Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge  

Go Back   Kayak Fishing Adventures on Big Water’s Edge > Kayak Fishing Forum - Message Board > General Kayak Fishing Discussion

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-06-2018, 09:46 AM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 753
IMPORTANT: What would you change about California's fishing license?

What would you like to change about California's fishing license? Make it good for 365 days from the date of purchase? Change the age requirement to 18? Discount it for new or lapsed purchasers? Let me know.

I'm sitting on a DFW R3 (recruit, retain, reactivate) stakeholder subcommittee on licensing. We're looking for YOUR ideas. I feel good about this one. It's a chance to get something back from of the department. They really care about this issue too, because if the current trends continue, they will face severe budget shortfalls in the near future.

I'm also happy to answer questions about R3 too, so fire away. If you're wondering how I got pulled back into fisheries politics, it's a long story, but the short version is the work we did together during the MLPA still resonates with the Department. We earned a lot of respect for our engagement.

Last edited by PAL; 06-06-2018 at 10:00 AM.
PAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 09:50 AM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 434

From date of purchase.
NICKWORN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 09:54 AM   #3
ful-rac's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Buena Park
Posts: 3,650
Would be nice to be able to keep a valid digital copy on your phone.
There's nothing colder than yesterday's hotdog.
ful-rac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 10:01 AM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 753
Thanks guys, good suggestions. Keep 'em coming!
PAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 10:05 AM   #5
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: San Diego
Posts: 55
I like the idea of a license being valid for 365 days from the date of purchase.

Here's a total shot in the dark and possibly an unpopular idea...What about something like a reduced fee license available for people on welfare or are receiving food stamps. The idea being to promote an oppurtunity to give those people a chance to get out there and provide for themselves in some fashion for a little less money.
sdyeti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 10:06 AM   #6
Senior Member
Baja_Traveler's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Table 17, Bay Park Fish Co.
Posts: 915
I once read that there was some study that found California fishing licenses cost 75% more compared to all other states, yet we have some of the highest barriers to fishing (i.e. MLPA's and other closed areas) put in place.

If the state was serious about it they would reduce cost, make it 12 months from purchase and take the politics out of fisheries management and leave it to actual real science, not appointed hacks with agendas.

Unfortunately I don't see the socialist government in this state doing any of that...
Baja_Traveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 11:29 AM   #7
stevie951's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Riverside
Posts: 314
Originally Posted by Baja_Traveler View Post
I once read that there was some study that found California fishing licenses cost 75% more compared to all other states, yet we have some of the highest barriers to fishing (i.e. MLPA's and other closed areas) put in place.
To add to what Kai is saying, I am not sure I have ever seen an MLPA re-opened? So say some incentives like with a fishery population boost, the re-opening of an area? Something to remind us that we are simply not paying the salaries of those making the rules you know but actually having an impact on the fisheries with that $60 a year fee..

"A Reel expert can Tackle anything "

~Malibu Stealth-14
~Malibu X-13
stevie951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 12:22 PM   #8
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 753
In my posts over on Facebook, the idea of a 365-day license is overwhelmingly supported. Some background, there are two bills being considered in the legislature. One, IIRC, adds a 20% fee to the current license price for the privilege. The other, SB518, sets the 365-day license at the same price, but requires optional auto renewal. If you don't choose to auto renew, there's an extra 30% fee.

Which of these, if any, do you support?
PAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 12:27 PM   #9
Senior Member
goldenglory18's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 858
Originally Posted by PAL View Post
The other, SB518, sets the 365-day license at the same price, but requires optional auto renewal.
This is perfect, especially for hardcore anglers that are always licensed. Without reading into the whole bill, I'm 100% into the idea.
goldenglory18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 12:42 PM   #10
Senior Member
Denis_Ruso's Avatar
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Malibu, CA
Posts: 564
I'd be up for an additional recreational license to fish the MPAs. Gladly pay an extra 50-60$ a year.

Also I've always though that the year from date of purchase was a no-brainer. Would incentivize people to purchase the yearly license throughout the year rather than waiting for January. I don't see the need to raise the fee as you would already have an increase of participants.
2015 Hobie Revo 13

I do not fear the storm as it will teach me how to sail my ship.
Denis_Ruso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 12:58 PM   #11
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 220
if part of the problem is a budget short fall then consider decreasing out of state fees to attract tourist.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
battleborn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 12:58 PM   #12
Currently @ MLO Territory
wiredantz's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Under the Shadow
Posts: 2,289
These are my personal ideas and might be controversial but here they go:

#1 I believe having a 365 fishing license is a bad idea, because I already detest fish game invading my plastic bathtub/ checking my vessel for any possible contraband. I literally have had them block me with their 60ft vessel... yell at me from 2 stories up to show them my fishing contract in a demeaning voice.... IM IN A PLASTIC BATHTUB what harm can I do! They also like to stare at you like hawks with binoculars, so that you feel uncomfortable fishing or waiting till your commit a crime on one of their statues.

Having one type of fishing license is easy to distinguish... and the faster Fish and games/ fish and wildlife mafia molests my rights and gets out of my space so I can continue fishing in peace the better. I like to get out and fish to get away from the city... Solitude is good sometimes


What I would not mind paying for... is for fish hatcheries... I want to make sure our money is going to Fish Farms that replenish our ocean fish/fish structures... Trout Farms... And not overly paid Senate Members that have their own agendas....


having a digital copy is a good idea.. but one could easily make one up. The only way to prove that a digital copy is authentic is for fish and game to have a current database where they can prove that you have a fishing contract that is active.... Which most often they are unable to authenticate because there is no signal where we are at....

Since the state has presumed that they have full control of the ocean waters and the fish that dwell on it. I don't feel that a fishing license/contract should be a money making scheme... I feel that fishing population should be protected for many generation after us.

Rules are for the protection of the fish and the fishery... It should not be a money making scheme like traffic tickets.

# 4

This one might be controversial, but it is just an idea..

I do like paying for trusted privileges...

For example: global entry, tsa pre-check...

what about trusted fishing privileges.

Maybe a special color on your Fishing License meaning you obey the laws are a trusted individuals has not committed any violations.... They see that color fishing license.... they don't even bother you... might be far fetched.... a special sticker you can attach to your fishing vessel maybe

but I just put it out there as an idea.

# 5

I know many small countries that do not have fishing licenses/ contacts, but they do enforce the season that fish can be kept. The Fines are heavy and there is jail time. I personally believe there are ways to protect the fish with out making people sign a contract to fish. Granted we are not a small country, we are in fact large cities with huge populations: even more so we should be able to contribute to fish replenishments and habitats for our local fish.

I think I'm way off topic. now..
Anyways not looking to start a war on words... just a fisherman idea on legal issues

This one has nothing to do with Fishing License Contract:

# A I also would like special fishing license plates that specifically contribute to fishing farms and fishing structures for our lakes and oceans. I know we have that fishing whale tale... but I want one strictly for fish replenishment.

Team: OKFD
Dream big... Live Big.... Super Size it...

Last edited by wiredantz; 06-06-2018 at 01:23 PM.
wiredantz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 02:01 PM   #13
Senior Member
Ggiannig89's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: El Cajon
Posts: 440
I do like the 365 license because there’s plenty of casual fisherman who would probably buy the year license over the 1 say license to not have to hassle with a license every time they go out.
Maybe it would be cool to have an added tally chart on the back for a species of personal preference between a few different fish to better keep an eye on populations and mail in? Similar to lobster cards. (I know I hate mailing my lobster card) but I’d love it if it was an optional feature that can be printed on the back only if you wanted.
Ggiannig89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 03:15 PM   #14
Tomol's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 13
One fish limit year round, or a yearly total limit on white seabass.
Tomol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 03:49 PM   #15
Iceman's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 1-2 miles off the point
Posts: 6,842
We used to fish a casual jackpot Jan 1 every year to start the year off right..........I fish about once a week..........a buck a pop ain't too bad.

I am going up to WA next week and spending $60 for 3 of us to fish one day and am not complaining about that either.
Iceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 04:11 PM   #16
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placentia, North O.C.
Posts: 16
A break for us old guys

I just became a resident of Colorado and after six months my license is only $1.00 a year. Fishermen 65 and older get a big break. But I will miss the saltwater.

rodbuster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 04:37 PM   #17
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,313
I like the idea of a 365 license, but it would not matter to me personally. The automatic renewal would not be a problem for me either. What I don't want to see is the state trying to generate general fund revenues off of unwarranted fees attached to licenses. I don't see it costing the state 20% more to issue a fishing license on June 14th than it does on Jan 1? The only reason that they are entertaining the ideas is the possibility of increased revenue. They should be happy that more occasional fishermen will opt for the yearly over the short term, if they have a full year left. That is not likely to happen if they charge 20% more.
GregAndrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 05:12 PM   #18
BRTF...bought & paid...
Tman's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,247
I'll chime in on this...

First, thanks again Paul for your hard work

1. 365 days from date of purchase.
2. Minimum 10% discount for veterans and seniors, 55 or 65 and older, they already paid their dues.
3. Raise age to 18, instead of 16 to require a license.
4. Any future MLPA meetings be held in the area that they are proposing, i.e., if it's about San Diego, hold it in San Diego, not way up north (some of you know what I mean). Allow those who will be affected to attend.
5. Any future MLPA meetings, the 'esteemed' BRTF pay their lodgings and food. (I know, reaching on that one).
6. Discounts on those who have had licenses renewed yearly, say, 10 year minimum. Or, offer a discount for multi-year purchases.
7. MLPA review with scientific proof, not influenced by non-fishers, yearly. Surely they are already conducting these researches. Not their 5-year rule.

Some good ideas here that I agree with...

Gaffer for Clay the Fishcatcher
Tman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 05:38 PM   #19
Senior Member
tacmik's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: East County
Posts: 887
Good arguments for both year round and end of year license. How about this. license good until the end of the year but every quarter of the year, the price is reduced.
Also by dropping the price to begin with, more people would consider buying a license. As it stands, every time they raise the price, they sell less licenses. More people buying, higher the revenue.
Heroes on the Water
San Diego Chapter
Equipment Manager
tacmik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2018, 06:37 PM   #20
Senior Member
skrilla's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 585
1. 365

2. A license card you can swipe instead of a 10ft long piece of receipt paper.

3. Or adopt Hawaii's regs... no license required for recreational saltwater fishing.
OK Trident 13 - OK Prowler 13T

For Sale: Prowler 13... MAKE OFFER!
skrilla is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 2002 Big Water's Edge. All rights reserved.