I am honestly confused. I thought that most states already sold a saltwater license to its anglers. I know here in Texas one must have a saltwater license in order to fish the brine.
Perhaps I am missing the most salient point (I strongly suspect that to be the case)
In closing though, I am all for helping to conserve and protect our natural resources. Anglers and hunters bear a great deal of that burden, mostly with smiles.
OK, I think I get it now. Offshore fishing within the 200 mile zone. That is a good idea at firest inspection, as long as its managed preoperly. Of course there’s the rub, as always, “as long as its properly managed”.
While I don’t, as a whole, support tax increases (call them user fees, specialized stamps, etc, they’re still a tax), I like to fish way too much to say “I’m just not going to pay it” and walk off from the sport. The problem I have is that when the the politicians are touting the benefits of this new tax and how the funds will go to improve the sport, once collected a major portion of these $$$ end up in a general fund or somehow get earmarked for other programs.
With 2006 being an election year, it might be a good time to ask the candidates how and where they stand on these issues and use the vote to get someone in place that might just actually benefit the sportsmen. Like Castwell said in the article, it is just a matter of time, but it’s gonna happen, like it or not.
In the New England states fishing the coast requires no licenses. This is from onshore and outward. You do need a Tuna permit, but that’s about it for the recreational fisherman.
I could support licensing fees if I felt comfortable that the fees collected would go to maintain and improve the fisheries. Unfortunately I do not have that level of comfort that our government will make that committment and keep it.
New Jersey does not require a salt water license. However, salt water fishing does use some services of the NJ Fish, Game, and Wildlife commission. Historically (as I understand it), these have been financially supported by fresh water fishing and hunting license sales.
Of course, fresh water fishing licenses in NJ is down dramatically over the past 15 years, and everything supported by those license sales is in serious jeopardy.
A salt water license has been and is bitterly opposed by NJ salt water anglers. This year, however, Delaware passed a Salt Water license requirement. So if you are going to fish anywhere in Delaware Bay, you are going to need a Delaware Salt Water license – or that’s my understanding. If NJ had a salt water license, then there would be a boundary water agreement between the two states, just like we have between PA and NJ for fishing the Delaware River proper.
As JC’s article states, it’s probably a mistake to discuss this among dedicated salt water anglers. But, as a strong supporter of nearly everything the NJFGW does – and they do a great job with limited resources – I’m in favor the salt water license idea.
There are pro’s and con’s to this theory. I wouldn’t mind paying for one license but after a while 50 + 50 +50 + 50 starts to add up every year. Living in the Northeast I am 2 hrs ride from 5 different states and have fished in all five. It wouldn’t be so bad if there were a regional license or states would honor fishing licenses like auto licenses. It is bad enough spending the cash to buy a few different freshwater licenses but having to buy another saltwater license for RI, CT, MA, NH, and ME individually is a drag.
Who has time for stress when there are fish to catch.
Nick
Bigflatbrook, is correct, a NJ salt water license is bitterly opposed here. One reason the SW guys say how are they going to enforce it. I believe it is because it’s free. I have a friend who will turn 70 this year. In NJ at this age you can get a fresh water license for free. He is now going go back to fishing fresh water.
Exactly Micro
A regional license would work well for our area
On the same day I might start off at a boat launch in Connecticut, paddle my kayak over to Napatree point in Rhode Island, then move to a different launch and fish my way to Fishers Island in New York.
I’d need a Mass. and Maine license too.
It could add up.
I don’t see why an SW license couldn’t work the way boundary waters are handled. You can fish the Delaware River with either a New Jersey or a Pennsylvania license. You don’t have to purchase both. Obviously you can’t fish a tributary on the Pennsylvania side with a New Jersey license.
I think it could be made reasonable. It might not make sense for a Texas SW license to be honored on the NJ shore, but where there are shared resources, reciprocal agreements would make sense. In the case given by dudley, it seems reasonable to think that NY, CT, and RI ought to recognize each other’s licenses.
Beyond that, a regional license seems like a very acceptable idea to me.