Coastal commentary 



Fishing for a Saltwater License 



Saltwater fishermen to the north 

 and the south of us pay for the privi- 

 lege of casting a line for the catch of 

 the day. But not in North Carolina. 



Yet. 



The N.C. Marine Fisheries 

 Commission is working on a salt- 

 water sportfishing license package 

 that is expected to be ready for the 

 General Assembly by spring 1995. 



This much is certain — wherever 

 a saltwater fishing license has been 

 proposed elsewhere, it has ignited dis- 

 agreement among supporters and de- 

 tractors equally dedicated to their posi- 

 tion. A saltwater license is either an 

 assault on one of the few remaining 

 untaxed pleasures of life or a tool to 

 raise money for enhancing troubled 

 fish stocks. 



All can agree on one thing, how- 

 ever. If recreational fishermen don't 

 get involved in the debate, for or 

 against the license, they could find 

 themselves with a license that they 

 don't like. 



N.C. Sea Grant doesn't have a po- 

 sition on the issue, says Jim Murray, 

 director of the Marine Advisory Ser- 

 vice. But he organized the 1993 N.C. 

 Recreational Fishing Forum to give the 

 issue a thorough airing out. 



"The important thing is to set up 

 the process to develop the license 

 openly and fairly, giving all sides, and 

 not just fishermen, a chance for input," 

 he says. "It affects the chambers of 

 commerce and tourism, and they need 

 to be part of the process. My only 

 stance is, if we're going to do it, do it 

 right." 



The license is an idea that's al- 

 ready caught on in other states. In 

 South Carolina, resident anglers pay 

 $5.50 for a stamp that entitles them to 

 fish in salt water all year. In Florida, 

 the price is $12 for locals. In Virginia, 



local and visiting fishermen pay 

 $7.50. The prices vary from state to 

 state for nonresidents, charter boats, 

 pier fishermen and others. Anglers 

 can also buy a license for just a few 

 days or a few years. 



The payback is twofold, support- 

 ers say. The license revenues give rec- 

 reational anglers a power base from 

 which to voice their views. Currently, 

 sportfishermen say, they're not well 

 represented on the boards and com- 

 missions that manage fisheries. In 

 short, they're not vested players. But 

 dollars and a unified voice would 

 give them the ear of the N.C. Marine 

 Fisheries Commission, they say. 



Also, their money can be used to 

 enhance the fish that they angle for. 

 In Florida, where the license has 

 raised $12 million per year, the state 

 has expanded research on tarpon, 

 snook and spotted sea trout; spent 

 more on artificial reef development; 

 and monitored and assessed stocks of 

 juvenile fisheries. 



But there have been tough lessons 

 learned in every state. When fisher- 

 men start paying for a license, they 

 expect immediate dividends on their 

 investment in the form of better fish- 

 ing. And skeptics fear that taxing fish- 

 ermen would discourage tourism, 

 damage local economies and penalize 

 subsistence fishermen. 



Plus, the state could dump the 

 proceeds into the general fund and 

 spend the money elsewhere. It's hard 

 for the state to invest in a resource 

 that can swim away, says critic John 

 Newbold, a board member of the N.C. 

 Beach Buggy Association. But sup- 

 porters say anglers can guarantee that 

 their money is invested in fisheries by 

 writing the spending formula into law. 



Nearby states are continuing to 

 fine-tune their programs, and North 



Carolina can gain from their experi- 

 ences. For example, each state at 

 the outset wanted the license to 

 measure the impact of recreational 

 fishing on the stocks. But because of 

 wide-reaching exemptions, the system 

 doesn't tell how many anglers are out 

 there, who they are or where they fish. 

 All three states exempt anglers under 

 16 and over 65. Florida exempts fish- 

 ermen on a licensed pier or vessel. 

 Virginia licenses Chesapeake Bay 

 anglers and exempts ocean fishermen. 

 South Carolina exempts shore-based 

 fishermen. The problem might be 

 remedied, however, by licensing all 

 saltwater fishermen and charging only 

 select groups. 



To the criticism that the license 

 would be expensive to implement and 

 enforce, supporters say profits can be 

 used to beef up law enforcement. Still, 

 this could be difficult. In Virginia, an 

 angler can say he was fishing in the 

 ocean if he's questioned about his li- 

 cense. And North Carolina is already 

 pinched with 47 Division of Marine 

 Fisheries officers patrolling its 2.5 mil- 

 lion acres of water. 



Overall, it's important for the pub- 

 lic to understand the costs and benefits 

 of a saltwater license from the outset. 

 And the process should involve every- 

 one: fishermen, business and tourism, 

 piers and charter boat operators. The 

 saltwater license and other recreational 

 fishing issues were discussed by panel- 

 ists and an audience of anglers, scien- 

 tists, policy- makers and businesspeople 

 at the 1993 N.C. Marine Recreational 

 Fishing Forum. This dialogue has been 

 compiled into a booklet that can be 

 ordered through Sea Grant. Write 

 N.C. Sea Grant, Box 8605, N.C. State 

 University, Raleigh, NC 27695, and 

 ask for UNC-SG-93-06. Enclose a 

 check or money order for $3.50. 



24 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1993 



