Connecticut Salt Water Fishing License

[AfterDark]

I did a search on Connecticut Salt Water Fishing License and only came up with my post on the Underwater hunter forum so this may come to as news to some.
I received this recently from RogueIslandDivers@yahoogroups.com

For those who transit or live in CT, here are their latest:
Connecticut Salt Water Fishing License
For more info go to:
\\www.ct.gov\dep\cwp\view.asp?a=2696&q=322716& depNav_GID=1630#MarineLic and click on Marine Fishing Licenses
If you want to have a good day spearfishing and grabbing a couple "bugs", be prepared to cough up a lot more dough!
Fees (as of 10/1/2009):
New Marine Waters Fishing license: $10.00
Personal Use Lobster License: $120.00
The state raised a whole bunch of fees this year and socked us all in the wallet. Lobster licenses are still available only by mail but the Marine Fishing license is sold at many town halls and other sporting goods establishments.
From the DEP (Dept of Environment Protection) Website:
What is a Marine Waters Fishing License (MWFL) and who is required to have one?
The Marine Waters Fishing License (also known as a Saltwater Fishing License) is an annual sport fishing license issued on a calendar year basis. Anyone age 16 or older, fishing (taking or attempting to take fish or bait species) from shore or from a boat in the marine district of this state or landing marine fish or bait species in Connecticut taken from offshore waters is required to have one.
Will anglers age 65 and older be required to get the Marine Waters Fishing License every year?
Yes. The license is free for resident anglers age 65 and older, but a new license must be obtained every year. This is needed to meet the requirements for exemption from a federal registry.
Are combination licenses available with hunting or freshwater fishing?
No. At present there are no combination licenses that include marine waters fishing.
Do I have to carry my license with me when fishing?
Yes. Like all licenses, the holder must have a valid license in his/her possession.
Is this license required to have fish on my vessel in Connecticut waters if I am just transiting through?
No. For example you may take fish in Rhode Island or New York waters and transit through Connecticut waters to land the fish in Westerly on the Pawcatuck River without a Connecticut license. Note that Connecticut regulations governing minimum size, creel limit and open/closed seasons are possession limits and anglers must be in compliance with those laws whenever they are on the waters this state – even just transiting through - or on any parcel of land, structure, or portion of a roadway abutting tidal waters of this state.
-------------- Original message from <fvcostanzo@charter.net>: --------------

 

[tight rope walker]

Boy, You hit a very touchy subject with me. I can remember catching cod and pollack from the beach. I can remember catching mackerel and smelt in Ct. I can remember fishing in the Thames river and catching 320 flounder with my mom dad and brother.

Those days are long gone, and no fishing license is going to bring them back.

Also if I am not mistaken the ct license started out as 10 dollars, and then quickly went to 20.

I would applaud any solution that would bring back those species of fish previously mentioned. I just do not believe the salt water fishing license is going to do that.

So for me, after fishing since I was 5 years old with a drop line, I have given up fishing, rather then give the state a 20 dollar free loan.

If in the future I see it is working, well shame on me, I will get a license and I will continue to fish.

But not right now.

 

[AfterDark]

I agree 100%. I'm going with passive resistance. I'm just not going to buy one. I fish the
Pawtcatuk River so I cross the line into CT routinely. I'll probably wind up losing my yak and tackle but I can buy more. I think RI is going to resist also by not issuing a license. This is just another backdoor tax. Most people don't fish even here in RI so we're an easy target. Like smokers, gun owners etc..... divide and tax. I'd rather spend a night in jail than fork over 2cents for a saltwater fishing license. Just cause its under color of law doesn't mean it's right, quite often "the law is an ass".

 

[tight rope walker]

I think the Governor from Rhode Island said it was a Rhodeislanders God given right to fish in the ocean with out a salt water fishing license. It will be interesting to see what the feds do next, as it was they who ruined the fish stocks by allowing the commercial boys to do whatever they wanted to.

Look at the fluke situation. A commercial fisherman can take more, and smaller size fish, than a recreational fisherman.

It does not make any sense.

 

[AfterDark]

I think the Governor from Rhode Island said it was a Rhodeislanders God given right to fish in the ocean with out a salt water fishing license. It will be interesting to see what the feds do next, as it was they who ruined the fish stocks by allowing the commercial boys to do whatever they wanted to.

Look at the fluke situation. A commercial fisherman can take more, and smaller size fish, than a recreational fisherman.

It does not make any sense.

That's correct. Access to the waters of RI is codified in Article one in the State Constitution, its considered the same as speech,religion,gun ownership ect... God given rights that are to be protected by government not usurped. I'd like to anchor just this side of the line and put 3 poles in the water, but then I'd be in the middle of the channel!
Not the place you want to be in a yak. I remember when the commercial guys were up past the Washington Bridge scooping up tons of manhyden, killed the striper fishing for years. This license isn't going to save one fish its just another scam to pick our pockets.

 

[smellzlikefish]

I think the point of the license is two-fold. First it will limit the number of anglers in CT waters. This may not bring the cod and flounder back, but it will help preserve the blues and stripers that thrive there now. Do you think they are somehow immune to being fished out?

Second if budgeted correctly it will give the DEP more money for conservation projects and enforcement of the laws, further helping to preserve the ecosystem. As we have seen in the past, LIS is a vulnerable ecosystem to many sources of disturbance, recreational fishing being one of them. The commercial guys have done some damage, but the rest of us need to take responsibility for our own actions as well. If you have taken fish from CT waters, you have contributed.

 

[tight rope walker]

I think the point of the license is two-fold. First it will limit the number of anglers in CT waters. This may not bring the cod and flounder back, but it will help preserve the blues and stripers that thrive there now. Do you think they are somehow immune to being fished out?

Second if budgeted correctly it will give the DEP more money for conservation projects and enforcement of the laws, further helping to preserve the ecosystem. As we have seen in the past, LIS is a vulnerable ecosystem to many sources of disturbance, recreational fishing being one of them. The commercial guys have done some damage, but the rest of us need to take responsibility for our own actions as well. If you have taken fish from CT waters, you have contributed.

The blues and stripers will be fished out when the commercial boys do that. Do you actually believe the two blues I caught last year will deplete the stocks? What about by catch? There was a picture on the front page of the fisherman magazine showing a commercial fishing boat with it's decks covered with flounder. But that was not it's target species, so they had to throw them back. How many of those fish do you believe were dead?

I believe that money will go into the general fund, as did the million of dollars from the cigeratte companies that was supposed to be used for trying to help people to stop smoking.

So the only species we are concerned about are the blues and stripers? The only reason we stripers in the first place is because the commercial boys CAN NOT TAKE THEM!

Budgeted correctly(?) the State of Connected is going broke. As are a lot of other states.

But don't worry, as I have given up fishing in Connecticut, and by your own observation, I am no longer a problem. So, I guess inadvertently I did the right thing.

Maybe you should worry about divers taking tropical fish, as that seems to be a concern where you live.

 

[tight rope walker]

Better yet..........maybe you can move back to Connecticut and solve all our problems.

As a matter of fact........I am all for that because the current people are not doing a very good job.

And it is obvious you could do far better.

Tight rope walker

 

[smellzlikefish]

"The blues and stripers will be fished out when the commercial boys do that. Do you actually believe the two blues I caught last year will deplete the stocks? What about by catch? There was a picture on the front page of the fisherman magazine showing a commercial fishing boat with it's decks covered with flounder. But that was not it's target species, so they had to throw them back. How many of those fish do you believe were dead?"

I am not arguing that recreational fishermen are the only problem, but they certainly contribute. Eutrophication, by-catch, lack of forage species, and even global warming are a select few of the other issues. It does no good to try and fix all of them at once, but do what you can. As you alluded, the system would have recovered from your two bluefish, but multiply that by the number of fishermen in Connecticut and you (collectively) have a significant influence. If you only caught two bluefish, sounds like you weren't terribly affected by this new fee anyway.

"So the only species we are concerned about are the blues and stripers? The only reason we stripers in the first place is because the commercial boys CAN NOT TAKE THEM!"

I don't think the average recreational fisher even thinks about commercial take, but they do like fighting large fish, and stripers are the largest commonly caught gamefish in Connecticut. Blackfish, fluke, flounder, sharks, blue crabs, even cunners all matter, but listing every marine species in Connecticut would have been a waste of your and my time when I could use a couple of commonly cited examples and move on.

"But don't worry, as I have given up fishing in Connecticut, and by your own observation, I am no longer a problem. So, I guess inadvertently I did the right thing."

Thanks?

"Budgeted correctly(?) the State of Connected is going broke. As are a lot of other states."

Taken from YOUR state's DEP website:
Does the revenue from this license go back to my sport?
Yes. State and federal law requires that all revenue from hunting and fishing licenses be used exclusively to support fish and wildlife conservation programs.

"Maybe you should worry about divers taking tropical fish, as that seems to be a concern where you live."

Again, a concern, but not the only. Pick your battles. Some of the larger concerns here off the top of my head might include invasive species, severe overfishing (and you thought Connecticut had it rough, try Hawaii), land runoff, and even marine debris. I'm sure we can both think of others. Point being, I am not idle here, either.

 

[AfterDark]

This license is not going to save one fish. No amount of money going to any level of govt. is going to save a fish. Enforcement of reasonable bag limits is what saves fish. The feds and states are looking for change under the sofa cushions to try to make up for their outrageous spending. This is just another scam to pick our pockets. Here in RI our governor knows this and is refusing to go along with this farce. God Bless him.