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

From the Providence Journal:

01:00 AM EST on Friday, November 6, 2009
By Peter B. Lord

Journal Environment Writer
Governor Carcieri fishes for striped bass in July 2004 with Joe Pagano, of Cranston.
Providence Journal file / Ruben W. Perez

PROVIDENCE — Governor Carcieri, reversing more than a year of work by his own staff and the state’s largest recreational fishing organization, has vetoed a proposed $7 state license for saltwater fishing. He called it “excessively intrusive.”

Carcieri’s staff announced the veto Thursday morning. The new license was approved last week by the General Assembly and had been proposed during lengthy negotiations and hearings by the state Department of Environmental Management and the Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association.

“This is the Ocean State. It is a place where people have been free, up to now, to cast a line into Narragansett Bay without government intrusion. Why the proposed change?” Carcieri said in an explanation of his veto to the state Senate.

The governor’s action appears likely to trigger a confusing year for Rhode Islanders fishing in saltwater.

Because there is no state license, a federal mandate will require everyone here fishing past the 3-mile limit offshore or fishing for stripers or other anadromous fish anywhere in saltwater to sign up by Jan. 1 in a federal register. State conservation officers, federal fisheries enforcement people and the Coast Guard will be charged with enforcing the registration, which will be free in the first year. Also in the first year, violators will just get warnings.

But in 2011, the National Marine Fisheries Service will start charging for registration, possibly as much as $25, according to Gordon Colvin, head of the federal program. Also, Rhode Islanders won’t have the benefits of reciprocity when they fish in other states. They will have to buy out-of-state fishing licenses. Out-of-staters fishing in Connecticut, for instance, have to pay $60.

W. Michael Sullivan, director of the state DEM, said he thinks the governor raised legitimate issues, and the result is the state will now have a year to explore other options.

“This is a federal mandate, unfunded, changing a rich tradition and history. We’ll have a good, vibrant discussion about it,” Sullivan said.

Carcieri pointed out in a letter to the Senate Wednesday that the federal government wants the licenses to create a more accurate way of surveying fishermen and collecting data on fishing efforts. He wrote: “This is hardly a compelling reason or exigent circumstance warranting the imposition of any fee and licensing requirement on a Rhode Island citizen who occasionally takes his or her children fishing.”

The governor did not point out that his own state DEM negotiated the new license arrangement with Rhode Island fishermen as an alternative to taking part in a federal program. Federal fishery regulators want a database of fishermen so they can survey them about catches.

The state could have created a registry instead of licenses, and it didn’t have to charge any fees, Colvin said. Because of Carcieri’s veto, Rhode Island joins Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia and Hawaii in being required to implement federal registrations, Colvin said. Some of those states are still working on state licensing.

The Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association reported on its Web site Thursday: “Saltwater License is dead ... Governor Carcieri vetoes the legislation. Rhode Island anglers will now be subject to federal registry at triple the fee and will have to purchase nonresident license to fish in neighboring states.”

Stephen Medeiros, president of the group, called Carcieri’s veto “a kick in the gut.”

The licensing and registration was mandated by passage of the Magnuson Act in 2006, Medeiros said. So, if Rhode Island wants to fight the measure, it will basically be taking on an act of Congress.

“I wish the governor had made this known before I spent about 1,000 hours working on it,” Medeiros said. “There’s been an awful lot of fallout over the stupid $7.”

Just two weeks ago, Robert Ballou, the DEM’s acting director of Fish & Wildlife, predicted the licensing bill would pass the General Assembly because he and the fishermen spent months discussing the issue and ensuring the lowest possible fee would be charged. He said he thought the licenses were “viewed positively by all the interested parties.”

The bill passed, 27 to 8, in the Senate, and 39 to 8 in the House.

Sullivan said the governor had always made it clear to him he was troubled by the licenses.

“Currently, the governor — and I don’t disagree with his position that this component of the Magnuson Act flies in the face of the Rhode Island Constitution — but DEM wasn’t going to challenge the federal law. So we worked out a compromise,” Sullivan said. “Now, we’ll go into the educational mode and be sure citizens are aware of the federal requirements.”

“It is an inconvenience, but it is free,” Sullivan said of the federal registration. “Then we’ll have until Jan. 2011 to consider options.”

====MakoMike=====

Click here for The Makomania Sportfishing website

Makomania out

MakoMike
Noreast.com Club Member

Noreast Writer

Moderator
The Angler's Lounge

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

posted 11/06/2009 09:32 AM

Providence Journal wrote:
Because of Carcieri’s veto, Rhode Island joins Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Virginia and Hawaii in being required to implement federal registrations,

Looka like except for New York and Connecticut, the rest of New England is about to tell the feds to buzz off! There is no way the feds can enforce this and the MSA only requires enrollment in the registry if you are fishing for andromadous [sp?] fish, so I expect to see lots of guys bluefish with eels in the future. Smile

====MakoMike=====

Click here for The Makomania Sportfishing website

Makomania out

daved

Joined: 09/10/2002
Posts: 125
Location: Groton, Ct

posted 11/06/2009 09:48 AM

[/quote]

Yep, I agree and I for one am embarrassed by my states position on this issue.

Mike - I posted on the same story, thought you might want to remove my post

SORTIE
Noreast.com Club Member

Joined: 06/14/2004
Posts: 14972
Location: U.S. waters

posted 11/06/2009 10:02 AM

this announcement ruins my plans to arbitrage the system by buying a $7 RI license that would be honored in CT and NY

If you're going to burn the flag, wrap yourself in it first!

Steamfitter638

Joined: 05/22/2007
Posts: 2443
Location: W/SW

posted 11/06/2009 12:07 PM

still ridiculous that we have to pay for this thing Really

.......make it a FREE registry. If you do it online on the DEC website there shouldn't be cost to maintain the registry, they already have to maintain the website anyway so wtf?

Can't fight against the youth, cause we're strong

The worst are ppl who live in a golden age & complain about how yellow everything is

DamnFish

Joined: 04/22/2005
Posts: 1227
Location: East Meadow

posted 11/06/2009 01:54 PM

So if I join the Fed Registry, do I still have to buy the state license, since teh Fed Gov't overrides the State Gov. Even if I had to pay the $25 to the Fed Gov't...I would love to screw NY out of the $$$$

MakoMike
Noreast.com Club Member

Noreast Writer

Moderator
The Angler's Lounge

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

posted 11/06/2009 02:48 PM

DamnFish wrote:
So if I join the Fed Registry, do I still have to buy the state license, since teh Fed Gov't overrides the State Gov. Even if I had to pay the $25 to the Fed Gov't...I would love to screw NY out of the $$$$

Yes, you would still have to buy the NY license. as starnge as it sounds the NY licensing law does not recognize the federal registry for reciprocity purposes.

====MakoMike=====

Click here for The Makomania Sportfishing website

Makomania out

JC30967
Noreast.com Club Member

Moderator
Posted Reports

Joined: 12/07/2007
Posts: 4057
Location: Massapequa

posted 11/06/2009 06:02 PM

Excellent!

This is what happenes in a state that has the right of its residents to hunt and fish codified in the state constitution

One
Big
A**
Mistake
America

fishhead1985

Joined: 08/29/2009
Posts: 397
Location: Western CT

posted 11/06/2009 10:35 PM

RI

Rhode Island would be the perfect place for me to live. Right to fish guaranteed, without the right wing politics. Maybe I should think about it.

"Color outside the lines. Practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty. This is your last chance." Anne Herbert

kirk12

Joined: 09/25/2005
Posts: 1117

posted 11/06/2009 11:03 PM

This post was deleted by MakoMike

kirk12

Joined: 09/25/2005
Posts: 1117

posted 11/06/2009 11:25 PM

Here's what you've been waiting for...get those dialing fingers to work...surprises..The vote was 32 to 30 along party lines...all it would have taken was two Long Island senators to vote no and we would have NO SWL...the two most responsible was Craig Johnson and Brian Foley!!! both are Democrates !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aye Adams
Aye Addabbo
Nay Alesi
Aye Aubertine
Nay Bonacic
Aye Breslin
Nay DeFrancisco
Aye Diaz
Aye Dilan
Aye Duane
Aye Espada
Nay Farley
Nay Flanagan
Aye Foley
Nay Fuschillo
Nay Golden
Nay Griffo
Nay Hannon
Aye Hassell-Thompson
Aye Huntley
Aye Johnson C
Nay Johnson O
Aye Klein
Aye Krueger
Aye Kruger
Nay Lanza
Nay Larkin
Nay LaValle
Nay Leibell
Nay Libous
Nay Little
Nay Marcellino
Nay Maziarz
Nay McDonald
Aye Monserrate
Aye Montgomery
Nay Morahan
Nay Nozzolio
Aye Onorato
Aye Oppenheimer
Nay Padavan
Aye Parker
Aye Perkins
Nay Ranzenhofer
Nay Robach
Nay Saland
Aye Sampson
Aye Savino
Aye Schneiderman
Aye Serrano
Nay Seward
Nay Skelos
Aye Smith
Aye Squadron
Aye Stachowski
Aye Stavisky
Aye Stewart-Cousins
Aye Thompson
Aye Valesky
Nay Volker
Nay Winner
Nay Young