Q. Is it possible to have a conservation license plate or state lottery to pay for the registry?
A. A license plate isn't expected to bring in even $50,000. If the license plate idea were a viable means to fund the registry I would imagine that it would have been included as a funding source in the free saltwater registry bill -- but it isn't. The registry is expected to cost $600,000.
So in other words because a license plate will not potentially generate ALL the money needed (for whatever, since there is no such thing as "all the money needed" seeing as how there is always room to spend more money on something) that means it is not worth supporting?
You did not say that, only implied it, so i am asking.
Is not $50,000 more than the division has now not better than ZERO more dollars? No one has EVER implied that a license plate would solve any or all of the funding needs, only that it would be ANOTHER SOURCE OF INCOME for a division that is severely underfunded.
Of course, it has little to no chance of getting anywhere if people like YOU and groups like YOURS and the federation, to name a few, DON'T ACTIVELY SUPPORT IT!! It may be EASIER to poo poo every other option that comes along than trying to take the long hard route of actively pursuing it, but that doesn't make poo pooing every other funding option the right thing to do
And for someone who is supposedly the head (or at least the figure head) of a "grassroots" organization that deal politically in the state, I am surprised that you would have expected a specific alternate means of funding that has an entirely different set of requirements in order to be implemented compared to the registry to be included in the same bill. The issue of the registry vs. a license vs. free vs. no cost etc. is contentious an issue in and of itself, as evidenced by the active lobbying AGAINST the free registry by some NJ based groups (several of which are NJOA board members by the way) To expect to see another issue that has its own set of requirements and needs totally unrelated to those of the registry (regardless of whether or not the funds raised from it would be used for the registry) is naive to say the least. You don't bog down a contentious piece of legislation, and one that is so time sensitive to boot, with even more requirements and issues that are totally unrelated to the main issue (meaning the plate requirements, not the funding need)
I'm surprised Anthony, I would have thought you would have at least learned that much by now. Sure, if NJOA and other groups had supported the free registry from the start (over a year ago) there may have been plenty of time to use the plate and other potential sources as riders or additions to the bill to make it more appealing and to answer some of the funding questions (mostly raised by you and your associated organizations by the way) but since no such public support was to be found, and considering the overwhelming majority that passed the bill sans license plate in both houses, it was obviously not the "no brainer" you naively believed it should have been. So much for your thoughts on where it should or should not have been included.
Pointing out the potential pitfalls or shortcomings of any funding option is an important one. Pointing out those potential pitfalls is all well and good but accomplishes NOTHING if there is no support for the potential positives as well.
Are you echoing the sentiments of Dave Chanda from last year's NJMFC meeting (oh wait, I forgot, you were not even there) that if it doesn't solve all the problems it is only worth pointing out the negatives??
Shall we all sit around with our heads up our asses until the single thing that fixes everything comes along? So far, that is all that NJOA and YOU have done. Time to step up to the plate and actually SUPPORT additional funding possibilities that will GIVE THE DIVISION MORE MONEY THAN IT HAS NOW. A license plate, among other things, would do EXACTLY THAT.
As for the lottery, I spoke with Hazel Gluck former Executive Director of the New Jersey State Lottery last year and asked her opinion about the viability of a conservation lottery to fund the registry. Ms. Gluck is one of New Jersey's most well known and respected straight talkers in politics. She politely smiled and told me a conservation lottery is impractical if not impossible.
And yet how many times have we been told things like that? Weren't you told that very thing when you started NJOA and helped remove incumbent politicians that were anti-hunting?? Did you listen to the nay sayers or did you attempt to do what you thought was right??
Do you typically plan your actions around what A) a single person says and B) Based on the battles you think you can win?
My philosophy has always been you fight the fights worth fighting, not just the ones you think you can win. Fortunately groups like the RFA thinks the same way. I cannot say as much for NJOA based on what you have (or more to the point have not) done to date.
Do you know how many times the SSFFF was told what it was trying to do was "impractical and impossible"? Do you know how many times we were told that getting the SSC to reconsider the sea bass quota (and getting a vote that failed at the MAFMC to a super majority in favor of) was impossible? The list of things that were supposedly "impossible" but were done anyway is long and distinguished, perhaps you should look into some of those as examples of how to overcome supposedly insurmountable odds.
Even if we were to get past the enormous political obstacles it would then have to go to the public to vote on as a constitutional amendment. Of course, there is the distinct possibility the constitutional would fail.
While it has been stated since day one that a constitutional amendment would be needed to implement the lottery (this is not new information) there is also a distinct possibility that it could SUCCEED. Odd, nothing but negatives from you yet again. I will say again, pointing out the potential pitfalls is admirable, but totally worthless without pointing out the potential benefits. More negatives and no positives from you on yet ANOTHER funding option.
The conservation lottery threatens to take a piece out of someone else's lottery "pie."
EVERY funding option takes money from something else, even a NEW option (like a license) Is it not common knowledge that if you have to spend more of your own money on something else you never spent it on then you might have to spend less on something else? Even if you make MORE money than you had before, that additional money will now go towards something else instead of more towards something you might have otherwise spent it on.
What a revelation! If you spend it on one thing you might not spend it on another. Thanks for the heads up Ant, I never knew that.
She told me that the monies collected from the current lottery system aren't necessarily being spent on the things they are supposed to be spent on.
Which is irrelevant to the discussion. The answer to that is simple: "Make sure it goes where it is supposed to." The price of freedom is eternal vigilance Anthony. Just because it is hard or dangerous does not make it any less important or not worth doing.
The conservation lottery does not appear to be a legitimate suggestion as a means to fund the registry.
Says who? You? One person who used to work for the state? Oh, so that settles it, must not be worth doing.
By the way, the study that was done AT THE STATES REQUEST about a decade ago showed that A) A license plate had the potential to raise more than the supposed 50k you claim and B) that the SINGLE LARGEST FUNDING OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE TO THE STATE WAS A LOTTERY.
You should really do some research into these things before speaking about them.
