PackerBacker wrote: For someone like myself who travels almost exclusively in the US with a fishing rod in the coach, it's a real pain not being able to stop somewhere and throw a line in without having to find a place that sells local state permits. In NY state where we spend most of our time, I can buy a non-resident's permit for a reasonal annual price; it would be nice to have a national one.
Not a problem, cost - somewhere north of $1,000.00 per year, still interested? Or maybe stopping at a local store ain't so bad afterall, got to get bait anyways.
Not interested at that price. My NY state non-resident permit was $44 per annum a couple years bck.
Why involve the Feds at all? Just tell YOUR governor that the next time he (or she) goes to a National Governor's Conference, she (or he) must negotiate a Reciprocity Agreement For Fishing Licenses, and bring it back to the State Legislature for approval.
Then, once it is approved and goes into effect, IF you have a license to fish in your home state, you will be legal to fish in every other state that has signed the agreement. Of course, "specialty fish" would be excluded from Reciprocity. Things like paddlefish, salmon, etc., any species that requires a special tag to take.
BUT, keep in mind that there are a mish-mash of regulations that you are going to have to know to be legal. For instance, in Montana, the stream bed usually belongs to the State, from high water mark to high water mark. This means that as long as you are in the stream bed, you are legally not trespassing. In Wyoming, however, the stream bed belongs to the landowner, and he CAN post it "No Trespassing", and you must stay out!
Do YOU know all those little quirks for the 48 lower states? I sure don't.
Another one; in California, if you are fishing in the ocean from a man-made structure (pier, dock, etc.) you do not need a CA fishing license. If you are fishing from shore, you must have a license prominently displayed (NOT in your pocket) on your person!
* This post was
edited 04/10/12 12:34pm by mowermech *
CM1, USN (RET)
2002 Fleetwood Southwind 32V, Ford V10
Toad: 2006 Jeep Rubicon LJ
Other toad: '06 PT Cruiser, Kar Kaddy dolly
Toy: 1977 Dodge W100 CC SWB, 3/4 ton axles & springs
"When seconds count, help is only minutes away!"
AL has a form of repricosity. For ajoining states the non-resident fee is equal to the fee the ajoining state charges alabama residents. Not quite the same as you still pay mulitple fees, but at least it's even.
No fishing license on piers is usually becuase the pier paid for the license already same for charter boats. Here an ordinary dock is same as shore.
National??? You seen to be forgetting that we are actually citizens of 50 little countries, bound together in a common cause as one union. The states sure are not going to give up any licensing power that they have.
I would just like to pay the same fee as a resident..that seems fair to me..Some states really stick it to someone passing through who might want to fish a day or two...JMHO
2003 Four Winds Infinity 37'
2011 Lance 855
3.5# Minpin named Darcy
Ford F250 Super Duty
I don't mind buying a state fishing license because the money does go to a good cause but what I don't like is paying 3-4 times a what local license for only a few days. I spent a month in Montana last summer if I was a resident a license would have cost me $8 as a nonresident it was $70. California is $44.85 resident and $120.14 even Missouri is resident $12 and NR is $42. If I was going to spend time in the three states it would cost me $232.14 for licenses, I you assure that if I have to pay that more for fishing licneses I just will not fish. So I spend 3 months in 6 states it is going to cost me hundreds of dollars for licenses even though I am 65 and I am droping money in the states for camping, food, fuel and the DW shopping. I think one thing that would work is you buy a national license for say $20 or free if over 65 and then in each state you could buy a resident license $64.85 in the 3 states.
fatmanobx wrote: I would just like to pay the same fee as a resident..that seems fair to me..Some states really stick it to someone passing through who might want to fish a day or two...JMHO
state parks, state universities, state and county forest preserves were set up for the enjoyment of the residents in those states who, through their property taxes, state income taxes, state personal proprty taxes, etc. pay for their upkeep (at least theorhetically and when the local pols aren't diverting those funds elsewhere). non-residents don't do any of those things. i can well understand why most states have a double-tiered fee system. as mentioned, the states are soverign and independent units...not just administrative districts.
73,
rich, n9dko www.bananaboatbytes.com
I know a guy who's addicted to brake fulid. He says he can stop anytime.
_________________________________
2000 Itasca Suncruiser 35U
'46 Willys CJ2A
'03 Jeep Wrangler TJ
'10 Jeep Liberty KK
dewatkins wrote: I don't mind buying a state fishing license because the money does go to a good cause but what I don't like is paying 3-4 times a what local license for only a few days. I spent a month in Montana last summer if I was a resident a license would have cost me $8 as a nonresident it was $70. California is $44.85 resident and $120.14 even Missouri is resident $12 and NR is $42. If I was going to spend time in the three states it would cost me $232.14 for licenses, I you assure that if I have to pay that more for fishing licneses I just will not fish. So I spend 3 months in 6 states it is going to cost me hundreds of dollars for licenses even though I am 65 and I am droping money in the states for camping, food, fuel and the DW shopping. I think one thing that would work is you buy a national license for say $20 or free if over 65 and then in each state you could buy a resident license $64.85 in the 3 states.
Residents get a break because they pay state taxes that also help support the fisheries and wildlife departments. If you don't want to pay the fees and choose not to fish, fine. Fishing pressure is already too high here in Montana, fewer people fishing is better for the guides (at around $350 to $500 per day, I doubt they will lose much business because someone also has to pay a few bucks for a fishing license. Don't really see the license as the straw that will break that camel's back), the locals and those who choose to purchase the licenses. In other words, more fish for the rest of us.
fatmanobx wrote: I would just like to pay the same fee as a resident..that seems fair to me..Some states really stick it to someone passing through who might want to fish a day or two...JMHO
state parks, state universities, state and county forest preserves were set up for the enjoyment of the residents in those states who, through their property taxes, state income taxes, state personal proprty taxes, etc. pay for their upkeep (at least theorhetically and when the local pols aren't diverting those funds elsewhere). non-residents don't do any of those things. i can well understand why most states have a double-tiered fee system. as mentioned, the states are soverign and independent units...not just administrative districts.
All of the things said I understand. But this may be just to simple for the people in charge to understand. IF YOU LET ME FISH IN YOUR STREAM, I'LL LET YOU FISH IN MINE! What would the difference be...Taxes and sales pay for every states Game and Fish activities along with the lic. fees...
Offline
