Posted this in the June thread regarding slot stripers and will post it again here to clear the air how this funding and process works:
Believe the regulation you're referring to is the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fishing Restoration Act which relates to fresh and saltwater fisheries as well as the Pittman-Robertson Act which covers hunting.
The tax for fishing is on specific fishing related purchases at 10%, not 11%, and motorboat gas purchases at 18.4 cents per gallon.
70% of the overall funds generated by the Act comes from the gas tax on motor boats and small engines which was included under the Wallop-Breaux Act, not tackle purchases as your posts imply. I believe the Wallop-Breaux Act also partly funds the ASMFC, MAMFC or both.
All states have general funds, even Florida.
When Dingell-Johnson was enacted, states were required to enact laws prohibiting the diversion of license fees paid by anglers (salt or fresh water) for any purpose other than the administration of their state fisheries agency which all 50 states agreed to. So New Jersey is no different than Florida or any other state in that respect. Difference is Florida and certain other states generate revenue from saltwater fishing licenses, New Jersey doesn't.
But if they did, those funds are not earmarked exclusively for saltwater improvement, they're spent on a myriad of both fresh and saltwater projects at the discretion of the state fisheries agency. Nowhere did I see that list include increased salt water enforcement or free ramp access. You can see the uses yourself in the attached link.
In 2022, total funds paid out by Dingell-Johnson was $399 million. Every state gets something, so New Jersey did benefit by receiving $3.99 million. The allocation formula is 60% based on number of licensed anglers (both salt and fresh water) and 40% based on geographic size on a weighted average basis relative to all 50 states involved in the allocation. Every state gets a minimum 1% of the overall annual payout and no individual state gets more than 5%. In 2022, twelve states got the 1% minimum of $3.99 million including NJ, Ct, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Puerto Rico, and West Virginia meaning based on the allocation formula they didn't meet the minimum allocation but based on the law received the 1% minimum regardless. Only two states got the 5% maximum, Alaska and Texas followed closely by California which got 4.67% of the $399 million payout obviously due to their population and number of licenses sold each year, both fresh and saltwater.
A salt water license would however obviously generate revenue, that revenue would not be allowed to go in the general fund (legally) but it wouldn't at all be restricted to salt water improvements as you state.
Everything anyone needs to know about how this works or is supposed to work is in the attached link.
https://wildlifeforall.us/resources/...ry%20equipment. Halfway down the first page, click on Dingell-Johnson at a Glance and it walks through funding, how the money is spent along with details about some of the programs funded.
My point to your post is NJ gets it's fair share of excise taxes (70% from gas purchases and not tackle sales) just like every other state. In New Jersey's case, we qualify along with 11 other states for a 1% so we actually get more than what the allocation formula calculates. A saltwater license based on the salt water registry statistics wouldn't provide New Jersey more than the minimum 1% it's already getting. You could probably quadruple the registry number and New Jersey would still get it's 1% minimum so
NO CHANGE to excise funds received by the state from the adoption of a salt water license.
A salt water license would generate additional revenues but those revenues will be used at the discretion of state wildlife agency which makes no assurances those funds would be used for saltwater related projects or free boat ramps. I'm not saying
IF 138,000 anglers purchased a saltwater license for $20 or generated $2.76 million in incremental revenue there might not be good uses of those funds, what I'm saying is there's no guarantees a penny of those funds would be spent on enforcement, free ramps or saltwater initiatives as your post states.
You can choose to dispute this all day long but that's what the laws stipulate.
