PDA

View Full Version : Starting Friday, you must register with NOAA if...


NJ Reef Rescue
12-30-2009, 09:32 PM
Recreational saltwater fishermen will need to register if they:

Hold a license from one of 10 coastal states or territories which do not currently have comprehensive saltwater angler license or registration requirements—Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Virginia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Fish for or are likely to catch anadromous species in tidal and salt waters; these are fish like river herring, shad, smelt and striped bass that live in the oceans but spawn in fresh water,

OR

Fish in the federal waters more than three miles from the ocean shore or from the mouths of rivers or bays.

Some anglers don’t have to register if they:

Hold a license from one of 15 coastal states with comprehensive licensing or registration — Alabama, Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Washington;

Are not required under state law in one of these 15 states to hold a fishing license as is sometimes the case with seniors or active-duty military;
Are under age 16;

Pay to fish on licensed charter, party or guide boats;

Hold a Highly Migratory Species Angling permit or subsistence fishing permit;
Fish commercially under a valid license.

National Saltwater Angler registration is free in 2010. To register beginning Friday, anglers can visit NOAA's Marine Recreational Information Program and click on the Angler Registry link, or call the toll-free registration line at 1-888-MRIP411 (1-888-674-7411) from 4:00 am to 12 midnight EST daily.

Anglers will need to provide their name, date of birth, address and telephone number, and will receive a registration number that will allow them to begin fishing immediately. They will receive a registration card in the mail in about 30 days.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091229_registry.html


Here is a site with flyer information for the States who's recreational fishermen must register:

http://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov/outreach.html (http://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov/outreach.html)

spitfisher
12-31-2009, 10:16 AM
Having had various discussions over this intrusion of liberty with other fisherman over the holidays, various questions have come up.

If I have a Lic and I am the only one fishing on my boat for the day, with multiple rods in sight, does my sun bathing wife have to have a fishing Lic?

When and where are the reciprocity of states be announced? I.E if my Lic is in NH will I be able to fish in CT if Ct has a Lic as well? I assume that shared coast line between states will be allowed. Me & Ma border Nh.

Will a federal Lic cover all states?


Just curious.......

adson
12-31-2009, 01:01 PM
reciprocity was part of the article in MV Times this week...

"Non-resident fishermen who hold a valid recreational saltwater fishing permit from another state, fishermen under 16 or over 60 years of age; disabled fishermen; and fishermen on licensed charter boats would not be required to hold a license."

not sure of their source but it sounds like Mass will at least recognize others states licenses.

FinishLine
12-31-2009, 01:50 PM
Some anglers don’t have to register if they...

Hold a Highly Migratory Species Angling permit

Excellent. My recreational tuna permit exempts me from the new salt water license. Thanks for the heads-up!

spitfisher
12-31-2009, 04:42 PM
Excellent. My recreational tuna permit exempts me from the new salt water license. Thanks for the heads-up!

Thats good news because I was going to get a rec tuna license this year anyway. --127-3-

Onshore
12-31-2009, 05:55 PM
Thats good news because I was going to get a rec tuna license this year anyway. --127-3-

OK, so I buy a NMFS rec. tuna license. Does that allow me to fish for and possess anything else like Cod, Stripers, Bluefish Flounder, etc.? I doubt that very much but, please post a ,link to those rules.

The way I read the state web site is that anyone "landing" a fish in Mass. waters, irregardless of where it is caught or other license you may posess, you will have to have a Ma permit in 2011.

browndog
12-31-2009, 06:16 PM
I don't really know but the Fed. permit might only cover fishing in fed. water.

mumichog
12-31-2009, 10:04 PM
Having had various discussions over this intrusion of liberty with other fisherman over the holidays, various questions have come up.

If I have a Lic and I am the only one fishing on my boat for the day, with multiple rods in sight, does my sun bathing wife have to have a fishing Lic?

When and where are the reciprocity of states be announced? I.E if my Lic is in NH will I be able to fish in CT if Ct has a Lic as well? I assume that shared coast line between states will be allowed. Me & Ma border Nh.

Will a federal Lic cover all states?


Just curious.......

"Intrusion of liberty?" Ah, better watch your syntax, Spitty! Your fellow right wingers employing proper grammar may jerk their knees out of socket thinking you mean the forced Fed registration is itself a freeing process. Careful not to fall out of line...

Since I know what you meant to say, I ask if perhaps you believe we should eliminate Federal regulation of stripers and let the market decide their fate? Can you say, "Stripers...a thing of the past?"

spitfisher
01-01-2010, 09:38 AM
"Intrusion of liberty?" Ah, better watch your syntax, Spitty! Your fellow right wingers employing proper grammar may jerk their knees out of socket thinking you mean the forced Fed registration is itself a freeing process. Careful not to fall out of line...

Since I know what you meant to say, I ask if perhaps you believe we should eliminate Federal regulation of stripers and let the market decide their fate? Can you say, "Stripers...a thing of the past?"


Munch, what would you call it?

in⋅tru⋅sion   Pronunciation [in-troo-zhuhn] –noun
1. an act or instance of intruding.
2. the state of being intruded.
3. Law. a. an illegal act of entering, seizing, or taking possession of another's property.
b. a wrongful entry after the determination of a particular estate, made before the remainderman or reversioner has entered.

lib⋅er⋅ty   [lib-er-tee] –noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

FinishLine
01-01-2010, 09:59 AM
hi Onshore,

The way I read it, the stated purpose of the federal SW fishing license is for the Federal Government to get a count of fishermen that use the resource. Since fishermen who already have state SW licenses are already counted (the states that require licenses can provide that info to the feds) these fishermen don't need to get the federal SW license. And folks who have the tuna permit are also already counted, so don't need to get the new federal SW license. And it doesn't matter what species a tuna license holder is after; what's important is that they are registered as SW fishermen so the feds can have an accurate count of folks who fish in SW.

As I understand it, the MA saltwater license is a separate deal, and not required until 2011. But once it is in effect, it will provide info to the feds about SW fishermen in MA so MA fishermen will no longer have to register for the fed license.

Onshore
01-01-2010, 10:56 AM
I don't think it's as simple as that. What I wrote was,

"The way I read the state web site is that anyone "landing" a fish in Mass. waters, irregardless of where it is caught or other license you may posess, you will have to have a Ma permit in 2011."

I still do not believe someone with a Tuna permit may catch other species in any waters except, maybe, outside the 3 mile limit.

Wouldn't you think NMFS would have thought of all these questions and have the answers on their Permit Web Sit ??

Slappy
01-01-2010, 12:19 PM
Spit--
The grammar police have to come down on the side of mumi. He understood the intent of your statement, but said that your actual statement was worded incorrectly.

Like mumi, I understood your comment to mean that this was a case of the government intruding on our individual liberties. Your statement reads that the there is an intrusion of liberty into our lives because of the governments action here.

The grammar police would also have to cite onshore with a 15 yard penalty for using the double-negative non-word irregardless! The intended word would be either regardless or irrespective.

Irrespective of the grammatical debate or our political views, fishing unregistered is now against the law. Deal with it. ;)

FinishLine
01-01-2010, 01:46 PM
The MA DMF has a nice, brief summary, and the title of the article says it all: Register federally in 2010, but purchase state permit in 2011. (http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/recreationalfishing/rec_license.htm) The article clarifies that in 2010 an HMS angling permit will exempt the holder from needing a federal registration in federal waters or "any tidal or salt waters."

The article has lots of "Q&A" at the bottom, preceded with the statement, "We expect some confusion regarding the switch from the federal registry to the state permitting program..." The Q&A is very helpful and answers most of the questions posted in this forum and others.

Hope that helps - thanks!

mumichog
01-02-2010, 07:44 PM
Spit--
The grammar police have to come down on the side of mumi. He understood the intent of your statement, but said that your actual statement was worded incorrectly.

Like mumi, I understood your comment to mean that this was a case of the government intruding on our individual liberties. Your statement reads that the there is an intrusion of liberty into our lives because of the governments action here.

The grammar police would also have to cite onshore with a 15 yard penalty for using the double-negative non-word irregardless! The intended word would be either regardless or irrespective.

Irrespective of the grammatical debate or our political views, fishing unregistered is now against the law. Deal with it. ;)


Thanks, Slappy, for some fact-of-the-matter support (like that ever mattered to a ...well, in the interest of new year harmony I'll bite my tongue...). Anyway, I saw Spitty in person after he posted his retort - he knew full well what I meant by my post. He's just so gonzo-nut-job that he knew he had to pull out the Palin approved playbook to hold his right wing status in place. ;}

north coast
01-02-2010, 08:24 PM
Here's some interesting reading I bumped into, Along the lines Of new management, catch shares and licensing. why am I scared to death that these points of view are very close to reality.:eek:

If your in a hurry, just read the second quote.

In the face of diabolical subterfuge, strangers are thrust together as
allies, and their ultimate freedom rests on how well they work together.
That describes those of us in the fisheries who understand our common
nemesis, the loss of common property rights. Many don't ever think about
the oceans being taken away, if they ever realized they were part owners.
Most of the rest have a hard time believing our government might be
engineering a future for us that leaves us out as beneficiaries. And in
fact leaves our children and our children's children in crushing debt.
So let's not grow weary. And by all means use the kind of tools that are
being used against us. You are finding it difficult to get your views
printed, as we have experienced for a long time in Alaska. But it seems
like articles that support taking things away from the public are aired
widely. Why is that?
We OFTEN hear how catch shares are so successful in fisheries all over. As
a preview, remember that the U.N. recently condemned the Iclandic
fisheries for impoverishing so many small communities. Guess what? Iceland
was one of the first countries to adopt catch shares.
Lets look at a crucial point in the history of privatization in the U.S. I
quote a pioneer small boat fisherman from Kodiak, who witnessed the 'rise
of the machines.' He was at a Kodiak Island Borough meeting where a
Borough Assembly vote was being taken on supporting, or not, the first
major catch share system(halibut and black cod) in Alaska. The vast
majority of longliners were against it and even the big boats favored a
trip limit system, even though it would mean smaller profits, but retain
their independence.
One man, the Bourough Mayor, Jerome Selby, through sleight of hand, rigged
a vote of the Assemblymen in favor of IFQs. The fishermen were slowly
swayed by this vote and other people's back office maneuverings, who I
could name. In the course of time it became accepted that Kodiak was for
it, so other towns followed suit in favoring it. But in the beginning,
longliners were not keen on the idea at all. Now that some of them own
millions of dollars worth of IFQs they certainly are happy with the idea.
The towns are not robust any more, and a mean spirit has descended,
dividing friends and neighbors.
In a North Pacific Fisheries Management Council presentation by the NMFS,
a deckload of Pacific ocean perch was represented as some other kind of
fish. (The rebuilding of this stock, the delay in the development of a
Fishery Management Plan, and the battle for control of the POP has been a
closely guarded secret.) You can bet you or me or the public at large
aren't in line to benefit from the rebuilding of these stocks.
Another fallacy you will hear is the mantra; "the North Pacific has the
best managed fisheries in the world." I've touched on this before, but
maybe needs reiterating.
The halibut stocks are falling rapidly (the by-catch by all fisheries is
nearly half of the allowable commercial catch.
The king crab around Kodiak was huge, but is now nonexistent.
The king crab catches in the Bering Sea got to over 100 million lbs a
year, but when the NPFMC opened the crab sanctuary to bottom trawling, the
catches dropped to under 10 million lbs.
The pollock in the Donut Hole, the international zone in the Bering Sea,
disappeared years ago. The stocks close to Alaska are dropping fast now.
The commercial fisheries for salmon in Western Alaska have failed due to
by-catch by the pollock trawlers sifteing more water for their pollock
quota.
The by-catch destruction of squid reached 17 million lbs one year by
pollock trawlers.
After trawling commenced in the Bering Sea by the Americans, the number of
onshore herring gillnet permits in Western Alaska dropped from 254 to 52.
There were over fourty 'floaters' that worked the fishing grounds in
Alaska through the years. Now only a couple remain.
Salmon cannery and cold storage plants have been closing regularly in
recent decades.
Food and Drug Administration made a working agreement with NMFS to inspect
processing vessels, meaning the NMFS gets the Coast Guard cutters to go
after any floating operation the big corporations don't want out there. I
am not making this up. Seafood has not caused any sickness I know of, yet
chicken sickened 3.4 million people last year in the U.S. So why are fifty
caliber machine guns necessary for seafood processing inspection?
NMFS refuses to investigate large operations even when reported for
serious violations, yet will issue a press release that "USCG 'Sustainable
Fisheries Patrol' has apprehended a vessel with an infant without an
infant survival suit."
If I'm going to tell humorous stories on NMFS and the USCG, I can't forget
the fisherman back East who put his boat up in the yard, yet the people
monitoring his Vessel Monitoring System beacon maintained he was at sea.
They were threatening to fine the pants off him for violating his
days-at-sea. The argument never was settled until a yard worker came in
and asked if anyone knew why a Jayhawk was flying around in circles over
the yard. NMFS does not admit that the VMS program has glitches, nor any
other of their many blunders.
The 'catch shares' debacle is really just a smokescreen to take attention
off the mismanagement of the U.S. fisheries by the National Marine
Fisheries Service. The NOAA/NMFS will point at problems and offer
solutions ad infinitum until Congress finally pulls the plug on them. And
rewrites the laws governing the oceans around our coasts. And put the onus
of managing the fish stocks on the locals.

Another


I feel so relieved. These confounded contraptions bedevil me and I was
sure it was something I was screwing up. With no adult supervision seems I
always get into trouble. Where the hell is Earl when you need him? On
another front, I believe I have solved the big puzzle. The final piece
that illustrated the whole big picture was Dr. Bullslinger's official
embrace of industrial mariculture as a replacement for wild harvest. The
picture is now complete. The Federal Government has decided to become The
Landlord of the EEZ. They want rent from everyone who accesses "their
property". Leasing out every square mile of ocean and every pound of fish
in it is the plan. The financial windfall is incalculable. From a logical
aproach, to achieve this goal, the first step is to eliminate the
homesteaders, We know who they, or we, are, and consolidate wild harvest
into the hands of industrial mari-business, who will in turn purchase
quota from the government at a given rate per metric ton. Fewer vessels
will require less bottom, freeing up millions of square miles to be leased
out to big oil and big mariculture. Think of the potential federal income
that could be generated. The recreational sector, who will be granted the
inshore waters, are already in line to pay to access their resource. The
inshore commercial fishery is being forced to sell out to the speculators.
Phase 1 is being implemented right now! Phase 2 is where "Doris gets her
oats", that's where the groundwork PEW has done provides the foundation
for the full scale industrialization of our oceans. Somebody please tell
me that I'm out of my mind! But I'm not. Think about it. Logically it all
adds up to this conclusion. It's not about you, or me, or fish, or
conservation, or warming, or jellyfish, Its about
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!

Onshore
01-03-2010, 07:02 AM
Well, I guess not. A already have my Florida Saltwater License so, I wont be registering with NOAA now or next year.

bonefishdick
01-03-2010, 08:20 AM
I like most will remain confused about this Registry/License thing over the next few years and I will try to understand and cope the best way I know how to.

I guess that would be do what the right thing is now, Register and at some point buy the license when required. Then I will be covered at all times.

That being said I also have to say as I have before " I still don't like it, so on and so on"

I'm thinking of doing what Onshore did to solve the dilemma, he had the answer, move to someplace that already has a Salt Water License. The other big benefit, it's warm all the time. I wonder if he knew this mess was in the works.

Onshore
01-03-2010, 11:40 AM
I'm thinking of doing what Onshore did to solve the dilemma, he had the answer, move to someplace that already has a Salt Water License. The other big benefit, it's warm all the time. I wonder if he knew this mess was in the works.

No, no idea it would come so quick.

DanD
01-04-2010, 11:09 AM
Registering and licensing are not the same as regulating. We have had state regulations on striper fishing for years, both length and numbers. You can argue enforcement effectiveness, but it really has nothing to do with registration and licensing.
I can think of no good reason why the feds need to know everyone who fishes the ocean.
I, for one, will ignore this and hope it goes away. I hope others do the same.

Slappy
01-04-2010, 11:48 AM
I, for one, will ignore this and hope it goes away. I hope others do the same.


That is what I told the police office about the stop sign in my neighborhood, but he still gave me a ticket. ;)


I don't think this is going away for 2 reasons:
1. Money, the state won't stop a tax train for anyone to get off.
2. Management. The public has demanded that the government manage the fisheries better and they can't do it without better information.

DanD
01-04-2010, 02:32 PM
I checked their website and called NOAA. I asked what the penalty was for not registering. I was referred to a site that did not have any answer and when I told the guy at NOAA that, he was at a loss for words. I asked him if it was possible that there was NO penalty, and he did not answer.
I suspect there is no penalty at all, and they are trying to hide it. Toothless BS?

Slappy
01-04-2010, 03:58 PM
That is funny. Do you get the impression that no one really thought this would happen anddidn't plan for it?

I doubt it will matter in 2010, but when the states can get money from license fees and levy fines for non-compliance, then there may be some enforcement.