!! So 4 months pay is just for tax the rest is yours.

Right or wrong?

Thats 1/3 rd your anual pay :mad::realmad:

That was said on the radio today, the aravger person works from Jan 1 till end of April just for all the taxes they pay!! So 4 months pay is just for tax the rest is yours.

Right or wrong?

Thats 1/3 rd your anual pay :mad::realmad:

This is 100% true........just like the average person sleeps 1/3 of there life.:rtfm:

This is 100% true........just like the average person sleeps 1/3 of there life.:rtfm:

so...if I could get paid for sleeping, all the money I'd make at work I can keep!

That's the biggest benefit to a license, and the one that 90% of the people don't realize ;)

I completely disagree that somehow licensing is going to make people realize how important saltwater surf fishermen are and we'll start getting more access (or whatever). No one cares about our pennies. They care about the influence of wealthy property owners.

Hunters pay for licenses and get treated like child molesters. If freshwater fishermen get anything, it's because of stocking and the gillions of dollars they spend on tackle. Also, anyone who thinks there's going to be one license in a state for fresh and salt or reciprocity has a lot more confidence in government than I do. They're going to have a separate license or a stamp, and each state will have their own. Then in a few years you'll need a separate striper stamp, then a fluke stamp, bonito stamp, albacore stamp, crab stamp, etc, etc, etc.

if there has to be one, i'd like to see a federal license. one that will apply to any state. the feds could divide the money derived from the licenses up between the states, based on the number of people living in each state that purchased a license.

if there is going to be one, I want to see some damn enforcement too. If I'm paying $x.xx for the right to fish for a year, its gonna piss me off when I'm walking out at dawn and see a bunch of guys fishing without licenses, knowing that they'll never get caught.

My questions are "How Much?"
20-25 bucks, well that's ok by me, if they're asking for 100, that's another story. What will the fine for non-compliance be? Equal or greater than a license? I think it should be. I also think that one license should cover all US shores. We're already paying 10% on our gear, where does that go?



it may start at 20 but it will go up MA LTC used to be like 25 now it is 100

so...if I could get paid for sleeping, all the money I'd make at work I can keep!

Your lucky you don't get taxed while you sleep:rotf2: