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