VERY mixed feelings personally. Have had a freshwater license for many years- have NEVER been asked to show it (have never encountered DEC or a ranger) except to rent a boat at Southaven Park. (good bassin") I fish Massapequa, Wantagh, Ronkonkoma, Patchogue and the Peconic as well. I dare say the vast majority of those I encounter do not have a valid license. Anyone who has ever supervised knows that if it doesn't get checked, it doesn't get done. I have heard that the license fee funds are turned back around to do some good for the environment and fishing. I just get tired of supporting the violators. (probably why I am for capital punishment, but I digress...) IF licenses were checked, (Town of Hempstead is quite active in checking livewells!) if fines were high, if monies were put back into marsh rehabilitation, the habitat, etc., suppose I could ante up (again), but only if some of the funds are used for enforcement. I still think that, like other states, the NY freshwater license should be prominently displayed and if this could be done for saltwater...
I am against the idea of a state saltwater fishing license. Before I say why, let me say that I currently pay about $60 a year for my hunting and fresh water fishing licenses and I don't mind at all because I have seen great improvements in hunting and freshwater fishing in NYS. Other than the $15 for the duck stamp, which is federal, all of that money goes to help game which basically stays in state.
Most saltwater fish are migratory and travel between many states. Why should we pay the state for a license to manage fish which it doesn't "own"? AND, what about those who fish offshore in federal waters, would they also have to pay the state for a lisence?
I realize that NY's bays and estuaries are important nurseries and food sources for many fish species, but if a license was going to be imposed, I would rather it be a federal license. This way the fish could get the benefits in all states. Actually instead of a license, they could sell a stamp, like the duck stamp, for saltwater fishing. BUT, I would still rather not have to pay for another license.
When the States start stocking the ocean, then I'll consider buying a license. The sad fact is that 75% of those monies would be used for bureaucratic BS.
Support groups that genuinely do good for the fisheries and the environment, volunteer when you can for clean-ups and fund raisers, and teach your kids how lucky we are to live in such a beautiful country. But I'm sorry, Uncle Sam just loses too much dough on his way to the shore.
When it comes to another license....count me out!
NO SALTWATER LICENSE EVER!!!!!!! The DEC has too much power as it is. Between shellfishing, shipping,foodfish and trap permits, I ante up over 300$ per year to the DEC and local authorities.These are required because I choose to supplement my income in this manner, but don't tax my pursuit of happiness too!!Fishing is one of the last pursuits in nature that is relatively free of OVERREGULATION, lets keep it that way. Shebeen; you make some very good points, I agree with you 100%. LATER
I have always opposed a saltwater license for many of the reasons listed above as well as a number not yet mentioned. Somewhere on this website is a copy of a presentation I did at an ASMFC Conference in opposition of a license, but I?m having trouble finding it. As soon as I do I?ll post a link to it.
We did a poll on the subject a few years back the results of which you can find here
This is a very interesting topic and I can see both sides of the story!
First of all? For those who know where our fishery laws are heading? I believe a saltwater license could be the answer! Before I get egg on my face? let me explain.
This would be a great vehicle to accurately measure the power of this fishing group! This day and age, we are not getting the fair share of our fish allocation and the political powers (management) simply don?t take us seriously! Another words, when it comes down to fishery issues and time to make decisions ? the other lobbying (commercial) group has their game down and we simply don?t count ?or-matter! We are the weakest link to their equation and taken lightly!
Currently we are encountering heavier restrictions while the commercial sectors are handsomely getting the bigger share of the pie. Unfortunately to the general fishing public, everything seems somewhat OK , thus, we are seeing less fish to catch, less opening days, more size restrictions while the other user parties (powerful lobbying groups) are destroying the future of our sport! To them it all boils down to money while to us is just a ?recreational? pastime sport.
Sure we love the idea of taking the families out and simply enjoy the outdoors. You and I both don?t want anymore licenses because fishing is supposed to be free! It?s the America way and we should just leave it at that! However, if there are issues ? Let?s leave it to the government, they can work it out for us and everything will be just peachy!
NOT! This is far from the truth! Unfortunately we have to stand up and fight! This luxury mentality does not stand a chance anymore and we are losing this privilege to those that believes the mighty dollar exceeds the importance than this family sport. If I am wrong about this - I defy anybody who thinks I am wrong on this matter.
Folks, I am not painting ugly picture here... This is what?s happening today! Slowly our rights are being abused and if we don?t do anything about it? we are just allowing them to win their ways! I don?t believe we are here to destroy their livelihoods but we certainly are looking for what is right and fair to our fishing communities.
As for promoting a saltwater license? certain criteria needs to be met. Like Capt. Neil said? The funding must NOT be allocated into the General funds. If that?s the case? this entire topic needs to be dropped. Such fund needs to be distributed into the fishing communities! For better fishing access, laws, environments, fishery and resource studies, enforcement, education, legitimate / accurate data (we need to be counted) and most importantly? promoting the sport of fishing!
I also understand we have to be very careful what we ask for and it must be done smartly! Unfortunately this might be a price to pay for what we once had and to preserve our privileges. It has come down to this? We could do two things? ignore this and watch our privilege rot ?or- do something about it!
Your thoughts on this matter are important! Whether it?s good or bad? I like to know your opinions. Do you actually care?
What if the license was only $3. I'm waiting for someone to chime in here about how this lisence will be used to count how many saltwater fishermen there actually are. This way when there is a proposed regulation change, ************* do not get the short end of the stick. At least they would be able to say, look, there are 125K SWfisherman that would be affected by the proposal, and this equates to $xxxx dollars for the fishing tackle industry.
I would have to agree with everyone here...if there is a saltwater license imposed, we would have to insist on the proceeds to be specifically earmarked for the benefit of NY saltwater anglers (and their quarry and habitat etc.)
I'm willing to gamble the cost of a couple plugs if it even has a chance of improving things. The cost of a license would be a drop in the bucket compared to what most people spend each year on fishing-related expenses. Status-Quo isn't working. How is it that cod, whiting, and winter flounder were allowed to be decimated? Will a Salt Water License help? I don't know. I'm willing to gamble a few bucks to try.
The National Marine Fisheries Service counts New York Saltwater anglers at 448,412 for the year 2000. Why do we need to charge people for a license, or tax them if you will, to get another count? I happen to like NMFS estimate anyway, as I think we?d have a tough time topping that number, especially if we start charging saltwater angler to fish.
Also, I could never buy into the dedicated fund argument because under NY State Law NO FUND IS UNTOUCHABLE ? period. There have been numerous so-called dedicated funds that were raided for other purposes during times of economic hardship, and I can?t imagine a fund for fish being that well protected.
Besides I personally think we pay enough already:
[*]Marine Fuel Tax
[*]10% Excise Tax on all Tackle
I agree that the extra $10 isn?t going to dent many of us, but where do you draw the line? I honestly believe that the reduction in the number of anglers that we would see, as a result of licensing, would cost us more in tax revenue than any amount the license could generate.
Someone please tell me what this fund could do, keeping in mind that at most it would garner 4 million dollars a year, and out of that much of it would have to pay the overhead for maintaining the license and data it would generate. I?m not opposed to paying to help improve our fisheries, but I just don?t see one single benefit to recreational anglers or the overall fishery whatsoever by instituting a license.
Hi. I am not a hunter but I have read how the hunting licenses and stamps improved the conditions they worked with.
Can someone clarify that for me, one way or another.
If I can use this site as an indicator, on average for each thread started less than 10% of the people who view the thread respond. Does this indicate that maybe only 10% of saltwater fishermen get involved in supporting our causes????
Over 400,00 fisherman in NYS. Hmmmm!!! 10% of = 40,000. Wish I knew how many fishermen financially support NYSFF, CCANY and RFA. Of all that do how many support 1, 2 or 3 of those organizations? I suspect those that are members support more than 1 of these organizations.
Have Fun Fishing. Capt Neil
Custom Fishing Rods by Captain Neil
The Duck Stamp is a great example for you. A federal program that does not require the extensive paperwork of a license. Ten years ago when I started duck hunting the daily limit was two birds. Now the limit is six puddle ducks, seven sea ducks and an additional five mergansers for a total of 18 birds a day, if you wish. We can now also hunt birds that were once threatened, example: canvasbacks. For $15 a year, that is a huge improvement in the sport. Duck regulations are also managed a lot like the salt water fish. The feds set the guidelines and the individual states design their seasons around them.
On a local (state) level, each year for the past three years, the state deer population has broken its record high from the previous year and so has the take. At one time you could not hunt deer in New York because they were so few. Turkeys are another example of an almost extinct species from the state that relocation programs have turned into a great population.
But I think salt water fishing cannot be looked at the same way. First, as I said the fish are not state game. They would have to be managed federal, which is already currently being done. Why should we have to start paying now.
Second, the estuary habitats that need protection are already being managed under other programs. The DEC has a whole unit to protect marine wetlands through regulations. Plus, they are being protected and purchased through water fowl organizations and other outdoor organizations.
Lastly, all of George's examples of how we already contribute are excellent.
Why should we, as saltwater fishermen, have to pay again.
I agree with Capt Neil, support RFA, or any of the others he mentioned. If half of ************* did that, it would help the voice of the recreational angler be heard. If you dont like what one represents, find one you do like. The most important thing is GET INVOLVED. Steve RFA member
I am against a Saltwater License. I have a real problem with the enforcement side of this issue. Anyone, a bad fisherman who can't catch a thing, a catch + release guy, one who follows all the limits, everyone, becomes a target, not just the poachers anymore. Anyone with a line in the water is subject to be stopped and asked for a license. And who bears the brunt of this?? You can bet it will be those fishing from piers, jetties, ant the surf. Why.....simple, easy access for enforcement officers. Who needs the hassle of being stopped every other day?? Who is to say there won't be quotas imposed on these officers, causing them to become over-aggressive in their enforcement?? Our lives are already over-regulated enough in this modern day + age. We go fishing in hopes to get away from it for a couple of hours, not to have it come chasing after us. Just my two cents, plus.
I think you mis-understood my point. If I don't break the law, I have nothing to worry about, that's agreed. My feelings however are that your statement is part of our problem in the big scheme of things. Big Brother doesn't hit you over the head with a 2-Ton weight all at once, but little by little, bit by tiny bit, the liberties we take for granted are slowly eroded away, until you wake up one morning and the full impact hits you square in the face, only to realize it's too late to do anything about it. We don't need it, and it only helps to increase government interference in our daily lives.
This message was edited by SEAWOLF on 1-9-02 @ 12:48 PM
Seawolf - re-read Crazy's post and keep this quote you wrote in mind: "the liberties we take for granted are slowly eroded away, until you wake up one morning and the full impact hits you square in the face, only to realize it's too late to do anything about it. "
His point is that this may be a way to do something about it.
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.