NC Angler Forums banner

Are you in favor of species specific licenses to pay for fish stocking?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 14.7%
  • No

    Votes: 18 52.9%
  • Trout only

    Votes: 5 14.7%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 6 17.6%
1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,288 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Would you be in favor of a license/stamp required of anybody that fished any body of water stocked with musky or stripers or hybrid stripers (excluding coastal rivers where stripers spawn)?

Since these fish do not reproduce in NC and must be maintained by stocking, would you support a specific license dedicated to stocking these fish?

Its already required of trout.
 

·
Red X Angler
Joined
·
13,664 Posts
I would have to consider the impact on the native fish before I could give a good answer but my initial feelings are NO. I would rather see the native species enhanced by stocking and more money put into public water access for all anglers, shore bound and boat. Shore access is becoming unheard of and it is detrimental to the sport. Fewer people get introduced to fishing if it's too much of an expense or hassle due to the lack of fishable space without a boat. Fishing is has also always been a good way to supplement your groceries while enjoying a cheap way to entertain and socialize.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
367 Posts
No. Apparently native fish (LMB, catfish, etc) also don't reproduce well enough to support a fishery, 'cuz we have hatchery and stocking operations for them too - and no extra license or stamp required.

Ditto Sundrop too. (or is Sundrop saying he'd support additional license/stamp to support hatchery stocking of native fishes and boat/bank access? - I think he's not, but the question looms).

Plus Fishin',
RW
 

·
Red X Angler
Joined
·
13,664 Posts
NO I don't support additional stamps. Now if I saw a real change in stocking and access I wouldn't have an issue with a small hike in licensing. Or possibly an "outdoor" tax of 1/2 cent on outdoor sports related purchases but that opens too many doors to our already corrupt Gov't. I'd rather see a system in place where outdoorsmen could get involved in local stocking, "fishing" parks and improvements so they could know first hand where their time and money is going. It's like donating to a big charity, when you hand money to the Gov't, by the time it gets where you intended it to go it has been picked at until it is pennies on your original dollar.
If I were a wealthy man, I would buy land by the waters and build nature parks that cater to the fisherfolk. Kayak ramps, boat launches and parking. Piers that actually had fish attractors, not just a pier sticking out onto a dead flat, like many are. I would try to get funding to offer jobs to low income individuals to do clean up and security and keep riff raff out. It would never be profitable but that's not my point in doing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,625 Posts
As long as they keep grandfathering the old comprehensive license. The way they described it when I bought it 20+ years ago was that I would be able to fish anywhere there was public fishing in NC for the rest of my life. No trout or gamelands stamps (which were a thing back then; not sure they still are) or anything. When CRFL was created, it was grandfathered in. It may seem like I am being a bit of a cheapskate, but back in the early 90s when I paid over $200 for a license I was gambling that I would be alive in and in NC a long time and it would be worth the money. I won and I want my winnings...
 

·
Red X Angler
Joined
·
13,664 Posts
As long as they keep grandfathering the old comprehensive license. The way they described it when I bought it 20+ years ago was that I would be able to fish anywhere there was public fishing in NC for the rest of my life. No trout or gamelands stamps (which were a thing back then; not sure they still are) or anything. When CRFL was created, it was grandfathered in. It may seem like I am being a bit of a cheapskate, but back in the early 90s when I paid over $200 for a license I was gambling that I would be alive in and in NC a long time and it would be worth the money. I won and I want my winnings...
Being grandfathered in would be expected. But I also think it "waters down" the strength of the opinion of those who have nothing to lose. ( please don't take that wrong, it reads harsh and isn't intended to be such, I think you get what I mean.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,625 Posts
Being grandfathered in would be expected. But I also think it "waters down" the strength of the opinion of those who have nothing to lose. ( please don't take that wrong, it reads harsh and isn't intended to be such, I think you get what I mean.)
Not harsh, just blunt and completely accurate. I am not too concerned about the possibility of them ever welching on the deal; they can just wait us out and there aren't enough of us to change the economics that much if they made us pay more. So why risk getting us up in arms? They won't. So my thinking is pretty hypothetical; there is near zero possibility of this affecting me as an individual. But if they want to get exotic with stocking the cost should be absorbed by the people who wanted those fish stocked IMO. And they will have to consider that there will be some people like me who will get access without paying a share and work that into the calculation. I don't think that people fishing for native species locally so they can eat should have to pay (and they don't if they qualify and jump through a hoop).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,809 Posts
I think yes, IF and only if they lowered the cost of a normal basic fishing license. If they want to charge a species specific charge for stocked species like trout, striper, and musky, then ALL of the money for that stocking should come from those license fees. None from the regular licenses. If there is not enough revenue from the species specific licenses then obviously there is not enough interest in that type of fishing for it to be fiscally responsible of the government to out money into that non-native species. Use the basic license to maintain the rivers and streams and pay for other expenses excluding stocking. Maybe offer a sportsmans type license that includes all of the stamps. I think its completely unfair that you even need a license to fish waters that are not at all kept up with by the state. Most of my fishing is done in water that is neither stocked nor monitored. When I fish the beach, I'll by the saltwater license because I understand the time that is invested into such a delicate fishery. When I fish trout I gladly pay the trout fee. But when I'm catching gar, blackfish, bullheads and crappie out of a swamp I shouldn't have to pay a penny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,656 Posts
Licensing here is ok. They do try to accommodate all with regards to types and offer either single or package licenses. I bought my Sportsman before I got the kayak. I will need to get the coastal. But the Unified Sportsman License includes it.

Maine and Minnesota are reasonable for non-resident licenses. In the area of Maine I go to there is no reciprocal agreement with Canada and their non-resident price is inflated. In Australia this summer I paid resident fees of $6.

I think stamp is easy for trout and duck. The waters are marked. Will they have to put up signs on lakes where you need this stamp? Or would you need the stamp just to harvest?

Is there a line drawn for the delineation between inshore and coastal? I should look that up.

mikeski
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,625 Posts
mikeski,

Yeah, there is a map linked from the WRC site:
http://ncpaws.org/wrcmaps/CoastalJointAGOL.htm

Your idea about only having to pay if you harvest might be okay for stripers, but for muskies or any fish where we are pushing its range to be down here where it gets warmer the mortality rate is going to be pretty high. A big complication is the large lakes like Kerr where they stock stripers. What if you go there and target WP? They should pay you for the public service. :) But every now and then a large fish is taken on a small lure or bait.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,288 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Musky are only stocked a few places and those places could be easily marked.

They already are marked to some extent.

Any species specific plans would include a lower overall fishing license fee.

If you fish a stocked trout stream for largemouth bass, you still have to have a trout license.hing

OR

modify the trout fishing license to include stripers/bodie bass/and muskellunge.

Make it a stocked fish license.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
No, there should not be additional fees.

Years ago the State would swap species with other States for stocking, NC would trade Hybrids for Walleyes, or similar. This made stocking large predators at the limits of their range practical, and cost effective. We seem to have gotten away from that for some reason.

The issue with large predators like Stripers and Muskies is they have healthy appetites, and it takes a lot of food to grow them out to survivable size...

Maybe we could use White Perch as forage for them to grow them out to acceptable size? We seem to have plenty of those.....:p

Fishscalz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I would pay a species specific fee. In addition to my license fee. I fish for striper. They are all stocked fish. The fact is most of the species we all fish for are stocked. Even many that are native and successfully spawning are supplementary stocked to keep up with the demand for good fishable waters. The money I spend annually on fishing. Things like gas, food, motels, tackle etc. etc. The license fee is the least of it. I generally have Licenses annually in 4 states. NC, SC, GA & TN I can fish all these beautiful waters because of the revenue generated from licensing. It’s not a tax. It’s a fee that pays for the resources we have to access the fish we pursue. Boat ramps are not free. Game wardens are not free. We need them before you say we don’t or there would be no fish. The cost of the amazing national fishery we have is paid for in part by licensing. A couple extra dollars annually to support stocking is fine with me.
 

·
Red X Angler
Joined
·
13,664 Posts
Good discussion and a lot of good points being made here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RouseD and gambusia

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
I'm getting off topic a bit, but in my opinion part of the reason we stock hundreds of thousands of Stripers/Hybrids instead of tens of thousands is because there are not large enough to minimize mortality rates. If there were 4-6 inches, at least the Crappies and White Bass that inhabit the same waters would not hear a dinner bell with each stocking. Again, my opinion, net raise them from 2" until they average 5", and then release them. Yes, it would cost more money, but so does feeding the Crappies and White Bass "Striped" forage, they are not even really fingerlings at 1"-2".

Muskies need a lot of food and room to get to 15", and that is expensive and resource intensive any way that you look at it.

Fishscalz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,288 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
"
§ 113-272. Special trout license; mountain heritage trout waters 3-day fishing license.

(d) Special Trout License: Fee. – . $13.00. This license shall be issued to an
individual resident or nonresident of the State and entitles the holder to fish with hook and line
in public mountain trout waters.
State trout license is 13 dollars but I see nowhere do those monies go specifically for trout stocking?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,041 Posts
Why would anyone be in favor or it?

No, I never chase muskie. I can go out and catch nothing without having the excuse that I was fishing for Muskie.

I don't think keeper size stripers exist in any water I've ever fished. At least you can't prove it by what I catch.

But... The costs of a new class of license, and the costs of enforcing it, are going to be be much higher than the cost reduction in regular licenses without the muskie/striper permit. And it adds complication. It's already dang near impossible for someone who doesn't know the area to figure out the saltwater/freshwater line or what stretch of what creek is under what trout rules.

Let's keep it simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,625 Posts
I fished for muskie a couple of times when I lived out west. They stocked "tiger muskie" in some CO lakes. I never saw one. If they want to save a lot of money, they just need to add some hidden jets under the water to make it swirl every now and then. Muskie fishermen will talk up a swirl for weeks... :D
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top