National Fishing License

[Donat]

I think this would be a great idea. If this gets passed around, who knows maybe the politicians will act in our favor. www.nationalfishinglicense.org

[brhoff]

I would rather see states maintain control, sort of like the feds to kept to the minimal in most all areas.

I would not be in favor, do understand the savings if one travels a bunch...perhaps I missed where this would be an option not a requirement. Last year I bought for three states and only spent 50.00 so I am not sure about the savings if it were to be mandatory to buy one if only going to another state or 2...again maybe I missed where this is addressed.

[Lake Erie High Ball]

Sounds like a neat idea. The fed?s already give states monies for natural resources and if it came right down to it I would by a state and a national license.

[brhoff]

This is what I missed...duhhh!

"For an example, suppose you lived in New York and you were one of the 101,522 people who bought an out of state license in Connecticut, but you didn?t really want to fish in too many places other than New York and Connecticut. In that case, you might just purchase your New York license for $19.00 and your $20.00 Connecticut license as you normally do."

OK makes more sense now that I see states will still offer there own license as well...OK

[Byron Zuehlsdorff]

don't know about other states BUT Wyo. Game and Fish get NO FEDERAL MONEYS for operating expenses!!! the fed moneys they do get are for federally regulated programs that the feds require them to operate without any money for operating them. just supplies for such programs.

The less federal control the better!!!

My opinion.

[Mato Kuwapi]

I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole. The only federal fishing license should be for National Park land. If you love the waters and states you fish in...you'll keep it just the way it is. There's a reason they have good fishing opportunities and it's not from federal assistance.

[Bluegill222]

Too big a percentage of my license money gets swallowed up by the bureaucracy at the state level for me to get real enthusiastic about adding yet another layer at the federal level. Especially given how efficient the federal government is when it comes to fish and game policy (extreme sarcasm happening here). It sounds good on the surface "fish everywhere for less," but I've got to wonder what the extra administrative costs would leave left to actually maintain the fisheries in question. I'll fish in at least four states this year and don't have any qualms at all about buying four licenses. This way the money I pay will stay in the state I pay to fish in.

[JohnScott]

As I understand the proposition, this would be a LICENSING program only, and optional. The feds would only administer distribution of the funds to all the states, for a fee of $7.50. $3.00 would go the agency that actually sold the license. And the states would get a portion of the proceeds and REMAIN IN COMPLETE CONTROL OF THEIR OWN FISHERIES, RULES AND REGULATIONS.

Each state would get $2.00 per national license sold, and it would already have collected its own resident annual fee.

This would be good for me, and a lot of other folks in this part of the country, if not your part. For example, my senior resident Idaho license costs $11.75. Paying that would qualify me for the national license for another $110.50. So I could fish in Wyoming, Montana, and Utah ANY TIME THEIR SEASONS ARE OPEN. To do that now ( fish in all those three states during their entire season ) would cost me approximately $250 ( cost of their annual non-resident licenses plus the other fees charged when buying a license ), maybe more, if the $35 season permit for Yellowstone National Park would also be included. And I wouldn't pay daily or multi-day fees when I visit my daughter in Washington State or friends in Nevada.

And Idaho, and every other state, would pick up some money that would not otherwise be coming to them, which would benefit all the states.

There is some information lacking, i.e. the trends in annual revenues for each state based on the non-resident fees being collected locally. It seems very unlikely to me that any state is collecting more in non-resident fees than it would gain from this program. And all the states would save whatever they are presently spending in administering non-resident license programs.

I would agree that if this program meant more federal control, it would not be an attractive proposition. But as it is described, or at least as I understand it, it looks pretty good.

John

[shorthaul]

Too big a percentage of my license money gets swallowed up by the bureaucracy at the state level for me to get real enthusiastic about adding yet another layer at the federal level.

It used to be--- and I have no reason to believe that things have changed ---that my fishing license money gets dumped in the general fund of the state.

[Panman]

Quite a while back there was a proposal for a national fishing license for active duty military. It went by the wayside for lack of support. I believe a national fishing license in the USA is basically a no chance item. But I wish they had one.

Tim