Saltwater Fishing License! - Page 2 - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Slipknot · 11-11-2009, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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"?

very interesting, where'd ya find that Mike?

I've wondered about this all along.

the feds should deal with all this registering stuff and do it for free, no fee. that works for me

MakoMike · 11-12-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot

very interesting, where'd ya find that Mike?

I've wondered about this all along.

the feds should deal with all this registering stuff and do it for free, no fee. that works for me

It is litterally the wording of the revised Magnesson Stevens act. Google Magnesson Stevens act and you find lots of places where you can read the whole thing.

The Dad Fisherman · 11-12-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakoMike

(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—

What do you think the fee will be after january 1st 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot

the feds should deal with all this registering stuff and do it for free, no fee. that works for me

Feds won't do it for free come 2011...there will be a fee

MakoMike · 11-11-2009, 01:08 PM

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"?

JohnnyD · 11-11-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakoMike

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"?

I don't think there was ever mentioned that states were *required* to enact a licensing program. However, I believe states are leveraging section (2) to develop their own registries as a way of "keeping the feds out" and milking more money of their citizens, and are enacting fees to pay for those registries.

The snowball is already rolling and this is going to happen. We can make posts like yours and grumble about something that is now out of our control, or we can send emails, get involved and hope they apply some KY before raping us.

MakoMike · 11-11-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I don't think there was ever mentioned that states were *required* to enact a licensing program. However, I believe states are leveraging section (2) to develop their own registries as a way of "keeping the feds out" and milking more money of their citizens, and are enacting fees to pay for those registries.

The snowball is already rolling and this is going to happen. We can make posts like yours and grumble about something that is now out of our control, or we can send emails, get involved and hope they apply some KY before raping us.

The ball may be rolling in MA, but Carcieri stopped it in its tracks in RI and it looks like the courts may throw the ball off the court in New York. Licensing is also in Trouble in NH, ME and NJ. You guys in MA may be too far out in front of this one.

stcroixman · 11-07-2009, 08:24 PM

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

striprman · 11-06-2009, 11:54 PM

Quote:

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 · 11-07-2009, 08:29 AM

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 · 11-07-2009, 09:03 AM

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 · 11-07-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

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 · 11-07-2009, 10:48 AM

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 · 11-07-2009, 11:46 AM

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.

BigFish · 11-07-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

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!!!

Swimmer · 11-07-2009, 01:06 PM

I liked reading your post Steve. Thank you

ivanputski · 11-07-2009, 05:02 PM

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...

maddmatt · 11-10-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

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!

ivanputski · 11-07-2009, 05:06 PM

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 · 11-07-2009, 06:01 PM

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

stcroixman · 11-07-2009, 08:25 PM

Quote:

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.

Rmarsh · 11-09-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

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%.

ivanputski · 11-07-2009, 08:00 PM

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

Swimmer · 11-08-2009, 12:08 PM

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

BasicPatrick · 11-10-2009, 01:25 AM

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?

UserRemoved1 · 11-10-2009, 07:03 AM

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.

Quote:

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?

Slipknot · 11-11-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

On my trip to the NY/NJ/CT area a month ago I saw so many illegal lures it was just downright wrong.

Not to derail the thread but I have to ask
How can you tell an illegal lure from a legal lure? do they have little stickers on them or something so you know the tax gets paid?

I am really curious.

UserRemoved1 · 11-11-2009, 07:01 PM

Hanging on a peg without any name or contact information on it Bruce...it's illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Not to derail the thread but I have to ask
How can you tell an illegal lure from a legal lure? do they have little stickers on them or something so you know the tax gets paid?

I am really curious.

Raven · 11-12-2009, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

Hanging on a peg without any name or contact information on it Bruce...it's illegal.

Batten down the hatches ....the PLUG POLICE

are gonna raid your Man Caves

anyone caught with illegal plugs will have to attend
the "Good Samaritan" class with Nancy Regan as
Guest speaker where she will give a lecture on Just say NO

Flaptail · 11-10-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

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.

BasicPatrick · 11-11-2009, 12:59 AM

Quote:

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.