New York Possible Fee Based Saltwater Fishing License Survey

[AndyS]

I would buy a saltwater license in the hopes of hiring more conservation officers (game wardens)

[Gerry Zagorski]

For me personally, this is not about the money, I've spent $50 on more foolish things... It's just another money grab for our already greedy state that has it's best interests in mind, not their constituents. I'd much rather see us put money into a fund where we can direct it's use in our best interests rather than the states.

As far as public access, ramps etc this sounds like a great idea but how would the state improve this? Seems to me most of the salt water areas where access would make the most sense are already owned privately or by local municipalities. Even in the few areas I know of where the state has access points, there is a ramp fee so would this be eliminated?

Having said this, I see Dan and Joey's point about getting our fair share of excise taxes but once again, if I'm going to spend money on a license so we get access to those funds, I'd want to know where that money is going to be spent to make sure it's not squandered or used against us.

Last but not least, if this is about providing more access, don't you think having a paid salt water license will limit access to those who can't afford it or only fish occasionally? I'm a dad and spur of the moment I want to take my 2 kids out fishing from the beach, a dock or a jetty down the shore.. 3 times $X might make me think twice about it and that would be a shame.

Great discussion here but it would take a lot of convincing for me to get behind a paid saltwater license in NJ.

[FishingSinceIWasThree]

The money will go to:

1. The Ukraine
2. China
3. Create fires/burn down cities so that the government cronies can steal the property of those who are burned/murdered.

[Broad Bill]

CONNECTICUT 3,996,614
DELAWARE 3,996,614
HAWAII 3,996,614
MAINE 3,997,614
MARYLAND 3,996,614
MASSACHUSETTS 3,996,614
NEW HAMPSHIRE 3,996,614
NEW JERSEY 3,996,614
PUERTO RICO 3,996,614
RHODE ISLAND 3,996,614
VERMONT 3,996,614
WEST VIRGINIA 3,996,614

We've already beaten this horse to death previously in the striper slot limit discussion back in June. A saltwater license because of the excise tax allocation formula will add ZERO in additional excise taxes to NJ. The above states get the 1% minimum and New Jersey will continue to do so if a saltwater license were adopted. Some of the above states have a saltwater license and it simply doesn't matter in how the allocation calculation is made. Geographic size of the state and licenses sold on a weighted average basis compared to all states drives the formula and New Jersey wouldn't benefit by a penny with a saltwater license as far as excise taxes are concerned. That's a fact and the reason is our states population and demographics are simply too small compared to other states which proportionately receive more funds.

If a saltwater license were introduced, there would be revenues associated with licenses as all recreational anglers would have to fund it but the spending of that money is up to the discretion of the state's Wildlife Agency and ultimately Governor Murphy when he chooses to do a money grab. There's no guarantees. If you think there are, you're drinking the Kool-Aid. I think everyone on this site and in this state would sign up for a license if it was guaranteed to support significantly greater salt or fresh water law enforcement efforts and be earmarked without option to only saltwater projects. That'll never happen. If you look at the posts back in June when this was exhaustively discussed, salt water licenses add revenues to the states Wildlife Agency, how those funds are used is anyone's guess but it is certainly not restricted for the exclusive improvement of saltwater fisheries. That's the issue most people have with a license, if they're going to pay for it they want to see direct benefits to saltwater projects but the way this is structured there's no guarantees. If you look at the uses in the article from the link I posted back in that June thread, the majority of the funds are used for projects not at all associated with saltwater improvements.

On a personal note, the other problem I have with the way you're spinning this is for free boat ramp access. Less than 10% of salt water recreational anglers have a boat, even less have boats they trailer requiring a boat launch. Why should all recreational anglers be expected to fund a saltwater license so that a privileged few who do trailer and use launches benefit?

A fluke trip today for anyone who goes on a for hire charter or party boat costs well over $200 all in. Now we want to add a saltwater license and subsidize boat ramps or just have those funds disappear. Look at what Musky Nut has been trying to do in the fresh water forum for a free boat ramp and public access at Greenwood lake for two years, a lake already stocked and subsidized by fresh water fishing license fees. You'll never get this money back, it won't be used for things saltwater anglers can tangibly call benefits and once its adopted you'll never repeal it. I hate being a wet rag but if this state gave a shit about salt water fishing as a significant part of the economy and the state's legacy, we'd have fishing piers like other states up and down the coast.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

CONNECTICUT 3,996,614
DELAWARE 3,996,614
HAWAII 3,996,614
MAINE 3,997,614
MARYLAND 3,996,614
MASSACHUSETTS 3,996,614
NEW HAMPSHIRE 3,996,614
NEW JERSEY 3,996,614
PUERTO RICO 3,996,614
RHODE ISLAND 3,996,614
VERMONT 3,996,614
WEST VIRGINIA 3,996,614

We've already beaten this horse to death previously in the striper slot limit discussion back in June. A saltwater license because of the excise tax allocation formula will add ZERO in additional excise taxes to NJ. The above states get the 1% minimum and New Jersey will continue to do so if a saltwater license were adopted. Some of the above states have a saltwater license and it simply doesn't matter in how the allocation calculation is made. Geographic size of the state and licenses sold on a weighted average basis compared to all states drives the formula and New Jersey wouldn't benefit by a penny with a saltwater license as far as excise taxes are concerned. That's a fact and the reason is our states population and demographics are simply too small compared to other states which dictates the allocation.

If a saltwater license were introduced, there would be revenues associated with licenses as all recreational anglers would have to fund it but the spending of that money is up to the discretion of the state's Wildlife Agency and ultimately Governor Murphy when he chooses to do a money grab. There's no guarantees. If you think there are, you're drinking the Kool-Aid. I think everyone on this site and in this state would sign up for a license if it was guaranteed to support significantly greater salt or fresh water law enforcement efforts and be earmarked without option to only saltwater projects. That'll never happen. If you look at the posts back in June when this was exhaustively discussed, salt water licenses add revenues to the states Wildlife Agency, how those funds are used is anyone's guess but it is certainly not restricted for the exclusive improvement of saltwater fisheries. That's the issue most people have with a license, if they're going to pay for it they want to see direct benefits to saltwater projects but the way this is structured they won't. If you look at the uses in the article from the link I posted back in that June thread, the majority of the funds are used for projects not at all associated with saltwater improvements.

On a personal note, the other problem I have with the way you're spinning this is for free boat ramp access. Less than 10% of salt water recreational anglers have a boat, even less have boats they trailer requiring a boat launch. Why should all recreational anglers be expected to fund a saltwater license so that a privileged few who do trailer and use launches benefit?

A fluke trip today for anyone who goes on a for hire charter or party boat costs well over $200 all in. Now we want to add a saltwater license and subsidize boat ramps or just have those funds disappear. Look at what Musky Nut has been trying to do in the fresh water forum for a free boat ramp and public access at Greenwood lake for two years, a lake already stocked and subsidized by fresh water fishing license fees. You'll never get this money back, it won't be used for things saltwater anglers can tangibly call benefits and once its adopted you'll never repeal it. I hate being a wet rag but if this state gave a shit about salt water fishing as a significant part of the economy and the state's legacy, we'd have fishing piers like other states up and down the coast.

The only accurate portion is the state doesn’t give a shit about anglers here . That’s WHY they don’t chase the excise tax here by having a license .
That money is ABSOLUTELY ear marked for access as well as enhancements for the fisheries .
Every state that argued against it has proven its value after they imposed licenses .
As stated in other discussions , NJFG was told they wouldn’t be allocated more Co to enforce he license so they stopped pushing .

EVERY single one of us fishing here pays way more each year in excise tax than a license costs and gets little return.

I guess you think 90 percent of non boat owning people fish off the surf .

If anything having a SW license would protect some of our fishery here.
Instead NJ gets the worst regulations shoved down our throats every year .

States opposing the excise tax aren’t doing it to stop us from paying it .
It’s to stop it from protecting our life style .

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

The only accurate portion is the state doesn’t give a shit about anglers here . That’s WHY they don’t chase the excise tax here by having a license .

Gerry: Exactly and money is going to change that? Our state has plenty of money and more money is going to change that?

That money is ABSOLUTELY ear marked for access as well as enhancements for the fisheries .

Gerry: So what are they going to do here in NJ where all the access is already owned by privates or local municipal governments?

Every state that argued against it has proven its value after they imposed licenses .
As stated in other discussions , NJFG was told they wouldn’t be allocated more Co to enforce he license so they stopped pushing .

Gerry: so more enforcement is the root to our marine fisheries problems and the regulations?

EVERY single one of us fishing here pays way more each year in excise tax than a license costs and gets little return.

Gerry: that's a choice each one of us makes on their own and with their own dollars. A mandatory license is not a choice, unless you choose not to pay it and you therefore choose not to fish.

I guess you think 90 percent of non boat owning people fish off the surf .

If anything having a SW license would protect some of our fishery here.
Instead NJ gets the worst regulations shoved down our throats every year .

Gerry: so we're magically going to get better regulations and our fisheries would be better protected by paying for a state license when the feds control our regulations if we pay for a license or not? I'd like to hear the logic on that... Do we get a larger seat at the table if we have a paid SW license? If we do, I'm all ears and please tell us more...

States opposing the excise tax aren’t doing it to stop us from paying it .
It’s to stop it from protecting our life style .

Gerry: Please explain this, I don't understand....

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

The only accurate portion is the state doesn’t give a shit about anglers here . That’s WHY they don’t chase the excise tax here by having a license .
That money is ABSOLUTELY ear marked for access as well as enhancements for the fisheries .
Every state that argued against it has proven its value after they imposed licenses .
As stated in other discussions , NJFG was told they wouldn’t be allocated more Co to enforce he license so they stopped pushing .

EVERY single one of us fishing here pays way more each year in excise tax than a license costs and gets little return.

I guess you think 90 percent of non boat owning people fish off the surf .

If anything having a SW license would protect some of our fishery here.
Instead NJ gets the worst regulations shoved down our throats every year .

States opposing the excise tax aren’t doing it to stop us from paying it .
It’s to stop it from protecting our life style .

One day, God willing, you'll learn to read. I never said excise tax rebates aren't earmarked for saltwater improvements, I said a saltwater license won't get NJ one more penny based on the allocation methodology. I did say revenues from saltwater license fees are used based on the discretion of Wildlife Agency and NOT as you said exclusively for saltwater improvements.

If a SW license is adopted, we'll continue paying just as much in excise taxes so don't understand your point. The state gets back exactly what it's supposed to, no different than the other 11 states mentioned in my earlier post.

I know 90% of rec anglers don't fish from shore, but when I fish on a for hire charter, party boat or with a friend on his private boat kept at a marina, I'm not paying a launch fee just like most rec anglers. So I really don't want to pay $20 bucks for a saltwater license with no guaranteed benefit or benefits to the majority of recreational anglers like myself.

New Jersey and every states restrictive saltwater regulations are based on the feds, not any aspect of this thread. Just read the recent post regarding rec catch being overstated by 30-40% due to MRIP.

You can vote your conscience and I'll vote mine but you and I are light years apart on this issue.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

Gerry: Please explain this, I don't understand....

Gerry the explanation is excise returns have to guarantee access and enhance the fishery .

Right now daily this state continues to chip away our access , and pieces of the fishery .
No protections what so ever.

As far as private property purchases , or them paying for all the use of maniple access points etc .
It’s done in all those other states , you think they didn’t gave to purchase all the ramp sites etc elseware .

Here even in Nj they have bought small access points for the fresh water fishery access to both rivers and lakes .

Your money being paid on all your fishing gear in excise tax isn’t your choice . Your have to pay it .
The reason it was adopted was to PROTECT your interests in being able to use that gear .

NJ government could care less about out billion dollar fishery . They only care about chasing money they can mis allocate .

We should be cgasing the money that will protect recreational fishing interests here in Nj

[Salt]

Andy, you know that will not happen, you cannot believe a word a politician says. They will say anything to hold their office because it is a very lucrative pay day. They have already sold their souls to the devil.

[Broad Bill]

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.