NJ Fishing Advertise Here at New Jersey's Number 1 Fishing Website!

Message Board

More Straight Talk on Registry - NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey

Message Board Registration       FAQ

Go Back   NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey > NJFishing.com Fisheries Management/Regulations
FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

NJFishing.com Fisheries Management/Regulations This board is closed for posting but will serve as an archieve for all Fisheries Management and Regulations posts from other boards.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2011, 11:15 AM
apmaurosr's Avatar
apmaurosr apmaurosr is offline
NJFishing.com Ambassador
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 109
Default More Straight Talk on Registry

More Straight Talk on the Registry

Q. I read that you recently discovered that the free saltwater registry could take a year to implement because it was written as a regulation and that it might need to go through a lengthy review process. Why didnít you catch it sooner?

A. Firstly, the free registry bill is not one that was created by the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance (CF). We had no involvement or say in the bill. Like thousands of other bills, this one was dormant.

Approximately one month ago the public learned that the Senate Environment and Energy Committee would hear the free registry bill. I personally attended the hearing with a list of questions related to the cost of the free registry. The NJ Outdoor Alliance (CF) wanted to know where the funds would come from to pay for its implementation and management.

On December 9, 2010 the Senate Environment and Energy Committee heard the bill and this was the first opportunity for public comment in the Senate. However, a vote was taken by the committee before the public was allowed to ask questions or make comments. You can listen to the entire proceedings at the following link & click on "Listen" to the right of December 9, 2010:


Since we didnít have the opportunity to ask questions, and since we knew that the funding for the free registry wasnít addressed in the bill, we decided to look at the bill more thoroughly. We have former state employees and a former Fish & Game Council member that are part of the volunteer staff at the NJ Outdoor Alliance (CF).

We discovered that the bill was written as a regulation and might be subject to an Executive Order that would require a review process and delay implementation of the registry. We then contacted the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and learned that our concerns were warranted. The DEP seemed very much aware that the bill was written as a regulation and we got the impression that they were making every effort to ensure there is no delay in implementing the registry.

Iíd like to point out that it is the responsibility of those that are involved with the bill to perform due diligence in order for it to be written properly. Again, the NJ Outdoor Alliance (CF) is not responsible for writing the bill. In fact, it is our position that a $2.00 administrative fee is needed to cover the $600,000 in projected costs.

In our opinion a $2.00 administrative fee is a more responsible approach to managing the registry given a weakened Bureau of Marine Fisheries (BMF) and a $10.7 billion budget deficit faced by the state of New Jersey.

Keep in mind that all three of the NJ Outdoor Alliance organizations are 100% volunteer and our efforts are targeted to New Jersey. We donít have a full-time staff to monitor every bill. In addition to fishing we are involved in areas that include hunting, trapping, diving, and others that involve the health of our forests and waters.

Q. Does that mean you want to defeat the bill?

A. Although the NJ Outdoor Alliance (CF) believes that the free saltwater registry will take funds from the very program(s) that benefit recreational anglers we have not suggested that that the bill be defeated.

Instead, we are making the angling community fully aware of the realities of the bill so that they can make an informed decision. We are asking that as people contact the Governorís office to support the bill that they also state they donít want the money to pay for the registry to come from the programs that provide for their own fishing enjoyment.

Most of us know that the state of New Jersey receives in excess of $50 million in various taxes levied on anglers. Therefore, we are recommending that people remind the Governorís office of this fact as they ask for a free registry. If not, we may end up paying for the free registry ourselves.

Q. Some people seem very upset with you for putting facts out for public consumption. Why do you continue to do it?

A. Our natural resources belong to everyone, not just a handful of squeaky wheels. All of us are stewards of our natural resources and in order for us to care for them responsibly we must be informed so that we can make the best decision.

It seems to me that most people want to do the right things for the right reasons. The NJ Outdoor Alliance (CF) will continue to make timely details available as soon as we learn of them so that people will be informed.

To hear only one side of a debate is not only short sighted but can leave us susceptible to being indoctrinated with propaganda. Such naivety can lead us to unknowingly be used as pawns to advance an agenda we actually might be opposed to had we known all of the facts.

The matter of the free saltwater registry is a decision for all fishermen and fisherwomen to decide. Thatís why we continue to publish information.

As I mentioned, the NJ Outdoor Alliance (CF) has recommended that if you support the bill then also consider telling the Governor that you donít want to have the funds to pay for the free saltwater registry come from accounts that can compromise the integrity of our natural resources. It would be foolish for us to shift money from one pocket to another pocket so that we can boast of a meaningless accomplishment.

The current condition of the BMF is dismal and its budget is paltry

Q. You post on a forum but donít return to read replies. Why is that?

A. There are a couple of reasons. Firstly, the purpose of my threads is to put information into the hands of the public. I am not advocating for the bill since the position of the NJ Outdoor Alliance (CF) is to support a $2.00 administrative fee.

However, the only bill on the Governorís desk is for a free registry and we are not making any movement to defeat the bill. Like everyone, we want a saltwater registry in place as soon as possible. If there is a chance for a free saltwater registry to be funded from outside of the DEP or that doesnít cannibalize monies from natural resource management we will likely be for it since our immediate funding concerns will be addressed.

It is up to the angling community to weigh the value of the information provided. Also, as a volunteer and one who runs his own business, I canít go to every internet forum and debate the merits of every argument. Thatís for forum members to do.

Those interested in contacting the Governorís office can do so by calling 1-609-292-6000

Anthony P Mauro Sr
New Jersey Outdoor Alliance
New Jersey Outdoor Alliance Conservation Foundation
New Jersey Outdoor Alliance Environmental Projects
Old 01-19-2011, 01:02 PM
CaptTB CaptTB is offline
Site Sponsor
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,074
Default Re: More Straight Talk on Registry

Another conversation with himself.

Straight talk my ASS! You have not tried to defeat the bill?

First off, you have not tried to SUPPORT the bill! Being negative on the topic is getting old Anthony, as witnessed by the vast majority of the responses to your "Q&A" sessions as well as the NJOA press releases.

Second, a call to Assemblyman Scott Rumana's office (he was an original sponsor of the Assembly Registry bill and voted for it the first time) as to why he removed his name as a sponsor AND voted AGAINST the bill this last time revealed that he both voted AGAINST the bill the second time around AND sent a letter to the governor asking him to VETO the bill based on conversations with (as a result of calls FROM) the NJOA.

Is he lying or are you Anthony?

Now we know why you do not respond on websites. You post your propaganda, ask for money for the NJOA at the end of your press release (when it is an NJOA press release) and then disappear.

NJOA has NEVER publicly supported the free registry and has LOBBIED AGAINST IT in private, period.

NJOA HAS ONLY PRODUCED NEGATIVE PUBLICITY ON THE BILL in the guise of "straight talk" and has NEVER published a release supporting the bill IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!

FIVE DIFFERENT GROUPS left the NJOA "talks" on funding the division before they were done (I was one of them by the way) as a direct result of it being a license/fee based discussion for a registry, period. We saw it for the joke it was and wasted n more of our time with it.

Let's look at some of the other points you have made in your Q&A. You and NJOA have pooh poohed a license plate and lottery to raise funds. Now the Federation, which sits on the board of NJOA, sent a joint letter with ENSP to the Governor asking him not to sign the bill.

According to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Endangered and Nongame Species Program's (ENSP) mission is to “actively conserve New Jersey's biological diversity by maintaining and enhancing endangered, threatened and nongame wildlife populations within healthy, functioning ecosystems.” The ENSP is responsible for the protection and management of nearly 500 wildlife species found in the Garden State, including the 73 species currently listed as endangered or threatened. The program is funded almost entirely by donations from the sale of Conserve Wildlife License Plates, grants and the state income tax check-off, as well as support from the Conserve Wildlife Foundation.

Learn more at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/ensphome.htm

And be sure to check out the Conserve Wildlife Foundation’s trustees at http://www.conservewildlifenj.org/about/trustees/

I'll ask again what I asked elsewhere, is NJOA lobbying for anglers in Trenton or lobbying Anglers FOR Trenton?

Are you talking down a license plate and tax checkoff (both of which have been proposed and were discussed at the NJOA license love fests I attended) because they are no good or perhaps because they would compete with the ENSP funds?

Why do you seem to run away from anything that the Division has not put its seal of approval on Anthony? Does the fact that more than one inland game species group raises funds through the same means suggested (by almost everyone but NJOA and the groups that make up its Board) be the reason NJOA does not support ANY of those options?

Not publicly speaking against something does NOT mean you publicly support something. To steal the line from Rush, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

More to follow. SInce I am talking to myself because ANthony does not see fit to respond (I am a volunteer too and do not get paid ONE DIME for the work I do on behalf of SSFFF, United Boatmen or any other organization) I'll keep you guys up to date with the TRUTH, and I will actually respond to questions too :

Last edited by CaptTB; 01-19-2011 at 02:36 PM..
Old 01-19-2011, 01:12 PM
CaptTB CaptTB is offline
Site Sponsor
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,074
Default Re: More Straight Talk on Registry

Hey Anthony, go to THIS THREAD for a lesson as to why regulation is preferable over legislation.

Someone who actually deals with saltwater fisheries issues would know this already, but since you insist on pretending you represent saltwater anglers in this state I might as well try to educate you.
Old 01-19-2011, 01:30 PM
PocketFisherman PocketFisherman is offline
NJFishing.com Ambassador
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 446
Default Re: More Straight Talk on Registry

Why don't we just setup a cage match where you two can throw dead fish and waterfowl at each other.

Charge $10 for admission and pay for the entire shooting match.
Old 01-19-2011, 02:31 PM
CaptTB CaptTB is offline
Site Sponsor
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,074
Default Re: More Straight Talk on Registry

In keeping with the tradition of carrying on a conversation with oneself pioneered by Anthony Mauro, I'll give what is likely his response even though he won't

"We never told him not to vote for it, we only told him all the things we think are wrong with the bill and talked about all of our concerns."

"But we really left it up to him, he made that decision. We never said don't vote for this bill that we don't like and has lots of problems and we have never supported and where will the money come from and we hope this won't and we are concerned about and we...."

You get the point.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.