Striped Bass Slot

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

For starters, I care. New Jersey recreational anglers shouldn't have to spend a penny to get earmarked money back. I thought that was the point of funds being earmarked. Where does it say a saltwater license, if introduced, would be $2 and where does it say money raised from a saltwater license would cause excise taxes to be used exclusively for salt water fishing improvements. Remember the billion in federally funded Covid relief earmarked for small businesses and people suffering the effects of the Pandemic until Murphy decided he'd rather see it in the state's coffers. Free boat ramps, personally I don't think you'll ever see that in New Jersey in your lifetime saltwater license or not.

The feds say it right in the explanation to get your portion of the excise tax spent on gear you buy .
Every piece of fishing gear you buy you paid an 11% tax on .
To get that money to come back to the state it’s required to show how many licensed salt water anglers there are .

States like Florida get every penny thry are entitled to as well as left over funds from states like ours who get nothing .
Free boat ramps , tons of money towards their reefs etc .

In states like ours they would go to the municipal Ramos etc and pay the fees to operate it .

That 2$ license pays back millions .


In a state like NJ that has a general fund , having ear marked money that can’t go into that fund . But has to be used for salt water fishing improvements is HUGE .

.
.

[Wilson]

A Florida resident annual saltwater license costs $17.00.

Almost every state I have been to requires a salt license and mostly have well marked and well maintained ramps, access to shore fishing, ample parking, restrooms and fish cleaning facilities. Florida fishing access and facilities are tops.
If the license fee would make the above mentioned happen in NJ then no one would bitch about buying a license.
$17.00 is less then lunch, gas and tolls for lots of people.

[Broad Bill]

Okay I'll bite. If a saltwater license is popular in most coastal states, generates millions of dollars in revenue in license fees alone hopefully to be used for the benefit of better enforcement and improving saltwater fisheries in the state and it would generate millions in excise tax funds to New Jersey, why hasn't New Jersey adopted it?

[Gerry Zagorski]

Originally Posted by pectoralfin

Could someone please explain how and where they get their information from.
Has anyone been asked by a representative from NMFS or filled out a survey form regarding SB? And how does this affect commercial fishing for SB? Did they reduce their quota?

The data on the recreational side in terms of number of fish caught comes from MRIP https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/recre...mation-program. It’s basically people interviewing fishermen and since everyone can’t be interviewed applying assumptions. Commercial catches are much more accurate since their catch is weighed.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

Okay I'll bite. If a saltwater license is popular in most coastal states, generates millions of dollars in revenue in license fees alone hopefully to be used for the benefit of better enforcement and improving saltwater fisheries in the state and it would generate millions in excise tax funds to New Jersey, why hasn't New Jersey adopted it?

Because NJ doesn’t care about you being able to hunt or fish here .
They only chase money they can put into the general fund that they can spend as they wish .
Our government here would spend millions to chase Pennie’s that they get to distribute .

So when it comes to ear marked money they HAVE to spend for us only in saltwater improvements it falls on deaf ears .

And instead of using their heads NJ fisherman right away don’t wanna give the state any more money . So instead pay ridiculous ramp fees each week , have no money coming back in for improvements . And just loose more every season .
A salt water license would give you a louder voice in how things happen in our store effecting our fishery .

.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

The feds say it right in the explanation to get your portion of the excise tax spent on gear you buy .
Every piece of fishing gear you buy you paid an 11% tax on .
To get that money to come back to the state it’s required to show how many licensed salt water anglers there are .

States like Florida get every penny they are entitled to as well as left over funds from states like ours who get nothing .
Free boat ramps , tons of money towards their reefs etc .

In states like ours they would go to the municipal Ramos etc and pay the fees to operate it .

That 2$ license pays back millions .


In a state like NJ that has a general fund , having ear marked money that can’t go into that fund . But has to be used for salt water fishing improvements is HUGE .

.
.

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. 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 for any purpose other than the administration of their state fishing 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 freshwater 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 to the tune of $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. Every state gets 1% of the overall annual payout minimum and no more than 5% maximum. In 2022, twelve states got the 1% minimum of $3.99 million including NJ, Ct, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont meaning based on the allocation formula they didn't meet the minimum allocation but based on the law received the 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.

New Jersey in 2022 had 138,000 anglers in the Salt Water Registry, if there was a saltwater license in New Jersey and all 138,000 registrants bought a license which is highly unlikely, it appears New Jersey would still have received 1% of the pie which means a salt water license as far as excise tax apportionment is concerned would have zero impact.

A salt water license would however obviously generate revenue, that revenue would not be allowed to go in the general fund (legally) but it would not at all be restricted to salt water improvements as mentioned.

After reading this, the size and population of our state is impacting New Jersey not receiving a higher proportion of these excise taxes more than anything else, including a general fund which every state has or the lack of a salt water license. Pennsylvania, for example, which obviously doesn't have a salt water license, received 2.33% of the $399 million or $9.3 million dollars because of their population and number of fresh water licenses sold in the 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 with details about some of the programs funded.

Thought this might help everyone better understand the process, didn't mean to detract from the striper slot topic.

[reason162]

NJ was the only state that voted against the emergency measure, which passed 15 to 1.

Think about this for a second - our state, knowing they had zero chance of stopping the measure, decided to vote no anyway, just so we can be on the record as the worst state for conservation measures year after year.

I would say it's shameful but these people who purportedly represent "our interests" have no shame.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Broad Bill

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. 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 for any purpose other than the administration of their state fishing 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 freshwater 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 to the tune of $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. Every state gets 1% of the overall annual payout minimum and no more than 5% maximum. In 2022, twelve states got the 1% minimum of $3.99 million including NJ, Ct, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont meaning based on the allocation formula they didn't meet the minimum allocation but based on the law received the 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.

New Jersey in 2022 had 138,000 anglers in the Salt Water Registry, if there was a saltwater license in New Jersey and all 138,000 registrants bought a license which is highly unlikely, it appears New Jersey would still have received 1% of the pie which means a salt water license as far as excise tax apportionment is concerned would have zero impact.

A salt water license would however obviously generate revenue, that revenue would not be allowed to go in the general fund (legally) but it would not at all be restricted to salt water improvements as mentioned.

After reading this, the size and population of our state is impacting New Jersey not receiving a higher proportion of these excise taxes more than anything else, including a general fund which every state has or the lack of a salt water license. Pennsylvania, for example, which obviously doesn't have a salt water license, received 2.33% of the $399 million or $9.3 million dollars because of their population and number of fresh water licenses sold in the 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 with details about some of the programs funded.

Thought this might help everyone better understand the process, didn't mean to detract from the striper slot topic.

Nj already gets its portion back on the fresh water license sales .
It’s doesn’t get anything back on the number of saltwater fisherman because there is no license .
Ramp access is one of the things returning funds are used for .if no available land is available they pay for the use of ramps that are available .
.
.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by reason162

NJ was the only state that voted against the emergency measure, which passed 15 to 1.

Think about this for a second - our state, knowing they had zero chance of stopping the measure, decided to vote no anyway, just so we can be on the record as the worst state for conservation measures year after year.

I would say it's shameful but these people who purportedly represent "our interests" have no shame.

I hear what you're saying and agree that obviously New Jersey's vote meant nothing in a 15 - 1 overall vote but food for thought. Where do the powers to be that represent the state draw the line. 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. The only fishery that's improved locally are stripers and the new regulations just took 7" away from the current 10" slot range which will result in significantly higher discard mortality levels in the stock up and down the coast.

Recruitment is the problem which is backed by the data in the last stock assessment. The biomass is there, it's just not producing in the Chesapeake. Scientists themselves blame it on pollution and the over harvest of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. The result, less forage and a polluted ecosystem. These new regulations don't address the problem, like fluke they impose a paper thin slot range that will only kill more bass.

How many more hits does the recreational sector and small businesses that depend on it have to take before the regulators realize where the problem is? I think New Jersey's vote, as a practical matter, was more symbolic of the above as opposed to their beliefs when it comes to conservation.

[Broad Bill]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Nj already gets its portion back on the fresh water license sales .
It’s doesn’t get anything back on the number of saltwater fisherman because there is no license .
Ramp access is one of the things returning funds are used for .if no available land is available they pay for the use of ramps that are available .
.
.

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".