POLL: Saltwater Licenses

[David Churbuck]

Are you for, against, or undecided about a saltwater fishing license for recreational fishermen?

[David Churbuck]

Here's one point of view -- Ted Williams writing in April's Fly, Rod and Reel Magazine

http://www.flyrodreel.com/index.php/...005_04/id/2069

And here is the discussion thread on Reel-Time.
http://www.reel-time.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41882

Don't debate the issue here. This is a poll. If you want to post your reasons why, then feel free. But take off the gloves and debate the point in the thread above.

Me? I'll state my opinion later.

[Ray]

I am for a reasonably priced ($20 - $30) SW license….only if I am assured that 100% of the the funds go directly to SW fishing resources and specifically related needs.

License revenue going into the general fund that may be used for SW fishing resources is not enough for me.

[Squidly]

Exactly what Ray said. Well Put Ray.

[CMP]

And the chances of getting a license with guaranteed (or even promised) for specificity as to the revenue stream in the people's republic of taxachusetts are exactly ZERO. Unfortunately, the concept is DOA and hardly merits a discussion...

CMP

[David Churbuck]

I am in favor because:

1. I've had to purchase them when fishing in Florida and it was a slight inconvenience.
2. I pay for a license for the right to fish for trout in this state, and that is an annual but slight inconvenience.
3. If the funds can be directed into the fisheries and not the general fund then I am in favor because, it might (and a big "might" given The People's Republic of Massachusetts) mean better enforcement.
4. It finally puts some wood behind the bat for a recreational fishing lobby in this state.
5. I think the past attempt by Gov. Romney to raid the bank was averted thanks to p.o'd recreational fishermen screaming long and loud and I am confident a paid coalition of anglers would do the same if similar shenanigans were attempted in the future.

[SamRiley]

Originally Posted by CMP

Unfortunately, the concept is DOA and hardly merits a discussion...

You never know until you try.... and try again.... and yet again if you must.

I'm with Ray and Dave on this one. Also, I think that fines for poaching and such should go up and I'm talking way up. $1K per illegal fish sounds about right. Have the funds from the fines go directly into the DEM payroll so they can hire more people.

[LandlockedinMI]

I fish FL all the time and they have their act together. Fishing down there gets better all the time- it's incredible. WHy can't NE-er's unite for their waters?

[aws]

Originally Posted by LandlockedinMI

I fish FL all the time and they have their act together. Fishing down there gets better all the time- it's incredible. WHy can't NE-er's unite for their waters?

I wonder if it could be made for multiple state's waters..i.e the northeast coast. If it was associated w/ multiple states, perhaps that would better protect the funds...but also make implementation and fund allocation more difficult and might just add to the squabbling. I dunno.

[ChuckD]

but agree with someone else who mentioned that it would be a pain in the neck if you had to buy them for every New England coastal state...for me that'd be at least three(Mass, NH, Maine). I fish out of the mouth of the Piscataqua occasionally with BradG and in one session we might be off the coast of all three...perhaps they could come up with a coastal New England license?
While these monies could be subject to political finagling, I believe the funds would immediately show the importance of recreational angling and have to turn some politician's heads in our direction.

[Slappy]

I'm for it if there is a test, like getting a drivers license or better yet passing the bar.

Make people recite the regs, take a fish off a hook and let it go alive, then cast a fly/surf rod 60 feet/100 yards.

Who cares about the money, let's make it fun!

[riptide]

Originally Posted by Ray

I am for a reasonably priced ($20 - $30) SW license….only if I am assured that 100% of the the funds go directly to SW fishing resources and specifically related needs.

License revenue going into the general fund that may be used for SW fishing resources is not enough for me.

EXACTLY!!!!

[Strat]

100% for it if the $ goes to enforcement.

Long overdue considering the number of out of state anglers that visit here annually.

[RogerStg]

Originally Posted by Strat

100% for it if the $ goes to enforcement.

While I agree with you that we need more enforcement, the argument from the pols the we need a license to provide the $$ is bull$hit. One of the purposes of taxes is to fund law enforcement - for all laws. It's for the protection of resources for the benefit of the citizens, not just the ones currently using it.

If you follow the logic that relative users need to fund law enforcement, pharmacists should pay for a hefty license to cover the cost of enforcing drug laws, motorists will need a hefty annual license to pay for enforcing traffic laws, companies will need a special licenses to pay the cost of enforcing trade and environmental laws. How about a license to walk in the park, since that needs to be patrolled too. And heck, if you go running on the street, should you get off Scot free? See what I'm getting at?

We sportsmen should stop giving politicians a pass when they say they need licenses to fund enforcement. Theirs is a classic specious argument.

BTW, don't we have a license for fishing for tuna? My understanding is that the $22 fee just about covers the administration of collecting the $22 fee.

[stripah]

I have a feeling the money would go towards other "projects". If and only if it was dedicated to better sportsfishing throughout the state would I be for it.