Striped Bass Fishing Forums Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
Since when has it been a right to fish for free? It would be far more productive (and beneficial to fisheries) to revamp the license system and also make sure money goes where it needs to go, instead of into politician's pockets.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
18,706 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
cNYO said:
I agree... Plus 10 bucks isnt bad.
10 bucks isnt bad - How long will it be 10 bucks is the million $ question. -
outdoorsman said:
Since when has it been a right to fish for free? It would be far more productive (and beneficial to fisheries) to revamp the license system and also make sure money goes where it needs to go, instead of into politician's pockets.
I dont disagree with your statement Ian -
Revamping the license system is a good idea but I dont think it could happen as long as they have ways of bleeding every nickel out of us.
If revamping was feasable I'm sure it would have been done already. The DEC had three years to ponder the saltwater registration mandate. They dragged their feet and the State Legislature banged us for the fee at the very end of 2009. It doesnt seem to me like they could get anything fixed that would be in the best interest of the fishermen. (Read that they wanted to keep the monies in the conservation fund)
The State Conservation fund funds the DEC, do they really need more of our money to do the same pis poor job they do already?
All that was done by these pirates was to establish another beauracracy called The Marine Coastal Conservation District and Education Research Board.
What is the function of this beuracracy?
"To review and allocate expenditures of DEC related to the Marine resource account. The board is also responsible for annual reports to the DEC commissioner on expenditures and fiscal needs and for recommendations on maximum fees to be charged for marine recreational fishing licenses. "
When do the expenditures end for the common citizen who wants to take his family fishing?
In the past in NY - the city council has fought unsucessfully for monies in the Fish and Game trust account to pay for highways, hospitals and other budget shortfalls.
11% of all monies collected from the sale of motor boat fuel, fishing and hunting equipment go into a dedicated fund. These Wallop Broeux monies could have been appropriated to pay the MRIP fees.
Fortunately the Wallup Brouex funding is dedicated and protected as is the license fees currently guided by State finance law.
Code:
[URL]http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fasport.html[/URL]
Federal law requires a state to adopt a registration requirement for fishermen but does not stipulate that a fee be charged for the right to fish.
The Dongan Patent, dating back to 1686, relegating the Trustees as stewards of the waterways, was issued to Colonial Governor Thomas Dongan by King James II of England outlining the governship of 25,000 acres of land in what is now Southampton Town. The document grants the "freeholders access and rights to common underwater land, rights of ways to the water, marshlands and other common areas." This Patent established the Board of Trustees and granted them the power to act as stewards. Dongan Patents also exist in other Long Island townships, notably in East Hampton and Brookhaven.

The Patent has withstood challenges in local and state courts, as well as in the U.S. Supreme Court where rulings have declared the document as valid in modern times as it was when it was first written.
 

·
Keelhauler
Joined
·
609 Posts
This state takes enough of my money without doing shit for me. Dont get me wrong, Im all about supporting the fishery. I just dont see much happening with the money that supposedly goes into it. Either or, I love to fish so I guess Ill be like 99.3% of everyone else out there ...grab my rod, reel, smile, and bend overthebirdman.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
The Dongan Patent, dating back to 1686, relegating the Trustees as stewards of the waterways, was issued to Colonial Governor Thomas Dongan by King James II of England outlining the governship of 25,000 acres of land in what is now Southampton Town. The document grants the "freeholders access and rights to common underwater land, rights of ways to the water, marshlands and other common areas." This Patent established the Board of Trustees and granted them the power to act as stewards. Dongan Patents also exist in other Long Island townships, notably in East Hampton and Brookhaven.

The Patent has withstood challenges in local and state courts, as well as in the U.S. Supreme Court where rulings have declared the document as valid in modern times as it was when it was first written.
Interesting info!
 

·
First Mate
Joined
·
907 Posts
Since when has it been a right to fish for free? It would be far more productive (and beneficial to fisheries) to revamp the license system and also make sure money goes where it needs to go, instead of into politician's pockets.
Says the guy with all the endorsement checks rolling in! LOL! Just messing with you. I think you nailed it when you said that the money needs to go where the money is needed, NOT into a slush fund for politicians to steal!
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
18,706 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
This is an attempt to put out factual information on what is what to anyone interested who wants to get a reading and formulate a position or be informed.
Please realize that my opinions are just that, and you know what they say about opinions.....

The State of New York Coastal advisory Board put out a memorandom of opposition to the repeal bill.

Here is some of the drivel in part.

The financial implications of these bills and the impact to the rest of the sportsmen of NYS have not been properly evaluated. In addition, there is a large amount of false information being distributed on recreational marine fishing license sales and where these funds are spent. A major reason for the implementation of the recreational marine license was to have those who benefit from the resource pay for its maintenance and upkeep instead of having all the other New Yorkers unfairly paying for a resource they don't utilize. This license was enacted at the same time the other sportsmen of NYS also faced a significant license fee increase. CFAB would like to take this opportunity to provide some factual information on the recreational marine fishing license and the financial implications if it is repealed.
> More
Memorandum of Opposition


Financial implications? - please read the sportfish restoration act in its entirety.Then why is this such a problem now when for the last 25 years it was not a problem receiving federal funding under the act.
They are desperate to put their spin on this.

Ted Venker- Director of the Coastal Conservation association also released a statement against the Bill and New Jersey's non license fee.
http://news.joincca.org/rolling-out-the-wrong-welcome-mat/

Now - some consider this group as a special interest.
I agree with the goals and policies of the CCA - but this time I think Mr. Venker is off the mark.
What kind of management can proponents expect with a "free" license? Will the New Jersey Division of Fish and Game be able to fund a marine habitat program? Will it be able to build and maintain boat ramps? Will it be able to do research and data collection? Will it be able to find and stop poaching and other abuses? Will it deliver quality fisheries that lure in tourists? Will anglers there have any leverage to expect any of those things in the future? Is the effort to create "free" fishing in the Northeast likely to turn its sights on saltwater licenses in places where they have produced huge, positive results? Places like Texas, Florida or Louisiana?
The same kind of management it has been getting in the past.
Funded by The sport fish restoration act.
1.35 million dollars from the New York State License fees is a drop in the proverbial bucket. I dont see a problem in building and maintaining ramps. Lure in tourists? Obviously Venker has never been to the New Jersey shore.

If New York was smart they should have instituted a requirement for a freshwater license in the Hudson River above the marine district to include anadromous fish. It appears to me that they may have outsmarted themselves by getting greedy - They wanted their hands on a marine bueracracy fund and many fishermen in the Hudson already have a freshwater license.
The proposed legislation replaces the paid state license with a free registry that conforms with fed. guidelines. Thus, under the proposed free registry NYS anglers will be exempt from paying for the federal registry.
The NMFS has made available through the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commission, a fund of $2.5 million specifically intended to help states defray the cost of a free registry.
 

·
First Mate
Joined
·
907 Posts
Titus-Pullo said:
This is an attempt to put out factual information on what is what to anyone interested who wants to get a reading and formulate a position or be informed.
Please realize that my opinions are just that, and you know what they say about opinions.....

The State of New York Coastal advisory Board put out a memorandom of opposition to the repeal bill.

Here is some of the drivel in part.

The financial implications of these bills and the impact to the rest of the sportsmen of NYS have not been properly evaluated. In addition, there is a large amount of false information being distributed on recreational marine fishing license sales and where these funds are spent. A major reason for the implementation of the recreational marine license was to have those who benefit from the resource pay for its maintenance and upkeep instead of having all the other New Yorkers unfairly paying for a resource they don't utilize. This license was enacted at the same time the other sportsmen of NYS also faced a significant license fee increase. CFAB would like to take this opportunity to provide some factual information on the recreational marine fishing license and the financial implications if it is repealed.
Memorandum of Opposition


Financial implications? - please read the sportfish restoration act in its entirety.Then why is this such a problem now when for the last 25 years it was not a problem receiving federal funding under the act.
They are desperate to put their spin on this.

Ted Venker- Director of the Coastal Conservation association also released a statement against the Bill and New Jersey's non license fee.
http://news.joincca.org/rolling-out-the-wrong-welcome-mat/

Now - some consider this group as a special interest.
I agree with the goals and policies of the CCA - but this time I think Mr. Venker is off the mark.
What kind of management can proponents expect with a "free" license? Will the New Jersey Division of Fish and Game be able to fund a marine habitat program? Will it be able to build and maintain boat ramps? Will it be able to do research and data collection? Will it be able to find and stop poaching and other abuses? Will it deliver quality fisheries that lure in tourists? Will anglers there have any leverage to expect any of those things in the future? Is the effort to create "free" fishing in the Northeast likely to turn its sights on saltwater licenses in places where they have produced huge, positive results? Places like Texas, Florida or Louisiana?

The same kind of management it has been getting in the past.
Funded by The sport fish restoration act.
1.35 million dollars from the New York State License fees is a drop in the proverbial bucket. I dont see a problem in building and maintaining ramps. Lure in tourists? Obviously Venker has never been to the New Jersey shore.

If New York was smart they should have instituted a requirement for a freshwater license in the Hudson River above the marine district. It appears to me that they may have outsmarted themselves by getting greedy - They wanted their hands on a marine buearacracy fund.
A major reason for the implementation of the recreational marine license was to have those who benefit from the resource pay for its maintenance and upkeep instead of having all the other New Yorkers unfairly paying for a resource they don't utilize.

The above excerpt is the most disturbing. Do they make hikers and nature lovers pay to use wildlife management areas? NO. Do people who boat but don't fish pay for upkeep? NO. What a bunch of crap!
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
18,706 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Recreational Fishing Alliance (NY)
Contact: Jim Hutchinson, Jr. / 888-564-6732
For Immediate Release
March 24, 2011
NEW YORK'S SALTWATER LICENSE TO BE REPEALED
User Fee Will Be Gone in 180 Days - Replaced By Free Registry​
New York's saltwater fishing license is being repealed!
According to the Associated Press, New York lawmakers and the Cuomo administration have just reached an agreement to end the state's $10 annual saltwater fishing license and replace it with a free registry for the state's coastal waters. Legislators announcing the change yesterday say it will cover two years.
The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) received a "high priority" email sent through DEC channels yesterday afternoon regarding the license repeal, noting that budget discussions between Governor Cuomo and the New York state legislature helped facilitate the repeal effort, which is said will take place in the next 180 days.
Last Tuesday, March 15th, a Senate Budget Resolution calling for the repeal of the MTA Payroll Tax for public and private schools, as well as full repeal of the saltwater fishing license was passed in the New York Senate. "I made clear from the beginning of the Budget process that I would not support any new taxes or fees," Sen. Lee Zeldin (R-Shirley) said last week.
Sen. Zeldin, a Long Island saltwater angler, last month introduced legislation in the New York Senate (S3638) which would amend the environmental conservation law in relation to establishing a registration system for saltwater recreational fishing, essentially repealing that part which mandates that a fee to fish be levied on saltwater anglers. Under the Senate Budget Resolution passed last week, the saltwater fishing license and fee would end with the expiration of the current 2011 license.
On Friday, March 18th, a fax campaign was initiated by the RFA and the New York Sportfishing Federation to help garner support from Assemblyman Robert Sweeney (D-Lindenhurst) as chairman of the New York Assembly Environmental Conservation Committee. According to the Associated Press, Stephen Liss, counsel to Assemblyman Sweeney, said a three-way deal was worked out this past Tuesday night which will be included in the upcoming budget.
The Associated Press reports that an administration official confirmed the agreement, which still must be ratified in the State Budget, which is expected to be approved by April 1.
Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr. (I-Sag Harbor), who vehemently opposed the license requirement two years ago, had sponsored legislation ever since to repeal the requirement, including legislation in the current session with Sen. Zeldin (A6169). Thiele also supported litigation by the Southampton and East Hampton Trustees with five other Long Island Towns which successfully obtained an injunction against the law in the seven Long Island towns. In a release issued yesterday, Thiele said New York's license law will be transformed into a registration requirement to meet federal law, and noted that this week's agreement also provides that the registration will be guaranteed to be free for the next two years. In addition, those who purchased lifetime licenses will be granted a refund minus the fee for the past year.
"The idea of a saltwater fishing license was ill-conceived from the outset. Not only was it a tax on one of the fundamental rights that Long Island residents have had since colonial times, but it was a burden to the recreational fishing industry at a time when the recession was taking its toll on the local economy. This action will send a message that the State recognizes that the right to fish should be free and that recreational fishing is a critical part of the Long Island economy," Thiele said.
The RFA said while some state workers may view the bipartisan decision in Albany as a dark day for the public sector, the decision is good news for private sector constituents concerned about the rising cost of bureaucracy.
"With all due respect to our friends in the public sector, the private sector is fed up with this same old 'pay me now, bill me later' mentality permeating state government," said RFA managing director Jim Hutchinson. "New York's saltwater fishing license was an inferior product from the start, and as consumers, constituents and taxpayers, our state's sportfishermen asked that it be replaced," Hutchinson.
"We're grateful to all those New York legislators who showed what true bipartisan leadership is all about," Hutchinson said, crediting Governor Cuomo, Sen. Zeldin, Assemblyman Sweeney and Assemblyman Thiele for working together to secure an agreement on behalf of the New York marine district.
"Those who would impose a user fee on public access are quick to make claims of the privilege of fishing and paying for said privilege, but that's not the way we see things at the RFA," Hutchinson said. "The vast majority of sportsmen in New York's marine district do not believe that fishing is only a privilege, but instead believe strongly in their right to access this public resource. The recent legal challenge on the East End helped reconfirm that long-held belief, and we have nothing but praise for those legislators for helped honor that continued coastal tradition, from the Governor's office on out to our Long Island Assembly and Senate leaders, democrats, republicans and independents alike," he said.
RFA and the New York Sportfishing Federation also wish to thank all those members and friends who participated in this past weekend's fax campaign to spread the word about the repeal efforts, which they believe made a significant impact in getting the license repeal through.
 

·
Official Member
Joined
·
21 Posts
Well, this is good news for next year's striped bass season, but the "effective in 180 days" bit means that the marine license is still required for this year. I don't fish the hardwater and still haven't got this season's license (i know... i'm going tonight). Big thanks to the good senator from long island!
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
18,706 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Zeldin put out a release yesterday saying the budget would be finalized March 31 and that party and charter boat captains were included in the repeal effort. Their $400 fee being rescinded. The Governors signature was expected on it soon after. The cost to New York is estimated at $1 per angler.

New Jerseyans face the same dilemma, although Governor Christie signed the registry into law on February 22 they have yet to set up a registry that is approved by the NOAA, when it has been set up it is likely to cost $2 per angler.

My guess is that they will have it by years end and until then everyone will be forced to pay the $15 bucks to register with NOAA.
Or buy the New York license. It can still be purchased online.

The NMFS has made available through the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commission a fund of 2.5 million for states to help defray registry costs.
That seems to me that it would cover most of the anglers registered.


They really should have made a license available so that each state could have granted reciprocity coastwide.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top