Saltwater Fishing License!

[Reef Runner]

I'll be happy to part with the $ as soon as I see the Stocking truck go by!

[chris L]

I heard vermont wanted in on this too . they hate being left out . next thing ya know idaho will want to do it too .

Ct is going to add $5 to our freshwater license . which is fine but if we dont have a license for all of new england Im going to be stuck here fishing for strippers ( no access to fish in ct ) . I am not forking over cash to every state I fish saltwater . At least when I buy a freshwater license in other states , they stock fish and try and patrol . what can they do but inforce saltwater laws that they dont do now . which is nothing in my opinion !

[striprman]

Originally Posted by BigFish

I hear and read more and more about towns which happen to be on the water turning beaches, parking areas and such into "Resident Only" areas......so if they do institute a saltwater fishing license.....where the hell is a surf guy who does not reside in a shoreline town supposed to go???

I will never pay to fish the salt.....is there anything left in this world to do that is free??

So, you going to stop fishing ?

[BigFish]

You for the fishing license Steve?? You don't seem to say which side of the fence you are on just that you want to make this more stupid than it is??!!!? And no....I will not be stopping fishing!

[Jenn]

Ditto to the general consensus-not a big deal if the money will go toward enforcement.

It is sad with on the freshwater scene. Since you no longer have to "display" on your person I often times forget in in my wallet now and it stays in the truck while I fish. I havent been checked for a license in so long it doesnt even seem worth it to bother bringing it with me!

[striprman]

Originally Posted by BigFish

You for the fishing license Steve?? You don't seem to say which side of the fence you are on just that you want to make this more stupid than it is??!!!? And no....I will not be stopping fishing!

Larry, you know, that is a good question. I have been fishing my entire life. My grandfather had a cottage on Town Beach in Sandwich and I remember him taking me and my mum to the canal when I was just a baby (my mum would go with him and bring me in the stroller). He made lures out of old broomstick handles and screw eyes (he was the night foreman at Bird Machine in Walpole, a good machinist as far as I can tell). My mum tells me stories about rowing the boat all over Scituate harbor while he caught a couple buckets of flounder, more than 70 years ago. My dads father raised nightcrawlers to supplement his retirement income. He lived in Braintree. I remember going to Weymouth Landing and fishing for smelts off the dock with him. My old dad (he is 86) said him and my grampa would go clamming at Wolliston Beach and fish at Houghs Neck and Hull. Vacation summers were spent at Bourne Scenic Park and York Beach, I fished every day. I have always fished. I grew up in Foxboro on the Neponset Reservoir and as a kid had a small Jon boat. My younger brother and I would catch calico bass and snapping turtles and sell them to the black folks for candy money who would come to the boat livery to buy our catch. Those were the days. My brother has always owned a "saltwater" boat, his first being a 14 foot 1959 Lone Star. We put a lot of fish in that. We fished the Weweantic River every chance we had, caught (and sold) a ton of fish. Made many trips across Cape Cod Bay in that small boat. He has a 21 foot machine now and takes me out a couple times a year (when he got married he got a new fishing buddy). I showed my kids how to catch bass in the canal, they go there when they can and they like fishing too. I will take my 3 year old grandson with me next season (with his mum and dad of course). I also enjoyed hunting, mostly for ring neck pheasant, but I liked to hunt duck and deer too. When you met me, you saw how I had "slowed down" due to my disability, but I still fish when I can, the "itch" is always there.
Well getting back to your question, do I support a saltwater fishing license ? I believe I posted a thread about that subject when I first started visiting this site (most people said I was..well, I wont say what they said). I know my comments are somewhat colorful (some would say inane) but I do it to make people think about the
wonderful resources we have here in New England. Yes, I am in favor of a license for recreational fishing. It is really a small price to pay for such enjoyment. Like most other serious fishermen that frequent this and other fishing sites, I have seen many people not following the rules and regulations, taking short fish, poaching, taking as many fish as they can take home, littering. People are disrespectful. Hopefully, with a license, we will see much less of such activity. I am completely serious about "certification" prior to issuing a fishing license. I doubt it will happen but I don't think it would be a bad thing at all. I hope any money will go towards increased access, access for disabled, enforcement, education... but I doubt it will. Traditionalist say "the ocean must be free" but there are so many people fishing these days, some agency really needs to know the numbers. When the bass got scarce back in the day, we found the Squeteague to fill in the "void" in the bass. Now the bass are back but the squet are scarce, so cycles and overfishing are a real concern. Yes a license sucks but as I see it, there is too much abuse of the resource by novices and people that just blatantly don't care or are completely unaware
The scup fishing was pretty good this past season so limits seem to be working. I would be happy to see the commercial take of bass be less than 40 fish a day, like 10 a day, but let them be taken 6 days a week (all good fishermen go to church on Sunday) I am not in favor of a slot limit but think that the size of a keeper should be 34" minimum (bass get big, as we all know, let them grow so a keeper can be a decent sized fish) and 1 fish per person a day for recreational fishermen (who needs 2 fish a day ?)

I will get off the pulpit now.

[BigFish]

I just want to know....why now do we have to pay for the "wonderful resources we have here in NE"??! Is nothing free but air???? And that comes at a price and I am sure soon enough we will have a "TAX" on that!!! I find it a shame......that folks can't do something as simple as walking to the waters edge......and wetting a line?? Its a shame......you can put any spin on it you want about how you think the tax money will make things better and help with.....blah, blah, blahhhhhhh........WE PAY ENOUGH GODDAMN TAXES.....WHEN WILL IT END?

I liked your post too Steve.....very interesting.....sounds like you have a great passion for fishing and I respect that and your opinion.

[Saltheart]

Are kids excluded below a certain age like for the freshwater licenses?

Oh , btw , I just heard there is a big push in the legislature for a pee in the ocean license. This would apply to peeing directly into the water and on the tidal area up to mean high water.

There was a proposal to have a "look at the ocean license" required but they decided that it would be hard to prove whether someone was actually looking at the ocean or just day dreaming. One local representative was adament about the look at the ocean license and he said that people would just have to stay at home to daydream or learn to look at the sky when they daydreamed or face a possible fine if they didn't have the proper look at the ocean license. A federal aviation director the stood up and said he didn't want to get involved with all the looking into the sky traffic control issues and recommended the state solve its own look at the ocean issues rather than puch them off onto a federal agency.

[Swimmer]

I liked reading your post Steve. Thank you

[BigFish]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

Are kids excluded below a certain age like for the freshwater licenses?

Oh , btw , I just heard there is a big push in the legislature for a pee in the ocean license. This would apply to peeing directly into the water and on the tidal area up to mean high water.

There was a proposal to have a "look at the ocean license" required but they decided that it would be hard to prove whether someone was actually looking at the ocean or just day dreaming. One local representative was adament about the look at the ocean license and he said that people would just have to stay at home to daydream or learn to look at the sky when they daydreamed or face a possible fine if they didn't have the proper look at the ocean license. A federal aviation director the stood up and said he didn't want to get involved with all the looking into the sky traffic control issues and recommended the state solve its own look at the ocean issues rather than puch them off onto a federal agency.

I only pee above the high water line anyway....but I pee alot!!!

[ivanputski]

The government's short-sighted on this one... in an attempt to GAIN more money, they will actually LOSE more by discouraging spontaneous beginner outings, the bring-a friend type of fishing, and in turn miss out on the SALES TAX REVENUE on gear purchased....

Also, for someone to imply that not buying this new bogus license puts me in the same category as a poacher, give me a break... I'm not a criminal simply because I dont bend over for whatever ridiculous idea a politician thinks of next...

[ivanputski]

From it's inception, this was a money-making tactic to plug holes in the state and federal economy... not provide YOU with a better quality of fishing... Someone, somewhere in a goverment office finally realized how much money they were missing out on... Stating that it will help fishing in some way is the sales pitch... *("of course I love you... sure I'll still respect you in the morning...")
I am a squeeky clean, law-abiding angler, who always does what's right... but charging me admission to fish an ocean, and then using my money NO WHERE NEAR the ocean (general fund) is an abuse of power... so here it is: I AM NOT BUYING A LICENSE... how many freedoms can I lose and still respect myself??
If you catch me, write me the damn ticket... every man has his breaking point, and this is mine.... Oh yeah.... when you come to give me a fine, wear your wetsuit and korkers... youre gonna have to earn it........

[Slipknot]

If a license is required by the feds, then why don't the feds just fund free licensing with all the tax dollars collected by tackle taxes?



I guess I am dreaming

[ivanputski]

c'mon, pay attention....the illegals will get theirs free... you gotta pay!!!

[stcroixman]

RI will spend it, and increase the fee, spend it and increase the fee some more.

[stcroixman]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

If a license is required by the feds, then why don't the feds just fund free licensing with all the tax dollars collected by tackle taxes?



I guess I am dreaming

We all are. It all just gets pissed away on Iraq,Welfare and soon Health Insurance.

[Swimmer]

Hey, why can't they include fishermen in the stimulus funding?

[Rmarsh]

Originally Posted by ivanputski

From it's inception, this was a money-making tactic to plug holes in the state and federal economy... not provide YOU with a better quality of fishing... Someone, somewhere in a goverment office finally realized how much money they were missing out on... Stating that it will help fishing in some way is the sales pitch... *("of course I love you... sure I'll still respect you in the morning...")
I am a squeeky clean, law-abiding angler, who always does what's right... but charging me admission to fish an ocean, and then using my money NO WHERE NEAR the ocean (general fund) is an abuse of power... so here it is: I AM NOT BUYING A LICENSE... how many freedoms can I lose and still respect myself??
If you catch me, write me the damn ticket... every man has his breaking point, and this is mine.... Oh yeah.... when you come to give me a fine, wear your wetsuit and korkers... youre gonna have to earn it........

Well said and I agree 100%.

[BasicPatrick]

Hey Larry...I got a wierd question and really do not mean to be sarcastic.

Bigfish Bait Co pays the hook tax to the Feds.
MA now has an avenue so that it can maximize the amount of that tax that comes back to MA Fisheries and not sit in some federal account.

Are you stating we should fail the license and et the feds keep the money that is doing nothing for us today?

[PRBuzz]

Long Island Fishermen vs. the State of New York

Video - Long Island Fishermen vs. the State of New York - WSJ.com

EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. -- Stuart Vorpahl has waged a lonely battle since 1984 against the state of New York over his right to fish. For refusing to obtain a commercial fishing license, he has been arrested at least four times, once on a dock after a police officer seized 490 pounds of fluke and two lobsters from his 40-foot trawler.
Now, others here on Long Island's East End are joining the 69-year-old Mr. Vorpahl's cause. And they are supporting his argument, based on a 313-year-old colonial-era document, called the Dongan Patent, that conferred responsibility for town land and waterways on locally elected trustees.

"I keep telling everyone, 'Your right to go fishing is right here!'" he shouts, holding up a copy of the document in his kitchen cluttered with files and books on the subject. "But the courts don't want to open this can of worms."

All of his cases over the years were dismissed or ended in mistrials, largely without the judges considering the merits of the Dongan Patent. In one instance, the court was unable to form a jury because Mr. Vorpahl is too well-known. His family has lived for centuries pulling striped bass from these waters.

But this time looks different.

Six Long Island towns, including Southampton, Shelter Island and East Hampton, have joined in a lawsuit against the state's Department of Environmental Conservation, charging that it has no authority to require fishing licenses without their consent. At least three other towns may join.

The fracas began on Oct. 1, when New York, in response to new federal policies, required for the first time that recreational anglers have a license to fish in saltwater. The state has required a commercial license since 1984.

Since there are many more recreational than there are commercial fishermen, the growing resistance has the feel of mutiny. Though the new recreational license costs just $10, some participants are hearing echoes of the current national debate over activist government.

"People want some control over their daily lives, including their right to fish," says Eric Shultz, a retired New York City Fire Department patrol officer and a member of Southampton's Board of Trustees. "This whole fee thing is absolutely ridiculous."

The state fishing license was prompted by a federal measure, passed in 2006, to more accurately measure fish populations. It requires recreational fishermen to register so they can be contacted and asked how many fish they catch. That goes into effect next year, unless states first implement their own licenses.

A handful of states, including New York, this year have done that. But only in New York are fishermen fighting the matter in the courts. Most states, including New York, for years have required freshwater-fishing licenses.

With Stuart, it wasn't like he had created a movement or anything, so the judges could just dismiss him as a crank," says Arnold Leo, secretary of the East Hampton Baymen's Association. "But now, you've got all these towns...so this becomes much more complicated."

The towns, like Mr. Vorpahl, are basing their case on the Dongan Patent.

In 1686, the British governor of the royal colony of New York, Thomas Dongan, granted the patent, a kind of town charter, putting responsibility for public land and waterways in several East End towns in the hands of locally elected trustees. The New York state constitution preserved that contract in 1777, amid the War for Independence from Britain. That means, according to the current trustees, the state has no authority to impose regulation on town property, which includes the bottom of town inlets and bays.

While similar patents existed throughout the colonies, the East End patent appears unique in having survived as a basis for government. It has lasted perhaps because many of the same families, called Bonackers for their original homesteads along Accabonac Creek, still live here and because it concerns fishing, their traditional livelihood.

The patent "is implanted on their craniums," says Richard Barons, executive director of the East Hampton Historical Society. "Without the Bonackers, no one would've known of it."

The attorneys for the towns are going through a 337-page document on the subject compiled by Mr. Vorpahl after he holed up for several months during the winter of 1992 in the town library. The research cites numerous local cases won on the strength of the patent, ranging from overriding a state law prohibiting cattle herding on highways, in 1882, to placing eel pots in a local pond without a state fee, in 1952.

While the towns regard the patent as a bulwark against outsiders meddling in their affairs, it paradoxically owes its existence to state, or colonial, intervention.

From the moment settlers first arrived here in the 1640s, the fledgling towns struggled to stay out of the clutches of the royal colony of New York in favor of Connecticut, where they had closer economic, cultural and religious ties. Most of the original settlers to the area came from New England.

Tensions with New York heightened after 1674, when the British drove the Dutch out of the colony and began imposing a more centralized form of government.

But the eastern Long Islanders also realized the need to secure their titles to land under the expanding British administration. That was achieved in the 1686 patent granted by Gov. Dongan. While it empowered local government, it also had the effect of legitimizing British rule on the East End, by making land titles dependent on the royal colony, according to Peter Christoph, an editor of New York colonial-era manuscripts. It also made it easier to collect and increase property taxes.

Still, eastern Long Islanders continued to resist in other ways, presaging the Revolutionary War, not to mention Mr. Vorpahl's current struggle.
More than one judge has asked Mr. Vorpahl, he says, whether he sees himself as a modern-day version of Samuel Mulford, an East Hampton whaler active in town affairs. Nicknamed "Old Fishhook," Mr. Mulford fought for years in the early-18th century against a royal whaling license. He traveled twice to London to protest the measure directly to the king, despite repeated arrests. Mr. Vorpahl notes that the whaling license was repealed only in 1730, five years after Mr. Mulford's death.

Though others have rallied to his cause, Mr. Vorpahl says nothing is a sure thing. A New York state court justice recently postponed a hearing on the matter until Nov. 19, after Sen. Charles Schumer called for the state to delay implementation of the license during the difficult economy. Last month, New York state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office backed out of defending the state against the suit, citing confusion over how the license is distributed and enforced. On Monday, a state assemblyman introduced legislation to replace the license with a registry program, without a fee, effective next July 1.

With the matter attracting so much attention now from state officials, Mr. Vorpahl remains hopeful for some sort of ruling.

"I was a lone eagle on this," he says, over the crowing of a rooster in his yard. "But I'm finally getting heard."


More

The Dec. 9, 1686, Dongan Patent, granted control over the lands and waters of East Hampton, N.Y., to a locally elected board of trustees.

Now Know Ye, that I, the said Thomas Dongan, … do grant, ratify, release and confirm unto Thomas James, Captain Josiah Hobart, Capt. Thomas Talmadge, Lieut. John Wheeler, Ensign Samuel Mulford, John Mulford, Thomas Chatfield, senior, Jeremiah Conklin, Stephen Hand, Robert Dayton, Mr. Thomas Baker, and Thomas Osborn, … all the aforesaid tracts and necks of lands within the limits and bounds aforesaid, together with all and singular the Houses, Messuages, Tenaments, Buildings, Mills, Mill-dams, Fences, Inclosures, Gardens, Orchards, Fields, Pastures, Woods, Underwoods, Trees, Timber, Fencings, Commons of Pastures, Meadows, marshes, swamps, Plains, Rivers, Rivulets, Waters, Lakes, Ponds, Brooks, Streams, Beaches, Quarries, Mines, Minerals, Creeks, Harbors, Highways, and Easements, Fishing, Hawking, Hunting and Fowling, Silver and Gold Mines Excepted… And that they and their successors, by the name of the Trustees of the Freeholders and commonality of the Town of East Hampton be and shall be forever in future times, persons able and capable in law, to have, perceive, and receive and possess not only all and singular the premises, but other messuages, lands, tenements, privileges, jurisdictions, franchises, hereditaments of whatsoever kind or species, they shall be to them and their successors…

[UserRemoved1]

Patrick not to derail this discussion but please don't refer to this as a HOOK TAX. It's NOT and saying this perpetuates the MYTH that people think they can get away with selling a lure without hooks or out of packages and not having to pay excise tax. These guys are breaking the law and are no worse than poachers. It's a excise tax paid on a fishing lure. IRS definition of a fishing lure is an item with or WITHOUT hooks meant to catch a fish or entice a fish to strike it. Contrary to many people's ill thought notions there is no distinction between a lure with or without hooks. IRS says ANYTHING that "embellishes, improves the appearance, operation, or durability" of a fishing lure is subject to excise tax. That means finished lures, plain bodies, kits, hooks, eyes, grommets, weights, swivels, split rings, etc etc IS ALL SUBJECT TO EXCISE TAX.

Woe be the person who gets audited for this as many have found for themselves. And nobody seems to care except the people who legally pay their way. This problem is so pervasive it's disgusting. On my trip to the NY/NJ/CT area a month ago I saw so many illegal lures it was just downright wrong.

Maybe you can lobby for that next...bet you'd see a HUGE increase in funds going to your state if this BS wasn't going on.

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

Hey Larry...I got a wierd question and really do not mean to be sarcastic.

Bigfish Bait Co pays the hook tax to the Feds.
MA now has an avenue so that it can maximize the amount of that tax that comes back to MA Fisheries and not sit in some federal account.

Are you stating we should fail the license and et the feds keep the money that is doing nothing for us today?

[maddmatt]

Originally Posted by ivanputski

The government's short-sighted on this one... in an attempt to GAIN more money, they will actually LOSE more by discouraging spontaneous beginner outings, the bring-a friend type of fishing, and in turn miss out on the SALES TAX REVENUE on gear purchased....

Also, for someone to imply that not buying this new bogus license puts me in the same category as a poacher, give me a break... I'm not a criminal simply because I dont bend over for whatever ridiculous idea a politician thinks of next...

they (the gov) won't be happy till we're all locked in our cells(homes) and have to apply for an exit visa. Hey sweetie, remember the day we went outside! those were good times!

[Flaptail]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

Hey Larry...I got a wierd question and really do not mean to be sarcastic.

Bigfish Bait Co pays the hook tax to the Feds.
MA now has an avenue so that it can maximize the amount of that tax that comes back to MA Fisheries and not sit in some federal account.

Are you stating we should fail the license and et the feds keep the money that is doing nothing for us today?

You mean maximize that that comes back to MA fisheries then gets appropriated by the Gov to shore up the general fund?

You may not think so but that is what you really meant BTW.

Just a point of debate.

[BigFish]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

Hey Larry...I got a wierd question and really do not mean to be sarcastic.

Bigfish Bait Co pays the hook tax to the Feds.
MA now has an avenue so that it can maximize the amount of that tax that comes back to MA Fisheries and not sit in some federal account.

Are you stating we should fail the license and et the feds keep the money that is doing nothing for us today?

I think that because of that 720 Tax (Dingle Johnson) there should be no saltwater fishing license because poor bastards like me and Salty and others dump PLENTY into the governments coffers for them to MIS-ALLOCATE where ever they see fit!!!

[BigFish]

Don't get me wrong Patrick.....folks, including myself, appreciate all you do.......but there will be occasions when we disagree....respectively! More power to you Patrick but Gawd Dammit I am sick and tired of paying taxes on every friggin' thing in the world!!! Now.....the last bastion of freedom is going to be taxed!

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by BigFish

Don't get me wrong Patrick.....folks, including myself, appreciate all you do.......but there will be occasions when we disagree....respectively! More power to you Patrick but Gawd Dammit I am sick and tired of paying taxes on every friggin' thing in the world!!! Now.....the last bastion of freedom is going to be taxed!

Larry...I agree one thousand per cent that the whole license issue is just bad news being shoved down our throats. It completely sucks.

My hatred for the license is why I was one of the few in 2006 that actually tried to rally opposition while our friends in the tackle industry split our Lobby and screwed us but good in DC. I fought that fight when the fight was underway and could get very little help. That fight is lost. I don't like it but it is a fact.

Thank God things are getting better with participation and the fights are lasting a bit longer these days.

You see I just can't lay down and let big brother walk alll over me. Despite making ourselves feel good for a nano second, nothing gets accomplished typing away bitchin at thin air. No disrespect to anyone but isn't that just like a pre teen throwing a tantrum. Don't misunderstand me, as you know I can vent with the best of us.

The freedom you say is being taken away is the same freedom wasted when we do not participate in our govern"mental" process. How dare I not participate when people I never met continue to die just so that I hav ethe right to stand up for what I beleive. I guess I would rather fight and loose than just get the %$%$%$%$ beat out of me.

Also, I am pretty sure that this afternoon we got our version of the bill passed in the Senate with no changes and the dedicated fund made another HUGE step forward but I want to read it myself first.

On another note CHOIR was in full force today and it looks like there will be significant cutbacks to the Atlantic Herring moving forward to next week's New England Council Meeting in Newport RI. I thank all for the complements but please give them to others you know that do this. I get more than I deserve and others do not.

I am just asking for a "little" less bitchin. Cut the itching in half and spend half that time writing a letter or making a call. Sell a plug for an active fishing club. Join the fight.

I am only hoe for a few hours as it is off to Hatteras for the United Mobile Sportfishermen Board of Delegates where 33 clubs join to fight the shore access issues.

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by Flaptail

You mean maximize that that comes back to MA fisheries then gets appropriated by the Gov to shore up the general fund?

You may not think so but that is what you really meant BTW.

Just a point of debate.

Steve...up to this very day MA has never received all of the federal funds it could because we do not invest enough in our fisheries and do not have a license. The committee made sure that this legislation was written in the correct way so that we will now receive all we are eligable to receive.

A furthur fact you might be interested is that not once has money from Dingle Johnson or Wallop Rowe been diverted to the general fund. There have been at least three attempts over the past few governors to raid the inland fund but the feds immediately demanded the money back and each attempt was aborted.

Too bad a guy with your brain is continually trying to beat the %$%$%$%$ out of a possible solution rather than participate in crafting that solution.

[BigFish]

Yeah Romney tried it last!!

[MakoMike]

All this talk about federal law "requiring" a state license is just a bunch of crap designed to keep you quiet while the states rape you yet again. Here is what the federal law says about the recreational fishermen's registry:

(g) RECREATIONAL FISHERIES.—
(1) FEDERAL PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish and implement a regionally
based registry program for recreational fishermen in each of the 8 fishery management
regions. The program, which shall not require a fee before January 1, 2011, shall provide
for—
(A) the registration (including identification and contact information) of individuals
who engage in recreational fishing—
(i) in the Exclusive Economic Zone;
(ii) for anadromous species; or
(iii) for Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone;
and
(B) if appropriate, the registration (including the ownership, operator, and
identification of the vessel) of vessels used in such fishing.
(2) STATE PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall exempt from registration under the
program recreational fishermen and charter fishing vessels licensed, permitted, or registered
under the laws of a State if the Secretary 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.

Now someone want to tell me how that federal law reuires the states to license EVERY fisherman in the state, when the federal law only required those fishing in federal waters or beyond or those fishing for striped bass to be "registered"?

[MakoMike]

All this talk about federal law "requiring" a state license is just a bunch of crap designed to keep you quiet while the states rape you yet again. Here is what the federal law says about the recreational fishermen's registry:

(g) RECREATIONAL FISHERIES.—
(1) FEDERAL PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish and implement a regionally
based registry program for recreational fishermen in each of the 8 fishery management
regions. The program, which shall not require a fee before January 1, 2011, shall provide
for—
(A) the registration (including identification and contact information) of individuals
who engage in recreational fishing—
(i) in the Exclusive Economic Zone;
(ii) for anadromous species; or
(iii) for Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone;
and
(B) if appropriate, the registration (including the ownership, operator, and
identification of the vessel) of vessels used in such fishing.
(2) STATE PROGRAMS.—The Secretary shall exempt from registration under the
program recreational fishermen and charter fishing vessels licensed, permitted, or registered
under the laws of a State if the Secretary 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.

Now someone want to tell me how that federal law reuires the states to license EVERY fisherman in the state, when the federal law only required those fishing in federal waters or beyond or those fishing for striped bass to be "registered"?