Striped Bass Slot

[dales529]

Originally Posted by Ol Pedro

I think that it's called sarcasm and not giving a rats assing.

Have a ton of respect for Andy and you could possibly make a case for sarcasm. BUT if you are not fishing SW on a for hire boat you need to sign up for the SW Registry . Asked multiple times for him to explain his opposition but no reply.
Rules are rules and if you follow them on FW you should follow them SW or dont fish SW. Cant have it both ways

[Ol Pedro]

Originally Posted by dales529

Have a ton of respect for Andy and you could possibly make a case for sarcasm. BUT if you are not fishing SW on a for hire boat you need to sign up for the SW Registry . Asked multiple times for him to explain his opposition but no reply.
Rules are rules and if you follow them on FW you should follow them SW or dont fish SW. Cant have it both ways

I don't have the swr and only fish on for hire boats. It had been a few years since I got checked on fw/ shooting until a few months ago. Saw the Warden twice at Colliers Mills within a week. Chances are good that someone won't get caught by dfg breaking f+g laws in nj. The Wardens are stretched thin. It's good to know that the Sandy Hook Rangers are checking. This information could convince some readers on this site to register.

[Broad Bill]

Very simple, follow the rules or don't fish. People breaking the laws don't just screw the state, they equally screw the people who abide by the rules by paying higher fees to match the state's funding needs. In the absence of enforcement, the same will hold true even with the inclusion of a saltwater license. If people fish without signing up for a registry at no cost, the same people are certainly not going to cough up money for a saltwater license. That's where enforcement and the laws of the state have to intervene by penalizing these *******s with more than just a slap on the wrist fine.

Tuna Tales, still waiting for your commentary regarding the accuracy of my posts or points made you object to. I always look forward to productive exchanges and people sharing alternate opinions or facts respectfully but at the same time I have no patience or regard for people whose contribution to the site is attacking posters credibility and posts while refusing to substantiate their positions with facts.

The points I made on my posts were NJ does benefit from excise tax funding by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. That was in response to the post saying "states like ours get nothing".

I posted a link containing an article with broad details of the DJSFR Act for anyone to read which shows the excise tax allocation back to the states is weighted by 60% of total licenses, both freshwater and saltwater sold, as well as 40% being based on the states geographic size. I pointed out repeatedly smaller states like New Jersey because of size and 11 other states receive a 1% minimum share of the total excise tax payout to all states. In 2022, that meant NJ and those other states received $3,996,614 of the total payout of $399,661,336. That was in reply to the post which said "to get the money back to New Jersey, it's required to show how many salt water anglers there are" and "states like Florida get every penny they're entitled to as well as left over funds from states like New Jersey who get nothing". Absolutely not true.

I pointed out based on the salt water registry and 138,000 registrants, even if NJ adopted a license that mirrored that number of registrants it would have zero impact on additional funding mentioned above because our state and population is too small in anglers and geographic size.

I stated excise tax reimbursements by the feds are not used exclusively for salt water improvement which they're not. A smaller percentage based on license sales has to go to enforcement efforts but most of the funds go to conservation projects and all the different type projects mentioned in the article.

Any state with a current salt water license has an exemption for anglers fishing on for hire boats. I'm sure NJ would be the same which is why I said if NJ did adopted a salt water license, it wouldn't cover the additional anglers who fish party and or charter boats. If NJ tried doing that, it would cripple the for hire businesses. If New jersey did adopt a license that cost $20, it would add almost $3 million to the Sport Fishing Restoration Act coffers and benefit projects the state agency charter allows. Just pointing out those projects aren't at all exclusively for the improvement of salt water initiatives and are at the discretion of the agency.

There is a minimum and maximum in the excise tax reimbursement allocation. 1% minimum for smaller states and 5% maximum for larger states to address that question being asked again.

I don't know how the $399 million total reimbursement was arrived at for 2022 or what percentage of manufacturer excise taxes paid it represents but the allocation of those funds back to the states is the same for New Jersey as it is for all other 49 states.

Hammer. I don't understand your 3/1 comment of excise tax refunds to licenses. Use Florida and NJ as an example. Florida issued 2.7 million licenses in 2022, NJ issued 138,000. Florida received $14.2 million in excise tax refunds and NJ about $4 million. That means the ratio for Fla. of refund to licenses sold is about 5:1 and for New Jersey 29:1. Clearly based on license sales, it appears other states are funding NJ as opposed to NJ funding other states due to the protection the 1% minimum provides smaller states. If you use license revenues as opposed to licenses, the ratios are just as skewed. If there's another 3:1 funding component involved here which I haven't covered, share your source.

Those are the broad strokes of my posts I shared on this thread and certainly not based on one google search. If there's anything I've shared anyone disagrees with or thinks I'm misrepresenting about the DJ Act and how the funding works it's way through the system, share your thoughts. But if your an empty suit with no constructive intentions to help educate the members and sponsors of the site and the sites educational value, you'd be better serving the interest of the site by keeping your opinions to yourself.

There's so few who try to help the recreational angling community by being actively involved and too many who sit on the sidelines and complain. Either get involved and be constructive or truthfully just STFU. There's enough headwinds from our federal government, politicians, regulators and bureaucrats to battle every day, sarcasm from our own recreational peanut gallery doesn't make that effort any easier.

[Tuna Tales]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

Very simple, follow the rules or don't fish. People breaking the laws don't just screw the state, they equally screw the people who abide by the rules by paying higher fees to match the state's funding needs. In the absence of enforcement, the same will hold true even with the inclusion of a saltwater license. If people fish without signing up for a registry at no cost, the same people are certainly not going to cough up money for a saltwater license. That's where enforcement and the laws of the state have to intervene by penalizing these *******s with more than just a slap on the wrist fine.

Tuna Tales, still waiting for your commentary regarding the accuracy of my posts or points made you object to. I always look forward to productive exchanges and people sharing alternate opinions or facts respectfully but at the same time I have no patience or regard for people whose contribution to the site is attacking posters credibility and posts while refusing to substantiate their positions with facts.

The points I made on my posts were NJ does benefit from excise tax funding by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. That was in response to the post saying "states like ours get nothing".

I posted a link containing an article with broad details of the DJSFR Act for anyone to read which shows the excise tax allocation back to the states is weighted by 60% of total licenses, both freshwater and saltwater sold, as well as 40% being based on the states geographic size. I pointed out repeatedly smaller states like New Jersey because of size and 11 other states receive a 1% minimum share of the total excise tax payout to all states. In 2022, that meant NJ and those other states received $3,996,614 of the total payout of $399,661,336. That was in reply to the post which said "to get the money back to New Jersey, it's required to show how many salt water anglers there are" and "states like Florida get every penny they're entitled to as well as left over funds from states like New Jersey who get nothing". Absolutely not true.

I pointed out based on the salt water registry and 138,000 registrants, even if NJ adopted a license that mirrored that number of registrants it would have zero impact on additional funding mentioned above because our state and population is too small in anglers and geographic size.

I stated excise tax reimbursements by the feds are not used exclusively for salt water improvement which they're not. A smaller percentage based on license sales has to go to enforcement efforts but most of the funds go to conservation projects and all the different type projects mentioned in the article.

Any state with a current salt water license has an exemption for anglers fishing on for hire boats. I'm sure NJ would be the same which is why I said if NJ did adopted a salt water license, it wouldn't cover the additional anglers who fish party and or charter boats. If NJ tried doing that, it would cripple the for hire businesses. If New jersey did adopt a license and it cost $20, $20 times 138,000 would add almost $3 million to the Sport Fishing Restoration Act coffers which would benefit the projects that state agencies charter allows. Just pointing out those projects aren't at all exclusively for the improvement of salt water initiatives and are at the discretion of the salt water agency. At least that's my understanding.

There is a minimum and maximum in the excise tax reimbursement allocation. 1% minimum for smaller states and 5% maximum for larger states to address that question being asked again.

I don't know how the $399 million total reimbursement was arrived at for 2022 or what percentage of manufacturer excise taxes paid it represents but the allocation of those funds back to the states is the same for New Jersey as it is for all other 49 states.

Hammer. I don't understand your 3/1 comment of excise tax refunds to licenses. Use Florida and NJ as an example. Florida issued 2.7 million licenses in 2022, NJ issued 138,000. Florida received $14.2 million in excise tax refunds and NJ about $4 million. That means the ratio for Fla. of refund to licenses sold is about 5:1 and for New Jersey 29:1. Clearly based on license sales, it appears other states are funding NJ as opposed to NJ funding other states due to the protection the 1% minimum provides smaller states. If you use license revenues as opposed to licenses, the ratios are just as skewed. If there's another 3:1 funding component involved here which I haven't covered, share your source.

Those are the broad strokes of my posts I shared on this thread and certainly not based on one google search. If there's anything I've shared anyone disagrees with or thinks I'm misrepresenting about the DJ Act and how the funding works it's way through the system, share your thoughts. But if your an empty suit with no constructive intentions to help educate the members and sponsors of the site and the sites educational value, you'd be better serving the interest of the site by keeping your opinions to yourself.

There's so few who try to help the recreational angling community by being actively involved and too many who sit on the sidelines and complain. Either get involved and be constructive or truthfully just STFU. There's enough headwinds from our federal government, politicians, regulators and bureaucrats to battle every day, sarcasm from our own recreational peanut gallery doesn't make that effort any easier.

My point was most states south of NJ have a paid Saltwater License fee. TX to DE. Every boat ramp in DE is free. Tidal waters, freshwater etc. The idea the NJ would steal these monies is just plan incorrect. LA included. Huey E. Long territory. We have to write the bill so NJ can't steal these monies. Have a separate advisory panel to oversee the money.

Perhaps having a paid NJ Saltwater License could increase the money we get from the 3 to 1 ratio. They just don't hand you the money - you have to have a planned project. Boat ramp, reef, access, fishing piers etc. Right now look at the cost for one boat launch. If you launch 20 times per year that's $500.

Regarding the 10% excise tax my point is I believe NJ would receive more monies if we knew how many saltwater anglers we really. NJ has way more than 138,000. Also what is NJ doing with this money? I did not see too many details on their website.

Again, I am not saying yes or no to paid Saltwater License -- however after 20+ years of doing the same, writing letters, signing up for fishing organizations, marching in DC etc etc. -- look at the shit show regs we have now. Most people I speak with would be in favor for a paid saltwater license IF the money is allocated correctly.

I don't have all of the answers -- however let's try something new / different (work together to find a solution) and stop fighting each other. If not, we will be fishing for dogfish very soon.

[AndyS]

I would purchase a saltwater license but won't sign up for the registry, and I have written that before. To think someone would pay a fine for something that is free is simply embarrassing. Can we get back to striped bass now ?

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by AndyS

I would purchase a saltwater license but won't sign up for the registry, and I have written that before. To think someone would pay a fine for something that is free is simply embarrassing. Can we get back to striped bass now ?

Selective Service? Just sayin

[dales529]

Originally Posted by AndyS

I would purchase a saltwater license but won't sign up for the registry, and I have written that before. To think someone would pay a fine for something that is free is simply embarrassing. Can we get back to striped bass now ?

Thanks Andy / understood. Cant totally agree but valid point. I am not against a SW license and as stated by me and many others if and only if the money is put back into SW fishing.

I think everyone on this thread should jump on a boat together and discuss on the water!

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

Very simple, follow the rules or don't fish. People breaking the laws don't just screw the state, they equally screw the people who abide by the rules by paying higher fees to match the state's funding needs. In the absence of enforcement, the same will hold true even with the inclusion of a saltwater license. If people fish without signing up for a registry at no cost, the same people are certainly not going to cough up money for a saltwater license. That's where enforcement and the laws of the state have to intervene by penalizing these *******s with more than just a slap on the wrist fine.

Tuna Tales, still waiting for your commentary regarding the accuracy of my posts or points made you object to. I always look forward to productive exchanges and people sharing alternate opinions or facts respectfully but at the same time I have no patience or regard for people whose contribution to the site is attacking posters credibility and posts while refusing to substantiate their positions with facts.

The points I made on my posts were NJ does benefit from excise tax funding by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. That was in response to the post saying "states like ours get nothing".

I posted a link containing an article with broad details of the DJSFR Act for anyone to read which shows the excise tax allocation back to the states is weighted by 60% of total licenses, both freshwater and saltwater sold, as well as 40% being based on the states geographic size. I pointed out repeatedly smaller states like New Jersey because of size and 11 other states receive a 1% minimum share of the total excise tax payout to all states. In 2022, that meant NJ and those other states received $3,996,614 of the total payout of $399,661,336. That was in reply to the post which said "to get the money back to New Jersey, it's required to show how many salt water anglers there are" and "states like Florida get every penny they're entitled to as well as left over funds from states like New Jersey who get nothing". Absolutely not true.

I pointed out based on the salt water registry and 138,000 registrants, even if NJ adopted a license that mirrored that number of registrants it would have zero impact on additional funding mentioned above because our state and population is too small in anglers and geographic size.

I stated excise tax reimbursements by the feds are not used exclusively for salt water improvement which they're not. A smaller percentage based on license sales has to go to enforcement efforts but most of the funds go to conservation projects and all the different type projects mentioned in the article.

Any state with a current salt water license has an exemption for anglers fishing on for hire boats. I'm sure NJ would be the same which is why I said if NJ did adopted a salt water license, it wouldn't cover the additional anglers who fish party and or charter boats. If NJ tried doing that, it would cripple the for hire businesses. If New jersey did adopt a license that cost $20, it would add almost $3 million to the Sport Fishing Restoration Act coffers and benefit projects the state agency charter allows. Just pointing out those projects aren't at all exclusively for the improvement of salt water initiatives and are at the discretion of the agency.

There is a minimum and maximum in the excise tax reimbursement allocation. 1% minimum for smaller states and 5% maximum for larger states to address that question being asked again.

I don't know how the $399 million total reimbursement was arrived at for 2022 or what percentage of manufacturer excise taxes paid it represents but the allocation of those funds back to the states is the same for New Jersey as it is for all other 49 states.

Hammer. I don't understand your 3/1 comment of excise tax refunds to licenses. Use Florida and NJ as an example. Florida issued 2.7 million licenses in 2022, NJ issued 138,000. Florida received $14.2 million in excise tax refunds and NJ about $4 million. That means the ratio for Fla. of refund to licenses sold is about 5:1 and for New Jersey 29:1. Clearly based on license sales, it appears other states are funding NJ as opposed to NJ funding other states due to the protection the 1% minimum provides smaller states. If you use license revenues as opposed to licenses, the ratios are just as skewed. If there's another 3:1 funding component involved here which I haven't covered, share your source.

Those are the broad strokes of my posts I shared on this thread and certainly not based on one google search. If there's anything I've shared anyone disagrees with or thinks I'm misrepresenting about the DJ Act and how the funding works it's way through the system, share your thoughts. But if your an empty suit with no constructive intentions to help educate the members and sponsors of the site and the sites educational value, you'd be better serving the interest of the site by keeping your opinions to yourself.

There's so few who try to help the recreational angling community by being actively involved and too many who sit on the sidelines and complain. Either get involved and be constructive or truthfully just STFU. There's enough headwinds from our federal government, politicians, regulators and bureaucrats to battle every day, sarcasm from our own recreational peanut gallery doesn't make that effort any easier.

Bill you’re wrong on many points and I’m too busy to waste effort on this .

Spoke to a director at FG this afternoon . One that’s responsible for projects done with this money .
We ABSOLUTELY would get more return if we had a SW license .
It’s based on the number of license sales not just the size of the state .
Money we currently get is from Hunting and freshwater license sales .

There are states that require you to still have a license even if fishing in a charter or head boat .
There are not exceptions . You either buy a short term or full year license if you want to fish their waters .

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by Tuna Tales

My point was most states south of NJ have a paid Saltwater License fee. TX to DE. Every boat ramp in DE is free. Tidal waters, freshwater etc. The idea the NJ would steal these monies is just plan incorrect. LA included. Huey E. Long territory. We have to write the bill so NJ can't steal these monies. Have a separate advisory panel to oversee the money.

Perhaps having a paid NJ Saltwater License could increase the money we get from the 3 to 1 ratio. They just don't hand you the money - you have to have a planned project. Boat ramp, reef, access, fishing piers etc. Right now look at the cost for one boat launch. If you launch 20 times per year that's $500.

Regarding the 10% excise tax my point is I believe NJ would receive more monies if we knew how many saltwater anglers we really. NJ has way more than 138,000. Also what is NJ doing with this money? I did not see too many details on their website.

Again, I am not saying yes or no to paid Saltwater License -- however after 20+ years of doing the same, writing letters, signing up for fishing organizations, marching in DC etc etc. -- look at the shit show regs we have now. Most people I speak with would be in favor for a paid saltwater license IF the money is allocated correctly.

I don't have all of the answers -- however let's try something new / different (work together to find a solution) and stop fighting each other. If not, we will be fishing for dogfish very soon.

TT, I'm not the enemy here. Bad decisions start when bad data is used like MRIP. My input on this thread was to make sure accurate information of the DJ Act was posted and how a saltwater license would effect overall funding, show NJ's share of federal excise taxes and lay out how funds in the Sports Restoration Act Program "SRA" are supposed to be spent.

Every state has agreed these funds, meaning saltwater license and excise tax refunds, would be used exclusively through the "SRA" program for conservation and restoration. Like all government spending, there should be oversight but people's concerns are well founded. If people saw tangible proof funds were being spent as stated, i.e. greater enforcement, fishing piers being constructed, more boat ramps being built, free and better access points etc., those concerns would be diminished. That's why in spite of proceeds from a salt water license, I think the bigger question is why does a state like Delaware which receives the exact same excise tax refunds NJ does and currently generates less than half our fresh water license fees make better use of those funds. That would imply a spending or lack of transparency problem, not a revenue generation problem.

Please explain to me the 3:1 ratio and site your source. I've asked Hammer to explain what that means. I haven't come across anything that even mentions it and would like to understand it.

I completely agree with your comments about the registry. I'm sure there's many more people fishing who never sign up. At the same time be careful what you ask for because I believe the registry is also used by NMFS to calculate fishing effort and set quotas. If NJ is 500,000, it's going to impact every stocks quota which will impact possession limits, season lengths and size restrictions. I do however agree we need accurate numbers to make intelligent decisions but who knows what the number really is. That's part of the problem. In 2020, NJ had 138,000 NJ resident fresh water fishing licenses, do you think saltwater anglers outnumber fresh water anglers 4:1. Maybe they do, I don't know. Should there be an accounting of funds used, absolutely. It's required by law. NJF&W I assume is a 501 (c) (3) organization required to maintain books and file a 5500 annually which outlines revenue and spending.

Many would pay for a salt water license if they saw tangible change from their fees. Fishing regulations and declines in just about every stock is a different matter, having nothing to do with this topic. The reductions we've all lived through over the years is 100% mismanagement by NMFS, ASMFC and MAMFC. Reason can disagree all he wants but management's singular function is to manage and sustain stocks and they haven't. And when a fishery is forced into emergency measures, it's because management allowed that resource to decline to a level requiring those measures. Every other excuse is finger pointing, political spin doctoring and BS. They have a responsibility to oversee and manage fisheries, just do your job and stop making short term decisions that cause negative long-term results.

Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine geographically are all smaller states like NJ. Maryland even has a salt water license and based on the allocation formula each of those states, like NJ, got 1% of excise taxes in 2022 or $3,996,614. Same amount, same calculation. The other states you mentioned south of NJ like Virginia, NC, SC, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas get more of the excise tax refund due to their geographical size and angler population (more licenses sold).

Obviously a saltwater license would generate incremental revenues on it's own regardless of the impact on the federal excise tax allocation. The million dollar question again is how many anglers would sign up, what would the cost per license be and how would that money be spent. FYI, I believe I read somewhere 24% of license fees have to be spent on enforcement which if true would be a big boost in this state to address the unabated poaching of striped bass and other species.

If Andy and his family all buy licenses, New Jersey's percentage of the excise tax refund might actually hit the 5% maximum and put $16 million more into our state fishery agencies coffers

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Bill you’re wrong on many points and I’m too busy to waste effort on this .

Spoke to a director at FG this afternoon . One that’s responsible for projects done with this money .
We ABSOLUTELY would get more return if we had a SW license .
It’s based on the number of license sales not the size of the state .
Money we currently get is from Hunting and freshwater license sales .

There are states that require you to still have a license even if fishing in a charter or head boat.
There are not exceptions . You either buy a short term or full year license if you want to fish their waters .

Hammer I'm not wrong on any points and if you're too busy to waste effort on this I have a solution, stop posting misinformation. I don't care who you spoke with, I have my sources too and I've shared the regulation on this thread. Maryland has a saltwater license and gets the same amount New Jersey does. Licenses represent just 60% of the allocation formula. How many licenses would be generated by New Jersey if adopted is key to the allocation no one seems to really have a firm handle on. Without that knowledge, you and which ever Director you spoke with can't claim it would result in additional excise tax refunds. I know funds we get now are from hunting and freshwater sales, I've said that all along.

What states require a saltwater license if fishing on a for hire boat? Please provide the names of those states. And yes there are exceptions. Florida, which you brought into the discussion, doesn't require anglers on for hire to purchase a license as long as the boat has the proper blanket permit which every operator would be crazy not to. Neither does North Carolina. Just check out the attached link and stop posting misinformation otherwise you'd have more time on your hands and so would I.

https://www.google.com/search?q=does...hrome&ie=UTF-8

That sounds like an exception wouldn't you agree, feel free to send it to the Director you spoke with.

Here's North Carolina's regulations which you can send as well. If a for hire vessel has a blanket license, anglers on board do not need what ND refers to as a Coastal Recreational Fishing License or "CRFL".

https://www.deq.nc.gov/marine-fisher...table/download

And like I said, if NJ introduced a salt water license and made it mandatory for patrons of charter/party boats to purchase one, in my opinion as I've said all along the state would be putting another nail in the coffin of the for hire fishing community.