Saltwater licencse [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: Saltwater licencse


Adrian
01-28-2008, 04:24 PM
This one has come up on several occaisions but it looks like its finally going to happen. At least in CT. I read elsewhere that something got passed on January 8th but there are no official announcements yet.

I came across the following presentation by DEP which makes interesting reading.

http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/fishing/legislation/sportfishinglicensepresentation.pdf

I particularly like slide 28. A reciprocal licence for North East marine fisheries would make life a whole lot easier for those of us who ply the coastline from Maine to New Jersey.

But take a look at some of those non-resident fees on slide 20 - Yikes!!!:Eyecrazy:

Also, worth noting, despite concerns to the contrary, States are obligated by law to allocate license fees to the specific conservation programs (not the "general fund'. Violation of this rule, apparently, results in federal penalties in form of reduced subsidies.

Quentin
01-28-2008, 06:53 PM
This one has come up on several occaisions but it looks like its finally going to happen. At least in CT. . . . I particularly like slide 28. A reciprocal licence for North East marine fisheries would make life a whole lot easier for those of us who ply the coastline from Maine to New Jersey.

But take a look at some of those non-resident fees on slide 20 - Yikes!!!:Eyecrazy:

If it happens, I'd like it a whole lot better if Mass does the same thing so I can pay the resident fee in MA and be licensed to fish in CT as well :hihi: . The non-resident fees are ridiculous for some states :tsk_tsk: .

Q

flydoc
01-28-2008, 10:17 PM
Current non-resident saltwater license fees for Florida:
7 day license- $30
1 year license- $47
Add 2.5% surcharge and $2.25 processing fee for online license purchases. This is compared with $17 for resident 1 year saltwater license....:frown: At present, Floridians (for that matter, anyone) can come up to the Cape to fish our shoreline without having to pay for a license.
Flydoc

FishHawk
01-29-2008, 04:39 AM
I don't trust the state of Ct. Ever year a buy a non-resident Ct fishing license. I thought my money went to support the Ct freshwater fisheries but the guys who work at the state hatchery told me the money went into Ct general fund!!!
:mad:
So, now I see where there is provision in the new law that specifies that the moneys for a saltwater license would go directly to the Marine fisheries. I hope that that is true. I guess that 's what you get when the politicians promise a cut in taxesand then raise the fees.
For me , if a license comes to pass I'll get a MA resident license and forget about the rest of the states .I might consider RI. Just my 02 FishHawk

highway61
01-29-2008, 06:50 AM
The same thing with NH. The revenues generated by liscense fees goes into the states general fund. Conceptually I think it is important that anglers support programs that benefit the sport - improve access, the fisheries, and other conservation measures. But once the politicians get a hold of the money who knows how it is going to be spent. Will this be a regional agreement or will it be a state by state initiative?

jimS
01-29-2008, 08:12 AM
A license is inevitable, and a reciprocal agreement between states is doubtful. States that currently require a saltwater license don't have reciprocal agreements, as far as I can determine.

Requiring registration of marine recreational fishermen under the reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens can be a good thing for the fishery. Finally, recs can be accurately documented, and their economic impact on the fishery can be determined. Moreover, funding for research and enforcement of regs can be implemented.

sean
01-30-2008, 11:38 AM
Yeah the conn. TU folks have been pressing hard on this. Their main argument is it in unfair some of their money go to marine management. Freshwater fisheries heavily depend on stocking which saltwater fishing (at least on this coast) does not. So I hope monies get spent proportionally to angler effort.

I do not fish in conn cause access is about the worst but I really hope each state does not implement their own thing but if conn does it others will unfortunately follow.

I am kinda thinking the federal gov should be involved in a multi state agreement. Striper stocks especially are not something one state can control. It has to be a multi-state effort or handed over to a governing agency to manage it. Unlike steelhead and salmon back home they do not have the big ocean range where they spend most of their lives in international waters. This is a big plus as far as management is concerned but I do not see states getting it together to cooperate.

Like in the 80's striper ban the feds have the power to make sweeping change. So what is the point in paying licenses locally when/if striper stocks crash again and the feds mandate a a management change. Lets just cut out the middle man.

States are usually too selfish to act together on things, we shall see I guess. I would be much happier paying one fee and having access to fishing all over new england. I can literally take a 10 minutes walk from my house and be in Mass. Would suck to have to carry separate licenses for RI and Mass.

-sean

Stevo
02-01-2008, 02:35 PM
I wonder if it'll affect the visiting angler? And I'm not thinking U.S based fishermen/woman here either!

juro
02-02-2008, 09:01 AM
I thought for sure you were going to rub it in about the 50% discount you'll enjoy from the exchange rate :lildevl:

Stevo
02-02-2008, 11:25 AM
Good isn't it... those Sages work out real cheap now! :smokin:

csherm
02-04-2008, 09:47 PM
I'm a Mass South Shore fisherman (North River), but was fortunate to fish the Mousam up in Kennebunkport Mid May. After fishing I was approached by a Maine Fisheries field agent who asked me some general questions about my trip. I had some questions for her first, and it seems the purpose of the survey was for the assessment of saltwater licenses. I quickly informed her that I spent $300 on a new reel and line and $40 on gas all at local Maine establishments, and no, I wouldn't be fishing in Maine if I had to get a license. This was all true more or less :wink:

Just sharing some information, though I'm sure it's no surprise that local governments across New England are looking at additional means to supplement their coffers. I'm happy there's a provision that all the money goes back to the fisheries. If the additional money and data can help conservation efforts and regulation, perhaps it's not a bad thing.

Sherman