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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Last year it cost me about $200 for fishing licences for British Columbia, Alberta, Washington state and, and Idaho. Now if you could just convince someone to make it a North American fishing licence, plus Hawaii and the US territories. Maybe I could save a few bucks and fish a few more places. Do you suppose that would also include free parking? 
I’m not in favor of it. It puts too much trust in the Fed to properly manage the money and ultimately the fisheries. I don’t think fishermen represent a big homeland security threat and one more federal level record keeping data opportunity is one too many.
Keep licensing and enforcement local. The Fed can do nothing here but make things worse.
Just my not so humble opinion.
Jeff
I would not be in favor of this national licence. If it is a “national license” why would I have to buy a resident Iowa license? I normally buy my state license and a trout stamp, then I also do the same thing in Missouri and like that I am supporting the state programs where I am a consumer of those programs. I can see this whole national thing becoming a logistic nightmare and many states not getting their funds and others not believing they are getting a fair share for their efforts. In my case Missouri gets all of my $48.00 to help support their State Parks and trout stocking programs instead of just $2.00 of it. I can’t see how or how long the state programs would retain control of the funds.
I’ve always been in favor of the idea, but everyone seems to shoot it down when I’ve brought it up. I’d like to have the freedom to fish in another state if I’m just passing through for a short time. If I just had an hour to fish, stopping to buy a license is impractical. That keeps you from doing it, or worse, encourages you to break the law. If I’m spending a significant amount of time in another state, such as on a vacation, then I have no problem with getting the local license under the current system.
I’m not really in favor of the national license as described in the link though. The cost breakdown seems to favor only those travelling to many states on a planned vacation.
Keep the feds out of state business. First licenses. Then regulations. Then the DEC would be placed under federal jurisdiction and control. Then the water would be considered federal. Then what? There are reasons why the writers of the Constitution differentiated between state rights vs. federal powers. This is a BAD idea and scarey.
Deezel
First I’ve heard of a national license. I know the Magnuson/Stevens act calls for a Federal or State saltwater fishing license to be implemented by 2011. If the state enacts it first…good for them…if not, the Feds take over. I’d rather the states run it, because you know if the Feds do, the money will go towards something like building a bridge in Death Valley or something.
The rationale for higher fees for non-residents includes the notion that residents of a state are already contributing to local recreational resources through their property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc. In line with the notion that fees are lower to those already paying their dues so to speak, I favor two proposals. One would be to allow active duty military personnel to pay resident rates in any state. The other, would be lower fees (or no fees) for National Parks and National Forest use for all veterans. After all, who has paid a higher price for preserving our country for the rest of us to enjoy? The problem with both ideas is that neither group has a powerful lobby in Washington to bring about these changes. Barring a sudden influx of common sense in Washington (not likely!), I don’t expect any significant changes.
Good Fishing,
Arnie
Arnie,
I’d go one farther. I would be in favor of FREE fishing and hunting license for active military personnel nationwide. I’d gladly pay a dollar more on my license every year to contribute to letting one of our active duty military personnel fish for free. I see it as the LEAST I can do to help repay what they have done for me.
Wonder how hard it would be for states to enact something like a “Donate a dollar on your license to help active duty military be able to fish for free”?
I’d do it in a heart beat and I bet a significant number of fishermen and hunters would do the same thing.
Sorry, didn’t mean to hijack the thread. Arnie’s comment really got me thinking.
Jeff
Arnie,
Active Duty military personnel should be allowed to fish and hunt for nothing, in all states or on state or federal land. Period!
Of course then someone will point out that active duty cops and firefighters should not have to pay for these licenses in the state in which they serve (maybe this is already true?).
Deezel
I would comment but that would require a political response.