Senior Fishing License

Hello everyone, since this post hasn't been responded to in some time we are closing this out. Please feel free to start a new thread if needed. Thank you!

Elizabeth
Marcus Rapid Response Team

The states will never go for it.

As full-timers each year we'd pick a state to spend a good chunk of time (2-4 months) and buy our annual license. It worked for us. No, we didn't fish year-round but it was enough for us.

what I like about Oregon is after you turn 65 they give you a free hunting and fishing lic. just have to pay for tags.

Even more reason to stay in private RV parks with their own ponds. There, park siteholders can fish with out any kind of state or federal license.

westernrvparkowner wrote:
the cost is not much of a factor to most people.

Maybe not to people with big incomes, and those that have more than they know what to do with, but there are LOTS of us old Far-- out here that are existing on fixed incomes, and would just like to better enjoy our remaining years. Many of us really like to spend an afternoon drowning worms outside our campsite, but can't afford to pay double or triple fees for one or two afternoons in each state we travel. A non-resident two or three day permit can and usually does cost more than a waterside campsite. So, all we can do is sit there in the shade without a fishing pole, and thumb our noses at all those that wish they had our site to fish from. A few years ago, I don't know if they still do, if you were a registered camper in a Texas state park with a lake, you could fish from the bank without a license.

PennyPA wrote:
In most of the states, the money from licenses goes to the Fish and Wildlife departments. I still say it's better to get some money than no money. If states choose not to join the program, that's their prerogative.

This is the same argument I see all the time about RV site fees. It isn't that simple. If you cut the fees in half, you would need to sell twice as many licenses to get exactly the same amount of money. The number of people who do not buy an out of state fishing license but would if the price was $25 instead of $50 is probably a very small percentage. I seriously doubt a state would sell 10% more licenses with lower fees and can see no way they would double the number of licenses sold and if they don't double sales, overall revenues would go down. Fishing license fees are just not a significant part of a travel budget. People are either going to buy one or not, the cost is not much of a factor to most people.

In most of the states, the money from licenses goes to the Fish and Wildlife departments. I still say it's better to get some money than no money. If states choose not to join the program, that's their prerogative.

PennyPA wrote:
That's nice, Bob, but not everyone can afford the outrageous prices non-residents are charged...we, for two. There are very few states that don't have a fishing license requirement and personally, I think the states would be glad to get the lower rate (and I seriously doubt any other rates would have to go up) rather than no rate at all.

You are going to have a hard time convincing people you can afford to travel to the state, yet can't afford the fishing license. I know in Montana all the license fees stay with the Fish and Wildlife department to administer their programs that include things like fishing accesses and hunting accesses and well as funding for the game wardens who protect those fish and animals from poachers so they are there for everyone to enjoy. Like another person said, if you cut the revenue from license fees they either have to get it from someplace else or services get cut. At least a license fee is linked directly to the activity the funds support. I like that.

That's nice, Bob, but not everyone can afford the outrageous prices non-residents are charged...we, for two. There are very few states that don't have a fishing license requirement and personally, I think the states would be glad to get the lower rate (and I seriously doubt any other rates would have to go up) rather than no rate at all.

Drop the State revenue in one place (non-resident fishing licenses) and it's bound to cause an increase someplace else to make up the difference. Maybe camping fees in State campgrounds go up as a result? They may not go up as much as the cost of a non-resident fishing license, but not everyone who camps also fishes.

In some States this would never fly, like Alaska. If I remember correctly seniors there don't have a license requirement and non-resident licenses are a big part of the State revenue with the sport fishing during the tourist season. A lot of the tourists who come to fish are retired.

Personally I don't mind paying for those things I use and not paying (either directly or indirectly) for those things I don't.