saltwater fishing licenses?
Jan 23, 2011 17:13:45 GMT -1
Post by SEAJUNKY on Jan 23, 2011 17:13:45 GMT -1
In Europe attention is turning towards Recreational fishing. How many people are involved, how much is the sector(s) worth. What is the environmental Impact?
Studies undertaken in the past have tried to extrapolate from basic data, but thwarted by questions such as 'how many actual anglers are there?', and with researchers puzzling how they can best contact anglers.
Similar studies have been attempted in the USA, but have always been flawed because of lack of such basic information.
With some states licensing saltwater anglers and thereby able to get a better grip of numbers and contact details as a starting point, but with other states unable to provide such basic information, Federal Authorities have introduced a compulsory register of saltwater anglers, which was originally free, but is now being charged for anglers in States without their own licensing system.
In the EU these developments have been watched with interest, and already there are calls being made to set up a similar EU register for Recreational Sea Anglers to help get a better understanding of the value and impact of the sector (I know of studies currently underway in England and Wales where such a register of anglers contact details would be regarded as invaluable by those attempting to put some real meat on the bones of the questions being raised).
So it's interesting to follow some of the discussion over this issue that is taking place over there, and spot the relevance to the UK/EU situation (eg need to fund IFCAs and MCZs etc).
www.app.com/article/20110123/OPINION/101230337/Should-N-J-charge-a-fee-for-saltwater-fishing-licenses-Yes
Should N.J. charge a fee for saltwater fishing licenses? Yes
Conservation programs in need of new sources of revenue
By JEFF TITTEL • January 23, 2011
Jeff Tittel is New Jersey director of the Sierra Club.
New Jersey is at a crisis in our coastal region, both environmentally and with managing our many fishing resources. We have seen the closing of fishing areas and dismantling of programs that directly affect the management of our fishing resources.
Part of the reason is the state's failure to have a stable source of funding for these programs. We support the concept of having saltwater fishing licenses as a way to generate revenue.
This would ensure that fishing programs stay viable and fish remain a resource for the people of New Jersey and the tourists our economy depends on. The fee in question, $15, is modest given the importance of protecting such a valuable resource.
The legislation on Gov. Chris Christie's desk, A823, which eliminates the license fee on saltwater anglers, is a waste. It does nothing to help protect New Jersey's fisheries or oceans. This bill is used as a fake to get around federal rules.
The federal government requires that states have saltwater fishing licenses. If they do not, the federal government will issue them.
Under the federal rule, states requiring licenses would get the money. If the states do not, the federal government would, and that money would be used for federal programs.
What New Jersey is doing is the worst of both, by not requiring licenses and not getting funds. This bill is a sham and does not help New Jersey.
We should charge for saltwater fishing licenses just as we currently charge for licenses for fishing in fresh waters. This money is desperately needed to keep coastal environmental and conservation programs going.
These funds should be dedicated to specific programs to keep from being stolen for projects. Charging a few dollars per fisherman can go a long way toward ensuring we have adequate resources to manage our important coastal resources and fisheries.
At a time when fishing areas have been closed for lack of staff to monitor them and oyster reefs have been destroyed because there aren't enough conservation officers to ensure their safety, these funds would be vital.
For decades, saltwater anglers have argued against questionable science from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Since the late 1970s, the fisheries service has relied on a data collection program called the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey to determine how many fish are caught by recreational fishermen each year, a survey that uses coastal phonebooks to cold-call homeowners to ask about fishing participation.
The oyster restoration programs have been dismantled because of lack of conservation officers. We have 40 percent fewer conservation officers than we did a decade ago. We do not have enough resources to manage the Marine Fisheries Council and other programs that help to restore habitat, clean up our waterways and provide access to fishing.
Not charging a fee will undermine fishing along our coasts. With the lack of resources, we will see more fishing areas closed. We will see a potential for contaminated fish or shellfish to get into our public markets, affecting public health. We will not have the proper staffing to manage fishing or our resources.
The bill passed by the state Senate in December and the Assembly on Jan. 6 is short-sighted and will actually hurt our coastal economy. A $15 per angler fee should be dedicated to specific purposes and not placed in the general fund. For recreational fishing boats, there should be one license per boat. That way, each individual doesn't have to be charged separately.
Budget cuts are closing environmental centers and limiting access to state parks and other public lands. We need new funding sources that can provide a steady stream of revenue, such as parking fees or a tax on outdoor equipment, to help pay for these programs. Without it, we may lose the places we go to for recreation and enjoyment. That will also hurt our economy, which gets a $3.9 billion boost from tourism.
www.app.com/article/20110123/OPINION/101230336/Should-N-J-charge-a-fee-for-saltwater-fishing-licenses-No
Should N.J. charge a fee for saltwater fishing licenses? No
Free saltwater registry backed by anglers and business groups
By JIM HUTCHINSON, JR. • January 23, 2011
Jim Hutchinson Jr. is managing director of the New Jersey based Recreational Fishing Alliance, a national political action organization that advocates on behalf of saltwater anglers and the boat, marine and tackle industries.
For decades, saltwater anglers have argued against questionable science from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Since the late 1970s, the fisheries service has relied on a data collection program called the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey to determine how many fish are caught by recreational fishermen each year, a survey that uses coastal phonebooks to cold-call homeowners to ask about fishing participation.
Arbitrary and random? You bet, especially when considering the survey is deemed gospel by regulators who use MRFSS to help count all the fish in the sea while ratcheting down regulatory controls on an unsuspecting angling public.
In 2006, the National Research Council intervened, deeming MRFSS "fatally flawed" and in need of reform. Congress responded by telling NMFS to fix the survey methodology, specifically citing the use of ordinary phonebooks to conduct important fisheries surveys. In 2007, federal law was amended requiring each state to maintain a simple angler registry of names and phone numbers to provide federal surveyors access to an actual phone list of living, breathing, fishing contacts.
As of Jan. 1, NMFS announced a new $15 fee was in effect for anglers registering with the National Saltwater Angler Registry, a change affecting anglers and spear fishermen in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and New Jersey, with revenues deposited directly into the federal treasury black hole. Fishermen in 22 of the nation's 24 coastal states are exempted from the federal requirement when they comply with state regulations where angler registry programs are already in place. (All except Maine require a fee, as low as $2 for Florida residents and as high as $116.90 for out-of-staters in California.)
Recognizing a unique opportunity, the New Jersey Senate and Assembly passed legislation requiring the Department of Environmental Protection to maintain a free annual registry to meet this federal mandate for data collection. In testimony before a Senate committee, Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, a primary sponsor of the legislation, said the ability to fish free in New Jersey's coastal waters would provide a competitive edge in tourism compared to other coastal states whose rates to access the ocean are driven up each year, in turn driving away many of the occasional anglers, families and summer visitors.
The angler registry legislation on Gov. Chris Christie's desk is not designed to increase DEP funding, but instead it's about meeting this federal mandate. The legislation has the overwhelming support of coastal businesses, marine trade associations, chambers of commerce and tourism councils, not to mention several hundred thousand individual anglers who spend their hard-earned cash at the Jersey Shore each year.
It is estimated that each of these fishermen spends more than $1,100 a year on consumer goods to fish, contributing tens of millions in state sales tax, while also contributing an added 10 percent federal excise tax on boat fuel and tackles. Federal excise fees are deposited into a special fund, reapportioned annually to states to help pay for initiatives that support the "restoration, conservation, management and enhancement of sport fish," the very goal of the registry legislation.
Regrettably, the angler registry requirement has been used as a political football by some conservation groups who have historically ignored the interests of coastal stakeholders, particularly fishermen and Jersey Shore business owners. Privately, some ideological beliefs are rooted in the fact that a fishing user fee (like a "sin tax" on cigarettes) will actually reduce fishing participation and drive anglers away from the fish.
In this economic climate, New Jersey can't afford to lose coastal fishing business because of restrictive user fees, especially not when federal funds from angler taxes are already available to pay for this new federal requirement.
Studies undertaken in the past have tried to extrapolate from basic data, but thwarted by questions such as 'how many actual anglers are there?', and with researchers puzzling how they can best contact anglers.
Similar studies have been attempted in the USA, but have always been flawed because of lack of such basic information.
With some states licensing saltwater anglers and thereby able to get a better grip of numbers and contact details as a starting point, but with other states unable to provide such basic information, Federal Authorities have introduced a compulsory register of saltwater anglers, which was originally free, but is now being charged for anglers in States without their own licensing system.
In the EU these developments have been watched with interest, and already there are calls being made to set up a similar EU register for Recreational Sea Anglers to help get a better understanding of the value and impact of the sector (I know of studies currently underway in England and Wales where such a register of anglers contact details would be regarded as invaluable by those attempting to put some real meat on the bones of the questions being raised).
So it's interesting to follow some of the discussion over this issue that is taking place over there, and spot the relevance to the UK/EU situation (eg need to fund IFCAs and MCZs etc).
www.app.com/article/20110123/OPINION/101230337/Should-N-J-charge-a-fee-for-saltwater-fishing-licenses-Yes
Should N.J. charge a fee for saltwater fishing licenses? Yes
Conservation programs in need of new sources of revenue
By JEFF TITTEL • January 23, 2011
Jeff Tittel is New Jersey director of the Sierra Club.
New Jersey is at a crisis in our coastal region, both environmentally and with managing our many fishing resources. We have seen the closing of fishing areas and dismantling of programs that directly affect the management of our fishing resources.
Part of the reason is the state's failure to have a stable source of funding for these programs. We support the concept of having saltwater fishing licenses as a way to generate revenue.
This would ensure that fishing programs stay viable and fish remain a resource for the people of New Jersey and the tourists our economy depends on. The fee in question, $15, is modest given the importance of protecting such a valuable resource.
The legislation on Gov. Chris Christie's desk, A823, which eliminates the license fee on saltwater anglers, is a waste. It does nothing to help protect New Jersey's fisheries or oceans. This bill is used as a fake to get around federal rules.
The federal government requires that states have saltwater fishing licenses. If they do not, the federal government will issue them.
Under the federal rule, states requiring licenses would get the money. If the states do not, the federal government would, and that money would be used for federal programs.
What New Jersey is doing is the worst of both, by not requiring licenses and not getting funds. This bill is a sham and does not help New Jersey.
We should charge for saltwater fishing licenses just as we currently charge for licenses for fishing in fresh waters. This money is desperately needed to keep coastal environmental and conservation programs going.
These funds should be dedicated to specific programs to keep from being stolen for projects. Charging a few dollars per fisherman can go a long way toward ensuring we have adequate resources to manage our important coastal resources and fisheries.
At a time when fishing areas have been closed for lack of staff to monitor them and oyster reefs have been destroyed because there aren't enough conservation officers to ensure their safety, these funds would be vital.
For decades, saltwater anglers have argued against questionable science from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Since the late 1970s, the fisheries service has relied on a data collection program called the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey to determine how many fish are caught by recreational fishermen each year, a survey that uses coastal phonebooks to cold-call homeowners to ask about fishing participation.
The oyster restoration programs have been dismantled because of lack of conservation officers. We have 40 percent fewer conservation officers than we did a decade ago. We do not have enough resources to manage the Marine Fisheries Council and other programs that help to restore habitat, clean up our waterways and provide access to fishing.
Not charging a fee will undermine fishing along our coasts. With the lack of resources, we will see more fishing areas closed. We will see a potential for contaminated fish or shellfish to get into our public markets, affecting public health. We will not have the proper staffing to manage fishing or our resources.
The bill passed by the state Senate in December and the Assembly on Jan. 6 is short-sighted and will actually hurt our coastal economy. A $15 per angler fee should be dedicated to specific purposes and not placed in the general fund. For recreational fishing boats, there should be one license per boat. That way, each individual doesn't have to be charged separately.
Budget cuts are closing environmental centers and limiting access to state parks and other public lands. We need new funding sources that can provide a steady stream of revenue, such as parking fees or a tax on outdoor equipment, to help pay for these programs. Without it, we may lose the places we go to for recreation and enjoyment. That will also hurt our economy, which gets a $3.9 billion boost from tourism.
www.app.com/article/20110123/OPINION/101230336/Should-N-J-charge-a-fee-for-saltwater-fishing-licenses-No
Should N.J. charge a fee for saltwater fishing licenses? No
Free saltwater registry backed by anglers and business groups
By JIM HUTCHINSON, JR. • January 23, 2011
Jim Hutchinson Jr. is managing director of the New Jersey based Recreational Fishing Alliance, a national political action organization that advocates on behalf of saltwater anglers and the boat, marine and tackle industries.
For decades, saltwater anglers have argued against questionable science from the National Marine Fisheries Service. Since the late 1970s, the fisheries service has relied on a data collection program called the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey to determine how many fish are caught by recreational fishermen each year, a survey that uses coastal phonebooks to cold-call homeowners to ask about fishing participation.
Arbitrary and random? You bet, especially when considering the survey is deemed gospel by regulators who use MRFSS to help count all the fish in the sea while ratcheting down regulatory controls on an unsuspecting angling public.
In 2006, the National Research Council intervened, deeming MRFSS "fatally flawed" and in need of reform. Congress responded by telling NMFS to fix the survey methodology, specifically citing the use of ordinary phonebooks to conduct important fisheries surveys. In 2007, federal law was amended requiring each state to maintain a simple angler registry of names and phone numbers to provide federal surveyors access to an actual phone list of living, breathing, fishing contacts.
As of Jan. 1, NMFS announced a new $15 fee was in effect for anglers registering with the National Saltwater Angler Registry, a change affecting anglers and spear fishermen in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and New Jersey, with revenues deposited directly into the federal treasury black hole. Fishermen in 22 of the nation's 24 coastal states are exempted from the federal requirement when they comply with state regulations where angler registry programs are already in place. (All except Maine require a fee, as low as $2 for Florida residents and as high as $116.90 for out-of-staters in California.)
Recognizing a unique opportunity, the New Jersey Senate and Assembly passed legislation requiring the Department of Environmental Protection to maintain a free annual registry to meet this federal mandate for data collection. In testimony before a Senate committee, Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-Cape May, a primary sponsor of the legislation, said the ability to fish free in New Jersey's coastal waters would provide a competitive edge in tourism compared to other coastal states whose rates to access the ocean are driven up each year, in turn driving away many of the occasional anglers, families and summer visitors.
The angler registry legislation on Gov. Chris Christie's desk is not designed to increase DEP funding, but instead it's about meeting this federal mandate. The legislation has the overwhelming support of coastal businesses, marine trade associations, chambers of commerce and tourism councils, not to mention several hundred thousand individual anglers who spend their hard-earned cash at the Jersey Shore each year.
It is estimated that each of these fishermen spends more than $1,100 a year on consumer goods to fish, contributing tens of millions in state sales tax, while also contributing an added 10 percent federal excise tax on boat fuel and tackles. Federal excise fees are deposited into a special fund, reapportioned annually to states to help pay for initiatives that support the "restoration, conservation, management and enhancement of sport fish," the very goal of the registry legislation.
Regrettably, the angler registry requirement has been used as a political football by some conservation groups who have historically ignored the interests of coastal stakeholders, particularly fishermen and Jersey Shore business owners. Privately, some ideological beliefs are rooted in the fact that a fishing user fee (like a "sin tax" on cigarettes) will actually reduce fishing participation and drive anglers away from the fish.
In this economic climate, New Jersey can't afford to lose coastal fishing business because of restrictive user fees, especially not when federal funds from angler taxes are already available to pay for this new federal requirement.
