I hope the Honorable Senator Van Drew will take a closer look at the salt water license issue. The fear that the money raised from a salt water license will be raided by the Governor is not justified. A salt water license can not be compared to dedicated accounts like the arts or the beach replenishment. Money collected from a salt water license is protected by Federal law. The money from the salt water license would be matched by federal funds. The money raised through NJ hunting and fresh water licenses has never been used for anything other that fish and wildlife in over ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Noaa reported salt water angler numbers alone at one million four hundred thousand! Depending on the price of a saltwater license the NJ salt water license would raise about 40,000,000.00 dollars annually to enhance our salt water fishing. We could build the salt water hatcheries, create green jobs and ensure the future of our salt water game fish. The alterative is we keep the statuesque and our salt water fishing will continue to decline. Charter boats, Tackle shops and salt water guides service will cotinue to go bankrupt!
| #2 | |
There is a third choice:
Free NJ Registry!
By: njdiver on March 15, 2009
at 5:50 pm
The main concern among most people opposed to a salt water fishing license is the money raised will not be used to enhance fishing. The fear is the money will be stolen by Trenton politicians.To quote Former Fish and Wildlife Chief McDowell { in over one hundred years the money collected from hunting and fresh water fishing licenses has “never been” used for anything other than fish, game and wildlife.} As proven in other states the money raised through a salt water license greatly improves the fish stocks and enhances salt water fishing. Is this where we stand in New Jersey we should forego the benefits of a salt water license out of fear our elected officials will steal the money! I am sure there is a way to guarantee the money will be safe.
By: kensdock on March 17, 2009
at 6:00 pm
The money raised through NJ hunting and fresh water licenses has never been used for anything other that fish and wildlife in over ONE HUNDRED YEARS. No politician is going to steal money raised through hunting and fishing licenses. Number one they would be forced by the federal government to return millions of funds raised through fishing and hunting gear. TWO, Salt water fishermen are a very large block of votes. Noaa reported salt water angler numbers alone at one million four hundred thousand! Couple that with hunters and fresh water anglers and we are well over two million!! The benefits of a salt water license have been PROVEN in other states. Depending on the price of a saltwater license the NJ salt water license would raise about 40,000,000.00 dollars annually to enhance our salt water fishing. We could build the salt water hatcheries, create green jobs and ensure the future of our salt water game fish. The alterative is we keep the statuesque and our salt water fishing will continue to decline. A lottery or a license plate will not work. All fishermen need to be on board. Please save a spot for me at your meeting.
Thank you, K
By: kensdock on March 27, 2009
at 12:06 am
NJdiver thank you for gathering and providing this information.
TITLE 50–WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
CHAPTER I–UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (CONTINUED)
PART 80_ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, FEDERAL AID IN FISH AND FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACTS
(Snip)
Sec. 80.3 Assent legislation.
A State may participate in the benefits of the Act(s) only after it has passed legislation which assents to the provisions of the Acts and has passed laws for the conservation of fish and wildlife including a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters and sport fishermen to purposes other than administration of the fish and wildlife agency. Subsequent legislation which amends these state laws shall be subject to review by the Secretary. If the legislation is found contrary to the assent provisions, the State shall become ineligible.
Sec. 80.4 Diversion of license fees.
Revenues from license fees paid by hunters and fishermen shall not be diverted to purposes other than administration of the State fish and wildlife agency.
(a) Revenues from license fees paid by hunters and fishermen are any revenues the State receives from the sale of licenses issued by the State conveying to a person the privilege to pursue or take wildlife or fish. For the purpose of this rule, revenue with respect to license sales by vendors, is considered to be the net income to the State after deducting reasonable vendor fees or similar amounts retained by sales agents. License revenues include income from:
(1) General or special licenses, permits, stamps, tags, access and recreation fees or other charges imposed by the State to hunt or fish for sport or recreation.
(2) Sale, lease, rental, or other granting of rights of real or personal property acquired or produced with license revenues. Real property includes, but is not limited to, lands, building, minerals, energy resources, timber, grazing, and animal products. Personal property includes, but is not limited to, equipment, vehicles, machine, tools, and annual crops.
(Snip)
(Snip)
Sec. 80.21 Assurances.
The State must agree to and certify that it will comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and requirements as they relate to the application, acceptance, and use of Federal funds under the Acts. The Secretary shall have the right to review or inspect for compliance at any time. Upon determination of noncompliance, the Secretary may terminate or suspend those projects in noncompliance, or may declare the State ineligible for further participation in program benefits until compliance is achieved.
(Snip)
Big props to NJdiver for gathering and providing this information.
(Snip)= Irrelevant references cut.
——————————————————————————–
Last edited by njdiver : Yesterday at 08:31 AM.
njdiver
View Public Profile
Send a private message to njdiver
Send email to njdiver
Find all posts by njdiver
Add njdiver to Your Buddy List
#48 Yesterday, 08:48 AM
mboy
NJFishing.com Old Salt Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,064
Re: nj saltwater licenses
——————————————————————————–
Well, there it is.
I now stand corrected
This shows me (and others) that if NJ does pass a Saltwater license, the money shouldn’t be diverted to other purposes.
NJDiver, thank you for providing FACTs on the issue to prove me incorrect on instead of personal attacks.
__________________
By: kensdock on April 19, 2009
at 12:58 am
They(nj politicos) will be unable to weasel word it. The feds in this case are very specific.
Bradley Campbell, then DEP head, tried to raid F&W a few years back, in fact transferred the money. The feds *made* NJ put it back.
There is no issue about this money going into the general fund. None.
However, the general distrust, the lack of real need for a sw license (or anything beyond a trout stamp to fund stocking and a nominal fee of several $$ for general) is real. It’s all another bogus way to generate funds through a pay-to-play scam. They, the feds, are going to tax you to go out on the water and pull in fish that they didn’t have anything to do with being there? and that they don’t do anything to manage, other than tell people not to fish for them???
I have no problem with regulations, but I see no need for them to manage the ability to catch fish (that make sense?).
That all said, we are in a no win situation here… the feds are coming for your $$… that is a fact folks.
You can either own up and get some benefit to NJ, or get nothing out of it.
You decide.
__________________
– Rob
By: Rob on April 21, 2009
at 2:55 am
Here are the requirements under “Wallop-Breaux” for a State “License” to qualify for matching funds:
§ 80.9 Notice of desire to participate.
Any State fish and wildlife agency desiring to avail itself of the benefits of the Acts shall notify the Secretary within 60 days after it has received a certificate of apportionment of funds available to the State. Notification to the Secretary may be accomplished by either of the following methods. In either method, the document must be signed by a State official authorized to commit the State to participation under the Act(s).
(a) Submitting to the regional director within the 60-day period a letter stating the desire of the State to participate in the Act(s); or,
(b) Having an approved Application for Federal Assistance which contains plans for the use of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program funds during the period of the apportionment.
[47 FR 22539, May 25, 1982, as amended at 73 FR 43128, July 24, 2008]
§ 80.10 State certification of licenses.
(a) To ensure proper apportionment of Federal funds, the Service requires that each director of a State fish and wildlife agency:
(1) Specify a license certification period that:
(i) Is 12 consecutive months in length;
(ii) Is either the State’s fiscal year or license year;
(iii) Is consistent from year to year; and
(iv) Ends no less than 1 year and no more than 2 years before the beginning of the Federal fiscal year that the apportioned funds first become available for expenditure;
(2) Obtain the Director’s approval before changing the State-specified license certification period; and
(3) Annually provide to the Service the following data:
(i) The number of persons who hold paid licenses that authorize an individual to hunt in the State during the State-specified license certification period; and
(ii) The number of persons who hold paid licenses that authorize an individual to fish in the State during the State-specified license certification period.
(b) When counting persons holding paid hunting or fishing licenses in a State-specified license certification period, a State fish and wildlife agency must abide by the following requirements:
(1) The State may count all persons who possess a paid license that allows the licensee to hunt or fish for sport or recreation. The State may not count persons holding a license that allows the licensee only to trap animals or only to engage in commercial activities.
(2) The State may count only those persons who possess a license that produced net revenue of at least $1 per year returned to the State after deducting costs directly associated with issuance of the license. Examples of such costs are agents’ or sellers’ fees and the cost of printing, distribution, and control.
(3) The State may count persons possessing a single-year license (one that is legal for less than 2 years) only in the State-specified license certification period in which the license was purchased.
(4) The State may count persons possessing a multiyear license (one that is legal for 2 years or more) in each State-specified license certification period in which the license is legal, whether it is legal for a specific or indeterminate number of years, only if:
(i) The net revenue from the license is in close approximation with the number of years in which the license is legal, and
(ii) The State fish and wildlife agency uses statistical sampling or other techniques approved by the Director to determine whether the licensee remains a license holder.
(5) The State may count persons possessing a combination license (one that permits the licensee to both hunt and fish) with:
(i) The number of persons who hold paid hunting licenses in the State-specified license certification period, and
(ii) The number of persons who hold paid fishing licenses in the same State-specified license certification period.
(6) The State may count persons possessing multiple hunting or fishing licenses (in States that require or permit more than one license to hunt or more than one license to fish) only once with:
(i) The number of persons who hold paid hunting licenses in the State-specified license certification period, and
(ii) The number of persons who hold paid fishing licenses in the same State-specified license certification period.
(c) The director of the State fish and wildlife agency must provide the certified information required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to the Service by the date and in the format that the Director specifies. If the Director requests it, the director of the State fish and wildlife agency must provide documentation to support the accuracy of this information. The director of the State fish and wildlife agency is responsible for eliminating multiple counting of single individuals in the information that he or she certifies and may use statistical sampling or other techniques approved by the Director for this purpose.
(d) Once the Director approves the certified information required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the Service must not adjust the numbers if such adjustment would adversely impact any apportionment of funds to a State fish and wildlife agency other than the agency whose certified numbers are being adjusted. However, the Director may correct an error made by the Service.
[73 FR 43128, July 24, 2008]
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text…0.1.5.23.0.1.9
By: kensdock on May 17, 2009
at 3:14 am
Home › News › Indian River County
Saltwater hatcheries seek part of stimulus package
By Ed Killer (Contact)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Video
Watch »
Photo by Eric Hasert
Chris Robinson, biological scientist for Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic University, spreads feed into one of several 250 gallon tanks containing about 2,500 small redfish. Harbor Branch is one of several facilities across the state hoping to acquire funds from a possible stimulus package.
Photo by Eric Hasert
Richard Baptiste, research program coordinator for Harbor Branch, checks on a tank of mature redfish destined for future breeding stock.
STORY TOOLS
E-mail story
Comments
iPod friendly
Printer friendly
More Indian River County
Humane Society promotes ‘My Dog is Cool’
Indian River sheriff providing more information on Web
New Vero coffee shop, Café Mojo, roasts its own
Share and Enjoy [?]
It’s unknown whether President Barack Obama has ever cast a gold spoon at a school of tailing redfish on a shallow Florida grassflat.
But one day, his signature could ensure that millions of future anglers enjoy a better chance to experience that sportfishing thrill.
The Florida Marine Fisheries Enhancement Initiative is a public-private partnership working to sustain one of Florida’s largest industries — recreational fishing.
Recreational fishing in Florida nets the state more than $5 billion a year and maintains more than 130,000 jobs. A whopping 39 percent of all the saltwater fishing in the United States takes place in Florida waters and the number of anglers coming to Florida to fish each year is increasing by 7 percent, according to figures researched by the Wildlife Foundation of Florida.
The initiative contends the construction of a network of seven saltwater hatcheries spread around the state will help sustain those jobs and will continue to maintain Florida as the nation’s No. 1 saltwater fishing destination.
A proposal to secure almost $150 million in funding for this effort has been submitted to Congress, as well as to Gov. Charlie Crist’s office.
The money requested would come from Obama’s stimulus package through the state Legislature.
Brett Boston of the Wildlife Foundation of Florida believes the proposal will be well received at the state and federal levels.
“We did our homework and we’re ready for this money,” Boston said. “We already have the property, we have bright colorful people who know hatcheries and we have the partnerships.”
Boston said seven hatcheries are needed because Florida has 1,365 miles of coastline and varied ecosystems. Plus many popular game fish, such as redfish and snook, have slightly different genetics in east coast and west coast waters.
Boston said 3,129 immediate construction jobs would benefit local economies near hatchery sites.
Upon completion, 169 permanent green jobs would exist in the form of biologists and other hatchery personnel.
Three facilities will be on or near the Treasure Coast — Florida Institute of Technology’s Vero Beach Marine Laboratory, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at Florida Atlantic University in Fort Pierce and 3 miles north of Sebastian Inlet is the Hubbs SeaWorld Research Institute.
At a cost of $18.1 million, the plan would add a 10-acre saltwater fish stock enhancement center to Harbor Branch’s 20 acres of existing fish-rearing facilities, said Megan Davis, Harbor Branch director for aquaculture and stock enhancement. The facility would be able to raise and release 7 million fingerling
redfish into Florida’s estuaries and bays. An estimated 400 construction jobs and 12 permanent jobs would be generated there.
The Vero Beach Marine Enhancement Center on 5 acres would create 248 construction jobs, 16 permanent jobs and would cost $10.8 million. East and west coast broodstock would be raised there to produce millions of larvae for transport to facilities like Harbor Branch, Hubbs SeaWorld and New Smyrna Beach.
GOALS OF THE INITIATIVE
• Florida will provide global leadership in marine fisheries enhancement, via production, habitat restoration and adaptive management of enhancement and restoration impact.
• Maintain a balance of genetic quality and marine enhancement center output.
• The best available science will drive the production and enhancement processes. Knowledge gained will be applied to increase efficiencies and marine enhancement center output and effectiveness.
• To focus on viable production of recreational fish in the most cost-effective manner possible.
GREEN JOBS
• The construction of these hatcheries would produce “green” jobs, including biologists, habitat restoration specialists and research positions.
• They would be high end science-related jobs and the people would be working there long term helping to sustain what is a $5 billion resource for the State of Florida
• Partnerships with universities link these jobs to environmental managers. The strategy is to create our own long term industry
•To learn more visit Support Florida Sportfish
Source: Brett Boston of the Wildlife Foundation of Florida
FISHING IN FLORIDA
• Commercial and recrea´tional fishing generated more than $185 billion in sales and supported more than 2 million jobs in 2006
• Recreational fishing generated 131,000 jobs in Florida and $7.6 billion in sales
• Texas was a distant sec´ond with $2.2 billion in sales and 34,000 jobs
• Commercial fishing in Florida accounts for $5.2 billion in sales and 103,000 jobs, second only to California with $9.8 billion and 179,000 jobs.
Source: Fisheries Economics of the U.S., 2006, is available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/index.html
By: kensdock on May 26, 2009
at 9:24 pm
View Poll Results: Given a choice would you buy a NJ saltwater license if the money was only used for t
yes 137 68.50%
no 64 32.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 200. This poll is closed
Page 5 of 5 « First < 3 4 5
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
01-02-2010, 11:58 PM
By: kensdock on January 5, 2010
at 12:56 am
Re: New Jersey salt water license
——————————————————————————–
Quote Capt. Rob:
We’ve had saltwater fishing licenses here in Florida for a number of years. I think everything works pretty well here. It puts a lot of Wildlife officers on the water that helps protect from illegal catches and dumb boaters. You have a hunting lic in NJ why not a fishing lic??? Being an ex Jerseyan I can feel your pain I also don’t remember ever having my catch checked by anyone when i saltwater fished in Jersey and I did for many years. About the only places they ever checked were in the state parks.
CAPT. ROB ___ end quote
By: kensdock on January 17, 2010
at 11:56 pm
Most recreational anglers support a saltwater license according to the polls that have been taken after long debate on the subject. Taking into consideration precision and bias, the accuracy of the polls are excellent.
Jerry Schull, Executive Director of North Carolina Fisheries Association has been leading the fight against a saltwater license: He was quoted in the November 2003 issue of National Fisherman as saying, “Look what happened in other states. In some states you have got game fish status. In other states gill net bans. In Florida, they got the ultimate: a commercial net ban.”
Why does the commercial fishing industry oppose a salt water license?
The commercial fishing industry has been the only paying user group in fisheries management in New Jersey. Pay to play is alive and well here in the Garden State. They realize what they will be up against if a saltwater license is approved; a revenue generating, unified, politically powerful constituency of recreational anglers that will change the way of fisheries management in NJ.
Take a look at what can be accomplished with investing money in our saltwater fish stocks http://www.joincca.org/Accomplishments.html
Most recreational anglers support a saltwater license according to the polls that have been taken after long debate on the subject. Taking into consideration precision and bias, the accuracy of the polls are excellent.
By: kensdock on March 12, 2010
at 12:21 am