Striped Bass Slot

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

You missed my point. 60% of the apportionment factor for each state is based on how many freshwater and saltwater combined licenses each state has in relationship to all other states. If all 138,000 saltwater registrants bought a saltwater license in New jersey, New Jersey still would've been below the 1% minimum level and would receive exactly the same amount they did or $399k. In other words, saltwater licenses in New Jersey because of the overall number of licensed anglers the state has relative to other states would have zero impact on the funds we receive.

I agree based on what I've read that ramp access is something these funds are used for from the standpoint of upkeep and accessibility. Not really sure what you mean by "if no available land is available, they pay for the use of ramps that are available".

Nj claims 175000 are involved in the SW registry .
But say 1.2 million fish our marine waters yearly .
Most of those fishing on head boats and charter boats apparently aren’t in the registry for there to be such a difference in those numbers .
.

What I’m saying about the ramps is in many states they buy an access point .
In Nj their us very little available land , so keeping a free access point would be them paying for an already existing Ramps services .

These funds are all based on providing us better access and improving current conditions .

A few states like Nj actually tried to have this fine away with because they didn’t want to be forced to have to improve our access to the outdoors .
.
The excise tax from PR and DJ were supposed to protect our user interests in the outdoors .

We should be trying to get every penny available .

When this came up at a FG meeting a bunch of years ago it was asked would they get money to enforce the licenses and additional officers to cover areas better .
They were told No and totally stopped the license in its tracks .
The free registry didn’t meet the federal guidelines to be used for an actual. Count of those using our marine waters .

.

[Broad Bill]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...NezZwKor37rfwX

From an article by Jim Hutchinson Jr. in a Fisherman article. 138,000 registrants in 2022 down from 144,000 in 2021.

I realize while not an apples to apples comparison, if you look at what Muskynut is and has been going through with the state and various politicians trying to get a public launch site on Greenwood Lake, I think it'll be a cold day in hell before we ever see federal funding that accomplishes the same in New Jersey for saltwater anglers with or without a saltwater license.

[reason162]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

Over the years we've lost winter flounder, mackerel, cod, whiting and weakfish for all practical purposes. Sea bass, porgies, fluke, blackfish, bluefish and just about every other recreational species under management has substantially more restrictive regulations than years past

Maybe it's not a bad idea to put tougher restrictions in place before things go pear shaped the way winter flounder did? And you didn't mention the first go around with striped bass - a near complete collapse yet guys out east were still catching cows left and right and thought everything was fine. Localized abundance means nothing for a fish that migrates up and down the coast.

And until the larger issues can be addressed, it makes perfect sense to control what we can - which is cutting rec harvest. Remember this emergency measure is just a stop gap to more permanent solutions within a year. From what I read everything is on the table, and I mean everything - hard quotas like the comms have to fish under, a stop-targeting rule once you retain your keeper, a delayed opener to protect the congregated spawners in RB. States that have pushed against stricter regulations for years are now panicking at the new data - that should tell you something.

And I'm sorry but the industry interests you mention are behind the kind of representation we have in this state - I don't want to lump all the for hires and tackle shops into the same heap but talk about short sighted.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...NezZwKor37rfwX

From an article by Jim Hutchinson Jr. in a Fisherman article. 138,000 registrants in 2022 down from 144,000 in 2021.

I realize while not an apples to apples comparison, if you look at what Muskynut is and has been going through with the state and various politicians trying to get a public launch site on Greenwood Lake, I think it'll be a cold day in hell before we ever see federal funding that accomplishes the same in New Jersey for saltwater anglers with or without a saltwater license.

https://njseagrant.org/extension/rec...%20each%20year.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by reason162

Maybe it's not a bad idea to put tougher restrictions in place before things go pear shaped the way winter flounder did? And you didn't mention the first go around with striped bass - a near complete collapse yet guys out east were still catching cows left and right and thought everything was fine. Localized abundance means nothing for a fish that migrates up and down the coast.

And until the larger issues can be addressed, it makes perfect sense to control what we can - which is cutting rec harvest. Remember this emergency measure is just a stop gap to more permanent solutions within a year. From what I read everything is on the table, and I mean everything - hard quotas like the comms have to fish under, a stop-targeting rule once you retain your keeper, a delayed opener to protect the congregated spawners in RB. States that have pushed against stricter regulations for years are now panicking at the new data - that should tell you something.


And I'm sorry but the industry interests you mention are behind the kind of representation we have in this state - I don't want to lump all the for hires and tackle shops into the same heap but talk about short sighted.

We don't need more restrictive regulations, in my opinion, we need more sensible regulations. States rarely, if ever, dictate the substance of regulations as opposed to the form they take with conservation equivalency. If federal regulators and government take credit when stocks rebuild, they need to take responsibility for the ones that decline. I also agree yes we should get out in front of pear-shaped declines as opposed to reacting to them after they happen, but again isn't that what fisheries management is all about? Ineffective regulations aren't caused by recreational anglers or the commercial sector, they're caused by fisheries management and the federal government.

I totally agree local abundance isn't the ultimate report card for a fishery with a coast wide presence, but regulations that don't address the problem and will result in more bass killed is just as misguided. The data shows the relationship between the female biomass and recruitment is broken in the striper fishery. The stock, exactly what happened with fluke, is getting significantly less new recruits out of the spawning biomass on a relative and absolute basis. In the case of fluke, the regulations were targeting the harvest of the breeding population as many have pointed out. In the case of stripers science believes the issues are environmental and the excess harvest of Menhaden in Chesapeake Bay. Any benefit gained by protecting 31" - 38" fish with the change for 180 - 360 days, in my opinion, will be more than mitigated by more bass being killed on release with another ridiculous slot range. I don't see how that addresses the problem short-term or long-term, and it certainly doesn't address the Chesapeake Bay problem that's causing this entire situation.

Can you imagine what a stop targeting rule would do once you catch your first keeper on for hire and party boats. You catch a keeper within the first 10 minutes of the trip and paid patrons are supposed to sit out the remaining 7 hours of the trip. Or shore based anglers just say they're fishing for bluefish, it's an impractical and unenforceable regulation.

Many years ago, the same state representation you speak off produced outstanding fishing for every stock. Cod, mackerel, ling, whiting and winter flounder were all destroyed by commercial over harvest and our government selling our resources to foreign governments. Weakfish, sea bass, blackfish, bluefish, porgies, and as you pointed out the first and second decline of the striper stock, were all caused by ineffective regulations and regulations that were reactive and not proactive.

Kick Omega Protein out of Chesapeake Bay and let billions of menhaden filter the pollutants and I'd bet the young of the year index would rebound in a short period of time but local politicians won't do that because of the money they'd lose. That's the true definition of shortsightedness and anti-conservation. I agree all possible solutions should be on the table and we should control what we can control, I'm not in agreement this change is going to benefit the fishery and will most likely hurt it with significantly higher discard levels. It's almost the same as making the slot 28" - 28.99", when you think about it that's not really too far from the the new regulations. How many fish would be killed if that were the range of the slot? When draconian emergency measures are required, it's a validation regulations used over the years one way or another have been bad decisions by fisheries management and failed to sustain the fishery.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

https://njseagrant.org/extension/rec...%20each%20year.

Jim Hutchinson's source is NJ Fish and Wildlife, don't think you could get a better source and doubt Jim Hutchinson is publishing inaccurate statistics. Either way, my main point is NJ is a small state with significantly less licenses and even if 138,000 or 175,000 saltwater water licenses were added, it would have zero impact on the excise funds awarded New Jersey through the Dingell-Johnson Act.

It would add license revenues to the states Wildlife Agency, how those funds are used is anyone's guess but it certainly would not be for the exclusive improvement of saltwater fisheries. That's the issue most people have with a salt water license, if they're going to pay for it they want to see direct benefits to them fishing the salt which the way this is structured they won't. If you look at the uses in the article from the link I posted, the majority of the funds are used for projects not at all associated with saltwater improvements.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

Jim Hutchinson's source is NJ Fish and Wildlife, don't think you could get a better source and doubt Jim Hutchinson is publishing inaccurate statistics. Either way, my main point is NJ is a small state with significantly less licenses and even if 138,000 or 175,000 saltwater water licenses were added, it would have zero impact on the excise funds awarded New Jersey through the Dingell-Johnson Act.

It would add license revenues to the states Wildlife Agency, how those funds are used is anyone's guess but it certainly would not be for the exclusive improvement of saltwater fisheries. That's the issue most people have with a salt water license, if they're going to pay for it they want to see direct benefits to them fishing the salt which the way this is structured they won't. If you look at the uses in the article from the link I posted, the majority of the funds are used for projects not at all associated with saltwater improvements.

JIMS info matches mine fir how many registered anglers there are . It’s right on fish and games web site .
Fg at meetings about the license have always stated over a million anglers fish our marine fishery yearly .
Anyone fishing on just charters or head boats isn’t required to register , they claim that’s a huge number of people , some possibly only fish a day or two .

Guys wanna cry about enforcement , but won’t even vote in favor of a 2 dollar license to help with that , as well as get a larger portion of excise tax back .
So they cut off their head to spit their face .
Recreational fisherman are their own worst enemy .
Commercial fisherman band together . Incredible how big the difference is .

.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

JIMS info matches mine fir how many registered anglers there are . It’s right on fish and games web site .
Fg at meetings about the license have always stated over a million anglers fish our marine fishery yearly .
Anyone fishing on just charters or head boats isn’t required to register , they claim that’s a huge number of people , some possibly only fish a day or two .

Guys wanna cry about enforcement , but won’t even vote in favor of a 2 dollar license to help with that , as well as get a larger portion of excise tax back .
So they cut off their head to spit their face .
Recreational fisherman are their own worst enemy .
Commercial fisherman band together . Incredible how big the difference is .

.

Ok, not sure how 138,000 agrees with 175,000 but if that's your opinion you're certainly entitled to it.

You also assume over a million more anglers fishing on for hire and party boats will be required to purchase a saltwater license. So you really want to put more regulatory pressure on party boats and for hire operators. And fyi, Florida party boat and for hire anglers ARE NOT required to purchase a saltwater license as long as the boat has the necessary permit. So you're implying there'd be over a million more saltwater licences sold, that most likely wouldn't be the case unless as I said you want to drive another nail in charter and party boats coffins.

Small state, not enough licenses sold to change the amount of funding NJ would receive in excise taxes if they adopted a salt water license. Facts say so.

Commercial bands together because it's their livelihood, unfortunately recreational will never have that same incentive. I do agree most complain but do nothing to help which is a problem in and of itself.

How much of the $4 million in excise taxes NJ received from freshwater licenses went to enforcement in 2022? Don't recall seeing that on the list of uses in the link I attached.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

Ok, not sure how 138,000 agrees with 175,000 but if that's your opinion you're certainly entitled to it.

You also assume over a million more anglers fishing on for hire and party boats will be required to purchase a saltwater license. So you really want to put more regulatory pressure on party boats and for hire operators. And fyi, Florida party boat and for hire anglers ARE NOT required to purchase a saltwater license as long as the boat has the necessary permit. So you're implying there'd be over a million more saltwater licences sold, that most likely wouldn't be the case unless as I said you want to drive another nail in charter and party boats coffins.

Small state, not enough licenses sold to change the amount of funding NJ would receive in excise taxes if they adopted a salt water license. Facts say so.

Commercial bands together because it's their livelihood, unfortunately recreational will never have that same incentive. I do agree most complain but do nothing to help which is a problem in and of itself.

How much of the $4 million in excise taxes NJ received from freshwater licenses went to enforcement in 2022? Don't recall seeing that on the list of uses in the link I attached.

Enforcement has to come from license sales

[Stanton327]

I just allocated about 15 minutes of my life to read this thread b/c I enjoy stripper fishing and have no problem abiding by reasonable measures to protect the fishery. Two thoughts come to mind; to anybody who thinks a fee for a saltwater license in NJ would put the funds into our camp is completely delusional!! The Trenton scumbags would use it for their own interests. Second, sorry to call you out bud, but Reason162 I can’t think of any other way to describe your logic/thinking as a (???) who is working against ensuring the charter guys and party boat captains can continue earning a living!!