What you would like to see in a NJ saltwater fishing license?

In the event that a license is proposed, what would you want to see as part of the legislation creating a saltwater license?

Here are some points to start this list:

The goal of the license should be to enhance the funding necessary to maintain and improve recreational saltwater fishing in NJ, including the collection of more accurate fisheries statistics, development of more accurate fisheries management plans, more equitable allocation of fish quotas, increased ocean artificial reef construction, etc.

Ensures the maintenance/enhancement of the present funding (from General Funds) of Marine Fisheries Bureau.

Any and all funds generated by a license or fee required for recreational saltwater fishing shall be dedicated to the Marine Fisheries Bureau, Division of Fish and Wildlife, NJDEP for the sole use in recreational saltwater programs as mandated by 16USC777 and Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries, PART 80, Sections80.3, 80.4, 80.6 and 80.21.

Creation of an Oversight Committee having the same responsibilities as the current NJ Fish and Game Council, consisting of the recreational members of the NJMFC, to oversee the implementation of license funds.

Insure that NJ recreational saltwater anglers receive the level of representation that is commensurate with their overall numbers and economic influence on the NJ Marine Fisheries Council, the MAFMC, and the ASMFC. To more equitably represent the interests of the vast number of recreational saltwater anglers in NJ, one additional recreational member and one additional public-at-large must be added to the NJ Marine Fisheries Council, resulting in a 13-member council composed of 5 recreational fishermen, 5 commercial fishermen and 3 public-at-large members with no ties to recreational or commercial fisheries.

Inclusion of reciprocal agreement language to accommodate bordering States’ recreational saltwater fishing licenses.

Exemptions of fees for those under 16 years of age, over 65 years of age, all disabled applicants and active duty military.

Set a fee schedule that is reasonable without excluding low income and out of state fishermen.

Strict control language for any fee increases.

Language that meets the National Saltwater Angler Registry mandate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by njdiver

In the event that a license is proposed, what would you want to see as part of the legislation creating a saltwater license?

Here are some points to start this list:

1. The goal of the license should be to enhance the funding necessary to maintain and improve recreational saltwater fishing in NJ, including the collection of more accurate fisheries statistics, development of more accurate fisheries management plans, more equitable allocation of fish quotas, increased ocean artificial reef construction, etc.

2. Ensures the maintenance/enhancement of the present funding (from General Funds) of Marine Fisheries Bureau.

3. Any and all funds generated by a license or fee required for recreational saltwater fishing shall be dedicated to the Marine Fisheries Bureau, Division of Fish and Wildlife, NJDEP for the sole use in recreational saltwater programs as mandated by 16USC777 and Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries, PART 80, Sections80.3, 80.4, 80.6 and 80.21.

4. Creation of an Oversight Committee having the same responsibilities as the current NJ Fish and Game Council, consisting of the recreational members of the NJMFC, to oversee the implementation of license funds.

5. Insure that NJ recreational saltwater anglers receive the level of representation that is commensurate with their overall numbers and economic influence on the NJ Marine Fisheries Council, the MAFMC, and the ASMFC. To more equitably represent the interests of the vast number of recreational saltwater anglers in NJ, one additional recreational member and one additional public-at-large must be added to the NJ Marine Fisheries Council, resulting in a 13-member council composed of 5 recreational fishermen, 5 commercial fishermen and 3 public-at-large members with no ties to recreational or commercial fisheries.

6. Inclusion of reciprocal agreement language to accommodate bordering States’ recreational saltwater fishing licenses.

7. Exemptions of fees for those under 16 years of age, over 65 years of age, all disabled applicants and active duty military.

8. Set a fee schedule that is reasonable without excluding low income and out of state fishermen.

9. Strict control language for any fee increases.

10. Language that meets the National Saltwater Angler Registry mandate.

---

NJDiver, that seems like a good platform to start with. The highlighted parts of 3, 5, and 7 seem higher on my list of priorities. Others may have different perspectives.



The only thing I might suggest be added to that:

11. We're going to have to find a way to include non-citizens and aliens as subject to law enforcement and penalties for fisheries violations. I realize to implement this would be difficult.

(But let's fast forward to situations that could develop when DFG officers start to check for licenses in the field and start giving tickets to guys who don't have them.) If the guys receiving penalties see that those without papers are getting away with non-compliance or poaching simply because it's too difficult to enforce, you invite a whole host of problems and resentments amongst these groups.

Thank you for responding, anyone with ideas and/or concerns please post them.

"3. Any and all funds generated by a license or fee required for recreational saltwater fishing shall be dedicated to the Marine Fisheries Bureau, Division of Fish and Wildlife, NJDEP for the sole use in recreational saltwater programs as mandated by 16USC777 and Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries, PART 80, Sections80.3, 80.4, 80.6 and 80.21."


I heard they were going to rape the fees and put them into the general fund and we wouldn't benefit at all. This would **** me off. If this point above could be followed I would feel happy about spending my $$.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by storminsteve

"3. Any and all funds generated by a license or fee required for recreational saltwater fishing shall be dedicated to the Marine Fisheries Bureau, Division of Fish and Wildlife, NJDEP for the sole use in recreational saltwater programs as mandated by 16USC777 and Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries, PART 80, Sections80.3, 80.4, 80.6 and 80.21."


I heard they were going to rape the fees and put them into the general fund and we wouldn't benefit at all. This would **** me off. If this point above could be followed I would feel happy about spending my $$.

---

What can you tell us about that njdiver, that's one of my concerns as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkSkies

If the guys receiving penalties see that those without papers are getting away with non-compliance or poaching simply because it's too difficult to enforce, you invite a whole host of problems and resentments amongst these groups.

---

Oh I can guarantee you there will be problems. If I have to comply with the law, I expect all to have to equally comply. If we are coming back the the marina and get checked, I'm happy because I know law enforcement is doing it's job. Then, if I happen to roll by the pp inlet on the way home and see immigrants without a license who can't be ticketed for keeping shorts, I would blow a gasket to see that. They definitely should address this one.

There does not seem to be enough enforcement officials available to check those who do come back. Where is the money going to come from to see that fisherman have their license?

I would suggest they implement some sort of plan to combat this up coming problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkSkies

NJDiver, that seems like a good platform to start with. The highlighted parts of 3, 5, and 7 seem higher on my list of priorities. Others may have different perspectives.



The only thing I might suggest be added to that:

11. We're going to have to find a way to include non-citizens and aliens as subject to law enforcement and penalties for fisheries violations. I realize to implement this would be difficult.

(But let's fast forward to situations that could develop when DFG officers start to check for licenses in the field and start giving tickets to guys who don't have them.) If the guys receiving penalties see that those without papers are getting away with non-compliance or poaching simply because it's too difficult to enforce, you invite a whole host of problems and resentments amongst these groups.

---

I agree with Dark's suggestions. We have a lot of non-citizens who fish. I think that when you register it should be asking for name and address only, not proof of legal status.

9. Strict control language for any fee increases.


I'm for this one. In my experience dealing with state agencies, every year they make excuses why they have to raise the fees. My concern is it will become a cashcow for the state and they feel they can "raise the rent" any chance they get. That's one of the ways we get screwed living in NJ.

At the moment there are only nine Conservation Officers employed for marine enforcement for the entire State's coastline. There is a hiring freeze in place for all NJ State positions and we keep losing people to retirement and moves without the ability to replace them. Money for the vacated positions has been reclaimed for deficit reduction. Any money received from the Sportfish Restoration Fund cannot be used for law enforcement. There will have to be exemptions made to the hiring freeze if we are to bring the force to where it can effectively enforce our regulations. We must also ensure that the present funding from General Funds is not diminished or removed. That should be where the law enforcement money comes from.

Almost every attempt by State Goverments to "raid" license fees for anything other than what the laws that created them delegates them to, has been met with the threat of withholding Sportfish and/or Wildlife Restoration Funds and/or payback of those SF/WRF received. The SFRF people periodically audit every State that receives their funding to insure the money goes to enhance the sport and fish.

I'm not sure I understand that nj.
What it looks like you said is they can't do that. What if the state gov't decides it doesn't matter and they don't want matching funds? What safeguards are in place to stop them from raiding the sportsmens money? After all it is our money. I don't trust them so that's why I'm asking. I am not trying to dispute what you are saying , but I am skeptical and want some kind or assurance they won't take fishing license money for other purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cowherder

I'm not sure I understand that nj.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cowherder

What it looks like you said is they can't do that. What if the state gov't decides it doesn't matter and they don't want matching funds? What safeguards are in place to stop them from raiding the sportsmens money? After all it is our money. I don't trust them so that's why I'm asking. I am not trying to dispute what you are saying , but I am skeptical and want some kind or assurance they won't take fishing license money for other purposes.

---

There is more to it than just matching funds. There is an annual disbursement of the surcharge money from the SRF as well as matching funds for special projects. With the smallest allocation of State General Funds of any coastal state in this country, New Jersey's Marine fisheries Bureau would not be able to function without the SRF funding. You are correct that even with language in the legislation creating a saltwater license. There is no real protection for the fees. The only sure way to protect license fees from being raided is an amendment to the New Jersey State Constitution specifically written to protect them.