Last nite at the msba meeting Basic Patrick was talking about information that he's learned on this new saltwater license. Now I know this has been talked about heatedly here before and I hope this doesn't turn into a %$%$%$%$ fest.

I'll let Patrick give you guys the actual information but I believe the way the states are moving towards STINKS.

The surf guys get the royal shaft, they are looking to require a separate license in each state while the boat guys have to #1 have a license for each person fishing on the boat, and #2 will have full reciprocity so if you leave from Ma and go fish RI or NH waters etc and go back to your original port you don't need a separate license for each state.

So cuz I fish in Mass and Maine I got to have two separate saltwater lic. :smash: It's all about the funds.

BTW Patrick thank you for your work you've done on this and also the herring. :claps:

I have fished in at least 4 states the last 8 yrs..
What does that add up to..
Your dam right it is gonna make a difference.
I probably won't be able to afford that new salty plug I been thinkin about..

Is there any discussion of a short term license for people on vac. for a week?

I thought the saltwater license was a federal license, much like a tuna permit. Each state is given the opportunity to administer the license, before the feds step in, thus enabling the state to "control" the funds rather than giving the money to the feds. Sounds like I may have thought incorrectly. Art

I'm pretty ignorant to the issue, and have to read up on it. But how are they going to regulate this. Will there be environmental police parked at fishing spots waiting for surf guys to come off their rock at 2/3 in the morning to check for a license. I can't see how this can be enforced.

Shocker,

Before you walk back in from the rock you're standing on, remove your tackle from the end of the line. If you're approached when you get back on shore..........explain how you were just trying out a new surf rod and you were NOT fishing as you were only casting a hookless item to test the rod. :lm:

Will there be environmental police parked at fishing spots

What's that?? Those people really do exist???????

I'm pretty ignorant to the issue, and have to read up on it. But how are they going to regulate this. Will there be environmental police parked at fishing spots waiting for surf guys to come off their rock at 2/3 in the morning to check for a license. I can't see how this can be enforced.

more money = more EPOs

I think it might be time to make a career change :)

Their in lies the other problem.Where will the moneys spent on a license go.If they are to go directly back into each states Fisheries management systems I would be all for it..Of course it won't. You know the money will go into a general fund where,,, well you know the deal...

So I walk out of the water wearing a wetsuit, The EPO asks to see my license. Do you think they will be waterproof?

The license applies to those who may catch anadromous species such as salmon, striped bass, smelt, and shad that spawn in rivers and streams and spend their adult lives in estuaries and the ocean.

Do you need a license if you catch and release a striped bass ?

If your targeting blues, scup, fluke, skates, dogfish, tog then you don’t need a license.

If approached by the EPO regarding a license state that your targeting non-anadromous species such as bluefish. Also, if you happen to catch a bass while in the presence of the EPO release ASAP to show your intent that you’re not targeting bass.

On another note if you keep one or two bass a year for the table you can either take your chances of getting busted or go to the fish market where it will cost you less then buying multiple licenses.

The key element is in how it is worded, applies to those who may catch anadromous species. So regardless of what we are targeting, if we might catch a stripper we are being told we need to have the license. Not sure how the multiple state item will play out as they are acting as middle men for the Feds. Fed only require us to in their system once.

I doubt you need a license or at least you shouldn't in the event that you may catch a striper.
Why, because if that was the case then I would also need a
blue fin tuna license if I was targeting whatever.

NIB, I also fish in 4 different states. It will be the same for me as snowmobiling. Each state requires registration and trail pass. Just about $80 for each state.

I'll just go fishing for seaweed, that way when I get some by-catch of a fish or 20, I can release it and be ok. What is the limit on seaweed?:huh:

The key element is in how it is worded, applies to those who may catch anadromous species. So regardless of what we are targeting, if we might catch a stripper we are being told we need to have the license.
show me where i can target strippers and ill buy that license no problem! :rotflmao:

Yes there is and yes short term licenses are included...details still in development


Is there any discussion of a short term license for people on vac. for a week?

I just buying my commercial lic. and when each season is closed I move on to the next! when they all closed I quit for the year.

Scup, Tog, Black Sea Bass May, Fluke June & July, Bass July& Aug, Aug sea bass and scup, Sept tog again And Blues all year round!

Thats good for me!

HI all...I am on the State Recreational Salt Water Registry Steering Committee. I just popped home for a minute then have to go to work and back to Sandy Neck for the weekend. Here is some info.

Fed proposal is in final development. Fed proposal is set to go into play for free in 09 and at a charge "around" $15- $25 iin 2010. Fed proposal public comment period was extended but is now or about to be closed.

State created the Steering Committee to give input during development of a State License. Once developed the proposal becomes a bill in State House and then the politicians get a shot at it and I don;t have to tell you what that "could" mean. There would be hearings during the State legislative part of this process.

Some key points.

Feds and State agree the registry/license would cover all fishing salt water because of the wording in the original Federal Bill that created this disaster.

Federal Plan is limited to only it's charge and who cares if the money goes through the US Geneeral Fund. The data collection driving this process will ahve to be funded either way. There are not much more areas the Feds could go which will keep the costs of a Federal License stable.

State is saying (and I agree) that for the same money (we are looking at $15 for residents) we can get additional services.

A concern is that in most other states a few years after the license went in to play, the pre license level of funding dropped and then new services were cut because the license monies were then needed for original services.

State (MA) is going to present the Steering Committee with the fund flow as we have been stating loudly we want a dedicated account.

We are in process of developing increased service options. Problem here is that the proposals look good to me in text but under questioning I am not getting the answers I think most of those I represent would agree with.

Yes there is a short term and long term license.

Yes, there is a children free and consideration of a senior discount or free also.

Yes, there is a higher fee for non residents.

Yes, Salty is correct
1...Shore based fishers would need a license in any state they fish from.
2...Boat anglers would also with one execption. Leave a state port, fish in a neighboring state waters and return to original state port and you are covered.

Yes, each individual on a boat would need a separate license. I am fighting this hard. Better data Comes from the boat owner and not the "I fish twice a year" guest.

Yes, it is true that clients on a charter will NOT need separate licenses because charter boats are already on a data collection program. When I said we could duplicate that program for private boat owners I was told this was not possible. I disagree and am fighting this.

Yes, the MA process could not be completed and enacted before 2010 so it is "possible" MA residents would have to get a free federal license for '09 and then get a State license in 2010 causing major confusion. I do know multiple states are lobbying for a one year exception to the fed plan if they have a State license in process. I predict there will be some action on this point. Just a prediction.

The process is ongoing...If you are a MA guy make sur your local club is invloved. If not, join MSBA becasue we are always in teh middle on the issues. Shouldn;t you support clubs that fight for you?

Ok, Off to work then the beach for the weekend.

GO LARGE

Patrick, Coordinate with other large clubs such as RISAA, etc. and fight for the surfcasters on reciprocating state licenses.

Thanks for all your work Patrick.

Firstly, Patrick,

THANK YOU for ALL that you do!
You, Sir, are a true sportsman and it is a blessing
to have you helping to "fight, OUR Fight"

Secondly, having fished in FL for many years,,,,,,,,,

i am 100% FOR State and Federal Liscensing of the fishery
PROVIDED THAT the monies goes into a dedicated account.
HELL, i am also FOR a Striped Bass Stamp for fisheries research/mgmt cash flow!!!

perhaps this will be the impetus for S-B gamefish status and "1 @ 36inches" (or, rather, the introduction of pertinent and purposeful stock mngmt and protection for ALL its forages). it all begins with the ducketts and good science takes buckets of ducketts!!

when was the last time youse guys fished the Funshine State?

we are talking lighted peers, maintained parking lots, mucho State and Fed access, reserves dedicated to fishing, cafes, restrooms, policeable facilities, boat ramps, family friendly parks and recreations areas,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,not to mention the work it will bring to each state's economies if these monies are duly allocated.

i mean if the *whackos* in FL can pull this off ~~surely~~ the bright intellects and good old Yankee ingenuities of the NEast could go them much, MUCH Better??? :huh: :huh:

the revenue stream is going to happen whether we LIKE it or NOT,,,,,,,,,,,,,is it any mystery WHY the property owners from CT to ME have so much clout?? it's because they are contributing ~mightily in some areas~ to the state and local funds sources!!

this could be a way for OUR voices to be heard (on a yearly basis) and should be worth some sort of muscle; yet without a liscense the Gov't has no way of quantifying OUR numbers and providing service/giving us a dawg in the fight without OUR contributions. this could be a very effective way for the many to TAKE BACK some OCEAN and its priveleges from the wealthy few ~~but ONLY iff it's IT IS done RIGHT!!

i say we give them a shot! let's support/embrace/join clubs as Patrick suggests ~~if you so choose~~ so that "The powers that be" KNOW that WE mean business about contributing............just as long as we aren't getting HUMPED by the General Revenues Funds.
:wall: :humpty: :humpty: :wall:

and if they efff it up after a year or two,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

it wouldn't be the first Revolution that was started round these waters!! do YOU wanna be the guy that tells Flap, Nebe, Big Fish, AJ, #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&, animal, JohnR, Stewie, Tynan, fishdoc, et al that they have to put away their fishing toys if they don't purchase a BOGUS Saltwater Fishing Liscense??? :bl: :bl: :bl: :bl:

Why not just have a saltwater fishing license with no differentiation between resident and nonresident. I can see some rationial for a difference in fees for inland waters where fish are raised in hatcherys and stocked for a put and take fishery, but not where the migratory fish have no cost to the fishery management entity. To tell the truth I have never thought that nonresident license fees being higher was beneficial to the states, I actually think it reduces their revenues overall. Nonresident recreational fisherman spend a lot of money and keep fewer fish than residents.

Why not just have a saltwater fishing license with no differentiation between resident and nonresident. I can see some rationial for a difference in fees for inland waters where fish are raised in hatcherys and stocked for a put and take fishery, but not where the migratory fish have no cost to the fishery management entity. To tell the truth I have never thought that nonresident license fees being higher was beneficial to the states, I actually think it reduces their revenues overall. Nonresident recreational fisherman spend a lot of money and keep fewer fish than residents.
I heartly agree, especially since I fish in two states' waters sometimes on the same night simply by walking further down the beach. Unless there is reciprocity among the states alot of fishermen will just find other ways of spending their time which might cost the states more in the long run. Just my $.02 rel

while i definitely agree with the reciprocity issue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
since NE is so close and the coasts tend to be thought of as ONE

how does that translate from a federal perspective if we
are to apply the reciprocal principle to say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

the Carolinas, the Gulf states, Delmarva???

seems to me to be a can of worms that the Feds would just as soon keep unopened.
the other part of reciprocity that makes it difficult for the states to allow, imho, is how would each state know/earmark it's slice of the licensing pie? i'm for multiple licenses if it is written that the funds stay within the fishery that they are purchased for.

a Striped Bass stamp could be Federal and reciprocal and valid from
say,,,,,,,,Dec to Dec and this would address the migratory stock wrinkle. hunters purchase duck stamps, seasonly, in most states. it is similar also to the deer tagging process that seems very effective.

still alot of unanswered questions; however, i remain hopeful that the solutions we DO come up with
will serve both ~~Country and Citizen!!

$900 ZB or $700 VS--check

$400 Ron Arra or Supersurf rod--check

$35 Lefty McFadden or Beachmaster custom wood--check

$200 Aquaskinz jacket---check

$200 plug bag----check

$15 for a license that could help improve our fisheries---NO %$%$%$%$ING WAY.

Yup, there's logical thinking.

If anyone here drops more than $1000 a year on tackle, and is torqued off about having to spend $50 to fish in 2 states, I would respectfully suggest you're suffering from head up your ass syndrome.

Federal tax check
State tax check
Social Security tax check
Medicare tax check
Social Security employer contribution check
Medicare employer contribution check
Federal Unemployment Insurance check
State Unemployment Insurance check
Workers' Comp check
Sales Tax check
Property tax check


saltwater license bend over backwards tax

$900 ZB or $700 VS--check

$400 Ron Arra or Supersurf rod--check

$35 Lefty McFadden or Beachmaster custom wood--check

$200 Aquaskinz jacket---check

$200 plug bag----check

$15 for a license that could help improve our fisheries---NO %$%$%$%$ING WAY.

Yup, there's logical thinking.

If anyone here drops more than $1000 a year on tackle, and is torqued off about having to spend $50 to fish in 2 states, I would respectfully suggest you're suffering from head up your ass syndrome.
No, I don't drop even half that a year, usually keep my head on my shoulders and above my waist.
I don't think we are talking 15 bucks every state will bang the nonres for as much as possible, meanwhile I assume,:smash: the landlocked states do contribute to federal saltwater fishing management.
Last year I fished in five states, this year it will be at least 6. How about a stamp similar to a duck stamp for saltwater fishing and a general fishing license, think about it are mass guys going to need 2 licenses to fish in Holyoke or Lawrence and saltwater for stripers.
The res/non res license is another issue.
Of course if I brought some small stripers home and planted them in champlain I would only have to travel half an hour, and have one license.

As a tackle shop owner, very concerned about the non-resident aspects.

Out of state families come here to enjoy the beaches and do a little fishing - buy bait, some combo's, lures and so on. Now they have to pay what - $25?? $35?? to get a weekly license, or a 3 day license? For the Mom and Dad, and maybe the teenagers?

This in addition to the license they have to buy in their home state?

My guess is alot of them will stay home and fish in their state or come here and not fish, not buy stuff, and..........

I never thought I spent much on tackle either--until a couple of years ago, when I looked at my end of the year credit card statement, did the addition, and found that I spent $2600+.

I gladly pay $35 a year for my shellfish license, and that's only good in one town, let alone one state.

If you guys want to quit fishing over a drop in the bucket, relatively speaking, fee for a SW license, don't let me stop you. ;)

what will the money from the license actually fund? specifics...

with a whole 2 active DEM agents patrolling RI from shore, the poachers will still get away with murder.... and the non licensed anglers will continue to fish non-licensed. In RI the enforcement just isnt there its purely bs.


:hidin:

what will the money from the license actually fund? specifics...

The fed license fee will go into the fed version of the general fund.

In those states that already require a license their citizens will not be required to have the fed license.

A great example of good state licensing is TX.The sw license fees were directly responsible for the comeback of reds and specks after the Great Freeze of '83.Also the enforcement of laws pertaining to fishing are very well enforced.

A bad example COULD be RI.Every time legislation for sw licensing has been intro'd in RI it has always come down to all funds going to the general fund.Earmark those funds going right back to DEM and I'll be the first in line for one and there'll be just as many green vehicles out there as there are gray.