This whole debate only underscores why we need saltwater fishing licenses so badly. A saltwater license in Massachusetts would:
1. Create a ready fund for gamefish management, research, and enforcement.
2. Represent a form of taxation thus, following the principal of no taxation without representation, give recreational fishermen a louder, more coherent voice in the policy debate.
3. Give blockhead politicians some hard, unqualifiable numbers on how many anglers (both resident and out-of-state) are spending their money in Massachusetts. A real bargaining chip in the conservation effort.
4. Educate uninformed anglers as to the rules and regulations of the sport. When you buy a freshwater license you are immediately made aware that there are laws governing fishing. Not so in salt.
5. Discourage some of the "keep anything we can get" yahoos from ever picking up a rod in the first place. Granted, most of 'em would still be doing what they do, but it would cull out a few anyway.
The big argument against SW licenses is that each state would then require them and nobody would ever cross a state line to go fishing. Bull. In the first place, reciprocal agreements could always be worked out between states in a given region (e.g., New
England). That would keep the local anglers happy. As for tourists from afar, if a guy from Kansas is willing to spend a thousand bucks to travel to Cape Cod for a week of striper fishing, an extra thirty bucks for a license isn't going to discourage him
from coming. And let's face it, anybody who can't afford a few bucks for a license isn't going to spend much money in our stores and hotels anyway, so why should we worry about him?
Reciprocal license agreements between states would eventually lead to more uniform regulations throughout the region which is what most recs are clammoring for in the first place. It's the only way intra-state cooperation will ever come about.
Come on, guys. It's time to put our money where our mouths are. We can only benefit. Saltwater license now!