Striped Bass Slot

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

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 a New Jersey which 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 make that claim. 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.

The Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund is funded in part by the federal excise tax on fishing equipment and is the backbone of state-based fish conservation, benefiting all U.S. states and territories. The Wildlife Restoration Program, funded by the federal excise tax on guns, ammunition, and archery sales, provides grant funds to states and insular areas’ fish and wildlife agencies for projects to restore, conserve, manage and enhance wild birds and mammals and their habitats. Projects include providing public use and access to wildlife resources, hunter education and development and management of shooting ranges. 

“Many Americans are unaware of the remarkable conservation impact of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program,” said Fish and Wildlife Service Principal Deputy Director Martha Williams. “State wildlife agencies dedicate WSFR funds to a variety of conservation projects and programs such as hunting and fishing education, fish and wildlife management, scientific research, habitat restoration and protection, land and water rights acquisition, and hunting and boating access. Everyone benefits from these investments, which have ensured a legacy of wildlife and outdoor opportunities for all.”  

Congress authorizes the WSFR disbursements through the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. To date, the Service has distributed more than $25.5 billion in apportionments for state conservation and recreation projects. The recipient state wildlife agencies have matched these funds with approximately $8.5 billion throughout the years, primarily through hunting and fishing license revenues. 

Eligible states receive WSFR funds through formula-based permanent appropriations. The distribution formulas are based primarily on land and water area and the number of paid recreational hunting and fishing license holders in each state. State fish and wildlife agencies make their own management decisions about how the funds are used. The WSFR dollars typically fund up to 75% of project costs. Most states must provide a matching share of up to 25%, usually from state hunting and fishing license revenues. 

State-by-state listing of the Service’s final apportionment of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program funds for Fiscal Year 2022 can be found on the WSFR webpage. 

[Tuna Tales]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

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

Regarding the 3 to 1 ratio I called Eric Burnley directly and he confirmed it's 3 to 1. Thanks for the great information however this is my last post for this topic. I am sorry if I went off track from the slot size however as mentioned this is not an easy fix etc. Also - thank you Gerry for allowing this thread to keep going for as long as it has.

[hammer4reel]

Alaska requires a salt water license whether you fish privately , on a head boat or charter boat .
Other states require the head ‘charter boat to carry an overall license to cover patrons . So they are not entirely free either .

Alaskan charters don’t have a problem filling their spots on the boats .
Nor would NJ .

We do have world class fishing here for many species .

It’s just an excuse thinking guys wouldn’t fish for the added expense .

Party boats here upped their prices by 50% during Covid due to having to run with a lighter crowds . People paid the increase , and still are now even though there is no longer a need for limiting fares .

.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by Tuna Tales

Regarding the 3 to 1 ratio I called Eric Burnley directly and he confirmed it's 3 to 1. Thanks for the great information however this is my last post for this topic. I am sorry if I went off track from the slot size however as mentioned this is not an easy fix etc. Also - thank you Gerry for allowing this thread to keep going for as long as it has.

Thanks TT. And fyi, the salt water registry does feed MRIP statistics per link

https://dep.nj.gov/saltwaterregistry/

I know you said it's your last post on the subject but I still don't understand what you and Hammer mean by 3:1 as the apportionment factor mentioned in the DJ article I posted doesn't make any mention of a 3:1 ratio of any kind or have anything to do with the 60/40 license/geographic allocation factor. As I mentioned with the comparison between Florida and New Jersey between licenses and excise funds, no where is there any relationship that mirrors a 3:1 relationship you guys mentioned.

If you could answer one more question, does the 3:1 represent licenses to excise tax dollars, license dollars generated to excise tax dollars or something completely different. Does it mean for every $3 dollars the federal government refunds states in excise taxes, there's a match of $1 from somewhere else. If so, where? All I'd like to know and then we can close this down is what does the 3:1 mean and if it represents additional funding, where does that funding come from. It would help everyone better understand the pros and cons of a saltwater license.

I appreciate your input and having a respectful exchange of information.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

The Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund is funded in part by the federal excise tax on fishing equipment and is the backbone of state-based fish conservation, benefiting all U.S. states and territories. The Wildlife Restoration Program, funded by the federal excise tax on guns, ammunition, and archery sales, provides grant funds to states and insular areas’ fish and wildlife agencies for projects to restore, conserve, manage and enhance wild birds and mammals and their habitats. Projects include providing public use and access to wildlife resources, hunter education and development and management of shooting ranges. 

“Many Americans are unaware of the remarkable conservation impact of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program,” said Fish and Wildlife Service Principal Deputy Director Martha Williams. “State wildlife agencies dedicate WSFR funds to a variety of conservation projects and programs such as hunting and fishing education, fish and wildlife management, scientific research, habitat restoration and protection, land and water rights acquisition, and hunting and boating access. Everyone benefits from these investments, which have ensured a legacy of wildlife and outdoor opportunities for all.”  

Congress authorizes the WSFR disbursements through the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act and Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act. To date, the Service has distributed more than $25.5 billion in apportionments for state conservation and recreation projects. The recipient state wildlife agencies have matched these funds with approximately $8.5 billion throughout the years, primarily through hunting and fishing license revenues. 

Eligible states receive WSFR funds through formula-based permanent appropriations. The distribution formulas are based primarily on land and water area and the number of paid recreational hunting and fishing license holders in each state. State fish and wildlife agencies make their own management decisions about how the funds are used. The WSFR dollars typically fund up to 75% of project costs. Most states must provide a matching share of up to 25%, usually from state hunting and fishing license revenues. 

State-by-state listing of the Service’s final apportionment of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program funds for Fiscal Year 2022 can be found on the WSFR webpage. 

I can copy and paste too, your post validates basically everything I've said all along.

WSFR funds pay for 75% of project expenditures, most states must provide a matching share of up to 25% from hunting and fishing license sales so the match is not incremental funds to each state including New Jersey as opposed to a reallocation of existing license sale proceeds to fund agreed upon projects. That answers my 3:1 question, thank you.

The flip side to that coin is if New Jersey received $4 million in 2022 from the federal government in excise tax refunds and that represents the 75%, that means when that money is appropriated $1.33 million of license fees are reallocated to the Sport Recreation Fund to make up the states 25%. In my opinion, those monies would be better served staying with the state and used to beef up enforcement efforts. Point is this match doesn't represent incremental funds to New Jersey or any state, it's a reallocation of license proceeds to be used for conservation as opposed to enforcement activities.

[Capt Sal]

All the arguing and so called experts and we all still got screwed!!! If you have your life savings into a party boat you are in trouble!! The GOVERNMENT WON AGAIN!! 28-31 is RIDICULOUS!! Reminds me of going into the bay and catching thirty fluke to keep two??? MORTALITY??????? What is next barbless hooks and fly rods only LOL I am retired so it does not effect me but i feel for the guys that do it for a living.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by Capt Sal

All the arguing and so called experts and we all still got screwed!!! If you have your life savings into a party boat you are in trouble!! The GOVERNMENT WON AGAIN!! 28-31 is RIDICULOUS!! Reminds me of going into the bay and catching thirty fluke to keep two??? MORTALITY??????? What is next barbless hooks and fly rods only LOL I am retired so it does not effect me but i feel for the guys that do it for a living.

'
Capt Sal: Granted for hire takes another unnecessary hit but GOVERNMENT didn't win here. Recreational fishermen got EXACTLY what they pushed for and wanted!

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by dales529

'
Capt Sal: Granted for hire takes another unnecessary hit but GOVERNMENT didn't win here. Recreational fishermen got EXACTLY what they pushed for and wanted!

Sometimes what people ask for is the result of a lack of options and not necessarily what they want. The striped bass fishery collapsed in the 70's, not important to get into the details. When do recreational anglers stop paying for the mistakes of NMFS, MAFMC and ASMFC? Government has all the resources available and they still can't get it right with too many stocks. Nobody wins in this situation but regulations drive the health of every stock and this is clearly another failure by government regulators managing an extremely important coastal stock. Recreational didn't get what they wanted, they got what they had no choice but to accept which is another cluster $&@! set of regulations for a fishery that was thriving not long ago and once again finds itself in a state of decline. You might disagree but I don't think recreational anglers or the commercial sector would ever want emergency measures having to be implemented. Everyone loses on this one and in my opinion as I've stated the new regulations will kill more fish through elevated levels of discard mortality and is not at all addressing the problems leading to the stock's declines.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

Sometimes what people ask for is the result of a lack of options and not necessarily what they want. The striped bass fishery collapsed in the 70's, not important to get into the details. When do recreational anglers stop paying for the mistakes of NMFS, MAFMC and ASMFC? Government has all the resources available and they still can't get it right with too many stocks. Nobody wins in this situation but regulations drive the health of every stock and this is clearly another failure by government regulators managing an extremely important coastal stock. Recreational didn't get what they wanted, they got what they had no choice but to accept which is another cluster $&@! set of regulations for a fishery that was thriving not long ago and once again finds itself in a state of decline. You might disagree but I don't think recreational anglers or the commercial sector would ever want emergency measures having to be implemented. Everyone loses on this one and in my opinion as I've stated the new regulations will kill more fish through elevated levels of discard mortality and is not at all addressing the problems leading to the stock's declines.

Bill
To clarify my response there are usually 2 factors of fishermen discussing fisheries management. 1 (one ) wants less regulation and 1(one) wants more regulation. The groups that actually fight in meetings and with letters etc are always stuck in the middle and because of that it allows what NOAA wants NOAA gets. Don't get me wrong I think there are many smart and fisheries caring people at NOAA, have met many but a few dictate the "science" that makes our regulations , then throw in the "decline and mortality" rate of in this instance SB PUSHED HARD by recreational anglers and you get sympathy to pass more regulations than necessary without addressing the decline in the CB or fake mortality.

Many think public opinion / comment is ignored but certain groups and of course social media plays a role in or outside of public comment "meetings".

Throw in the FACT that no one uses the "count my fish" function with NJ F&G, cares about SW Registry or SW License, supports groups that can help and wonder why MRIP is so convoluted.

NJ Recreational fisherman have a mass but no voice as its chosen to disagree rather than agree. This thread is a perfect example.

Commercials support the lead and donate huge wether they individually agree with the specific topic or not which is why they win and we lose. Nothing new here

[Broad Bill]

I've heard many times on this site the recreational community does have a voice. RFA, SSFFF, JCAA, ASA and any number of other fishing clubs and organizations just to name a few. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ASA gets a majority of their funding from excise taxes as well. And we just determined on this thread that NJ alone received $4 million in excise taxes in 2022. Excise taxes refunded in 2022 for all states in the Mid-Atlantic region were over $56 million! That doesn't include ASA funding and it's ALL recreational hunting and fishing licenses generated.

Your words, commercials support the lead even if they don't agree with leadership individually. Commercial operations are well organized and funded through either co-ops or unions which has everything to do with that statement. There's funding there and leadership sets the tone and direction. If members disagree, I'm sure they're livelihood would be at stake which is a pretty powerful motivator to row in the same direction as leadership. Not to mention the fact that the sector raises hundreds of millions a year selling their catch which the recreational sector does not but the recreational sector pays excise taxes and gets a significant portion of those taxes back which I don't believe the commercial sector does.

The recreational sector has leadership, generates substantial fees and has organizations that are supposed to be the voice of reason for the sector. There's never going to be consensus on any issue, that's why we have leadership.

So my question is if the funding is there through outrageous amounts of money spent by recreational anglers and we have leadership representing that sector, why in your opinion does the recreational community continue getting the short end of the stick. In my opinion, it's because fisheries management reports up to the Department of Commerce where the problem starts and the recreational community will always be the redheaded stepchild, unless the funds that are already available are directed to a coordinated and cohesive effort to lobby Washington and change the rules.

If there was legislation on the books that a New Jersey saltwater license as stated in this thread for 500,000 anglers at $20 per license or $10 million in total funding would be used to even the playing field in marine fisheries management, bolster enforcement and have more equitable regulations between sectors, most every saltwater angler in this state would sign up in a heartbeat. From a relative standpoint, I think that would be a much better use of license and excise tax proceeds to bolster recreational sportfishing activities and be given fair and equal representation.