Don’t mean to pick on anyone - but this is clearly a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the proposition. You would have to buy your local $48.00 license to qualify for the national license, which, by the way, is not intended to be a federal license, but simply access to all states.
After you buy your local license, with all that money going to your own state, you would have the option to buy the national license. And for everyone that did buy a national license, Missouri would get $2.00 whether any particular purchaser ever fished in Missouri or not. If you wanted to get a non-resident license for any period of time for another state, instead of buying the national license, that option would still be available to you.
The way I understand the proposition, the ONLY involvement of the Federal Government is to act as the mechanism to channel the funds to the appropriate state agencies - $2.00 to every state for every license sold. If any one sees anything other than that in the proposition as written, please point it out to me.
Why does this keep comming up—I’ve fised over 70 years and keep seing it brought up—it will never happen states would loose money. I noticed they would like a donation. BILL
ABSOLUTELY NOT! I work for the federal government and any way you try to couch this it means more federal regulation. That translates to ever increasing size and scope, infinitely increasing costs, giving the feds a chance to take away more states rights and giving the feds more control of your life. If you saw what I see every day then this post would frighten the daylights out of you too. You would also no longer believe the illusion that the federal government is able to honestly and efficiently manage much of anything.
Before I get taken to task over it I fully understand that, for a short time, the states would still get to charge their fees. I say “For a short time” because very soon after this nightmare would get passed the beloved legislature of this country would get their way and pass an amendment making it legal for them to seize all funds. Don’t think that the Judicial or Executive branches will stop them either. If you believe that I have a small bridge over the entrance to San Francisco Bay I would sell you real cheap. This is going to be nothing but good intentions gone bad if it is passed.
The fish are, for the most part, managed by the states, and license fees go to state fish and game agencies. I too would prefer to see that my $ goes where it does now, to the states where I actually fish.
I spend a couple hundred $ a year on licenses, by the way. I figure it’s for a good cause.
BINGO!! If I paid an extra FIVE bucks on my yearly license fee to ensure that active duty military fished free, I would gladly pay it. They deserve that much & more.
Mike
Sorry to see this got political. I’m retired and travel around the country and would love to fish each state. Trying to buy a license, especially in small states, can get to be a pain in the butt. It just takes time away from hitting the streams. I can understand the negative comments and appreciate them. I dont know if this particular plan is the right one or not but to me it would be great if something could be done for traveling seniors to feel free to fish wherever they are in the USA. I also believe that individual states would control their fishing regs. Looks to me the feds are already involved in our sport http://www.fws.gov/fishing/
I wonder if TU or FFF would be interested in providing the banking services to collect and distribute the funds to the states, for the stated fee of $7.50 per license ??
It will be political, no matter how it is pursued and discussed. And it isn’t really about the Federal Government so much as the States, because all of them would have to sign on to it and incorporate it into their local regulations.
At that point I do get cynical - the thought of fifty states agreeing to such a thing ?!
Being a disabled veteran, NC gives me a free lifetime fishing and hunting license. I live three miles from the Tenn line where, if I want to fish, I need to buy a out of state license. I would welcome a national license.
From my AK perspective there are a lot of holes in the plan… We already have Feds running our fish and game laws. They took over management some years back and “pay” the State to run it… by their rules??? It is that wierd and the closer you look the wierder it will become.
I would suppose the 2 dollars from each license sold would help a lot of states, but AK would lose a lot. Everyone coming to AK would buy the license to save money. A one-year non-resident fishing license in AK was raised to $100 several years ago and I think got another kick a year or so ago… A one-week license is at least $30.
I travel enough the license might be worthwhile, cost-wise, but there is far too much to fear for me to support any aspect of it.
Look out for anything that says “License” anyway. To run my charter boat it now takes 16 seperate licenses… A few are free, but most are not… It took just about half that many 15 years ago.
art
The less the federal government has to do with our everyday lives the better. The more control the federal government has over your everyday life the less freedom you have. This is just another way to get the government’s nose in your and everyone’s tent.
I agree with the States righters. We don’t need another level of incompetent Washington bureaucrats looking over our shoulder and sucking up additional tax dollars or slicing off admin fees. However, I support no license fees for active military in the State where I vote.
By the way, no amount of reasoning or dialog will change my view on this issue. Is that emphatic enough?
Why not work it like driver’s licenses. I buy one in my state my state gets the monies and I cam drive legally in any state.
It would seem that states would compete for my revenue and make better fisheries.
I don’t know who I have to talk to down state but I can assure you I will talk to some one to make Ohio a military friendly fishing state. I just bet I can.
I don’t see how states could loose money. Each state would get two dollars from every single permit sold. So, yes the many permits sold in Idaho would not be the normal price, but Idaho would receive two dollars from the hundred thousand anglers that fish Connecticut from New York and any other traveling angler. Some may not even choose to buy the new permit and go with the traditional if they offered it. On the other hand, it sounds like a big glob of government trying to form us all into one happy uniform country where bass fisherman in Florida can only cut 10" holes in the ice like every other state.
as a holder of a Class A license and at one time a long haul truck driver i would welcome a national license. many times i would be driving along this nations rivers and lakes, n. platte, madison, missouri just to name a few, and i had my fly rod with me but couldnt find a place to buy a license that had parking for 85’ of truck. a national license i feel would be a very good idea, but would have to have some limitations; what those should be i have no idea. i think states should recieve some money but also the national level of fish and wild life shouldn’t be forgeten either. maybe an even split. all i know is that if this happens i will wait in line as long as it takes to get one.
My main problem is that south dakota with like 10 fishermen would get the same amount of money as alaska, montana, california, washington, oregon, colorado, etc.
Not to be too cynical, but if the national license were to be successful and bring in enough funds to keep the program liquid, how long before our elected officials in congress decided to re-allocate that money elsewhere? Or apply additional “wildlife use taxes”?
