Saltwater Fishing Discussion Board Including Inshore Fishing, Offshore Fishing, Saltwater Fly Fishing and Kayak Fishing

huh.... wasn't the whole fed license thing put forward by a republican congress and signed by a republican president?

Anyway....I guess they are going with the fed registry and paying out of state fees to CT, NY, and maybe MA

kirk12

Joined: 09/25/2005
Posts: 1117

posted 11/07/2009 12:25 AM

This post was deleted by kirk12

kirk12

Joined: 09/25/2005
Posts: 1117

posted 11/07/2009 12:58 AM

This post was deleted by MakoMike

kirk12

Joined: 09/25/2005
Posts: 1117

posted 11/07/2009 01:06 AM

This post was deleted by MakoMike

twinscrew

Joined: 09/09/2009
Posts: 1087

posted 11/07/2009 01:13 AM

I can agree with the govenors decision but he has to agree with some type of in state registry or license in the future. It wouldn't make much sense to give the monies to the fed who will do nothing for his state. He doesn't have any choice about federal registry if I understand correctly. I don't know if he only establishes a registry if it will be good enough for his residents to enjoy reciprocity with neighboring states. I believe the fed was only trying to establish a better way to collect salt water fishing data by establishing a registry but oh what a mess it has created with all the states trying to come in compliance. Some states see it as a money grab & others are trying to do whats right by it's citizens.

Oh & Kirk Slick Willy repealed Glass Steagal, he didn't sign it. Do you know what repealing the act did?

This post edited by twinscrew 01:17 AM 11/07/2009

guest

Joined: 11/16/2006
Posts: 1043

posted 11/07/2009 02:04 AM

kirk12 wrote:
Guset,

You win it was a republican that signed that bill... And who signed the Glass Steagall act? If I'm not mistaken, which I can assure I'm not It was slick Willy. So lets recap.. Bill Clinton played a huge role in our recession, He played a huge role in 9/11 and the Democrates in NY voted for a license. You must feel great knowing that your votes killed Americans and lead us into a deep recession.

So what does banking reform, 9/11, Muslims, flag burning, and the rest have to do with NY's saltwater license? Isn't there a political forum here for that?

In any case. NY has one, most of the other states do as well. it will be interesting to see how the fed registry will play out for the remaining states.

kirk12

Joined: 09/25/2005
Posts: 1117

posted 11/07/2009 08:51 AM

Twinscrew,

My point about Bill Cliton was he is the one who signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Which was the Repealing of the Glass-Steagall act. Yes I know what it does. I was trying to cut guest off before he blamed everything on Bush. If you read his post he blames Bush for the fact that we have a license. That was why I listed a few things his buddy Bill Clinton did in office.

No need to keep this up down

MakoMike
Noreast.com Club Member

Noreast Writer

Moderator
The Angler's Lounge

Joined: 12/28/2000
Posts: 44569
Location: Pt. Judith

posted 11/07/2009 09:26 AM

guest wrote:

In any case. NY has one, most of the other states do as well. it will be interesting to see how the fed registry will play out for the remaining states.

CT is the only New England State that currently has a license. ME and NH are seriously considering not enacting a license. MA is currently debating a licensing bill. NJ wants no part of a license. Maybe the RI actins will be enough to give the other states the nerve to tell the feds to go stick it. There is no way the feds can or will enforce it. Remember, under the MSA the only fishermen that need to register are those fishing for Andromonous(sp?) fish. So 99% of fishermen wouldn't need to register and the other 1% would be bluefishing with eels. Shades

====MakoMike=====

Click here for The Makomania Sportfishing website

Makomania out

guest

Joined: 11/16/2006
Posts: 1043

posted 11/07/2009 09:55 AM

MakoMike wrote:
Remember, under the MSA the only fishermen that need to register are those fishing for Andromonous(sp?) fish. So 99% of fishermen wouldn't need to register and the other 1% would be bluefishing with eels.

True. Of course anyone fishing outside of three miles will need one. And of course anyone who wants to take bass home with them would also need one. And folks who go shad fishing, and those catch river herring for bait in those states that allow it, and those who fish for eels, and those who fish for smelt here in NE....and those who don't have one will have to pay out of state licneces fees to those states that do.

All of this assuming it doesn't get the old veto override......

MakoMike
Noreast.com Club Member

Noreast Writer

Moderator
The Angler's Lounge

Joined: 12/28/2000
Posts: 44569
Location: Pt. Judith

posted 11/08/2009 05:56 PM

guest wrote:
MakoMike wrote:
Remember, under the MSA the only fishermen that need to register are those fishing for Andromonous(sp?) fish. So 99% of fishermen wouldn't need to register and the other 1% would be bluefishing with eels.

True. Of course anyone fishing outside of three miles will need one. And of course anyone who wants to take bass home with them would also need one. And folks who go shad fishing, and those catch river herring for bait in those states that allow it, and those who fish for eels, and those who fish for smelt here in NE....and those who don't have one will have to pay out of state licneces fees to those states that do.

All of this assuming it doesn't get the old veto override......

====MakoMike=====

Click here for The Makomania Sportfishing website

Makomania out

CaptPaul
Noreast.com Club Member

Moderator
Fisheries Management
Partyboat Fishing

Joined: 09/09/2002
Posts: 4513

posted 11/08/2009 08:38 PM

The first thing they could do is pull funding from state fisheries enforcement agencies. Not sure about others,but NYDEC would collapse w/o federal funding.

But hey, I'm in for a roll here. I'll see if I can work it into the agenda at Tuesday's MRAC meeting.

Paul

guest

Joined: 11/16/2006
Posts: 1043

posted 11/08/2009 09:25 PM

MakoMike wrote:

All of this assuming it doesn't get the old veto override......

Many of those fishing outside three miles have an HMS penmit, so no registry required. Charter/party boats fishing outside of three miles, no registry required. Almost all New England states have a ban on river herring and eels are Catandromus, so no registry needer for them. I doubt that it will happen, but I would love to see the feds try to enforce their registration requirements if all of New England told them to stick it and refused to enact a license.[/quote]

Really? Most fishing outside 3 miles have a HMS? Huh.... interesting.

eels run through fresh and salt water, so I think they are covered under it, as well as salters, and smelt. Smelt is big business in ME and NH. And of course shad are covered as well. Let's face it, i don't know of anyone who fishes salt water that wouldn't need either that or doesn't already have a HMS permit

yes it would be very interesting if the feds had to do the registry for much of NE. This leaves three states left in NE to implement, MA, ME, and RI. the MA was just voted and passed, should it go all the way, that would leave RI, ME, and NJ for the north east yet to implement one. I think Paul is right, once the feds pull funding for lack of enforcement, most states will fall into line; either enforce the fed registry or get a state license.

if you remember the feds forced both the 21 year old drinking age and the no child left behind act using only the funding issue

But right now it's all speculation. truth is, no one has a clue how this is all going to work out.

This post edited by guest 09:27 PM 11/08/2009

Capt. Marc

Joined: 08/12/2000
Posts: 1616
Location: East of the Isles of Shoals

posted 11/09/2009 12:12 AM

http://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov/mrip/index.html

Not a new update in months. You know the clock is ticking and in order for a Federal registry to start by Jan 1 2010 I would think there would be a CFR notice stating what it will be and how implemented and then allow for comment on the actual registry. Not a peep and I thing the CFR window is closing or closed for Jan 1.

Could this be a hurry up and wait to see how many states jump into the pool and do the feds work? Good for RI. Maine also gets a thumbs up. All you travleing anglers, go to these states and fish for free. No registry required for scup, seabass, flounder, fluke, bluefish, weakfish, blackfish, cod, haddock, pollock, cusk, and all the other fish that don't go into FW.

I am going to laugh my a-- off when in 2011 the feds choose not to charge a fee.

So Chief, I see ya got your rubbers.

MakoMike
Noreast.com Club Member

Noreast Writer

Moderator
The Angler's Lounge

Joined: 12/28/2000
Posts: 44569
Location: Pt. Judith

posted 11/10/2009 10:48 AM

guest wrote:
MakoMike wrote:

All of this assuming it doesn't get the old veto override......

quote:
Many of those fishing outside three miles have an HMS penmit, so no registry required. Charter/party boats fishing outside of three miles, no registry required. Almost all New England states have a ban on river herring and eels are Catandromus, so no registry needer for them. I doubt that it will happen, but I would love to see the feds try to enforce their registration requirements if all of New England told them to stick it and refused to enact a license.

Really? Most fishing outside 3 miles have a HMS? Huh.... interesting.

eels run through fresh and salt water, so I think they are covered under it, as well as salters, and smelt. Smelt is big business in ME and NH. And of course shad are covered as well. Let's face it, i don't know of anyone who fishes salt water that wouldn't need either that or doesn't already have a HMS permit

yes it would be very interesting if the feds had to do the registry for much of NE. This leaves three states left in NE to implement, MA, ME, and RI. the MA was just voted and passed, should it go all the way, that would leave RI, ME, and NJ for the north east yet to implement one. I think Paul is right, once the feds pull funding for lack of enforcement, most states will fall into line; either enforce the fed registry or get a state license.

if you remember the feds forced both the 21 year old drinking age and the no child left behind act using only the funding issue

But right now it's all speculation. truth is, no one has a clue how this is all going to work out.

I should have also mentioned that the NY licenses is also in trouble due to legal challenges. So if the NY licenses goes away and CT is the only one left in the area with a license how long do you think CT will last once fishing businesses start complaining that they can'r compete due to the license requirements?

====MakoMike=====

Click here for The Makomania Sportfishing website

Makomania out

This post edited by MakoMike 10:50 AM 11/10/2009

guest

Joined: 11/16/2006
Posts: 1043

posted 11/10/2009 12:06 PM

MakoMike wrote:

I should have also mentioned that the NY licenses is also in trouble due to legal challenges. So if the NY licenses goes away and CT is the only one left in the area with a license how long do you think CT will last once fishing businesses start complaining that they can'r compete due to the license requirements?

Maybe. we will just have to see. No matter what, your average angler is going to either be paying the feds, or the states.