NJ Senate to Hear Saltwater Registry Debate

[Leif]

NJ Senate to Hear Saltwater Registry Debate:
RFA-NJ In Trenton This Week to Testify

On Thursday, December 3 at 10 a.m., the New Jersey Senate Environment Committee will meet in Room 10 on the third floor of the State House Annex in Trenton. At the top of the day's hearing agenda is Senate Bill 2194 sponsored by Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May) and co-sponsored by Sen. Christopher "Kip" Bateman (R-Somerset), a bill which create a free recreational saltwater registry in New Jersey in order to comply with new federal fisheries guidelines for data collection.

As written S2194 would specifically direct the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in consultation with the Marine Fisheries Council, to establish and implement a registry program for saltwater recreational anglers modeled on the registry program to be established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

This bill specifies that the State cannot charge a fee for registration under this program, and also directs the DEP Commissioner to apply to the federal National Marine Fisheries Service for "exempted state designation" so that New Jersey's saltwater anglers do not have to participate in the national registry of saltwater anglers.

As reported in last Wednesday's Atlantic City Press, State Sen. Jeff Van Drew is rallying support for a proposal to establish a free state registry for saltwater fishermen, a bid which would keep state fishermen from having to pay federal fee in 2011.

"The people of New Jersey are being taxed and fee'd to death," Van Drew told the AC Press on November 25. "The least we can do is give them a chance to do a little saltwater fishing without having to pay another fee for the privilege." Van Drew said he opposed a fee out of fear that future lawmakers would raid the fund, and explained that putting forth a free saltwater registry could help boost coastal tourism by not charging a fee to those who come to New Jersey in order to fish.

Van Drew who is vice chairman of the Senate Environment Committee proposed the legislation in October 2008. An Assembly version of the saltwater registry legislation has already been passed successfully out of the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee in a unanimous vote, though that bill (A3252) is now resting with the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Van Drew has indicated that Senate Committee chairman, Sen. Bob Smith (D-Somerset) would prefer to see anglers pay the administrative costs associated with such a registry program, which is estimated to run at $1 to $2 per person.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance supports Sen. Van Drew's effort to establish a free registry, and is asking RFA-NJ chapter members to make plans to be in Trenton on Thursday at 10 a.m. in support of the S2194. "We would really like to see the state do what Senator Van Drew wants to do," said RFA Executive Director Jim Donofrio. "We all agree the registry should be free. This should not used to fund the Division of Fish and Wildlife, it should be about getting better data to do better science and research. This is not the time to be taxing people."

RFA-NJ and RFA-PA members who would like to see New Jersey set an example for other "license-free" states are encouraged to get to the State House early on Thursday to show your support of the registry legislation. The State House is located at 125 West State Street in Trenton, NJ 08625. Metered, on-street parking is available along West State Street, while there are several pay lots located within walking distance. Handicap parking is available in the parking garage and on West State Street in front of the State House and Annex and across the street from the State House.

On July 30, the Senate Environment Committee and Assembly Environment and Solid Waste Committee held a public hearing in Forked River to hear testimony from the public and invited witnesses on the impact in New Jersey of the new federal saltwater registry. Click here to read the official transcript (registry testimony begins on page 115.)

While there was no open opposition to the registry legislation at the July 30 hearing, it's expected that handful of registry opponents will be in Trenton on December 3 to speak out against Sen. Van Drew's legislation, including representatives from the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs (Federation). According to the Atlantic City Press, Ed Markowski, Southern Region Vice President of the Federation said his group is backing a fee to help support what he called the "grossly underfunded" state Bureau of Marine Fisheries.

Saltwater anglers in New Jersey who are passionate about the future of this important registry legislation are encouraged to join the RFA-NJ chapter in Trenton on Thursday.


New York Legislators Look to Repeal Saltwater License

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer announces plans to repeal the saltwater license in New York in place of a 'free' saltwater registry, while RFA's Jim Hutchinson looks on.

Click here to read more about New York's saltwater license problems and the efforts by Long Island legislators to repeal the "onerous" fee.

Photo by Joel Lucks (www.JoelLucks.com)



About Recreational Fishing Alliance
The Recreational Fishing Alliance is a national, grassroots political action organization representing recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation's saltwater fisheries. For more information, visit www.joinrfa.org.

[Kensdock]

I hope the Honorable Senator Van Drew will take a closer look at the salt water license issue. The fear that the money raised from a salt water license will be raided by the Governor is not justified. A salt water license can not be compared to dedicated accounts like the arts or the beach replenishment. Money collected from a salt water license is protected by Federal law. The money from the salt water license would be matched by federal funds. The money raised through NJ hunting and fresh water licenses has never been used for anything other that fish and wildlife in over ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Noaa reported salt water angler numbers alone at one million four hundred thousand! Depending on the price of a saltwater license the NJ salt water license would raise about 40,000,000.00 dollars annually to enhance our salt water fishing. We could build the salt water hatcheries, create green jobs and ensure the future of our salt water game fish. The alterative is we keep the statuesque and our salt water fishing will continue to decline. Charter boats, Tackle shops and salt water guides service will cotinue to go bankrupt!

[Kensdock]

New Jersey had no shot at this money due to the fact we have no salt water license!

Saltwater hatcheries seek part of stimulus package






It’s unknown whether President Barack Obama has ever cast a gold spoon at a school of tailing redfish on a shallow Florida grassflat.

But one day, his signature could ensure that millions of future anglers enjoy a better chance to experience that sportfishing thrill.

The Florida Marine Fisheries Enhancement Initiative is a public-private partnership working to sustain one of Florida’s largest industries — recreational fishing.

Recreational fishing in Florida nets the state more than $5 billion a year and maintains more than 130,000 jobs. A whopping 39 percent of all the saltwater fishing in the United States takes place in Florida waters and the number of anglers coming to Florida to fish each year is increasing by 7 percent, according to figures researched by the Wildlife Foundation of Florida.

The initiative contends the construction of a network of seven saltwater hatcheries spread around the state will help sustain those jobs and will continue to maintain Florida as the nation’s No. 1 saltwater fishing destination.

A proposal to secure almost $150 million in funding for this effort has been submitted to Congress, as well as to Gov. Charlie Crist’s office.

The money requested would come from Obama’s stimulus package through the state Legislature.

Brett Boston of the Wildlife Foundation of Florida believes the proposal will be well received at the state and federal levels.

“We did our homework and we’re ready for this money,” Boston said. “We already have the property, we have bright colorful people who know hatcheries and we have the partnerships.”

Boston said seven hatcheries are needed because Florida has 1,365 miles of coastline and varied ecosystems. Plus many popular game fish, such as redfish and snook, have slightly different genetics in east coast and west coast waters.

Boston said 3,129 immediate construction jobs would benefit local economies near hatchery sites.

Upon completion, 169 permanent green jobs would exist in the form of biologists and other hatchery personnel.

Three facilities will be on or near the Treasure Coast — Florida Institute of Technology’s Vero Beach Marine Laboratory, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic University in Fort Pierce and 3 miles north of Sebastian Inlet is the Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute.

At a cost of $18.1 million, the plan would add a 10-acre saltwater fish stock enhancement center to Harbor Branch’s 20 acres of existing fish-rearing facilities, said Megan Davis, Harbor Branch director for aquaculture and stock enhancement. The facility would be able to raise and release 7 million fingerling

redfish into Florida’s estuaries and bays. An estimated 400 construction jobs and 12 permanent jobs would be generated there.

The Vero Beach Marine Enhancement Center on 5 acres would create 248 construction jobs, 16 permanent jobs and would cost $10.8 million. East and west coast broodstock would be raised there to produce millions of larvae for transport to facilities like Harbor Branch, Hubbs SeaWorld and New Smyrna Beach.

GOALS OF THE INITIATIVE

• Florida will provide global leadership in marine fisheries enhancement, via production, habitat restoration and adaptive management of enhancement and restoration impact.

• Maintain a balance of genetic quality and marine enhancement center output.

• The best available science will drive the production and enhancement processes. Knowledge gained will be applied to increase efficiencies and marine enhancement center output and effectiveness.

• To focus on viable production of recreational fish in the most cost-effective manner possible.

GREEN JOBS

• The construction of these hatcheries would produce “green” jobs, including biologists, habitat restoration specialists and research positions.

• They would be high end science-related jobs and the people would be working there long term helping to sustain what is a $5 billion resource for the State of Florida

• Partnerships with universities link these jobs to environmental managers. The strategy is to create our own long term industry

•To learn more visit Support Florida Sportfish

Source: Brett Boston of the Wildlife Foundation of Florida

FISHING IN FLORIDA

• Commercial and recrea´tional fishing generated more than $185 billion in sales and supported more than 2 million jobs in 2006

• Recreational fishing generated 131,000 jobs in Florida and $7.6 billion in sales

• Texas was a distant sec´ond with $2.2 billion in sales and 34,000 jobs

• Commercial fishing in Florida accounts for $5.2 billion in sales and 103,000 jobs, second only to California with $9.8 billion and 179,000 jobs.

Source: Fisheries Economics of the U.S., 2006,

[CaptTB]

The money from the salt water license would be matched by federal funds.

Wrong, it is not a dollar for dollar matching fund. Perhaps you need to learn a bit about Wallop-Breaux. Here is a little tidbit for you: "“Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1952 (Sport Fishing and Boating Enhancement Fund or the Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund): This fund is derived from fees, taxes, and duties imposed on (recreational) fishing equipment, (non-commercial) motorboat fuel, imported watercraft, and fishing tackle. The revenues are allocated to the States, on a formula basis, and are used to protect natural resources and enhance recreational (fishing and boating) opportunities for millions of Americans. " NJ already receives Wallop-Breaux funds, but yes it would receive more funds if the number of registered anglers was greater. Difference is the "federal funds" would not "match" the money from a salt water license. Accuracy Ken, you need to be able to support what you say, and to date you cannot.

Noaa reported salt water angler numbers alone at one million four hundred thousand!Now now Ken, we already discussed this in another thread. You continue to use the highest number on record, even though it is from the year 2007. You said that you had seen that number quoted in the past and that was why you used it. Yet, after being corrected on the accuracy of the number and told that the more recent number from NOAA is some 200,000 anglers lower, you continue to use only that one.

Let's try and be both accurate AND current with our data shall we?


Depending on the price of a saltwater license the NJ salt water license would raise about 40,000,000.00 dollars annually to enhance our salt water fishing. That number has also been proven false. If you bothered to ask the state itself (or even bothered to read any of the numerous FACTS and ECONOMIC STATISTICS FROM STATES WITH LICENSES you'd know that number is a lie, unless you charged several hundred dollars per person.

Even the state of NC, which by the way is estimated by NOAA to have more anglers than NJ, gets a fraction of the number you post as being possible for NJ.

Facts Ken, not rhetoric or supposition. You've already shown in the other thread that you have nothing but Grimm's Fairy Tales to back up your statistics, let's try to be accurate shall we?

Charter boats, Tackle shops and salt water guides service will cotinue to go bankrupt!
yes, and we all know how concerned you are for those in the industry based on your comments here and elsewhere.

[Kensdock]

Capt.TB, Please, I said ABOUT 1.4 million anglers,as you know the number swings from 800,000- 1.4 million NJ anglers depending on the year. No it is not a dollar for dollar match, New Jersey Anglers have lost about 100 million dollars of their far share of the funds due to the fact that New Jersey lacks a salt water license. Just this last year we lost millions of dollars in stimulus money and all the benefits to salt water fishing that went with it. Please read the earlier post in this thread. Please take a look at states like Florida,SC and others that have had a Salt water fishing license in place for a minute.You will find excellent fishing and economic benefits that you will not find in NJ!! Why, because they have invested wisely in their recreation fishing resource via a salt water license. I am not surprised that the recreational fishing alliance {RFA}is opposed to a New Jersey salt water license as they always go for short term economic gain. It is time for New Jersey Anglers to invest in the future by supporting a salt water license. As the polls indicate NJ anglers would not mind kicking in a few dollars to improve their salt water fishing.

[Kensdock]

Here is the law:
Any State fish and wildlife agency desiring to avail itself of the benefits of the Acts shall notify the Secretary within 60 days after it has received a certificate of apportionment of funds available to the State. Notification to the Secretary may be accomplished by either of the following methods. In either method, the document must be signed by a State official authorized to commit the State to participation under the Act(s).
(a) Submitting to the regional director within the 60-day period a letter stating the desire of the State to participate in the Act(s); or,
(b) Having an approved Application for Federal Assistance which contains plans for the use of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program funds during the period of the apportionment.
[47 FR 22539, May 25, 1982, as amended at 73 FR 43128, July 24, 2008]

§ 80.10 State certification of licenses.

(a) To ensure proper apportionment of Federal funds, the Service requires that each director of a State fish and wildlife agency:
(1) Specify a license certification period that:
(i) Is 12 consecutive months in length;
(ii) Is either the State’s fiscal year or license year;
(iii) Is consistent from year to year; and
(iv) Ends no less than 1 year and no more than 2 years before the beginning of the Federal fiscal year that the apportioned funds first become available for expenditure;
(2) Obtain the Director’s approval before changing the State-specified license certification period; and
(3) Annually provide to the Service the following data:
(i) The number of persons who hold paid licenses that authorize an individual to hunt in the State during the State-specified license certification period; and
(ii) The number of persons who hold paid licenses that authorize an individual to fish in the State during the State-specified license certification period.
(b) When counting persons holding paid hunting or fishing licenses in a State-specified license certification period, a State fish and wildlife agency must abide by the following requirements:
(1) The State may count all persons who possess a paid license that allows the licensee to hunt or fish for sport or recreation. The State may not count persons holding a license that allows the licensee only to trap animals or only to engage in commercial activities.
(2) The State may count only those persons who possess a license that produced net revenue of at least $1 per year returned to the State after deducting costs directly associated with issuance of the license. Examples of such costs are agents’ or sellers’ fees and the cost of printing, distribution, and control.
(3) The State may count persons possessing a single-year license (one that is legal for less than 2 years) only in the State-specified license certification period in which the license was purchased.
(4) The State may count persons possessing a multiyear license (one that is legal for 2 years or more) in each State-specified license certification period in which the license is legal, whether it is legal for a specific or indeterminate number of years, only if:
(i) The net revenue from the license is in close approximation with the number of years in which the license is legal, and
(ii) The State fish and wildlife agency uses statistical sampling or other techniques approved by the Director to determine whether the licensee remains a license holder.
(5) The State may count persons possessing a combination license (one that permits the licensee to both hunt and fish) with:
(i) The number of persons who hold paid hunting licenses in the State-specified license certification period, and
(ii) The number of persons who hold paid fishing licenses in the same State-specified license certification period.
(6) The State may count persons possessing multiple hunting or fishing licenses (in States that require or permit more than one license to hunt or more than one license to fish) only once with:
(i) The number of persons who hold paid hunting licenses in the State-specified license certification period, and
(ii) The number of persons who hold paid fishing licenses in the same State-specified license certification period.
(c) The director of the State fish and wildlife agency must provide the certified information required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to the Service by the date and in the format that the Director specifies. If the Director requests it, the director of the State fish and wildlife agency must provide documentation to support the accuracy of this information. The director of the State fish and wildlife agency is responsible for eliminating multiple counting of single individuals in the information that he or she certifies and may use statistical sampling or other techniques approved by the Director for this purpose.
(d) Once the Director approves the certified information required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the Service must not adjust the numbers if such adjustment would adversely impact any apportionment of funds to a State fish and wildlife agency other than the agency whose certified numbers are being adjusted. However, the Director may correct an error made by the Service.
[73 FR 43128, July 24, 2008]

nd 179,000 jobs.

[Taxman]

This is New Jersey we are talking about. When all is said and done, they will find it cost $12 to collect a $10 fee

[Reelron]

To get back on track for a minute, is anyone from the Middletown/Red Bank area going to this meeeting? Is this something we should have a presence at?

[Leif]

Ron,

From the original post....

The Recreational Fishing Alliance supports Sen. Van Drew's effort to establish a free registry, and is asking RFA-NJ chapter members to make plans to be in Trenton on Thursday at 10 a.m. in support of the S2194. "We would really like to see the state do what Senator Van Drew wants to do," said RFA Executive Director Jim Donofrio. "We all agree the registry should be free. This should not used to fund the Division of Fish and Wildlife, it should be about getting better data to do better science and research. This is not the time to be taxing people."

RFA-NJ and RFA-PA members who would like to see New Jersey set an example for other "license-free" states are encouraged to get to the State House early on Thursday to show your support of the registry legislation. The State House is located at 125 West State Street in Trenton, NJ 08625. Metered, on-street parking is available along West State Street, while there are several pay lots located within walking distance. Handicap parking is available in the parking garage and on West State Street in front of the State House and Annex and across the street from the State House.

[Kensdock]

This bill will keep NJ in step with its reputation for investing in short term economic solutions. It will not provide the smart investment in the future of salt water fishing that a salt water license will provide.

[Leif]

This bill will keep NJ in step with its reputation for investing in short term economic solutions. It will not provide the smart investment in the future of salt water fishing that a salt water license will provide.
Kensdock,
Thanks for sharing your opinion. But that is what is it...opinion. Let the people go and decide. I would rather base my decision or support on what organizations like the RFA or SSFFF think. No organization is perfect and I don't agree with every single issue but I believe their information and direction is based on reality, facts and and years of hands on experience.
That is my opinion.

Leif

[Kensdock]

I you have formed your own opinion. I hope all NJ recreational fishermen take a few minutes and do the same. Here is the results of todays poll.


Thank you, we have already counted your vote.
NJ salt water license with a law dedicating the funds to enhance nj fishing 91% (53 votes)

Set up the mandated registry with the funds going to the us general fund 9% (5 votes)

Total Votes: 58
Return To Poll
PollDaddy.com

[Leif]

RFA-NJ ACTION ALERT - Thursday, December 3 at 10 a.m.
Saltwater Registry Hearing In Trenton

Anglers are reminded to take part in this week's meeting of the NJ Senate Envionrment Committee on Thursday, December 3 at 10 a.m. in Room 10 on the third floor of the State House Annex in Trenton. On the agenda is Senate Bill 2194 sponsored by Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May) and co-sponsored by Sen. Christopher "Kip" Bateman (R-Somerset), a bill which would create a free recreational saltwater registry in New Jersey to comply with new federal fisheries guidelines for data collection.

As written S2194 would specifically direct the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in consultation with the Marine Fisheries Council, to establish and implement a registry program for saltwater recreational anglers modeled on the registry program to be established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). New federal registry requirements will take effect on January 1, 2010.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance supports efforts to establish a free registry, and we're asking that RFA-NJ and RFA-PA members to make plans to be in Trenton on Thursday morning to showsupport. "We would really like to see the state do what Senator Van Drew wants to do," said RFA Executive Director Jim Donofrio.

The State House is located at 125 West State Street in Trenton, NJ 08625. Metered, on-street parking is available along West State Street, while there are several pay lots located within walking distance. Handicap parking is available in the parking garage and on West State Street in front of the State House and Annex and across the street from the State House.

For more information, visit the New Jersey Legislature homepage at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/.



About Recreational Fishing Alliance
The Recreational Fishing Alliance is a national, grassroots political action organization representing recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation's saltwater fisheries. For more information, visit www.joinrfa.org.

[Leif]

I you have formed your own opinion. I hope all NJ recreational fishermen take a few minutes and do the same. Here is the results of todays poll.


Thank you, we have already counted your vote.
NJ salt water license with a law dedicating the funds to enhance nj fishing 91% (53 votes)

Set up the mandated registry with the funds going to the us general fund 9% (5 votes)

Total Votes: 58
Return To Poll
PollDaddy.com

Perfect! I recommend that you apply for a job at MRFSS. You are right in line with their data collecting standards.

Leif

[High low]

Just my 2 cents as I look through my crystal ball, but I see a replay of this with a fee based saltwater license.

http://www.hrfanj.org/cgi-bin/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=3&TopicID=2215

My vote goes for a free registry, I'm guessing, like most NJ fishermen.

[CaptTB]

I you have formed your own opinion. I hope all NJ recreational fishermen take a few minutes and do the same. Here is the results of todays poll.


Thank you, we have already counted your vote.
NJ salt water license with a law dedicating the funds to enhance nj fishing 91% (53 votes)

Set up the mandated registry with the funds going to the us general fund 9% (5 votes)

Total Votes: 58
Return To Poll
PollDaddy.com
You are too funny.

Talk about false statistics! Talk about a loaded poll!!!!

I notice you did not put the option in about having a free registry or having a "no cost" registry with simply a fee to cover administration costs to the state, even though those arethe two options that were offered.

We have a bill in the Senate that is for a free registry, and you know (because I and others told you ourselves) that the division was offered the option to have ALL of their costs associated with the registry covered and they refused because they wanted more money.

Funny you did not give people the option to vote on anything other than a license or a federal registry when you knew damn well there was another option available that would cost them nothing!

Forget that I had already proved to you with your BS flounder poll that those polls are a joke.

For those of you who do not know I was able to vote over 100 times in one of Ken's "polls" simply by using a series of web proxies.

Leif was right you should try for a job at MRFSS, their numbers have already been proven to be fatally flawed by the scientific community, you and your so called numbers should fit right in.

All I can really say in response to your post is...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PG9h1CS1dfo/SNEQwPCjd_I/AAAAAAAAEU0/oxw2piS1_88/s400/funny-kid-tells-joke-to-dog.jpg

[njdiver]

Just my 2 cents as I look through my crystal ball, but I see a replay of this with a fee based saltwater license.

http://www.hrfanj.org/cgi-bin/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=3&TopicID=2215

My vote goes for a free registry, I'm guessing, like most NJ fishermen.


Whitman and Schwarzenegger both tried to divert funds from both Wallop-Breaux and Dingell-Johnson protected funds in the past. Both were told if they pressed on they would not only lose future funds but would have to pay back all Wallop-Breaux and Dingell-Johnson funds given in the years they diverted license fees from. Both decided not to pursue the diversions.

Both Corzine and Christie have stated they will not sign on to any non-funded mandates.

[Kensdock]

CaptainTB. Believe it or not most people are honest. I am sure your remember that the poll was right on with the flounder option. It was also in line with the comments received by the ASMFC weakfish board recently.The polls real do not mater at the end of the day anyway unless you are a politician.
The days of bad choices going unanswered are over. I know that the RFA is unhappy about the peoples chair at the table. Nj anglers have a right to voice their OWN onion.

“The Board received a significant amount of public comment supporting a coastwide moratorium. In
recognition of this, it chose to implement measures that would discourage directed fishing, limit bycatch
mortality, and ensure that critical sampling programs remain on track,” stated Board Chair Roy Miller.




BY ALEXANDER LANE
(Newark) STAR-LEDGER STAFF
February 6, 2005

Whether fighting no-fishing zones, keeping white marlin off the endangered-species list or elbowing commercial fishermen out of favored waters, the Recreational Fishing Alliance makes its voice heard.

The New Jersey-based RFA, which has chapters in all coastal states, bills itself as a “grassroots political action organization representing individual sport fishermen and the sport-fishing industry.” It frequently touts its tens of thousands of members in brochures and press releases.

But according to two recent lawsuits against its executive director, there’s only one member that really matters. The suits say that New Gretna-based Viking Yacht Co., one of the nation’s premier luxury yacht manufacturers, tightly controls the non-profit, tax-exempt RFA, and the two operate as a “single integrated enterprise.”

Fishing advocates and environmentalists said they have long believed as much, maintaining that the RFA cares more about Viking’s interests than those of the fishermen it claims to represent.

“There’s a big difference between what they do and what we do,” said Al Marantz, a founding member of the all-volunteer Jersey Coast Anglers Association, with a membership of about 30,000. “Decisions can be made by (Viking CEO) Bob Healey himself and
not really correspond to the wishes of the fishermen.”

[PBangler]

By Lee Tolliver
The Virginian-Pilot
© September 13, 2009

The 2010 Budget Reduction Plan released recently by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has some anglers squirming.

Kaine has cut the General Fund contribution to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission by 15 percent and will extract $300,000 from the saltwater license fund to help pay for law enforcement support.

The fund uses money from the purchase of saltwater fishing licenses to support projects related to recreational fishing.

VMRC commissioner Steve Bowman said Friday that he understands why anglers are upset. But he cautioned that the governor is simply using options in the state code in his attempt to balance the budget.

"I understand that the constituency is concerned, but the Constitution of Virginia requires a balanced budget," Bowman said. "This has happened before.
"And the bottom line is that we're all doing the best we can in a very tough budget year."

Bowman said Kaine's budget also eliminates state funding for oyster replenishment projects and other programs that the VMRC oversees.
"This is tough on everybody," he said.

According to the VMRC Web site, the license fund is worth approximately $1.6 million.

[PBangler]

§ 28.2-302.3. Virginia Saltwater Recreational Fishing Development Fund established

There is hereby established a special, nonreverting fund in the state treasury to be known as the Virginia Saltwater Recreational Fishing Development Fund, hereafter referred to as the Fund. The interest earned on the principal of the Fund also shall not revert to the general fund. The Fund shall be administered by the Commission, to be used solely for the purposes of conserving and enhancing finfish species taken by recreational anglers; enforcing the provisions of §§ 28.2-302, 28.2-302.1, and 28.2-302.6 through 28.2-302.9 and regulations promulgated thereunder; improving recreational fishing opportunities; administrating the Virginia Saltwater Sport Fishing Tournament certificates program; obtaining necessary data and conducting research for fisheries management; and creating or restoring habitat for species taken by recreational fishermen. The Fund shall consist of moneys collected pursuant to §§ 28.2-302, 28.2-302.2, and 28.2-302.6 through 28.2-302.9.

(1992, c. 895; 1995, c. 169.)

emphasis added

[PBangler]

This went out to members in 2007

"Coastal Conservation Association Virginia Alert

Governor Kaine has extended the raid on the recreational fishing fund to the new 2008-2010 biennium budget. CCA VA would like to thank all of you for writing letters to the Governor and your senators and delegates but we need your help again when the General Assembly of Virginia opens for business on January 9th. Contact your senator and delegates that must approve Governor Kaine's budgets before they become law.

CCA Virginia Alert

Governor Kaine’s Raid on Your Fishing License Money

Action You Can Take NOW:

Starting January 9th, call 800-889-0229 between 9 am and 5 pm weekdays and tell the operator to let your legislators know you strongly object to the Governor plan to use the dedicated Recreational Fishing Development fund money to replace general funds in VMRC’s operating budget from now until 2010. Get your relatives, neighbors and fishing buddies to call, too.

Background and Details

In July 1992, the Virginia General Assembly enacted legislation authorizing the implementation of a saltwater recreational fishing license with the proceeds deposited into a dedicated, non-reverting recreational fishing development fund.

In 2004, CCA supported legislation to allow the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) to increase license and permit fees levied for recreational and commercial fishing. A citizens committee developed the parameters for the legislation and CCA volunteers participated in this process. The committee felt it was important any fee increases be equitable and also felt it was critical the proceeds of such fee increases stay in the dedicated recreational and commercial license funds and not be used to replace general funds. Further they felt that both of these dedicated funds needed additional money in order to better serve their user group's needs.

None of that has changed. However, Governor Kaine is now proposing to break the trust recreational fishermen placed in the process and transfer $416,357 from the dedicated non-reverting Virginia Saltwater Recreational Fishing Development Fund into the general fund in order to help cover shortfalls of revenue in the present Virginia state budget. In addition to covering these unanticipated shortfalls, Governor Kaine’s has proposed that the raid on the Virginia Saltwater Recreational Fishing Development Fund continue into the July 2008 – June 2010 biennium budget.

The only way we can prevent this type of raid on our license funds is for YOU to let Richmond know that YOU want them to honor the promise made by the Governor’s predecessors, former Secretaries of Natural Resources, and the Legislature. The promise is that our license money would not replace the general funds allocated to VMRC, VIMS and other state agencies. It will take a lot of phone calls, letters, faxes and emails to state senators and delegates to turn this raid around. You have to insist they not break their agreements between recreational fishermen and the government regarding the dedicated nature of this fund. If the Governor and the General Assembly are successful in raiding the funds this year, we will undoubtedly see more raids on the VSRFDF Funds in the future."

emphasis added

[PBangler]

To top it off they now have to buy a new recreational permit in VA

Final Regulation

Title of Regulation: 4VAC20-1120. Pertaining to Tilefish and Grouper (adding 4VAC20-1120-31, 4VAC20-1120-32).

Statutory Authority: § 28.2-201 of the Code of Virginia.

Effective Date: July 1, 2009.

Agency Contact: Jane Warren, Agency Regulatory Coordinator, Marine Resources Commission, 2600 Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor, Newport News, VA 23607, telephone (757) 247-2248, FAX (757) 247-2002, or email betty.warren@mrc.virginia.gov.

Summary:

The amendment establishes a requirement to obtain a Tilefish and Grouper Landing Permit to possess and land grouper and tilefish in Virginia and also requires the reporting of recreational harvests of tilefish and grouper when landed in Virginia.

Emphasis added
--------------------------------

MAFMC Meeting Minutes October 2009

COUNCIL CHAIRMAN RICHARD ROBINS:

“The state of Virginia has just adopted mandatory reporting for the recreational sector. For this deepwater fishery, you have to have a snapper/grouper recreational permit with the reporting requirement. It's primarily a recreational fishery in our area. But hopefully, as the data -- catch data get better, that can feed into the process somehow.”

--------------------------------

So much for a saltwater license

[dales529]

Kensdock,
Its really enough already. Your complete lack of facts, refusal to reply to valid questions about your "data" in multiple posts , your lack of agenda on fishery subjects other than to bash certain groups / individuals and constant cross reference of different subjects within posts is getting tough to moderate.

As much as you are given the chance to express your opinion, you have crossed that line AGAIN and AGAIN in my opinion with personal attacks and you are tying up peoples time which is better spent on fighting for NJ anglers and our fisheries.

Your poor attempt to 'paste' a poll, then tout the results and then state polls don't matter:eek: . You state most people are honest which I assume is an attempt to defend your poll over its flawed set-up, Its bad enough you post percentages of a poll with 58 votes while constantly stating there are 1.4 million anglers and expect us to consider the results.

I give credit to those that have entertained your notions and tried to get you to respond reasonably.

You are on a very short leash so either start backing up your statements with facts to support your accusations, reply to specific questions with quotes, stay on topic within each post or please excuse yourself from the site before its done for you.

[CaptTB]

THIS JUST IN!!!!!!

Americans favor sending all US citizens to Afghanistan by a margin of 10000 to 1 in a recent poll conducted by Kensdock.

When asked, citizens chose being sent to Afghanistan over dying in a nuclear holocaust by the widest margin in any poll ever conducted.

In a recent interview, Kensdock was quoted as saying "The people have spoken, their voice has been heard. Everyone is in favor of going to Afghanistan, just look at the numbers."

When questioned about the choices given in the poll and asked about the appropriateness of the questions, Kensdock response was "In 1969 The partyboat Lobby rigged the Fluke regulations and Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. In 1976 Gas Prices were through the roof and the RFA was to blame, that's why people won't be fooled anymore and will make their own voice heard. The American people have spoken, they prefer Afghanistan over Nuclear Incineration!! So what's your point?"

http://www.gooya.us/photos/images/oh-my-god-gas-prices.jpg

[Kensdock]

I am sure I have posted enough informational about the benefits of a salt water license at this point. I would hope that one would fish in the southern states or talk to someone that has before you make up your mind on the NJ salt water license. You will find excellent fishing in these States that have invested in their salt water fishing resource. If you get a chance, check out how successful the salt water hatcheries have been with increasing the inshore fish like speckled trout. How would you rate your over all fishing in NJ? Do you think we need a change?

[Leif]

Fishing in NJ is great and getting better. My opinion follows and does not necessarily represent the feelings of others on this site or NJ fishing.com

Some may question the regulations and how they are derived, however fishing is great. I have not been on a bad trip this year, check out some of my posts or blog. It is also much better than it has been with regards to some species like Stripers, Ling, Seabass and now the Cod and Pollack are coming back to a certain extent. No saltwater license is going to help the whiting come back and in my opinion will not help the weakfish or flounder situation either.

NJ cannot add any more taxes, fees, surcharges or what ever you may call it to us fisherman. NJ has a lousy record of managing money and programs as far as I am concerned until they can prove other wise "fagetaboutit." We already pay millions in taxes through the fishing merchandise and tackle we purchase. We pay the highest taxes in the nation and we are the most densely populated state. This is the last straw and the people are getting angry.

If you want money to fix the horrible fishing as you imply, sue the NOAA and all of its subsidiaries for the horrendous management of the fisheries in past years and take that money to enforce new revamped recreational regulations and stop some of the destructive practices that are still occurring on a commercial level.

Leif

[bigjamaica]

I am sure I have posted enough informational about the benefits of a salt water license at this point. I would hope that one would fish in the southern states or talk to someone that has before you make up your mind on the NJ salt water license. You will find excellent fishing in these States that have invested in their salt water fishing resource. If you get a chance, check out how successful the salt water hatcheries have been with increasing the inshore fish like speckled trout. How would you rate your over all fishing in NJ? Do you think we need a change?

If the fluke minimum size were 14" how many keepers would you have caught this year?
If the sea bass minimum were 11" how many keepers would you have caught?
(That's assuming we were allowed to keep them)
What about blues? If we had a Salt water license do you think bluefishing might be better? I'm sure everyone agrees there were not enough blues around this year.
Maybe NJ could build a bluefish hatchery if they had more money.
Lief: Maybe the reason the whiting left our area is due to the fact that we do not have a salt water license in NJ.
I have not seen a shortage of fish in our area this year, just regulations that do not let us keep the fish we catch.
Will a salt water license change that? NO!

[Kensdock]

The comments of the majority did get their attention!

State lawmakers put off establishing a statewide registry of saltwater fishermen after the chairman of a critical committee decided the issue was too unsettled to post the bill for a vote.

[Leif]

Here is what happened... Notice the part about... We can do this without charging people another fee or another tax. They’ve had enough. We should be able to say, this one time, we’re giving you a break.” and.....

“Think of the additional tourism dollars we could attract if we let sport fishermen around the country know they can come fish New Jersey’s coastal waters without having to pay for a fishing license,” Van Drew said.

Donofrio, of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, said the state estimates there are 600,000 to 800,000 people who participate in saltwater fishing in New Jersey and generate millions of dollars in tourism spending in New Jersey.

Van Drew Blocks Attempt To Add Fee To His Saltwater Fishing Registry

By Matthew Reilly

TRENTON – Sen. Jeff Van Drew today blocked attempts amend his bill establishing a recreational saltwater fishing registry to include a fee.

Sen. Van Drew said he will continue to work with fishing and outdoor recreations groups, the Department of Environmental Protection and fellow legislators to create the saltwater fishing registry, but he remains adamantly opposed to imposition of any fee on anglers. The bill (S2194) was reviewed by the Senate Environment Committee, but was held without taking a vote.

“There’s no reason to believe that if we imposed something like a licensing fee that those monies we collect would be there to fund fishing and outdoor recreation programs,” Sen. Van Drew said. “Other states that have imposed a fee to register for recreational saltwater fishing have had problems. We can do this without charging people another fee or another tax. They’ve had enough. We should be able to say, this one time, we’re giving you a break.”

Van Drew’s bill (S2194) to require the state Department of Environmental Protection and the Marine Fisheries Council to establish a free recreational saltwater fishing registry would bring the state into compliance with a federal law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, which is aimed at improving the management of the nation’s fisheries.

“The purpose of my bill is to establish a registry that helps the federal government do better science, not to raise more money for the state,” he said. “This bill is about establishing a database of saltwater sport fishermen that will help the federal government do an accurate assessment of what fish are being caught, where they’re being caught and who is catching them. There’s no reason to impose a tax or fee on people to do this.”

Sen. Van Drew’s bill was supported by Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, which represents the interests of saltwater anglers, the marine, boat and tackle industries and works to ensure the long-term sustainability of the nation’s fisheries, said his organization supports Sen. Van Drew’s effort to establish a free registry.

“We all agree the registry should be free,” Donofrio said. “This should not used to fund the Division of Fish and Wildlife, it should be about getting better data to do better science and research. This is not the time to be taxing people.”

Van Drew said he’ll continue working with officials from the state’s Division of Fish and Wildlife and with groups representing anglers and related businesses to come up with a plan to set up a free registry.

In 2007, Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 2007. The reauthorization included requirements for revising the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey and directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a National Saltwater Angler Registry Program.

“The fisheries survey gives NOAA a better idea of who’s catching what in the oceans and saltwater bays,” Sen. Van Drew said. “The way they’ve traditionally gotten this information is by cold-calling people, asking them whether take part in saltwater fishing and then asking them about their catch. With a national registry, the agency will have a ready-made database from which to survey anglers and get a more accurate sense of the state of our fisheries”

The federal law will exempt anglers from the federal registry if their state has its own registration or licensing system. New Jersey does not currently have a saltwater licensing or registration program. Sen. Van Drew’s bill would direct the DEP Commissioner to apply to the federal National Marine Fisheries Service for “exempted state designation” so that New Jersey’s saltwater anglers do not have to participate in the national registry.

“Think of the additional tourism dollars we could attract if we let sport fishermen around the country know they can come fish New Jersey’s coastal waters without having to pay for a fishing license,” Van Drew said.

Donofrio, of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, said the state estimates there are 600,000 to 800,000 people who participate in saltwater fishing in New Jersey and generate millions of dollars in tourism spending in New Jersey.

MATTHEW REILLY can be reached via email at mreilly@njleg.org.

[Dave A]

The comments of the majority did get their attention!

State lawmakers put off establishing a statewide registry of saltwater fishermen after the chairman of a critical committee decided the issue was too unsettled to post the bill for a vote.

You did not attend the hearing otherwise you would know that the majority in attendance yesterday that filled out the form were IN FAVOR of the free registry. Also, when writing about additional funding for NJ Div of Fish and Wildlife all you ever rant about is the need for a saltwater license. Why don't you ever mention how the Div is not interested in other means of funding such as: a Conservation lottery and a saltwater license plate. Both of these projects would generate a considerable amount of money for funding necessary projects. Oh yeah, forget it because those suggestions came from the RFA and as you know Ken or Benny they are the Evil Empire.

[Kensdock]

You did not attend the hearing otherwise you would know that the majority in attendance yesterday that filled out the form were IN FAVOR of the free registry. Also, when writing about additional funding for NJ Div of Fish and Wildlife all you ever rant about is the need for a saltwater license. Why don't you ever mention how the Div is not interested in other means of funding such as: a Conservation lottery and a saltwater license plate. Both of these projects would generate a considerable amount of money for funding necessary projects. Oh yeah, forget it because those suggestions came from the RFA and as you know Ken or Benny they are the Evil Empire.
Hutch and TB and others have been talking about the license plate idea forever.Yet the only time it is brought up is when someone mentions moving forward with a salt water license. No I was not at the hearing. Remember there is well over a million New jersey Anglers that were not at the hearing . Do you think because they could not attend they would not support a salt water license? The free registry is a pipe dream in my opinion.

[CaptTB]

Hutch and TB and others have been talking about the license plate idea forever.Yet the only time it is brought up is when someone mentions moving forward with a salt water license.
WRONG. That statement is 100% false.

Since kensdock has never been involved in ANY of the discussions and process over the years for funding the division and has NEVER attended ANY of the meetings over the years (until recently, and then barely at all) he is FLAT OUT LYING when he says that RFA and myself have only brought it up when a Salt Water License is mentioned.

The simple fact is that when EVERY other option for funding the division has been brought up they have CONTINUALLY rejected them as simply not enough money.

Not that they would like or need more, just that it (whatever the option is) is not enough. So instead of actively supporting efforts to increase their funding, they reject those options outright until such time as they think they can get more, more and possibly more.

You know, I had this long detailed post I put up this morning, then I realized I was wasting my time giving the history and facts of the situation because Ken has proven time and again he is not interested in facts.

So, go do your own research and learn what has really transpired, I'm done trying to educate someone who is not interested in learning the facts.

next time Ken, try actually finding out what really went on and what was actually said and what the FACTS are about the past before you FLAT OUT LIE on the internet.

I would like to see the PROOF to back up your FALSE STATEMENTS.

[Kensdock]

TB, I will search through the thread from last year and I will post proof you talked aboutthe license plate before yesterday".


This is a big problem" and the root of many bad decisions concerning NJ recreational fishing.




Capt.TB Quote:
So, what would a business man want? $14 or $19 going to the state with $1.00 going to the store owner, or potentially $15 or $20 more dollars going to them (or even a fraction of that let's say 4 or 5 dollars) going to the store while the PEOPLE ARE IN THERE ANYWAY IN ORDER TO GET THEIR LICENSE....or $1.00 going to the store."


.A few businessmen think short term and would rather have a chance" of grabbing your twenty dollars today in lieu of you investing in the future of your salt water fishing.In complete disregard to the fact that the better the fishing the more sales he will have in the future. Many of them also have resisted a NJ salt water license out fear the true number of anglers and fish being caught will be found out and may" shorten the opportunity for them to grab your money.Many business really do not care what shape the fish populations are in , they only need to sell you on the possibility" of catching a fish no mater how remote that possibility may be.

Please note: There are many charter Captains like Cape May Ray that see the benefits to his business a salt water license would bring. They also are concerned with actual catching fish for their customers.

[CaptTB]

TB, I will search through the thread from last year and I will post proof you talked aboutthe license plate before yesterday".

Ken, I NEVER SAID I DID NOT SPEAK ABOUT A LICENSE PLATE BEFORE YESTERDAY.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???


I could show you quotes from just a few months ago, why go back to last year?

You obviously missed the whole point.

You said that I only talk about it when a SWL is brought up, that is a complete and utter falsehood, plain and simple.

[PBangler]

Please not there are many charter Captains like Cape May Ray that see the benefits to his business a salt water license will bring.

Maybe CapeMayRay mistook misleading opinions as factual.


Kensdock quotes from this thread:

“The fear that the money raised from a salt water license will be raided by the Governor is not justified.”

“New Jersey had no shot at this money due to the fact we have no salt water license! Saltwater hatcheries seek part of stimulus package”

“Just this last year we lost millions of dollars in stimulus money and all the benefits to salt water fishing that went with it.”

“Depending on the price of a saltwater license the NJ salt water license would raise about 40,000,000.00 dollars annually to enhance our salt water fishing. We could build the salt water hatcheries, create green jobs and ensure the future of our salt water game fish.”

“[Kensdock Poll - NJ has only 2 choices - Either] NJ salt water license with a law dedicating the funds to enhance nj fishing [or] Set up the mandated registry with the funds going to the us general fund”

Excerpts from Cape May County Herald article:

“New Jerseyians are not only losing a revenue source, we are losing fish.”

“When our representatives go to meetings to set regulations for species catch allocations, we are up against states that have larger and more secure funding sources and therefore better research data to plead their case. Once we have lost allocated pounds of a particular species, it will be extremely difficult to get it back up again.”