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.

[tight rope walker]

First and foremost I am old enough to pick my battles thank you. When I was 13 I wrote a letter to the editor of the Middletown press complaing of water quality in connecticut. That was a long long time ago, and I knew what to do back then.

The money that was won from the tobacco companies was supposed to be used to help people stop smoking. Look on the web site and see where all that money went.

I believe it was in New Bedford Massachusetts, at a public forum where a old time commercial fisherman was quoted as saying," we should be ashamed of our selves for what we have done to the fishing stocks".

The Connecticut saltwater fishing license started out at ten dollars then quickly went to 20.
Why?

But you still did not answer my question, why don't you move back here and solve all our problems? As you seem to have all the answers.

I would like to get you in a room of old timers, so you could hear for yourself what the fisherman themselves are saying.

Finally, how do you know what species of fish a fisherman would like to catch? Pound for pound, a bluefish will out fight a striper any day of the week.

And if you were old enogh to follow the saga of the sriped bass, you would know that at one time they were on the brink. The only reason they have come back as they have is because commercial fisherman can not take them. And the only reason there are so many in Connecticut is because they are not as many migrating to the Chesapeake anymore, but deciding to stay here instead.

If you go up the Thames river, up to Norwich, even in the dead of winter, you will find them stacked up in the harbor. This is public knowledge and has been on many fishing shows.

When you have a modern, efficient, fishing fleet, that is in business to turn a profit at any cost, it's hard for me to wrap myself around the idea that that recreational rod and reel fisherman had anything to do with where we are now.

Or do you consider the individual who goes out to cut a couple of trees down to heat his house, on the same page as the company who clears thousands of acres?

[smellzlikefish]

How old do you think I am? I know what Connecticut fishermen are targeting because I grew up one. I was fishing for stripers at their lowest, and I know darn well how a bluefish fights. BTW, any Connecticut rodsman worth his salt knows a false albacore or bonito could kick a bluefish's butt in a tug of war any day. I have fished for those Thames river stripers. A few schoolies may hold over through the winter, but very few keepers are caught because they are all in Chesapeake Bay. I used to use light spinning tackle for the over-winter fish. There are still commercial guys targeting stripers, just not in Connecticut. I also know that striper populations follow natural sin-wave cycles on the frequency of decades indirectly proportional to the bluefish.

I think you are ignoring very important aspects of my argument so I will try to type this as slowly and clearly as possible. The commercial guys are to blame, as are the recreational fishermen. Keep in mind there are far more recreational anglers out there than commercial guys. I am well aware of the effects of commercial fishing and have heard it straight from the fisher's mouths before. I have also seen the annual catch reports, and read through the peer-reviewed analyses. The fish the commercial guys don't get, that's what the recreational fishermen are after. You don't see factory boats at the race and you certainly don't see longliners/draggers anywhere near the shallow water refuges that many fish resort to.

Why don't I go back to Connecticut? I do. Regularly. I'll be there soon in fact. For now, I've set up permanence elsewhere.

I'm old enough to know that pointing fingers at everyone else gets nothing accomplished. If everyone accepted their part and took action to reduce their harm, the fisheries wouldn't be in such a mess right now. I stopped fishing because I knew that being able to reliably catch and release 20+ bluefish or stripers (take your pick) was terrible for the population. The fish were released stressed, sometimes foul-hooked, and I did take a few home for dinner. If I was the only fisherman out there, the populations could handle it, but I realized how many others were fishing like I was. Recreational fishing has certainly hurt other places, why is Connecticut immune?

[tight rope walker]

I never want it to be said that I am not a fair person. So in turn I am going to type this as fast as I can.

First, if you read anything I have said previous, you would have noticed I stated I would applaud any solution that would bring back the species I have mentioned. I just don't believe the salt water fishing license is the answer. And whether you and I like that answer, I am afraid most of the middle class people I encounter agree. Perhaps professional people have a different take. But most of the people I encounter go fishing to supplement their food source, as I do.

The fish I decide to keep end up on the table, if not they are returned to the water.

You can fish right now in Connecticut without a saltwater fishing license. Aside from age restrictions, all you need do is get on a party boat or charter. No license required.

To imply that, just because a group uses a resource they are partly responsible for it's decline, is going out on a limb.

I have never caught a false albacore ( not for lack of trying ) so I can not attest as how they fight. Remember I caught two blue fish last year, and they were in Rhode Island and released.

To imply the letter I wrote to the press was " sweet ", is just plain cruel and mean.

So based on that I will venture a guess that you are in you mid thirties and a professional person.

Also to show that I am a fair person, the next time you come back to Connecticut to vacation, please email me in advance so that I may pick you up at the airport and drive you to where you want to go.

I am sure we will have a lot to talk about.

[tight rope walker]

I may have been a little hasty in judging your age.

So, as not to offend anybody, I would now say late twenties early thirties.

Unless of course I was right the first time.