Striped Bass Fishing Forums Forum banner

Salt Water Licenses!......bet you change your tune

19K views 42 replies 16 participants last post by  AntonNYC 
#1 ·
#2 ·
That article put forth the best reasoning that I have read for the institution of a saltwater license. I've been dead against the idea of a license because till now I have always felt that the "bounty of the ocean" was something that should be available to anyone, including folks who might not have the wherewithal to pay extra dollars just to go fishing. But, greed rears it's ugly head, and because the netters fell the need, or the right, to take as many fish as they can, right up till the point that they're gone, then the best way to counter that is to organize the sportfishermen and register, or license them, to provide a large, organized group that has the political power to make things happen.....such as only the comms seem to have now.
So.....where do I sign up? I'd gladly spend $20 a year towards getting legislation that would keep the netters miles away from the beaches I fish, it would be better for the fish, and better for me. And I'm sure that not all the comms are bad or greedy, but if it comes down to them or me, well.........
Ed
Can't we all just get along?
 
#3 ·
It's a "catch-22". If each States individual Fish & Game had harsher penalties for those who break the laws, we probably wouldnt need such regulation as through a license. Yet, they still continue to tap these everyday losers on the wrist, and now they want to mandate this license thing? With threats of a Federal license over a State that doesnt "join up"?

Fine someone $500 dollars, first offense, when they dont OBIDE by the laws, and we'll see how many repeat offenders we get in a year and if we need regulation through licensing. You gotta hit people in the WALLET, its the only way to get through peoples thick skulls in the 21st century icon_thumleft.gif

If I have to pay, I'll pay. But I will shake me head because I cant understand how we let things get to such a point. I will say this, if this happens, the penalities for being caught fishing without a license should be HUGE! Not this 50 or 60 dollar horseshit.
 
#4 ·
I have always been against the saltwater licence but the
article makes for some great points. Essentially its to
have a voice against the federal commissions and legislators.
The article quotes "As CCA chairman Walter
Fondren puts it: "There is strength in numbers, but only
if someone is counting".

It makes sense to stand up and be counted.
Recently we saw the voice enmass with the cap on
menhaden tonnage in the Chesapeake bay for purse sieners.
Gunnysnipe recently opened up my eyes to Wallop-Breux.
It appears to be managed properly.
My biggest complaint about a fee was to deny access
to the poor. Perhaps a cap on the amount charged would be better.
Using the small fees for administration purposes and not lobbying.
The article by ted Williams makes for a compelling
argument for the institution of a Salt water licence
especially with the reciprocity idea.

Below is a column that spells out the dangers of state run excesses.
Va. DGIF spending practices examined
By Bill Cochran
ROANOKE.COM COLUMNIST

You had to like the way John Montgomery Jr.
handled the Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries? effort to examine the agency?s procurement
practices. During a DGIF committee meeting at the
agency?s headquarters in Richmond last week,
Montgomery, a department board member,
came by the press table and thanked the media
representatives for being there.
There were four of us.
He thanked the handful of guests present.
He said he and other representatives would be willing
to address questions at the
close of the meeting, although they would be limited in what
they could say. There was legal counsel present
to make certain everyone remembered that a state
auditor was in the process of reviewing credit card use
by several top officials of the agency.
It had been a long time since such feelings of openness
and good will were evident at a DGIF board function.
Was this the first step in restoring the credibility
and cordiality of the agency?
Let?s hope so, although dark days loom ahead.
Montgomery, a lawyer, is a new board member from
Sandston.
He and two other members were assigned by board
chairman Dan Hoffler to look into DGIF spending
practices following extremely bad publicity in the
wake of a 17-day African safari taken by Hoffler,
executive director Bill Woodfin and two high-ranking
game wardens.
Hoffler, Woodfin and the two wardens were not present
at the committee meeting, nor were any department heads,
with the exception of Ray Davis, the agency?s chief financial
officer. Davis was there to recommend checks and balances
to help assure that the department?s procurement practices
are above reproach.
What he didn?t recommend may have been the highlight
of the meeting. He did not recommend that employees cut
up their credit cards. The cards are essential for employees
to do their job, and they are cost effective,
Davis said.
The recommendations that were made included a
three-person committee to review credit card purchases
before and after
they are made. Events, travel or purchases of more than
$2,500 would require pre-approval by the review committee.
The recommendations are expected to be presented to the
full board during its March 24 meeting.
Attending the committee meeting was Lee Albright, a
Montebello resident who blew the whistle on what he called
questionable spending by agency officials. Afterwards he
said that the recommendations likely would not have
prohibited the credit card use being questioned because
it was carried out by top officials of the agency.
But in the future, officials will be aware someone is looking
over their shoulders, he said.
 
#9 ·
striperjim said:
Florida is the
model for success.
As usual, Williams has put forth specious arguments and drawn conclusions from unrelated happenings. For example, it is generally accepted that Florida's success is the result of banning most types of inshore netting. That happened at about the same time as the salt water license, but not because of it. It's like concluding that the crowing rooster causes the sun to rise. BTW, there's a move in Florida by the commercials to allow more types of inshore netting. How can that be possible?

The people that buy into his rhetoric are uniformed as to how the political process works. The "stand up and be counted" or "we'll get a seat at the table with licenses" is crap. The way to get things done are through lobbying. That involves showing up at hearings and funding lobbyists, just like commercials. It's plain and simple. Paying more tax will not do anything but drive recs AWAY, leaving more for the comms. It's economics 101 that the sheepish masses are glad to ignore.

FWIW, I generally introduce 5 to 10 people a year to SW fishing. Of those, about 2 to 5 continue on their own. Both paying for and the hassle of buying a license for any guests will significantly diminish that effort.
 
#11 ·
I don't mind spending the $20-30 on a fishing license if the money goes towards fisheries management and lobyists taking the voice of the recreational fishermen to the legislature.

We pay huge taxes in Maine for ocean property. No kids in school up there, trash collection is very infrequent, no mail delivery, I maintain the private path and walkway to the beach.....yet I can't even get the police to ticket illegally parked cars on my deadend street. Clammers come down, even park in my driveway, abuse the walkway I built, rape and litter the beach. Believe me, I'm not one of those beachfront snobs. If a family comes and asks, I'll let them park on my property. I even allow all the local kids to fish off my dock on the pond...supplying them with bait and expertise....and I tell them right upfront..the first time you abuse the privalige...you're outta here...and I've never had an issue. But these clammers and others that aren't respectful really piss me off. Maybe it's time for the glue-ru to pull the ole lock trick again.

Sorry for the rant. Anyway, my point is your tax dollars don't always go to where you'd like.

Roger does bring up an interesting arguement....once-in-a-blue-moon fishermen. People like my mother-in-law, who really wanted to catch a striper. Took her out once, she caught 2 stripers, got the pictures to prove it, showed all her friends......that was her first and last time. Paying $20-30 for that one fishing experience, does seem a little ridiculous.
 
#12 ·
Tony Db said:
Roger does bring up an interesting arguement....once-in-a-blue-moon fishermen.
Yea I know. These organizations were front and center on the Chesapeake bay Menhaden reduction cap.
Major lobbying organizations for recreational fishing
Coastal Conservation association
Congressional Sportsmens Foundation
CSF is a non-profit, 501(c)3 organization, funded by industry, hunting, fishing and wildlife conservation organizations, as well as fundraising events. CSF is also funded by grants awarded to the Foundation to carry out its education and research programs.
The lifeblood of CSF is our Sportsmen?s Council which unites conservation organizations, the sporting industry and individual hunters, shooters and anglers from around the country. Council members include groups whose concerns range from wildlife population management and land conservation to corporations and businesses who provide America?s sportsmen with the products and services they need to enjoy the great outdoors.
The RFA has 70,000 members and affiliates nationwide.
Donations are made to these organization from sports, boating and fishing equipment manufactures
Sportsmans partners
Coastal Conservation Organization of Floridasea watch newsletter is underwritten by orvis.
 
#13 ·
It certainly helps us all to be better informed about both sides of the issues. Like what is wallop-breux and what and whom drives the engine for the recreational sector.
We the uninformed masses just pay for everything.
Thats who we are.
 
#14 ·
I don't mind spending the $20-30 on a fishing license if the money goes towards fisheries management and lobyists taking the voice of the recreational fishermen to the legislature.
Legislators
You know how they are, They take the money and run. The next thing you know .20 cent will go to fishing and the rest in there pocket. I just don,t trust them.
 
#15 ·
sea sea rider said:
I don't mind spending the $20-30 on a fishing license if the money goes towards fisheries management and lobyists taking the voice of the recreational fishermen to the legislature.
Lobyists are only paid privately. No tax/license money can go to them, nor can they be funded by 501C3 organizations. You need to make contributions directly to affiliated lobbying arms of these organizations. In RI contributions should be made to the RISAA PAC.
 
#16 ·
rogerstg said:
Tony db said:
I don't mind spending the $20-30 on a fishing license if the money goes towards fisheries management and lobyists taking the voice of the recreational fishermen to the legislature.
I quoted tony and the state takes the money for the licence. Thats who I don,t trust.

Lobyists are only paid privately. No tax/license money can go to them, nor can they be funded by 501C3 organizations. You need to make contributions directly to affiliated lobbying arms of these organizations. In RI contributions should be made to the RISAA PAC.
 
#17 ·
Rogerstg said:
Lobyists are only paid privately. No tax/license money can go to them, nor can they be funded by 501C3 organizations.
So what your saying is that only for profit corps. can fund the lobbyists? The RISAA is a 501c3 org.

(edit**) Ok Thanks roger this spells it out more clearly. RISAA PAC Legislative Committe Report
 
#19 ·
Florida is a success because the money from the license fee's is PROTECTED. See my previous post "So what's the relationship"
W/b funding MATCHES license monies collected by the state at a 3 to 1 ratio. The money can only be used for fisheries restoration and related matters. FINE MONIES GO INTO THE STATES GENERAL FUND!!!!!!
Fining the poachers pays for streets, affordable housing, methadone clinics, and welfare programs.
Why is the old Jamestown Bridge going to Florida to be sunk with a couple hundred of New Yorks subway cars for artificial reefs? W/B matched funding!
More people than ever are fishing Florida because they CATCH FISH!
You don't have to buy a season license either, 1 or 3 or 7 day licenses are available. Kinda like the clamming license and fresh water licenses, here.
You don't have to trust the poloticians with the money either, they have NO access to it.
A former state rep here tried to get his hands on it once, he or is it she?, found out how much a few grand for a providence street was going to cost when the feds recoupped all the money gained with interest and penelties, BILLIONS! They take it all back!
 
#20 ·
I agree with the licensing as well. If it keeps the netters from cleaning the areas up in the months when all of the boats are out for the season than so be it. If somebody goes out and nets 1000 lbs of fish for a profit 7 days a week for 4 weeks think of what that does to the environment in that area. This is happening to White perch in my area and you might laugh and say that is only white perch however in the last 4 years since they have started the amount of Stripers take have drop as far as not one keeper was landed in our boat in countless amounts of hours between my father and myself. I have no problem with people eating but you don't see people netting Deer, Largemouth Bass, Ducks. Why??? because there is a license involved. I work in construction and in certain towns their are merchantile licenses and even though we all complain about it it is the city's way of making sure everybody in their town as insurance and a registered business.
 
#21 ·
Gunny, you?re gonna have to do some homework because most of your post is wrong and misleading.

GunnySniper said:
Florida is a success because the money from the license fee's is PROTECTED ?
Wrong - Florida?s fishing success is because they banned nets ? had nothing to do with license revenues. As far as being protected ? again wrong. States (like Florida, etc) license fees are only protected until the legislators unprotect it. It would have to be part of the constitution to be safe. Historically, all license fees and funds that were once designated for particular purposes have always been raided by the legislators in Mass and RI and made part of the general fund.

GunnySniper said:
W/b funding MATCHES license monies collected by the state at a 3 to 1 ratio
Wrong again. You?ve conveniently left out the part where states get a minimum anyway. For instance, in RI, RISAA recently did research that indicated that even with license fees, RI would not get any more WB funds than it gets now. I believe it was the same for Mass. The states know this, which is why they don?t mention it. They leave it to folks like Ted Williams to write and for his sycophants to repeat.

GunnySniper said:
The money [from WB funding] can only be used for fisheries restoration and related matters. ?Why is the old Jamestown Bridge going to Florida to be sunk with a couple hundred of New Yorks subway cars for artificial reefs? W/B matched funding!
That is what happens now. We won?t get any more funding.

GunnySniper said:
people than ever are fishing Florida because they CATCH FISH!
More people than what? Not more people than before the license. Anyone with a shred of knowledge of economics knows that an increase in price leads to a reduction in demand. In RI and Mass, every increase in license fees resulted in a decrease in units sold. I mention those states because that is what I know. I suspect that other states have the same results.

BTW, am I the only one that realizes that Florida and many south coastal states have 12 month fishing, while we do not?

GunnySniper said:
You don't have to trust the poloticians with the money either, they have NO access to it. A former state rep here tried to get his hands on it once, he or is it she?, found out how much a few grand for a providence street was going to cost when the feds recouped all the money gained with interest and penelties, BILLIONS!
You?re going to have to be more specific. I think this example is absurdly preposterous. Billions in penalties for a few grand in mis allocated funds? Besides, those may have been federal funds. Since RI will not get any more than currently, this example would not be relevant even if it were true.

I read your posts on the relationship between duck hunting and market hunters. Aside from your misconceptions regarding the WB funds, it was nicely done. What amazes me is that you've apparently missed the obvious conclusion of that thread. It was private citizens lobbying the government and agencies NOT licenses that had the most profound impact on waterfowl recovery.

Aside from collecting data, there is not much that states can do for saltwater fish restoration due to its nature. Since in RI it would not increase our share of federal funding, a license would just make the ignorant feel good and restrict more people from enjoying the resource. I suspect that is what many of these "pro license" folks are really after anyway - keeping the riff raff away.
 
#23 ·
I don't think the license is intended to keep the netters away, I think our hope is that the licensing fees can be used to fund lobbyists to urge our legislators to pass laws that restrict the comms and support the recs.
If I'm following this discussion correctly.
The comms have the $$$ and the political wherewithal to have their voices heard, the individual rec fishermen don't, until they are registered into a large enough group to give their collective voice some political sway.
I have no personal beef with commercial fishermen, but when the netters come thru and a significant, negative result such as fewer fish left, where before there were enough, for all, is the result, then I think we need to take some sort of action to protect the resource that we all enjoy so much.

Ed
 
#24 ·
One thought

I vision the meeting where they make the fishery decisions. On one side you have the comms who pay fees etc and they have a strong voice, on the other side you have the non paying recs who have no voice.

Scenerio two: Now that we are registered and licensed you have two equal parties at the table with two equal voices. I am not so sure comms have a lobby, do they? if so we should then organize to either doante to the lobby group advocating what we want or form one.

I have heard from several people that recs are ignored at these things.
 
#25 ·
This debate has historically been an impassioned one pitting the rec angler and the commercial angler on opposite sides of the fence. I've seen a lot written about the subject and most of it is rhetoric that would bore you to tears. Flawed science arguments etc, etc.. The analogy for me reminds me of the Boxing organizations and the call for federal regulation. Nobody seems to want to get its act together.
At worst we can mislead and insult each other. I find that this debate has many unanswered questions for most of us. For example the pros and cons of Federal vs. the State jurisdiction, what organization represent whom and what have you. And what 'territorys' and issues each representative groups most interested in.
The purpose of this discourse is to educate and inform. Equally imperative is that we make informed decisions in regard to politics, fishing or otherwise.
Heres an old rhetorical question regarding the saltwater recreational license:
Would You endorse a program that gives millions of dollars to an agency that is regulating you?
****
Wallop Breux is a working model in the states and I feel it needs more exploration from the public at large as does the various lobbying bodies and their funding sources and interests.

Post update
Wallup Breaux State allocations in 2009
 
#26 ·
Posted this article as an illustration. I am neither 4 of against the license.
Just presenting some facts for discussion.

Scientists to seek striped-bass grant
Richmond Times-Dispatch Jan 8, 2006

NEWPORT NEWS - Researchers studying a bacterial infection that has beset striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay will ask a state board tomorrow for $88,500 to continue the work.
Scientists at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science want the grant to support a second year of their study on the impact of mycobacteriosis on the popular sport fish. The bacteria appears on the skin and internal organs of fish that are often weak and underweight. The infection raises concerns that it might imperil the striped bass's record recovery after fishing bans that went into effect in the 1980s.
The Virginia Recreational Fishing Advisory Board will meet in Newport News tomorrow to consider the request. The board finances fisheries research, construction of public boat ramps and fishing piers and other fisheries projects with the money raised by the sale of the state's saltwater fishing license. - Lawrence Latan? III
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top