Fishermen Cool But Resigned To Saltwater License

     The ocean as a free and open playground may soon be more myth than reality, at least when it comes to the state’s saltwater anglers, thanks to a proposed federal law concerning recreational fishing.
     By next year all fishermen in Massachusetts may be required to have a license to cast their fishing rod, whether it be from land or by boat, into the ocean. By 2011, that privilege will come with a fee, perhaps as high as $25 per individual per year.
     There are some who view this as a possible setback for a sport that represents a popular outlet for both the casual and more serious fisherman.
     “Anything that limits entry into the sport I am against,” Christopher J. Megan, owner and publisher of On The Water magazine, said. “If there is a fee, or large fee, placed out there that deters fishermen from enjoying time on the water, I think it is detrimental to the sport.”
     He estimated there are nearly 45 million anglers in the country, with some of those participating in the sport perhaps as little as a day or two a year. Mr. Megan said the license could effectively discourage a father from taking his children to a jetty in Falmouth to cast a line. “That is the problem with the license, and what I am  opposed to,” he said. “What if the dad doesn’t want to drop $35 for a license and $25 for each kid, and they haven’t even dropped money on bait. They may not opt to fish... It is a very bad thing for our industry.”
     He equated it to having a license and a fee to play golf. “If you had to pay $15 to get a license to golf, what would people say about that?” he asked.
     George F. Costello III of Striper Lane, East Falmouth, president of the Falmouth Fishermen’s Association, agreed. “I don’t think as a fisherman I should even have to pay to use the outdoors because it is everybody’s,” he said.
     As it is, he said it is tough for some to find the time to even get out on the water. There will be both men and women, he said, who may be discouraged by this law and decide not to go fishing with their family. “I hate to see this,” he said.
     Yet both Mr. Costello and Mr. Megan tempered their comments with the understanding of why the new requirements, and fees, are being implemented. And they were resigned to the fact that this is a foregone conclusion.
     Essentially, Mr. Megan said, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the federal agency overseeing the licensing of saltwater fishing, wants to obtain more accurate numbers of fish harvested by recreational anglers. “They want to use that information to better manage the stocks offshore to help with the study of certain fish, such as herring, and why their numbers are falling off,” he said. Most anglers, he added, are not opposed to that idea, but would prefer, if they have to pay a fee, that the money remain in the state.
     While saltwater fishing has been exempt from licensing and associated fees, there is one for freshwater fishing in Massachusetts, with the highest cost of $37.50 per year for non-resident adults. Fees vary according to age and residency. Despite the tax, Mr. Megan said, most who have a freshwater license realize that the majority of the money they spend is staying in the state, helping the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to manage and replenish fishing stocks.
     Across the country, Massachusetts is one of the few states that does not have a licensing program for saltwater fishing, Paul Diodati, director of the commonwealth’s Division of Marine Fisheries, said. The others are New Jersey and Rhode Island, he said, and all of them have filed, or are considering filing legislation, to adopt their own licensing program.
     Although the federal government is enforcing the law, it is giving states the right to adopt their own program in lieu of a federal registry. Mr. Diodati said the state is currently exploring this alternative, working through an industry-based subcommittee to provide public input to his department. Individuals on that subcommittee represent owners of bait and tackle shops, charter boats, fishing organizations, and private residents throughout the state.
     Their consensus, he said, is that the state administer the program for multiple reasons. One is that the state fee, between $5 to $15 per year, he said, would be comparatively less than the federal government’s, which would charge between $15 to $25 per year.
     In addition, he said, the benefits would be greater because this money will remain in the state, dedicated to programs that support recreational fishing.
     If the state administers the program, he said it would require legislation. That would mean at the earliest, he added, a law could be launched by 2010, with the state asking for a federal exemption for 2009. Still to be worked out, he said, are reciprocal arrangements with coastal states that have their own licenses.
     He addressed fears that this may discourage some from fishing. He said the state would be sensitive to the occasional fisherman by having either a one-day, or seasonal license, available. “The idea is not to make this a burden,” he said. “It is clearly not our intent to reduce fishing activities on the water.”
     As to why this is necessary, he said, that recreational catch can be, depending on the fish, as significant as commercial catch. He pointed to striped bass as an example, noting that they are predominantly caught by recreational fisherman.
     Getting a handle on those catch numbers, he said, is important. “We are finding many more people understand the need to improve science and the ability to manage our natural resources, and this is one small step in that direction,” he said.