Originally Posted by Joe Dirt
I’m not trying to benefit from anything without paying for it. If I hadn’t purchased the lifetime license in 89’, I would just suck it up and go on. But in 1989, $300 was a lot of money for my family to purchase me a lifetime license and my buddy who I fish with doesn’t even fish the public reefs, and you can catch all those fish listed on the Reef Endorsement in a lot of different places other than something the state has provided. Just typical government telling you one thing (one time fee for LIFETIME license), and then later telling you that they need more money for you to attempt to catch certain kinds of fish after you’ve paid a bunch of money up front.



The reef license requirement for those like us who have bought a lifetime license is something I don't think would stand up if someone tested it. I can remember that Charles Kelley encouraged us to buy the lifetime license and one reason that he gave was that we would be exempt from any future licenses like this one. I wish I had saved the publication that said that, but I didn't. It's a moot point for me as I am now too old to be required to have it.

GK, it's got nothing to do with being willing to pay for a license; it's about the state selling us a license and then deciding that they aren't going to honor it. It's like selling you an annual hunting license in August and then announcing in March that it won't apply to turkey season; gotta buy a turkey stamp too. Would you be ok with that? The only difference here is the species and the timing.

All they had to do was to grandfather those who had bought a lifetime saltwater license. The fact that they didn't and nothing happened paves the way to add other species that your lifetime license no longer covers. I discussed this with a CAB member 2 years ago and he agreed that it wasn't right and it was going to be corrected. Hasn't happened, and I don't believe it's been discussed.


All the labor of man is for his mouth, and yet the appetite is not filled.