Would Issuing an Interstate Fishing License Be a Good Idea?

A few months ago, a Los Angeles trout fisherman, Hurst B. Amyx, took his motor home on a leisurely vacation through several western states.

Amyx, 72, saw lots of places to fish but didn’t do much fishing. Many other senior citizens he met at western campgrounds, RV parks, wilderness and roadside camping spots weren’t doing much fishing, either.

“Plain and simple, it’s too expensive,” he said. “If you’re not a legal resident of a state, you have to pay a nonresident’s fee for a fishing license there, and it’s much more expensive than if you lived there.

“And there’s another reason. Most often, if you’re traveling across, say, Wyoming, and come upon a stream where you’d like to fish, the nearest place where you can buy a license is 50 miles away. Or maybe it’s a holiday and there’s no place to buy a license.”

If you haven’t guessed yet, Amyx has a solution--an interstate fishing license.

“If the state wildlife agencies in the western states got together and issued an interstate license for a reduced rate, I’m certain they’d gain more revenues than is now the case,” Amyx says.

The notion of an interstate license has come up before and been rejected by state agencies, for several reasons. A recent Times phone survey of several agencies indicates that nothing has changed, with one exception.

“If someone could show us numbers that would convince us Nevada would gain more revenue by participating in an interstate license program, then we’d seriously consider it,” said Dave Rice of Nevada’s Department of Wildlife. “But right now, my feeling is that anyone who can afford to drive a 50-foot motor home across western America can afford our nonresident fishing license.”

If you live in Nevada, a fishing license costs $14. If you don’t, it’s $30. Californians pay $18.50 for a general fishing license. Nonresidents pay $45.50. To fish in Arizona, Arizonans pay $8, nonresidents $25.50.

Throughout the United States, out-of-state fishermen pay a premium.

Of course, most states have lower-priced nonresident licenses available for a short duration. For $5.50, for example, a nonresident can fish in California for one day.

But in the worst-case scenario--buying nonresident general fishing licenses--a California fisherman on a long trip through Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and Colorado would have to pay $232.50 just for licenses. If he stayed home, he’d pay $18.50.

Amyx proposes that an interstate commission--such as the Pacific Fishery Management Council--be formed, issue the license, direct revenues from interstate license sales to an accounting firm that would then, at year’s end, distribute revenues to participating state agencies on a formula agreeable to all.

Such revenue dispersal occurs now, by the Interior Department, which distributes funds to every state raised from federal excise taxes on fishing equipment, sporting arms, ammunition and archery gear.

“The big picture in all this is not just the added money from fishing license sales, but tourism dollars,” Amyx said. “I’m talking about money fishermen would spend on gasoline, hotels, food and tackle that isn’t being spent now.”

Amyx put his concept on paper several months ago and mailed it to the wildlife agencies of eight western states. Result: One positive response and seven “thanks anyhow” replies.

“A guy from Oregon responded favorably, and said he’d present it to a meeting of western wildlife agency people this year,” Amyx said. “The other states weren’t enthusiastic about it, or reacted negatively. The main reason seemed to be a fear it would mean a net revenue loss, but I’m convinced it simply isn’t so. I believe there are hundreds of thousands of traveling senior citizens who’d buy a $20 or $30 interstate fishing license who presently buy none.”

Some states cooperate in a limited fashion now in licensing. Arizona and Colorado, for example, both issue the same $3 stamp which, when affixed to the license of either state, entitles the holder to fish on the Colorado River.

And both California and Nevada fishing licenses are good anywhere on Lake Tahoe, through which the state line runs.

Spokesmen from several states indicated that an interstate license could result in a backlash against mobs of Californians, splashing about in once seldom-visited waters.

“The territoriality of some states would be a problem,” said Mike Bickler of Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife.

“A lot of Oregon people simply don’t want a lot of out-of-staters coming in, for any reason, let alone fishing waters that they maintain through fishing-license sales. In other words, Californians would buy most of these (proposed) licenses, but Oregon would get most of the pressure.”

Said information officer Mike O’Malley of the Washington Department of Fisheries: “If our commission could be shown a net revenue gain would result, it would seriously consider it. The idea has some appeal. Deep down inside, there might be the kernel of a good idea there. A lot of negatives occur, but if you keep digging--well, the bottom line is it has to be on the plus side revenue-wise, or it’d never fly.”

Bob Fletcher, deputy director of the California Department of Fish and Game, expressed disapproval over the concept, even though of about 2.3 million licenses sold in 1986 only 34,978 were nonresident licenses.

“The numbers don’t add up to me,” Fletcher said. “I’d have to see hard numbers showing a net gain for us before I’d feel comfortable with it.”

Some wildlife agency spokesmen said that differing fishing regulations from state to state would be a problem. All agreed, however, that a catch-and-release-only proviso to the interstate license idea would surmount nearly all of them.

“That would be very useful in terms of selling agencies on the idea,” said Pete Bontadelli, another California DFG deputy director. “When you start talking about a minimal or zero impact on the (fishery) resources, the idea becomes a lot easier to sell.”

Said Dave Rice, the Nevada Department of Wildlife spokesman: “The price of a license is not the limiting factor in fishing licenses today, it’s the tackle. Have you seen what bass plugs cost lately? And besides, why does California owe a Nevada fisherman anything? Or vice versa?”