New federal saltwater license on its way?By Bo Petersen (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The Post and Courier A proposed federal saltwater fishing license would include recreational fishermen who fish from piers and the shore. Buy a federal license — that's what fisheries managers want from everyone who dips a rod for fun in Lowcountry tidal waters or offshore. Don't worry, the state says, it has you covered. The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration has proposed a saltwater angler registration for recreational fishermen that would help collect better counts of the fish caught in order to set limits for those catches. The registry would give managers a pool of phone numbers to make surveys that are now done with random calls from coastal area phone books. Because the catch includes species like shad or striped bass that travel back and forth inshore to offshore, inshore fishermen would be required to get the license too. NOAA proposes the registration start in 2009 without charge; but in 2011, the license would cost from $15-$25 — on top of state licenses that now run $10-$35 in South Carolina. Public comments on the proposal will be taken until Aug. 11. It's not an idea that's going to win a lot of friends. The move is being made in part in response to complaints by commercial fishermen, who say their catches are unfairly restricted because they are watched and counted more closely, even though there are far more sports boats out there. In South Carolina alone, about 1,000 licensed commercial fishermen compete with more than 100,000 licensed sports anglers. Lowcountry commercial and recreational fishers already pay taxes, face fuel costs that are keeping boats tied to the pier, and feud about how much each other catches in an ocean stock that most anglers agree is depleting. "And they really think (fishermen) are going to tell them the truth?" said Carl Griffin, of Mount Pleasant, who fishes both commercially and recreationally. Both types of fishermen have long felt whatever catch numbers they report are used against them, he said. "If you give the government another dime more than they've got, they'll find a way to (dribble) it away." South Carolina already requires saltwater licenses, except for fishing from the shore, and collects catch information. That might be good enough to exempt anglers here from the federal license, if state officials can provide NOAA with good enough catch numbers. NOAA managers say they would rather have states manage the program. S.C. Natural Resources is working on a low cost shore-based angler's license for the anglers who aren't licensed now that would keep them from having to pay the full cost of a saltwater license. "The only way we can get (the information NOAA wants) is to have everybody who goes out on the water have some kind of license," said Natural Resources board member Caroline Rhodes, of The Charleston Angler. "We think we have what NOAA is looking for." Coastal Conservation Association, a lobby for recreational anglers, supports the license, said Mike Able, owner of Haddrell's Point Tackle and Supply in Mount Pleasant and a CCA member. Accurate catch information is needed to set reasonable limits. "You can't plan a dinner unless you know how many people are coming," he said. "Are some people going to fuss? I'm sure they are. We're all getting hammered right now from fuel costs and everything else." But buying licenses to fish is so ingrained in anglers that the shop regularly has to tell customers they don't need a license now if they fish from shore. "It doesn't appear to be too big an issue," he said. It will be up to Natural Resources to come up with a license that "everybody who wants to go fishing from a dock, or out on Shem Creek, can afford." Reach Bo Petersen at 745-5852 or bpetersen@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
| |||
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 12 comment(s)
Posted by Thomas1776 on June 12, 2008 at 3:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just more crap to rip taxpayers off. Keep making voters angry. Like they are not already about to explode over out of control government spending and gasoline cost.
Stupid and corrupt politicians and the stupid and corrupt laws they make to take in more money so they can give it all away to their special interest to make them rich.
They just keeping sucking all they can, don't they.
Posted by Thomas1776 on June 12, 2008 at 3:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah. Next thing ya know the license will require a casting and baiting test. In other words, you have to pass an examination test to get your fishing license!
Posted by whalernut on June 12, 2008 at 5:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just another way to make fishing for kids to expensive.
It is bad enough that minnows are 4.50 a dozen.
Posted by RTC on June 12, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What's next? A license to swim in the creek or at the beach?
Posted by theronce on June 12, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The story start out saying that the cost of legal fishing licenses could more than double just because someone wants to count some fish. I keep telling myself that this is the worst, and it cannot be much more incredulous than now. To count more fish less randomly...but still randomly...by asking fisherman, they may more than double the cost of licensing...and private recreational fisherman say that should be no problem...what the heck am I doing on this planet.
Posted by Hwebster on June 12, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Guess I'll turn in my fishing gear and leave the boat on the trailer.
Someone is getting paid better than I to dream up this constant taking from my billfold ideas. Bet this won't increase the fish stocks.
Posted by Thomas1776 on June 12, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's not a license. It's a tax. And citizens are already being taxed to death. But the greedy we elected want more to spend and funnel to their family and friends who work on federal, state, and local government contracts.
What happened to tax the rich and feed the poor? Now it's tax everybody to feed the rich even more!
Welcome to the new America my fellow slaves to your own government and the people we elected to be our Masters!
Posted by scnative4ever on June 12, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a bunch of cry babies. If you grew up around here like i did you would know that the programs sponsored by these license help improve the fishing. The money goes to good use. One example is spot tail bass fishing. There are bigger and more spottails in chas waters now than ever. Many other fisheries have been protected and improved by the studies. Offshore fishing was seeing a decline in mahi, wahoo and tuna. Thomas 1776 you have to be the most ignorant out of touch blogger on this site. If you knew how stupid and uneducated statements you make about how things are done in chas you would shut up. Obviously you are not a native, but a numbnut. The costs is nothing more than a case of beer or a diner at a nice place. the rewards are priceless for a little license money.
Posted by scnative4ever on June 12, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
...and the reason they have to do this is because fisherman can't throw the smalls one back and only keep the limit. Probably the same irresponsible fisherman that are complaining. I support it one hundred percent. If you don't like it don't fish. There will be more for me to catch!!!
Posted by theronce on June 12, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
scn, I too am aware of the good done with much of the existing taxes and do continue to support the efforts. However, the stated reason for this is to get a list that already exists within the SCDNR. Now, someone is lying to me about the reason for doubling up the money, someone is mistaken, or someone is stupid. An extra tax for a list doesn't wash.
Posted by scnative4ever on June 12, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you need to go online and do some reasearch. you are comparing apple to oranges. there is nothing wrong with both agencies doing studies. it's a check and balance of the research. It's not enough money to worry about. If it is then maybe people complaining doesn't need to fish. they are proabably the reason why this has to be done.
Posted by theronce on June 12, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You're right about the illegal immigrants. They keep what they catch period