Some of the "proposed" regulation changes seem to indicate that there will be "Reciprocity" with our neighboring states when it comes to fish catches. What exactly does that mean? If New York's season is open by the NMFS approved plan, can we fish in their (NY) waters and legally bring fish back to Ct. during the same time frames, even if our seasons may be closed then? If the different states have not only different catch limits and different size limits, how would this reciprosity apply? I'm not certain what "reciprocity" now means. Does it mean that I can fish anywhere I want without regard to seasons and size limits (as long as they also have a license requirement) or is there something else we need to know here? The idea of a federal license wasn't very appealling, however, it would at least simplify things. I quess the biggest stumbling block in the immediate future is what does reciprocity mean as applied to seasons, limits, size limits, etc. if this legislation passes. I know you guys have been studying this for the last several years, and have even proposed this licensing suggestion in the last few years. Perhaps you can clarify some of the basic points, now that you have had the benefit of experience and the resources you now have at hand. BTW, if affected parties (current fisherman)should have a difference of opinion on how this should proceed, what are their options, and who or what agencies should they would want to address their concerns to? Lastly, (and I know it has taken me a long time to get there), what is the real differences between what we are now going to call "Reciprocity" and what we have encouraged the NMFS to consider as "Regional" fishing regulations. especially where we have several bordering states sharing the same body of water with migratory fish?
You've brought up a bunch of good points. We know that in CT with plenty of time to consider the Federal regulations, the marine license bill was shoved through in one day by both houses of the legislature. There was apparently no cooperation between States. This appears to be a poorly thought out bill to grab fees before the Feds do. Just another way to take $$$ from your pocket and give you less in return.
from my understanding this is the 3rd year that the marine license has been through Hartford. The CTDEP put forth 3 proposals, these proposals went through all kinds of committees being dissected from every angle. What we have in front of us represents a lot of work by all parties concerned. What about the other States. My call on that is they will do the best that they can for their citizens. Do I like all of this, no. and I really don't like the report from the FAC meeting held on Friday either.
#1097209 - 06/16/0912:46 PM
Re: Reciprocity --- What does it really mean?
[Re: edaves]
EnCon Police Moderator
Registered: 03/01/04
Posts: 3899
The only thing that reciprocity applies to is license requirements. All states have reciprocity for motor vehicle registrations and drivers licenses. That is why you can drive through other states without having your vehicle registered there or have a drivers license there. Same deal with boat registrations. Some states, New Hampshire comes to mind, don't have reciprocity (or at least New Hampshire didn't in the past), so they only recognize a boat registered in their state. We run into this with ATVs and snowmobiles. The only states that we have reciprocity with for ATVs are NY, PA and Florida. Snowmobiles are VT and PA.
Reciprocity for fishing (or hunting) means that the other states that are participating will recognize your CT license for use in their waters. It has nothing to do with seasons, it doesn't mean that if NY has a smaller size limit than CT that you can land the smaller fish in CT. You still need to abide by CT creel limits, size limits and all other regulations. Reciprocity is limited specifically to licensing requirements. Think of it along the terms of your drivers license/vehicle registration. If the speed limit is CT is 65 but it's 55 in PA, your CT license won't allow you to drive 65 legally in PA. Conversely, if you are in Montana where there are no speed limits on some roads that doesn't mean you can come back to CT and drive like there is no speed limit. A little simplistic in the explanation, but I think you get where I'm going with it.
The way most of the laws are worded, and I believe the SW license bill is worded the same way, is basically that if they recognize ours then we recognize theirs. If some state decides that they won't recognize a license from CT then we automatically do the same to their state license. The SW license bill may be more specific and state that we only have reciprocity with NY, RI and MA. If that's the case then those are the only states where your CT SW license will be valid.
As far as regional fishing regulations go, I have no idea what is planned, if anything. Seasons, creel limits, size limits, etc. are usually established based on the studies that the biologists do on the fish population and what percentage is available for harvest without depleting the stock. Some states have more fish of different sizes in their waters than we do.
Capt., great job explaining that. Appreciate it. But in all respect, just want to make sure that the New York reciprocity analogy is clear. NY has made it clear that it doesn't grant full reciprocity in the law they currently plan to put on the books. It's detailed and well defined.
To use the driver's license analogy in the comparison case to the saltwater license as the laws are going forward right now...
A New York state police officer would honor the CT driver's license if they're driving in a New York location, town or county, that's contiguous to Fairfield county. That because the state land boundaries abut each other there and only there. If you were caught driving in a county removed from the state boundary, let's say Suffolk, he or she would have cause to issue a citation for failure to be licensed to drive in that state.
I realize you can't speak to NY laws or their enforcement. But this is what I got from the NY DEC... A CT resident fishing NY waters beyond the LIS boundary will need a NY saltwater license.
Not quite reciprocity as it was sold to or expected by CT saltwater fishermen.
Raul, thanks for the info, long and short it seems to say if you pay your state $10 then you don't have to pay the "reciprocating" state another $10. Sounds simple.
Here's an example of what I consider absurdity under the current laws and a situation even crazier under the new and improved laws.
A friend from NY visits me for the weekend in Niantic. We both have a valid marine fishing license from our states, and there is reciprocity. The NY Fluke season is open, but not our own. Being a nice day we leave Niantic to fish Fishers Island for fluke. Once we arrive our licenses are checked and all is in order. We each catch 2 New York keepers and decide to call it a day and head back to Niantic. Upon arrival, we are met by some of CT's finest. We are both given citations, and our catches seized. My citation is for "landing" or possessing a fish during the closed CT season. His is also for "landing" a fish in CT during the closed season.
If I interpret what you have said correctly, even though we were both fishing legally and fully licensed to do so, we are both guilty when we hit the CT dock. That's what I call absurd.
If it's truly to be a fishing license, then in my opinion it should cover fishing, the acts of fishing, the areas fished, etc. If in fact it's really only a "landing license" to make enforcement easier then that's what it should be.
If my example is correct, we were both legally fishing, and both guilty of landing! This type of reciprocity doesn't seem to benefit anyone.
Needless to say I turned down his invitation to fish with him upon the opening of the CT season and the closure of his. It also took away a lot of tourist, tackle shop, bait shop, gas dock and other monies as well. I hope the Gov. thinks about what that new found $10 fee really will mean in terms of lost income not to mention good will.
#1097373 - 06/16/0907:06 PM
Re: Reciprocity --- What does it really mean?
[Re: Mycept]
SouthBound
Member
Registered: 08/01/06
Posts: 7008
Loc: Glastonbury,Ct
Wait dock. No its when you cross the demacation line and are in ct. This whole thing is crazy. Make it a federal season same for all same bag limit. At least get ri ny and ct on the same team. Hey look do an average of the limits 3 here 5 there 6. This makes no sence. Why didnt the state iron this out before they sold them. I got it the other day because I am not sure if I need it or not. It solves alot of questioning.
#1097422 - 06/16/0909:30 PM
Re: Reciprocity --- What does it really mean?
[Re: MyGirl]
EnCon Police Moderator
Registered: 03/01/04
Posts: 3899
Originally Posted By: MyGirl
Raul, thanks for the info, long and short it seems to say if you pay your state $10 then you don't have to pay the "reciprocating" state another $10. Sounds simple.
Here's an example of what I consider absurdity under the current laws and a situation even crazier under the new and improved laws.
A friend from NY visits me for the weekend in Niantic. We both have a valid marine fishing license from our states, and there is reciprocity. The NY Fluke season is open, but not our own. Being a nice day we leave Niantic to fish Fishers Island for fluke. Once we arrive our licenses are checked and all is in order. We each catch 2 New York keepers and decide to call it a day and head back to Niantic. Upon arrival, we are met by some of CT's finest. We are both given citations, and our catches seized. My citation is for "landing" or possessing a fish during the closed CT season. His is also for "landing" a fish in CT during the closed season.
If I interpret what you have said correctly, even though we were both fishing legally and fully licensed to do so, we are both guilty when we hit the CT dock. That's what I call absurd.
If it's truly to be a fishing license, then in my opinion it should cover fishing, the acts of fishing, the areas fished, etc. If in fact it's really only a "landing license" to make enforcement easier then that's what it should be.
If my example is correct, we were both legally fishing, and both guilty of landing! This type of reciprocity doesn't seem to benefit anyone.
Needless to say I turned down his invitation to fish with him upon the opening of the CT season and the closure of his. It also took away a lot of tourist, tackle shop, bait shop, gas dock and other monies as well. I hope the Gov. thinks about what that new found $10 fee really will mean in terms of lost income not to mention good will.
Am I interpreting this correctly?
Yes, you are interpreting it correctly. You cannot land, or possess on the shore or roads adjacent to the shore any fish not of legal length. Now this is where your head will hurt....however, if you catch them in NY waters during CT's closed season and drive home on the LI Expressway, up 684 to 84 and don't drive along the shoreline in CT, then you can legally possess them. (Except Striped Bass, too small is illegal no matter where you caught them, unless they are hybrids.)
Here is the applicable regulation: 26-159a-4. Minimum lengths (a) No person, while on the waters of this state or on any parcel of land, structure, or portion of a roadway abutting tidal waters of this state shall possess or land any fish of the following species taken by sport fishing methods, regardless of where taken, if it is less than the identified length as measured from the tip of the snout to the end of the tail:
If both states (or bordering states) had the same seasons and size requirements it would make things easier for everyone involved. However, those are decision made way higher than my paygrade.
Previous Topic
Index