Press Clarifies NJOA Position on Free Registry

[apmaurosr]

A.P. Press Clarifies NJOA Free Registry Position
 
State Senate passes fee-free saltwater fishing registry bill
 
Recreational fishing advocates who support a $2 fee to pay for a new state saltwater fishing registry say they are keeping up their campaign, with a couple of weeks left before the Legislature can vote on final passage of a registry bill that promises to do it for free.
 
That proposal, passed by the state Senate Monday, calls for the state Department of Environmental Protection to find the money somewhere, without charging anglers for administrative costs. But that's dangerous in this fiscal climate, too, said Anthony Mauro Sr. of the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance.
 
"We would not oppose a free registry," said Mauro, who said his group and several others have been incorrectly portrayed as supporting a state saltwater fishing licenses with a fee. But they don't want to see "funds that are used to run natural resources . . . ransacked" to pay for a registry, he said Tuesday.
 
"You may have 600,000 saltwater fishermen in New Jersey, but they may not fish every year," Mauro said. To enroll them all in a saltwater registry at a cost of $1 a head — as some DEP staff have estimated — would cost $600,000, "and that's the entire appropriation of the Bureau of Marine Fisheries."
 
If nothing else, recreational advocates who disagree on the legislation's costs agree the sheer number of fishermen who could be affected won the attention of lawmakers. The registry proposal passed the Senate unanimously.
 
Fishing groups say the registry debate is one symptom of a deeper problem: New Jersey's perennial underfunding of an industry that brings hundreds of millions of dollars to the state economy, and $45 million just in state sales tax on tackle and gear alone.
 
Meanwhile, with nearly two dozen important ocean fish species to manage, "we can barely meet our obligations" to conform to interstate and federal conservation plans, said Thomas P. Fote of the Jersey Coast Anglers Association, who represents New Jersey on management boards and councils.
 
The Senate version of the bill, S-1122, needs to go back for one more Assembly vote to reconcile its language with existing law, Mauro said. That will not happen until the next Assembly session in early January.
 
"You don't get something for nothing," Peter Grimbilas, president of the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance Conservation Foundation, warned in an e-mail Tuesday to supporters. He urged them to contact Gov. Chris Christie's office to ask that the registry not be funded with money diverted from natural resource programs.
 
If New Jersey has no registry for 2011, anglers who fish in federal waters or for certain species such as striped bass will need to pay a $15 fee to join a national saltwater angler registry being compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
 
NOAA is relying chiefly on states with saltwater fishing licenses to supply the basic data for a virtual telephone book so the agency can survey recreational fishermen to ask what they are catching. It's a big step toward overhauling how NOAA estimates the annual harvests of fish. New Jersey and Hawaii are the last holdouts in not having state licenses.
 
The creation of a free state registry is pushed hard by the Recreational Fishing Alliance, which objected to proposals for a New Jersey fishing license.
 
"This legislation was not supposed to be a method of funding for the state DEP, it was specifically crafted to meet federal reporting requirements as outlined by our federal fisheries law," Jim Donofrio of the RFA said Monday after the Senate vote. Free registry advocates insist the DEP can find money to fund the program.
 
The issue has split recreational groups despite efforts about a year ago to get a consensus. "We thought we had most everybody together on the idea of a $2 fee," Mauro said.
 
It was thought the $2 would cover data handling and administrative costs for registering anglers on the same computer system that is used to register waterfowl hunters for their Harvest Information Program numbers used to collect data on how many ducks they take, Mauro said.
 
Kirk Moore: 732-557-5728; kmoore@app.com 
http://www.app.com/article/20101221/NEWS03/12210332/State-Senate-passes-fee-free-saltwater-fishing-registry-bill
 
 
The NJOA (CF) will continue to provide updates on the status of the free registry.


Anthony P. Mauro, Sr
 
Chair
New Jersey Outdoor Alliance
New Jersey Outdoor Alliance Conservation Foundation
New Jersey Outdoor Alliance Environmental Projects

[Bucktail]

Not one penny Ant.

[The dropoff]

        

[IrishAyes]

How about they use the money we already pay when we buy our tackle. A 10% federal tax is collected on all tackle purchased. As I understand it, the feds will be giving NJ back several million dollars from this fee. Where is that $$$ going? Certainly not back to us!

I see more and more people jumping on the 'let's pay to fish' bandwagon saying it will make things better for us. But, I have yet so see anyone explain how paying for a license/registration will benefit us. Some have said, we need better science. I agree with that whole heartedly. However, if we get to pay to fish that will not give us better science.   

Please, please, Someone explain how this will benefit us. And don't just say that we need better science, I already know that.

[Hotrod]

 

[Capt. Mac]

The reason that the free saltwater fishing registry bill passed the NJ senate easily, is due to the fact it plays well for politicians. No other reason whatsoever.  I am not so sure Governor Christie will sign, as all unfunded mandates like S1122 will cost the NJ tax payer eventually. He also said, he will not sign any unfunded mandates.
 

[IrishAyes]

I was at the State Environment and Energy
committee meeting on December 9, 2010 when it was voted to release the bill for a full vote. The sponsor of the bill, Senator Van Drew told the committee that there was money ($4,000,000) from the feds that should/could be going into the fishery fund but was going elsewhere. THAT was the primary reason they voted against DEP's request for a $5 fee.

Listen to the recording of the meeting.

http://rmserver.njleg.state.nj.us/internet/2010/SBA/1214-1000AM-M0-1.wma

If you want, you can fast forward to minute 16:55 to listen to Senator Van Drew explain why he does not support a fee. Fast forward again to 22:10 to listen to Senator Greenstein questioning the amount of the fee and the answer she gets.

After listening to this testimony there is no VALID reason why anyone would think that there is a need for a fee for this registration. With the money that SHOULD be used that we get from the feds this need not be an unfunded mandate. The money is there, it is just being used for things that it shouldn't be used for.

[The dropoff]

 

[njdiver]

At the December 9, 2010 Senate Environment and Energy Committee meeting on these bills, thirteen minutes and six seconds into the meeting, one of the representatives from the NJDEP stated, “…there is Federal money that comes in, but again, it’s really going towards salaries and the management of the program.”

[njdiver]

At the December 14, 2010 Senate Budget and Appropriation Committee meeting on these bills, both of the representatives from the NJDEP tried to explain their reasons for charging for the Registry.  The testimony begins 22 minutes and thirteen seconds into the meeting.

http://rmserver.njleg.state.nj.us/internet/2010/SBA/1214-1000AM-M0-1.wma

[HutchJr]

>> The reason that the free saltwater fishing registry bill passed the NJ senate easily, is due to the fact it plays well for politicians. No other reason whatsoever

What Kenny is saying is that the political process worked, and the voice of the constituent was heard.  In a Democracy - like the one which Kenny continually tries to malign with insults, misinformation and innuendo – the majority wins and the people (not the bureaucracy) are the ones who are represented. 

The reason the free saltwater registry passed is because our elected legislators knew it was in their constituents’ best interest, and for that we praise them!  This is the way our American government was designed to work.

>> all unfunded mandates like S1122 will cost the NJ tax payer eventually

Not sure why you continue to ignore the actual debate in Trenton Kenny ol’ boy, but if you were to listen to the testimony given in the Senate Environment Committee hearing on December 9th, you’ll hear how Federal money dedicated to saltwater programs in New Jersey is used instead for salaries & management. 

This is not an “unfunded mandate” – the federal funds to meet this federal mandate are clearly there and not being used appropriately.

Folks, if you’ve not listened to testimony from the Senate Environment Committee, I encourage you to do so.  The DEP point of view is very clear (there is no $2 compromise folks, doesn’t exist), and Sen. Van Drew is simply brilliant in his defense of the coastal community.  The Senators heard the facts, and made their decision based on these facts alone.  God bless America!

http://rmserver.njleg.state.nj.us/internet/2010/SEN/1209-1000AM-M0-1.wma

[Tacklebox Joe]

Not one penny Ant.

 .....the money is there and should be used correctly. hence, we don't pay period!

[Capt. Mac]

Hutch, I heard a nice speech by Senator Jeff Van Drew, However, I would say he was a little presumptuous. Here  is part of the law on  the Dingell-Johnson funds:
 The WR/SFR program limits eligibility to agencies within states that are the recognized state lead for fish and wildlife resources. The WR/SFR program funds are used by State fish and wildlife agencies to fund their conservation, recreation and aquatic and hunter education efforts. The WR/SFR program provides an average 20% of total State fish and wildlife agency budgets. The program has awarded $9.5 billion to State fish and wildlife agencies and, based on 2002 (most recent data available), protects about $1.2 billion annually in license fee revenue. Through this program, States address their specific needs within parameters of the program intent and guidelines. The result is an enormous beneficial impact on conservation, recreation and education resources. Examples of recovered populations are Atlantic striped bass, elk, pronghorn antelope, white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and red drum.
AS you can clearly see the funds from the Dingell- Johnson funds are being used as intended, paying salaries at the NJBMFS.
The fact is glaringly apparent; the free saltwater registry bill S1122 is an unfunded mandate. S1122 needs an amended that includes a fee 2-5 dollars. If, the fee included one” dollar for NJBMFS NJ would receive its fare share of the DJSF funds. 10,000,000 dollars in 2011 alone and the registry would fund itself. This would put NJ saltwater fishermen in the best position in history to improve saltwater fishing.
 

[IrishAyes]

As much as I distrust most politicians I am not naive enough to think that if this was the ENTIRE truth they would not know about it and act on it. No politician would pass up an opportunity to get as much money as you say we would get.  it is absurd to think other wise.

There has to be some facts missing from your post.

[njdiver]

CERTIFICATE OF APPORTIONMENT OF $389,552,973 OF THE APPROPRIATION FOR DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH RESTORATION TO THE STATES


NJ received $ 3,895,530.00 in 2010 (Final Apportionment).


http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/SFR/SFRFinalApportionment2010.pdf#page=3

PRELIMINARY CERT IFICATE OF APPORTIONMENT OF $248,003,692 OF THE APPROPRIATION FOR DINGELL-JOHNSON SPORT FISH RESTORATION TO THE STATES

NJ may receive $ 2.480.007.OO next year (Preliminary Apportionment).


http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/GrantPrograms/SFR/SFRPrelimApportCertificateFY11.pdf

[IrishAyes]

Thanks for setting the record straight NJDiver. It's always good to post ALL OF THE FACTS when trying to win others over. Unless, of course, the facts will harm your cause.

[Hotrod]

 

[Capt. Mac]

 NJDiver, as you know,but failed to include in your post, NJ would receive 5% of the money {about 10,000,000 dollars}  if S1122 included one dollar for NJBMFS or 1% without the fee about $ 2.4 million.  This does not including  the grant money NJ will continue to lose.

IrishAyes, it is true, obviously a deal has been made. No mater what the cost or who is for it or who is not, the free registry bill will pass as is..
 
Merry Christmas  to all 

[IrishAyes]

Ben, it is quite obvious to all that we do not agree on this subject.

However, I think we can agree that we can wish everyone a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy, Healthy, Prosperous New Year.

[Hotrod]