A big NAY
Too much of the "fee" would be swallowed up in management.
I'd also suggest unless managed correctly (and I doubt it would be) there would be a pilfering off of funds. The dollars would end up in a government slush fund and not just fishing.
Many "groups" and I say that loosely will hold their hand up for a share of the newfound wealth.
No, or very little, policing would take place so very open to abuse.
I'll expand on this one.................
For starters how the hell is anyone going to get caught? Inspectors will need to actually witness the "offence". Just stopping people at the ramp wouldn't work. Unless the person is solo fishing everyone on-board denies they caught the fish. Can't prove who caught what.
How would the wages, boat, fuel, etc be funded? Oh by the licence fee. Nothing left for actual fisheries management.
If anyone was caught without a licence they'd first get a warning WOW what a deterrent, next (see above could be years) a minimal fine that is likely less than the dollars that would have been spent if the person had remained legal and this money would go to the government coppers not back to fishing. After that tie up the system and have judges that think this is a waste of time let them off with a wet bus ticket. Most likely a ban from fishing for a month or two. Take a look at what happens now with way more serious offences than fishing without a licence. So don't think for one minute even 100x more paid fisheries officers using up 99% of the licence fee would be effective.
A lot of people only fish a few times of the year and would be bitter about having to get licences for the family just for the Christmas break etc.
No doubt lots more reasons too but that's what comes to mind for now.
Funds would be better gathered and spent if we could somehow get the average fisherman to join a network.