Federal fishing/hunting license

[GL243]

Originally Posted by CAG

Something that seems to be missing in all of this is that the federal government does not regulate fishing and hunting in the 50 states. The states do that. Even on federal land such as the national forests. The forest service manages the trees (and has done a terrible job of it) and the states manage the wildlife. . . .

True, with the exception of National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges (for the most part).

Re "So this would appear to be another "federal mandate" forced on states.", that's the exact main point several of us have tried to make here, apologies if that wasn't quite clear.

[CAG]

Originally Posted by GL243

True, with the exception of National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges (for the most part).

Re "So this would appear to be another "federal mandate" forced on states.", that's the exact main point several of us have tried to make here, apologies if that wasn't quite clear.

And I am making the point again, from a little different angle. Is there a problem with doing that? Perhaps I missed the part that covered my point with the question. That being what agency has what jurisdiction.

[Camper_bob]

I have to wonder how "wide spread" a problem like this really is.

I see it being an issue for a few people for sure. Especially full-timers or people who travel a lot. But that seems to be a tiny segment of the population. I'm not sure it would be worth it to put some kind of infrastructure in place for such a problem that only affects a few people.

I guess it would be nice if you could get a discounted rate for a short period. Like if you're only fishing for a day or two, there should be a short-term license offered that's only good for the time you need it. From what I've seen (which admittedly, I don't have A LOT of experience with this), if you buy a license, it's good for the whole season, like it or not. For someone like me, who would forego an expensive non-resident license, the state would actually make more money; a discounted license fee is better than none at all...

But other than that, I'm with the majority on this. I don't see the Federal Government making this better. Plus I'm generally happy to support wildlife conservation efforts, so I'm generally willing to pay a bit more to support that. If it's too expensive, I just won't do it.

[CAG]

[QUOTE=Camper_bob;806593]I have to wonder how "wide spread" a problem like this really is.

I think you hit it on the head. It likely is not a wide spread problem.

Arizona charges $37 for a resident fishing license and $55 for a non-resident. You can buy a non-resident hunt/fish for a set period of time, your choice, for $20 a day.

[GL243]

Most, maybe all(?), states offer short term daily or several-day fishing licenses to non-residents at lower cost than a full-season license. The bigger differences are for big game hunting. There have been court challenges to those by outfitters arguing the states should not be able to charge more for non-residents hunting on federal public lands, but I believe the courts ruled in the states' favor on those.

[GL243]

Originally Posted by CAG

And I am making the point again, from a little different angle. Is there a problem with doing that? Perhaps I missed the part that covered my point with the question. That being what agency has what jurisdiction.

Sorry for being unclear, some of us here are not in support of the Federal government taking more rights and responsibilities away from the States. I thought your comment indicated your agreement with that position.

[CAG]

Originally Posted by GL243

Sorry for being unclear, some of us here are not in support of the Federal government taking more rights and responsibilities away from the States. I thought your comment indicated your agreement with that position.

I think my comments indicate that I agree with the states rights issue especially in this case.

While I ended up going in a different direction after college, my major was Wildlife Management. Well, perhaps not in a totally different direction, as I still ended up doing wildlife management just of the two legged kind.

I see no reason for the Feds to be in this at the state level.

[DocBrown]

[QUOTE=CAG;806594]

Originally Posted by Camper_bob

I have to wonder how "wide spread" a problem like this really is.

I think you hit it on the head. It likely is not a wide spread problem.

Arizona charges $37 for a resident fishing license and $55 for a non-resident. You can buy a non-resident hunt/fish for a set period of time, your choice, for $20 a day.

WI is $8 a day for resident, $10 a day for non-resident.

[GL243]

Originally Posted by CAG

I think my comments indicate that I agree with the states rights issue especially in this case.

While I ended up going in a different direction after college, my major was Wildlife Management. Well, perhaps not in a totally different direction, as I still ended up doing wildlife management just of the two legged kind.

I see no reason for the Feds to be in this at the state level.

Ok, thanks, looks like we're on a similar page, then.

I too majored in Wildlife Management (actually fish and wildlife management) and had a career in it. Probably why I have a $20k trailer instead of a $200k motor home . . . 🤔 Sounds like maybe you had more fun in the field than I did. 😁

[GoldenNugget]

Originally Posted by CAG

Much of the money that goes to wildlife research, preservation and management comes from the sale of licenses within states, along with the sale of sporting goods, such as hunting and fishing gear. Many states like Arizona have Game and Fish departments that are not funded by the state's general fund. In other words they prefer to remain untied to control by politicians. Take just a little of their funding and we can make a big, and unwelcome impact on game and fish management. I do not and would not support such a "privilege" for seniors, or any other group for that matter. The small figure that we pay to fish in other states needs to remain in place.

A note that Arizona and many other states have "Pioneer" licenses. At 75 I no longer had to pay for a fishing or hunting license. I do have to pay for an elk, deer or javelina tag when I hunt. When I go to Kansas to turkey hunt I pay for a license and tags. That is only right that I support their conservation efforts.

I vote a big no on this one and would think that most states will do the same. If-fact I will probably let my politicians know how I feel.

I think that a Federal Hunting & Fishing License would actually increase the number of Hunters and Fishermen.
This would increase revenues for both State & Federal programs. Imagine going from your Home State [Kansas, Texas] and be able to Fly Fish in Colorado or anywhere you camp at.

[EA37TS]

Originally Posted by GL243

Interesting analogy, food for more thought.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect it's the states that get to make that decision on honoring other states' driver's licenses and not an overarching, or more importantly to this discussion overreaching, federal mandate requiring it.

Now, perhaps there is a connection to Constitutionally mandated federal oversight and promotion of "interstate commerce" (Commerce Clause), i.e., maybe states need to honor other states' driver's licenses to keep getting federal highway funds(?). Regardless, I would think it's still the states that get to decide.

At the risk of having yet more worms start to peak out of the can here, anyone want to now deliberate linking State access to federal funds generated by sale of hunting and fishing equipment with honoring other states' hunting and fishing licenses? Can't imagine something like that would ever just apply to seniors, however . . . Maybe there's already some court history with it.

Totally different. Highway funds come from the government's taxation on fuel. To the best of my knowledge there is no federal tax on the sale of fishing rods and tackle.

Also, the federal gov't does not license lawyers or doctors in the states, why should hunting and fishing be different. Where does it end?

Don't force others to pay for your pleasure, pay for it yourself! You have an option, pay the non-resident rate to hunt and fish or stay in your own state and hunt and fish at the resident rate.

[Camper_bob]

Originally Posted by GoldenNugget

I think that a Federal Hunting & Fishing License would actually increase the number of Hunters and Fishermen.
This would increase revenues for both State & Federal programs. Imagine going from your Home State [Kansas, Texas] and be able to Fly Fish in Colorado or anywhere you camp at.

I don't know that the math would really work out well on this from the state's point of view?

Perhaps for some of the lower-cost licenses (like fishing), but for large game hunting, I'm not sure it would work out... Especially given the relatively small number of participants I assume would be interested in this type of license.

Anyway, in TX, most of TX Parks & Wildlife budget comes from a sales tax levied on sporting goods sold in the state, as well as entrance and licensing fees to TPWD facilities. So why should an out-of-state hunter get to come to TX and harvest our natural resources if they don't help support the funding that manages those resources?

The answer is they do ... by paying a higher, non-resident license fee.

Plus TX offers several "daily" permits at what I consider to be decent prices. Granted the general hunting license difference is pretty big, ($25 resident, $315 non-resident), but the "All water fishing" annual license is $40 resident/$68 NR.

IDK, maybe for some permits/licenses it could work, but I still think it's a problem for such a small audience that it's unlikely to garner movement from governing bodies.

[GL243]

Originally Posted by EA37TS

. . . To the best of my knowledge there is no federal tax on the sale of fishing rods and tackle. . . .

Look up Pittman-Robertson Act and Dingell-Johnson Act. First one is a federal tax on firearms, ammo, and accessories, second is a similar tax on fishing tackle and certain things related to boating.

I was only playing a bit of devil's advocacy, sorry for adding to any unnecessary confusion.

[CAG]

Just another fund for congress to rob to pay something else. Nothing the Feds get their hands into will function like it was meant to. Forget it.

[hammer55]

no one ever said the federal government had to take control of anything, but I don't know who ever made the law that I had to have a license to fish or hunt, I don't ever think any reasonable person said hey lets vote to allow the elected government to tell me I can't hunt unless I have a license,
just like the states with the federal license requirement;



we could have a fishing license that is national, I know I and the wife would buy one, now I don't usually because I nave know where I will be, it just like everything else, we have grown accustom to giving up our rights,

[GL243]

Originally Posted by hammer55

no one ever said the federal government had to take control of anything, but I don't know who ever made the law that I had to have a license to fish or hunt, I don't ever think any reasonable person said hey lets vote to allow the elected government to tell me I can't hunt unless I have a license,
just like the states with the federal license requirement;
. . .
we could have a fishing license that is national, I know I and the wife would buy one, now I don't usually because I nave know where I will be, it just like everything else, we have grown accustom to giving up our rights,

Originally, it was by people who liked to fish and hunt, because unregulated hunting and fishing resulted in decimated fish and game populations. Licensing was a logical way to generate the money it would take to enforce limitations that would allow for such populations to recover or to pay for active restoration. Such regulation is a necessary evil of sorts when you have too many people demanding to exercise their "rights" to use limited resources. And when it came to fish and wildlife resources, we had "too many people" back more than a hundred years ago, so it's remarkable how well regulation, and licensing to pay for it, has worked to allow us to even have any fish and game to enjoy nowadays considering how much larger the human population is.

[CAG]

Actually, this entire thread is a waste of time. Noone is going to convince anyone else to move from their position so if you think we need it go to the site and sign the petition. If you don't then don't.

[hammer55]

go ahead a close this thread, who cares, apparently not many

[GL243]

Yeah, we're starting to sound like politicians, good time to just move on.

[Midnightmoon]

Thread is closed