[ParrotHead]

Our buddy Zooker pointed out a new law in another post. And it STINKS!

http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg01_License/pg1_NBE.pdf

Warning...opinionated rant follows. Please do not continue to read if you are at risk of becoming offended. Opposing and supporting posts are welcome.

In NC the law has always allowed fishing in your county of residence with natural bait, but this changes in 2007. The Natural Bait Exemption will be repealed.

The NC Wildlife Commision claims the purpose for changing the law is to "capture" revenue from those outlaws that fish with natural bait to avoid buying a license. The exemption was put in place to allow those people living below the poverty level to fish to feed their families.

Does anyone know a fisherman that doesn't fish with artificial bait and therfore required to buy a license anyway?

But now conditions are improved for the impoverished , under the new law they can fish throughout the state with natural or artificial bait. All they have to do is swallow their pride and tell the state of NC "I'm so poor, I cannot afford to buy groceries and I have to fish to feed my family."

OK, let's institute a law that gigs the tourists when they want to fish at the beach and the residence of NC will just have to suck it up and buy the recreational license too. But wait, that's not enough! Let's go after freshwater folks too!

Recreational freshwater fisherman are already buying the license. Why are they really changing this law?

 

[redfishtom]

if you want to hear my personal opinion, go to the nc court system website, go to officer court appearance query, type in your local game wardens name and just sit back and look. to me , it does not look like too many people buy the liscense anyway, judging by all the tickets that are written every month. That's just another new law people won't follow

 

[Topsail Angler]

I'll give you the "official" rationale - but remember, I'm only the messenger (read: this is not my opinion). Federal money for fisheries and wildlife is divvied up amongst the states by a formula that relies heavily on LISCENSED fisherman (and hunters) in a state. So by requiring a license (even if it given free to people under the poverty level) of ALL fisherman, the state legislators feel they will issue more licenses and thus get a bigger share of the federal pie.

That said and done, I don't think it make a "hill of beans" difference in what we actually receive from the Feds (unlike the new saltwater license, I think that will help). Personally I think its a crying shame they are eliminating that clause. Next thing you know they will want to license children.....................

 

[zooker]

parrot head you are right the hundred plus year old law got resended. remember the 2006 season ends june 30th. july 1st all 2007 laws go into effect..

think i am joking the 2007 nc inland fishing ,hunting,and trapping regulations digest has on the cover "effective july1st 2006 to june 30 2007"
it is shown on top of page 6 of this is going into effect january 1st 2007...

i belive this is just another way to STICK-IT to the little guys like all of us. they can't get the money from the salt water lisence- as far as i know it is not in effect YET-so they are getting the revenue the old fashion way by stealing it..what else is state government for ?? beside taking money that aint theres..

ok ok i will climb off the soap box.... NEXT!!!!...



zooker

 

[redfishtom]

the law was pretty much worthless up here. most lakes on this side of the state are not that great for walking the banks and drowning worms. most of the time you are not going to catch anything but stunted bream or rockbass, so nobody really cared. most everything else is trout water, so you have to have the stamp. Now I think it might be a little different farther east where you have larger lakes surrounded by gamelands that the average guy can beat the banks and be within reach of bigger and better fish and you have a lot more of the community fishing lakes. I can see where the state would like to see a return on some of the money that they put out. I have probably open up a can of worms with this . as for liscenses for kids, some states get them as young as 13 for out of staters.

 

[sinker man]

I've seen both sides of the coin here. There are many people who can afford to buy a liscense that like to fish but don't know but one way. That is using natural bait. I am constantly amazed at how many people limit themselves to bait. It has more to do with attitude than affluence. from what I have seen there are more of these type fishermen than the ones the law was intended to help. How many times when a plant shuts down do they put someone on TV that says "I just don't know what I'm going to do . I don't know how to do anything else. That was the only job I ever had..." Across the state there are a lot of people who just don't want to learn any more about something than necessary and that goes for fishing too. Why should they change what works for them? Especially since they can take advantage of the folks paying for their fisheries and wildlife management by not leaving their home county? (Which by the way is just thowing money away in the first place.) The wildlife and fisheries managers have been up against that for years and now with $3/gal gas more people are staying closer to home to hunt and fish so they were looking at posibly taking in less money and the fuel prices affect their budgets negatively also so they are scratching for money like everyone else. They see this large group of folks fishing and not buying a liscense and can't help but want to stop a growing trend. That is what I think happened anyway. AL

 

[Crummy]

You ever need the answer to something, follow the money trail. I really don't have an opinion of this law as of now. Only time will tell. I can see the good and bad points. My only hope is any extra revenue will be spent to improve our fisheries. I have paid for a license since I was 16 and some my age have never got a license.

 

[luremaker]

I tried to get this stopped over three years ago but was told that the state would never change the law because of the Native Americans for who the law was intially intended. I told people to get their lifetime fishing licenses before the first of this year or they would be paying double next year. I was told that I was crazy. Basic math says a 250 dollar investment this year would pay for it's self in 8 years. I guess some folks got more money than they got sense so now they can pay up.
Yes I'm mad because I'm a tackle shop owner and half of my business income is based on live or consumable bait sales. I have some customers that do fish to feed their families.

 

[sinker man]

I admit that I don't have kids to raise and feed so it should be easier for me to pay for a fishing license. In fact I have never had a problem paying for one since I first became old enough to need one. By the time I was old enough to need a hunting or fishing license I had already bought a 12 ga. Remington 1100 automatic and several rod and reels. Yes, I had to get out there in the hot sun and crop tobacco, get up hay, dig footings, tote mortar and block etc. to have the money to pay for my equipment and (later license) with. To this day I am proud to pay my part because I have seen what well regulated hunting and fisheries programs do for the resource VS everyone believing that they are the sole owners of our natural resources. When I was growing up, Just to see a deer track was something really special. Now instead of seeing deer once every few years, I see a few hundred per year in an area where there were virtually none. I have seen the results of Texas' and Florida's saltwater fisheries management programs. I know how low the fish stocks had gotten before measures were taken to reverse the trend. I see NC in about the same shape as they were once in. I would like to see it make a speedy recovery. Limits and license fees are all very necessary to make it happen. Those who are able to work should have to ante up in order to be able to use these resources. The more antes in the pot, the less the ante needs to be. Of course they will never lower the fees no matter how many folks buy a fishing license. That is what we should be mad about. OK, I'm down. NEXT!!

 

[lefty]

Recreational freshwater fisherman are already buying the license. Why are they really changing this law?

So you're all hot about the waste of legislative salary, is that it?

I think I remember seeing that natural-bait exemption once, but since most of Jordan is across the county line, I went ahead and bought a one-year license.... I didn't go for lifetime 'cuz I didn't know whether my interest would lag, even though the cost was on its way up...

 

[ellwoodjake]

Yeah, I can see both sides too-----------but: What makes me madder than a hogsucker with chapped lips, is that they had the gall to do this without getting sportsman input. Every January, I go to my district wildlife proposal meeting and never once was this proposed or discussed. If it was proposed, and the majority of fishermen supported it, I would be fine with it. I dont agree with every proposal, but in the past I've always gotten my say, and if I'm in the minority, fine, this is America and the majority should rule! When did the WRC get into the welfare business anyway. But since the poor will have to swallow their pride to fish, shouldn't they be allowed to HUNT as well? Just my $.02, I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[CoachKinsey]

... I didn't go for lifetime 'cuz I didn't know whether my interest would lag, even though the cost was on its way up...

I looked at getting a lifetime license but realized that, based on the number of times I've already been around the circle, it would be cheaper to buy them by the year! Heavy sadness!