New York Possible Fee Based Saltwater Fishing License Survey

[Tuna Tales]

Please note this is for New York - however since we are neighbors I am sure NJ will take notice.

Whatever side of this issue you are on - - it's just a FYI.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

We Need Your Opinion on a Recreational Saltwater Fishing License
New York State is exploring the potential for a fee-based saltwater fishing license to provide revenue to enhance recreational saltwater fishing and management.

Currently, 23 of the 26 U.S. coastal states have a fee-based saltwater license, however, there are many factors that must be considered if New York were to pursue a similar license - most importantly, feedback from anglers.

Your input matters! Anglers are encouraged to complete this short, anonymous survey as one of the first steps to help determine how New York could pursue a license. Your responses will help gauge interest in developing a recreational saltwater fishing license and provide information on how a potential license could be used to support fishing efforts important to you.

Please complete the online survey by Friday, September 29, 2023.
https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/22912ef964ed4c5dbce807c322605f04

We appreciate your time and value your feedback in further enhancing saltwater fishing experiences in New York’s marine waters. If you have any questions or additional comments about this survey, please email us at fw.marine@dec.ny.gov.



Joe T.

[bulletbob]

That money will go straight to the general fund to be used for the cities where the handout dependent voters are... Will they built free ramps in salt water zones?... Obtain more land on tidal waters and the ocean so fishermen can gain access?? No.. It will go into the pork barrel slush fund to buy votes from the city dwellers... Thats what NY does...

[hammer4reel]

That money will go straight to the general fund to be used for the cities where the handout dependent voters are... Will they built free ramps in salt water zones?... Obtain more land on tidal waters and the ocean so fishermen can gain access?? No.. It will go into the pork barrel slush fund to buy votes from the city dwellers... Thats what NY does...

Having a salt water license opens up getting our share of the excise tax back . Those funds are dedicated only for access and fishing improvements .

Both NJ and NY don’t chase those funds because they can’t just put them into the general funds .

So while license fees can be manipulated, the other gains drastically enhance its value .

.
Guys paying ridiculous ramp fees weekly would really benefit from the excise tax supporting those ramp fees etc .

.

[Tuna Tales]

Bob:

I would have agreed with your statements 15 to 20 years ago but times have changed. I have not found any complaints or monies going to the general fund with the current 23 coastal states that have a paid saltwater license program. In fact, my Florida fishing friends say more good has come from it. New free boating ramps. More access etc.

Have you seen the cost to launch just one time at the Atlantic Highlands Municipal Boat Ramp? The ramp that has the real bad drop off at the end of it.

Look at Louisiana - some will say more corrput than New York. Huey Long territory. The paid license money goes to fisheries management - not the general fund.

From 2018: https://www.thefisherman.com/article/saltwater-license-update-wheres-my-money-going/#close-modal

Recent articles:
https://www.proptalk.com/recreational-fishing-regulations

https://www.capegazette.com/article/where-does-all-money-go/256637

https://www.onthewater.com/where-does-saltwater-fishing-revenue-go

Florida paid saltwater license:

What are my fees used for?
Except for the fees charged by the tax collector ($1.00) or agent ($0.50), and processing surcharges listed above, all of the money spent on fishing and licenses goes to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to provide optimum sustained use of Florida's fish and wildlife resources. In addition, each license holder that buys a license, helps the FWC to recover excise taxes from the Federal government, which you spend on items such as fishing tackle, boats, and for motor boat fuel taxes, through the Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration program.


Others will say we pay enough already in fees, tolls, taxes etc. OK - yes however look below with NOAA over estimating the data. We tried joining associations, Marching in DC, writing letters, donating at fishing events etc. Perhaps this paid license dedicated to fisheries in the state only would do all of us some good.

Would it be a perfect fix or answer - no. But keep doing the same thing year after year is the definition of insanity.

Again, I am not saying yes or no but perhaps it's worth considering.

Joe T.

[bulletbob]

I have no problem with a salt water license anywhere IF it goes to access/habitat improvement,, However, I have my doubts in NY's case.. I have lived in NY for 32 years, and lived in NJ for 37 years... NJ fisheries management is WAY better than NY, and I trust NJ DEC a lot more than NY... We have Hochul as gov here, and she is a rabid radical totalitarian leftist... She would do anything to get her hands on another revenue source, no matter where it comes from.. Believe me, salt water license or not in NY, guys will still be paying $100 to launch a boat on parts of LI. I think my friends here are bit naive' when it comes to NY politics... bob

[Dclark2]

If you believe that money collected will go to saltwater improvements you will believe in the TOOTH FAIRY...................

[bulletbob]

If you believe that money collected will go to saltwater improvements you will believe in the TOOTH FAIRY...................

There might be a ramp improvement here or there, but if anyone thinks there will be abundant public access such as the southern states enjoy, yeah good luck with that... won't happen..

[mikdel]

That money will go straight to the general fund to be used for the cities where the handout dependent voters are... Will they built free ramps in salt water zones?... Obtain more land on tidal waters and the ocean so fishermen can gain access?? No.. It will go into the pork barrel slush fund to buy votes from the city dwellers... Thats what NY does...

The handout dependent voters that live along the Jesey shore are grateful that the taxpayers money goes to replenishing their beaches over and over and over every year. Ya cant fool mother nature forever Ans some of that replenishing affects the fishing negatively in different ways. Catchem up.

[mikdel]

That money will go straight to the general fund to be used for the cities where the handout dependent voters are... Will they built free ramps in salt water zones?... Obtain more land on tidal waters and the ocean so fishermen can gain access?? No.. It will go into the pork barrel slush fund to buy votes from the city dwellers... Thats what NY does...

The handout dependent voters that live along the Jesey shore are grateful that the taxpayers money goes to replenishing their beaches over and over and over every year. Ya cant fool mother nature forever Ans some of that replenishing affects the fishing negatively in different ways. Catchem up.:rolleyes:

[NoLimit]

I have no problem with a salt water license anywhere IF it goes to access/habitat improvement,, However, I have my doubts in NY's case.. I have lived in NY for 32 years, and lived in NJ for 37 years... NJ fisheries management is WAY better than NY, and I trust NJ DEC a lot more than NY... We have Hochul as gov here, and she is a rabid radical totalitarian leftist... She would do anything to get her hands on another revenue source, no matter where it comes from.. Believe me, salt water license or not in NY, guys will still be paying $100 to launch a boat on parts of LI. I think my friends here are bit naive' when it comes to NY politics... bob

They will actually use the money to hire more cronies at state universities to further shutdown fisheries

[AndyS]

I would buy a saltwater license in the hopes of hiring more conservation officers (game wardens)

[Gerry Zagorski]

For me personally, this is not about the money, I've spent $50 on more foolish things... It's just another money grab for our already greedy state that has it's best interests in mind, not their constituents. I'd much rather see us put money into a fund where we can direct it's use in our best interests rather than the states.

As far as public access, ramps etc this sounds like a great idea but how would the state improve this? Seems to me most of the salt water areas where access would make the most sense are already owned privately or by local municipalities. Even in the few areas I know of where the state has access points, there is a ramp fee so would this be eliminated?

Having said this, I see Dan and Joey's point about getting our fair share of excise taxes but once again, if I'm going to spend money on a license so we get access to those funds, I'd want to know where that money is going to be spent to make sure it's not squandered or used against us.

Last but not least, if this is about providing more access, don't you think having a paid salt water license will limit access to those who can't afford it or only fish occasionally? I'm a dad and spur of the moment I want to take my 2 kids out fishing from the beach, a dock or a jetty down the shore.. 3 times $X might make me think twice about it and that would be a shame.

Great discussion here but it would take a lot of convincing for me to get behind a paid saltwater license in NJ.

[FishingSinceIWasThree]

The money will go to:

1. The Ukraine
2. China
3. Create fires/burn down cities so that the government cronies can steal the property of those who are burned/murdered.

[Broad Bill]

CONNECTICUT 3,996,614
DELAWARE 3,996,614
HAWAII 3,996,614
MAINE 3,997,614
MARYLAND 3,996,614
MASSACHUSETTS 3,996,614
NEW HAMPSHIRE 3,996,614
NEW JERSEY 3,996,614
PUERTO RICO 3,996,614
RHODE ISLAND 3,996,614
VERMONT 3,996,614
WEST VIRGINIA 3,996,614

We've already beaten this horse to death previously in the striper slot limit discussion back in June. A saltwater license because of the excise tax allocation formula will add ZERO in additional excise taxes to NJ. The above states get the 1% minimum and New Jersey will continue to do so if a saltwater license were adopted. Some of the above states have a saltwater license and it simply doesn't matter in how the allocation calculation is made. Geographic size of the state and licenses sold on a weighted average basis compared to all states drives the formula and New Jersey wouldn't benefit by a penny with a saltwater license as far as excise taxes are concerned. That's a fact and the reason is our states population and demographics are simply too small compared to other states which proportionately receive more funds.

If a saltwater license were introduced, there would be revenues associated with licenses as all recreational anglers would have to fund it but the spending of that money is up to the discretion of the state's Wildlife Agency and ultimately Governor Murphy when he chooses to do a money grab. There's no guarantees. If you think there are, you're drinking the Kool-Aid. I think everyone on this site and in this state would sign up for a license if it was guaranteed to support significantly greater salt or fresh water law enforcement efforts and be earmarked without option to only saltwater projects. That'll never happen. If you look at the posts back in June when this was exhaustively discussed, salt water licenses add revenues to the states Wildlife Agency, how those funds are used is anyone's guess but it is certainly not restricted for the exclusive improvement of saltwater fisheries. That's the issue most people have with a license, if they're going to pay for it they want to see direct benefits to saltwater projects but the way this is structured there's no guarantees. If you look at the uses in the article from the link I posted back in that June thread, the majority of the funds are used for projects not at all associated with saltwater improvements.

On a personal note, the other problem I have with the way you're spinning this is for free boat ramp access. Less than 10% of salt water recreational anglers have a boat, even less have boats they trailer requiring a boat launch. Why should all recreational anglers be expected to fund a saltwater license so that a privileged few who do trailer and use launches benefit?

A fluke trip today for anyone who goes on a for hire charter or party boat costs well over $200 all in. Now we want to add a saltwater license and subsidize boat ramps or just have those funds disappear. Look at what Musky Nut has been trying to do in the fresh water forum for a free boat ramp and public access at Greenwood lake for two years, a lake already stocked and subsidized by fresh water fishing license fees. You'll never get this money back, it won't be used for things saltwater anglers can tangibly call benefits and once its adopted you'll never repeal it. I hate being a wet rag but if this state gave a shit about salt water fishing as a significant part of the economy and the state's legacy, we'd have fishing piers like other states up and down the coast.

[hammer4reel]

CONNECTICUT 3,996,614
DELAWARE 3,996,614
HAWAII 3,996,614
MAINE 3,997,614
MARYLAND 3,996,614
MASSACHUSETTS 3,996,614
NEW HAMPSHIRE 3,996,614
NEW JERSEY 3,996,614
PUERTO RICO 3,996,614
RHODE ISLAND 3,996,614
VERMONT 3,996,614
WEST VIRGINIA 3,996,614

We've already beaten this horse to death previously in the striper slot limit discussion back in June. A saltwater license because of the excise tax allocation formula will add ZERO in additional excise taxes to NJ. The above states get the 1% minimum and New Jersey will continue to do so if a saltwater license were adopted. Some of the above states have a saltwater license and it simply doesn't matter in how the allocation calculation is made. Geographic size of the state and licenses sold on a weighted average basis compared to all states drives the formula and New Jersey wouldn't benefit by a penny with a saltwater license as far as excise taxes are concerned. That's a fact and the reason is our states population and demographics are simply too small compared to other states which dictates the allocation.

If a saltwater license were introduced, there would be revenues associated with licenses as all recreational anglers would have to fund it but the spending of that money is up to the discretion of the state's Wildlife Agency and ultimately Governor Murphy when he chooses to do a money grab. There's no guarantees. If you think there are, you're drinking the Kool-Aid. I think everyone on this site and in this state would sign up for a license if it was guaranteed to support significantly greater salt or fresh water law enforcement efforts and be earmarked without option to only saltwater projects. That'll never happen. If you look at the posts back in June when this was exhaustively discussed, salt water licenses add revenues to the states Wildlife Agency, how those funds are used is anyone's guess but it is certainly not restricted for the exclusive improvement of saltwater fisheries. That's the issue most people have with a license, if they're going to pay for it they want to see direct benefits to saltwater projects but the way this is structured they won't. If you look at the uses in the article from the link I posted back in that June thread, the majority of the funds are used for projects not at all associated with saltwater improvements.

On a personal note, the other problem I have with the way you're spinning this is for free boat ramp access. Less than 10% of salt water recreational anglers have a boat, even less have boats they trailer requiring a boat launch. Why should all recreational anglers be expected to fund a saltwater license so that a privileged few who do trailer and use launches benefit?

A fluke trip today for anyone who goes on a for hire charter or party boat costs well over $200 all in. Now we want to add a saltwater license and subsidize boat ramps or just have those funds disappear. Look at what Musky Nut has been trying to do in the fresh water forum for a free boat ramp and public access at Greenwood lake for two years, a lake already stocked and subsidized by fresh water fishing license fees. You'll never get this money back, it won't be used for things saltwater anglers can tangibly call benefits and once its adopted you'll never repeal it. I hate being a wet rag but if this state gave a shit about salt water fishing as a significant part of the economy and the state's legacy, we'd have fishing piers like other states up and down the coast.

The only accurate portion is the state doesn’t give a shit about anglers here . That’s WHY they don’t chase the excise tax here by having a license .
That money is ABSOLUTELY ear marked for access as well as enhancements for the fisheries .
Every state that argued against it has proven its value after they imposed licenses .
As stated in other discussions , NJFG was told they wouldn’t be allocated more Co to enforce he license so they stopped pushing .

EVERY single one of us fishing here pays way more each year in excise tax than a license costs and gets little return.

I guess you think 90 percent of non boat owning people fish off the surf .

If anything having a SW license would protect some of our fishery here.
Instead NJ gets the worst regulations shoved down our throats every year .

States opposing the excise tax aren’t doing it to stop us from paying it .
It’s to stop it from protecting our life style .

[Gerry Zagorski]

The only accurate portion is the state doesn’t give a shit about anglers here . That’s WHY they don’t chase the excise tax here by having a license .

Gerry: Exactly and money is going to change that? Our state has plenty of money and more money is going to change that?

That money is ABSOLUTELY ear marked for access as well as enhancements for the fisheries .

Gerry: So what are they going to do here in NJ where all the access is already owned by privates or local municipal governments?

Every state that argued against it has proven its value after they imposed licenses .
As stated in other discussions , NJFG was told they wouldn’t be allocated more Co to enforce he license so they stopped pushing .

Gerry: so more enforcement is the root to our marine fisheries problems and the regulations?

EVERY single one of us fishing here pays way more each year in excise tax than a license costs and gets little return.

Gerry: that's a choice each one of us makes on their own and with their own dollars. A mandatory license is not a choice, unless you choose not to pay it and you therefore choose not to fish.

I guess you think 90 percent of non boat owning people fish off the surf .

If anything having a SW license would protect some of our fishery here.
Instead NJ gets the worst regulations shoved down our throats every year .

Gerry: so we're magically going to get better regulations and our fisheries would be better protected by paying for a state license when the feds control our regulations if we pay for a license or not? I'd like to hear the logic on that... Do we get a larger seat at the table if we have a paid SW license? If we do, I'm all ears and please tell us more...

States opposing the excise tax aren’t doing it to stop us from paying it .
It’s to stop it from protecting our life style .

Gerry: Please explain this, I don't understand....

[Broad Bill]

The only accurate portion is the state doesn’t give a shit about anglers here . That’s WHY they don’t chase the excise tax here by having a license .
That money is ABSOLUTELY ear marked for access as well as enhancements for the fisheries .
Every state that argued against it has proven its value after they imposed licenses .
As stated in other discussions , NJFG was told they wouldn’t be allocated more Co to enforce he license so they stopped pushing .

EVERY single one of us fishing here pays way more each year in excise tax than a license costs and gets little return.

I guess you think 90 percent of non boat owning people fish off the surf .

If anything having a SW license would protect some of our fishery here.
Instead NJ gets the worst regulations shoved down our throats every year .

States opposing the excise tax aren’t doing it to stop us from paying it .
It’s to stop it from protecting our life style .

One day, God willing, you'll learn to read. I never said excise tax rebates aren't earmarked for saltwater improvements, I said a saltwater license won't get NJ one more penny based on the allocation methodology. I did say revenues from saltwater license fees are used based on the discretion of Wildlife Agency and NOT as you said exclusively for saltwater improvements.

If a SW license is adopted, we'll continue paying just as much in excise taxes so don't understand your point. The state gets back exactly what it's supposed to, no different than the other 11 states mentioned in my earlier post.

I know 90% of rec anglers don't fish from shore, but when I fish on a for hire charter, party boat or with a friend on his private boat kept at a marina, I'm not paying a launch fee just like most rec anglers. So I really don't want to pay $20 bucks for a saltwater license with no guaranteed benefit or benefits to the majority of recreational anglers like myself.

New Jersey and every states restrictive saltwater regulations are based on the feds, not any aspect of this thread. Just read the recent post regarding rec catch being overstated by 30-40% due to MRIP.

You can vote your conscience and I'll vote mine but you and I are light years apart on this issue.

[hammer4reel]

Gerry: Please explain this, I don't understand....

Gerry the explanation is excise returns have to guarantee access and enhance the fishery .

Right now daily this state continues to chip away our access , and pieces of the fishery .
No protections what so ever.

As far as private property purchases , or them paying for all the use of maniple access points etc .
It’s done in all those other states , you think they didn’t gave to purchase all the ramp sites etc elseware .

Here even in Nj they have bought small access points for the fresh water fishery access to both rivers and lakes .

Your money being paid on all your fishing gear in excise tax isn’t your choice . Your have to pay it .
The reason it was adopted was to PROTECT your interests in being able to use that gear .

NJ government could care less about out billion dollar fishery . They only care about chasing money they can mis allocate .

We should be cgasing the money that will protect recreational fishing interests here in Nj

[Salt]

Andy, you know that will not happen, you cannot believe a word a politician says. They will say anything to hold their office because it is a very lucrative pay day. They have already sold their souls to the devil.

[Broad Bill]

Posted this in the June thread regarding slot stripers and will post it again here to clear the air how this funding and process works:

Believe the regulation you're referring to is the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fishing Restoration Act which relates to fresh and saltwater fisheries as well as the Pittman-Robertson Act which covers hunting.

The tax for fishing is on specific fishing related purchases at 10%, not 11%, and motorboat gas purchases at 18.4 cents per gallon. 70% of the overall funds generated by the Act comes from the gas tax on motor boats and small engines which was included under the Wallop-Breaux Act, not tackle purchases as your posts imply. I believe the Wallop-Breaux Act also partly funds the ASMFC, MAMFC or both.

All states have general funds, even Florida. When Dingell-Johnson was enacted, states were required to enact laws prohibiting the diversion of license fees paid by anglers (salt or fresh water) for any purpose other than the administration of their state fisheries agency which all 50 states agreed to. So New Jersey is no different than Florida or any other state in that respect. Difference is Florida and certain other states generate revenue from saltwater fishing licenses, New Jersey doesn't. But if they did, those funds are not earmarked exclusively for saltwater improvement, they're spent on a myriad of both fresh and saltwater projects at the discretion of the state fisheries agency. Nowhere did I see that list include increased salt water enforcement or free ramp access. You can see the uses yourself in the attached link.

In 2022, total funds paid out by Dingell-Johnson was $399 million. Every state gets something, so New Jersey did benefit by receiving $3.99 million. The allocation formula is 60% based on number of licensed anglers (both salt and fresh water) and 40% based on geographic size on a weighted average basis relative to all 50 states involved in the allocation. Every state gets a minimum 1% of the overall annual payout and no individual state gets more than 5%. In 2022, twelve states got the 1% minimum of $3.99 million including NJ, Ct, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Puerto Rico, and West Virginia meaning based on the allocation formula they didn't meet the minimum allocation but based on the law received the 1% minimum regardless. Only two states got the 5% maximum, Alaska and Texas followed closely by California which got 4.67% of the $399 million payout obviously due to their population and number of licenses sold each year, both fresh and saltwater.

A salt water license would however obviously generate revenue, that revenue would not be allowed to go in the general fund (legally) but it wouldn't at all be restricted to salt water improvements as you state.

Everything anyone needs to know about how this works or is supposed to work is in the attached link.

https://wildlifeforall.us/resources/pittman-robertson-and-dingell-johnson-at-a-glance/#:~:text=Pittman%2DRobertson%20Act%20at%20a,guns%2 C%20ammunition%20and%20archery%20equipment. Halfway down the first page, click on Dingell-Johnson at a Glance and it walks through funding, how the money is spent along with details about some of the programs funded.

My point to your post is NJ gets it's fair share of excise taxes (70% from gas purchases and not tackle sales) just like every other state. In New Jersey's case, we qualify along with 11 other states for a 1% so we actually get more than what the allocation formula calculates. A saltwater license based on the salt water registry statistics wouldn't provide New Jersey more than the minimum 1% it's already getting. You could probably quadruple the registry number and New Jersey would still get it's 1% minimum so NO CHANGE to excise funds received by the state from the adoption of a salt water license. A salt water license would generate additional revenues but those revenues will be used at the discretion of state wildlife agency which makes no assurances those funds would be used for saltwater related projects or free boat ramps. I'm not saying IF 138,000 anglers purchased a saltwater license for $20 or generated $2.76 million in incremental revenue there might not be good uses of those funds, what I'm saying is there's no guarantees a penny of those funds would be spent on enforcement, free ramps or saltwater initiatives as your post states.

You can choose to dispute this all day long but that's what the laws stipulate.

[hammer4reel]

Posted this in the June thread regarding slot stripers and will post it again here to clear the air how this funding and process works:

Believe the regulation you're referring to is the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fishing Restoration Act which relates to fresh and saltwater fisheries as well as the Pittman-Robertson Act which covers hunting.

The tax for fishing is on specific fishing related purchases at 10%, not 11%, and motorboat gas purchases at 18.4 cents per gallon. 70% of the overall funds generated by the Act comes from the gas tax on motor boats and small engines which was included under the Wallop-Breaux Act, not tackle purchases as your posts imply. I believe the Wallop-Breaux Act also partly funds the ASMFC, MAMFC or both.

All states have general funds, even Florida. When Dingell-Johnson was enacted, states were required to enact laws prohibiting the diversion of license fees paid by anglers (salt or fresh water) for any purpose other than the administration of their state fisheries agency which all 50 states agreed to. So New Jersey is no different than Florida or any other state in that respect. Difference is Florida and certain other states generate revenue from saltwater fishing licenses, New Jersey doesn't. But if they did, those funds are not earmarked exclusively for saltwater improvement, they're spent on a myriad of both fresh and saltwater projects at the discretion of the state fisheries agency. Nowhere did I see that list include increased salt water enforcement or free ramp access. You can see the uses yourself in the attached link.

In 2022, total funds paid out by Dingell-Johnson was $399 million. Every state gets something, so New Jersey did benefit by receiving $3.99 million. The allocation formula is 60% based on number of licensed anglers (both salt and fresh water) and 40% based on geographic size on a weighted average basis relative to all 50 states involved in the allocation. Every state gets a minimum 1% of the overall annual payout and no individual state gets more than 5%. In 2022, twelve states got the 1% minimum of $3.99 million including NJ, Ct, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Puerto Rico, and West Virginia meaning based on the allocation formula they didn't meet the minimum allocation but based on the law received the 1% minimum regardless. Only two states got the 5% maximum, Alaska and Texas followed closely by California which got 4.67% of the $399 million payout obviously due to their population and number of licenses sold each year, both fresh and saltwater.

A salt water license would however obviously generate revenue, that revenue would not be allowed to go in the general fund (legally) but it wouldn't at all be restricted to salt water improvements as you state.

Everything anyone needs to know about how this works or is supposed to work is in the attached link.

https://wildlifeforall.us/resources/pittman-robertson-and-dingell-johnson-at-a-glance/#:~:text=Pittman%2DRobertson%20Act%20at%20a,guns%2 C%20ammunition%20and%20archery%20equipment. Halfway down the first page, click on Dingell-Johnson at a Glance and it walks through funding, how the money is spent along with details about some of the programs funded.

My point to your post is NJ gets it's fair share of excise taxes (70% from gas purchases and not tackle sales) just like every other state. In New Jersey's case, we qualify along with 11 other states for a 1% so we actually get more than what the allocation formula calculates. A saltwater license based on the salt water registry statistics wouldn't provide New Jersey more than the minimum 1% it's already getting. You could probably quadruple the registry number and New Jersey would still get it's 1% minimum so NO CHANGE to excise funds received by the state from the adoption of a salt water license. A salt water license would generate additional revenues but those revenues will be used at the discretion of state wildlife agency which makes no assurances those funds would be used for saltwater related projects or free boat ramps. I'm not saying IF 138,000 anglers purchased a saltwater license for $20 or generated $2.76 million in incremental revenue there might not be good uses of those funds, what I'm saying is there's no guarantees a penny of those funds would be spent on enforcement, free ramps or saltwater initiatives as your post states.

You can choose to dispute this all day long but that's what the laws stipulate.

I posted other links back in that other thread you apparently didn’t read .
Your understanding of much of the excise tax as well as its returns is partially correct , but far from entirely correct as you think .
I never said license moneys would be used for any of what you suggested gere .
As a matter of fact I stated NJ told FG they would not allocate funds towards more CO

Here’s an easy break down you should take time to review .

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/field-directive-federal-excise-tax-on-the-importation-and-manufacture-of-fishing-and-archery-products

[Broad Bill]

We are speaking English here right? I read everything you posted in the prior thread, would never reply without doing so. And your suggestion to simplify things is sending a link to a 50 page IRS memo dated 7/7/06.

I think we all get it and if you conducted a poll here you'd be lucky to get 10% of members here to vote for a salt water license because of unknown benefits and zero impact on excise tax rebates to the state.. And fwiw, every point I made about excise taxes and how the process works is 100%
correct. If you disagree, specify what I said that was wrong as opposed to speaking in broad generalities.

[hammer4reel]

We are speaking English here right? I read everything you posted in the prior thread, would never reply without doing so. And your suggestion to simplify things is sending a link to a 50 page IRS memo dated 7/7/06.

I think we all get it and if you conducted a poll here you'd be lucky to get 10% of members here to vote for a salt water license because of unknown benefits and zero impact on excise tax rebates to the state.. And fwiw, every point I made about excise taxes and how the process works is 100%
correct. If you disagree, specify what I said that was wrong as opposed to speaking in broad generalities.

You don’t need to read the entire link , the beginning has the info on actual amounts of excise tax paid per item .

The 10 percent who want a license probably have fished in other states having one and saw its benefits .
Or are in the 10 % that catch 90% of the fish .

Unlike the 90% who will never do anything to benefit or protect the fisheries they supposedly love .
Just like the turn outs for the fisherman’s march , and every other challenge to protect what little we have left .

Won’t need a license once we lose the remaining scraps we still have .

.

[Broad Bill]

You don’t need to read the entire link , the beginning has the info on actual amounts of excise tax paid per item .

The 10 percent who want a license probably have fished in other states having one and saw its benefits .
Or are in the 10 % that catch 90% of the fish .

Unlike the 90% who will never do anything to benefit or protect the fisheries they supposedly love .
Just like the turn outs for the fisherman’s march , and every other challenge to protect what little we have left .

Won’t need a license once we lose the remaining scraps we still have .

.

Hammer I appreciate your passion for this, I sincerely do. But I've fished for years without the need for proceeds and supposed benefits from a saltwater license and experienced some incredible fishing in this state, both fresh and salt water. I've also seen, as most who have been around have, too many fisheries decline over the years through mismanagement. If management wants credit, which they deserve, when stocks rebuild they have to take responsibility when stocks decline. The problems we're experiencing, in my opinion, weren't started by the lack of a saltwater license and won't be corrected by the adoption of one. As I said, there might be some good from SW license proceeds if New Jersey elects one but 99% of our problems won't be addressed and there's no guarantee salt water license fees will be spent on salt water initiatives at all and as I said, excise taxes won't be effected in the small demographic state we live in one bit.

[Gerry Zagorski]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here Dan. If you want to prove to others here that a paid licence has merit and no one is with you on it, you need to do better than paste a link to an IRS site...

[hammer4reel]

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here Dan. If you want to prove to others here that a paid licence has merit and no one is with you on it, you need to do better than paste a link to an IRS site...

The link for the irs site was to show how many things we are paying the excise tax on , and the explanation of how it’s used .

Nj fishery management continues to allow the feds to always chip away here , why aren’t other states seeing the same happen ?
Because they actually let the fisherman have a voice , because their money matters .
Here in NJ they don’t give a shit if you ever fish again

.

[Capt Sal]

That money will go straight to the general fund to be used for the cities where the handout dependent voters are... Will they built free ramps in salt water zones?... Obtain more land on tidal waters and the ocean so fishermen can gain access?? No.. It will go into the pork barrel slush fund to buy votes from the city dwellers... Thats what NY does...

Exactly !! General fund. Charter and PB have pay a fee every year to fish in NY waters. NJ does not charge NY for hire boats. Go figure???

[bulletbob]

Exactly !! General fund. Charter and PB have pay a fee every year to fish in NY waters. NJ does not charge NY for hire boats. Go figure???

So a NJ party boat has to pay to fish on the NY side??.. I guess I didn't know that.. How does that work?. Yearly tax of some sort?.. I Have been on boats here in NJ, right close to the beach with NY boats close enough to hit with a very short underhand cast.....

[Capt Sal]

So a NJ party boat has to pay to fish on the NY side??.. I guess I didn't know that.. How does that work?. Yearly tax of some sort?.. I Have been on boats here in NJ, right close to the beach with NY boats close enough to hit with a very short underhand cast.....
You have to buy the Permit every year and out trips and catch reports.

[NJSquatch]

they extended the survey to 10/15

_________________________________________________
New York State is exploring the potential for a fee-based saltwater fishing license to provide revenue to enhance recreational saltwater fishing and management.

Currently, 23 of the 26 U.S. coastal states have a fee-based saltwater license, however, there are many factors that must be considered if New York were to pursue a similar license - most importantly, feedback from anglers.

Your input matters! Anglers are encouraged to complete this short, anonymous survey as one of the first steps to help determine how New York could pursue a license. Your responses will help gauge interest in developing a recreational saltwater fishing license and provide information on how a potential license could be used to support fishing efforts important to you.

Please complete the online survey by Sunday, October 15, 2023.
https://survey123.arcgis.com/share/22912ef964ed4c5dbce807c322605f04

We appreciate your time and value your feedback in further enhancing saltwater fishing experiences in New York’s marine waters. If you have any questions or additional comments about this survey, please email us at fw.marine@dec.ny.gov.

[Broad Bill]

If as the survey says, 23 of 26 coastal states already have a saltwater license, that reinforces what I've said all along which is the adoption of a salt water license by New Jersey will have ZERO impact on New Jersey receiving a greater slice of the excise tax pie. Based on the formula and the allocation factors being weighted by licenses sold for all states, there is no chance New Jersey gets any more than their current minimum 1% of the annual payout, just like the eleven other states mentioned in previous posts, if a license was adopted.

As far as incremental license revenue is concerned, the key question remains how will those funds be spent. We don't need another debacle like Musky Nut is fighting on the fresh water forum involving the denial of public access to Greenwood Lake when the lake is stocked and partially maintained by public funds from fresh water fishing license proceeds. Read his posts and you'll see exactly how politicians tax the middle to lower class and turn around and spend the money when and how they decide on the privileged few. If that's what this initiative is all about, I wouldn't support it.

I would advocate for a salt water license if those proceeds were used for exclusively salt water related matters. We complain constantly we lack funds to lobby the state and federal government regarding fisheries management and asinine regulations. Well here's our chance to resolve that problem. Proceeds from a salt water license should be used where it has the largest impact for the majority of salt water recreational anglers as opposed to the minority. I don't agree that 100% of salt water anglers should pay a tax to subsidize public boat launches for maybe 5% of recreational anglers who have the financial ability to afford a boat and trailer it as opposed to purchasing a slip. Do I think the price paid is fair, no. But do I think 100% of salt water anglers in this state should subsidize lower or free boat ramp costs for a very small minority percentage of recreational anglers, absolutely not. Give law enforcement the funds they need to do their jobs, subsidize more artificial reefs, put up a few piers in the state, address environmental issues, fund lobbying efforts for more fair and equitable regulations for our sector etc. If the funds were guaranteed to be earmarked for salt water related projects effecting the majority of salt water anglers, I'd be all for it. If there's any chance it ends up in a general fund or redirected to non salt water projects, it's just another money grab by politicians and I wouldn't support it.