New Jersey Hunters banner

Salt water fishing license money would....

  • Be matched with federal money and be given to NJDFW to manage it's natural resources

    Votes: 11 34.4%
  • Be put in the state's general treasury and used for any government functions

    Votes: 18 56.3%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 3 9.4%

  • Total voters
    32
21 - 33 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
A more interesting question is how many would support a license fee of, say $20 per year provided the money really goes to fishery conservation. I would accept it, as much as we complain about the sometimes crazy regulations, I have seen what a complete lack of regulation can do. In Sweden the ocean has been beat to death by bottom trawlers, there is not a bottom fish to catch unless you travel over 50 miles offshore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
942 Posts
There should not be any saltwater fishing fees whatsoever. There is garbage washing up on shore all the time, and most of the jersey coast smells like sewage. Also, look up how they downgraded standards of water quality for the beaches to allow swimming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
If there is no saltwater license, then the rest of the sportsmen of NJ are paying the price for those who fish in saltwater.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
659 Posts
I'm sure all the monies would go to enhance our fishing opportunities, increase beach access and creel limits. I also bought beach front property in Arizona. S C R E W anymore GOD DAMN recreation fees!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
409 Posts
We pay a heck of a lot more money for our permits and licenses compared to other states. NJ never takes care of its own. So NO! I don't want to pay for something else. The state takes enough of our money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
If there is no saltwater license, then the rest of the sportsmen of NJ are paying the price for those who fish in saltwater.
Wrong because if they want to fresh water fish or hunt they will pay like you do. On the other hand you can fish saltwater free as well. Its all good
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
A more interesting question is how many would support a license fee of, say $20 per year provided the money really goes to fishery conservation. I would accept it, as much as we complain about the sometimes crazy regulations, I have seen what a complete lack of regulation can do. In Sweden the ocean has been beat to death by bottom trawlers, there is not a bottom fish to catch unless you travel over 50 miles offshore.
I would not and you are mixing to concepts, money for conservation and regulations. Your point misses the point because we have very strict regulations of salt water fishery without the $20 fee for fishing license
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,883 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
Wrong. We have strict salt water regulations because we don't have enough biologists to provide fishery data to the federal government to refute the quotas they appropriate to our state, quotas they formulate using mathematical equations based on many different quotients like effort (amount of time it takes to catch fish), nursery area (estuarine systems which NJ has plenty), bycatch rates, catch rates, recruitment, predation, etc etc. So, if our state agency does not provide fishery data, we get stuck with what the feds give us, which obviously is going to be a very conservative amount. That's at least how I remember it when I took some fishery courses at Rutgers some 17 yrs ago. Fishery science is very complex but we have to attempt it or we end up like the countries across the pond who have scraped up the bottoms for everything it's worth! We are far far away from the times when we just went fishin, caught a mixed bag for dinner, and assumed we will catch em again next time we went. Effort has exponentially increased as well as being exponentially more efficient w gear and technology, nursery area has been degraded, bycatch is huge, enforcement is disproportionately low based on numbers of fishermen vs COs, and so on and so on. Pay up now for the tomorrows fishing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,710 Posts
Wrong. We have strict salt water regulations because we don't have enough biologists to provide fishery data to the federal government to refute the quotas they appropriate to our state, quotas they formulate using mathematical equations based on many different quotients like effort (amount of time it takes to catch fish), nursery area (estuarine systems which NJ has plenty), bycatch rates, catch rates, recruitment, predation, etc etc. So, if our state agency does not provide fishery data, we get stuck with what the feds give us, which obviously is going to be a very conservative amount. That's at least how I remember it when I took some fishery courses at Rutgers some 17 yrs ago. Fishery science is very complex but we have to attempt it or we end up like the countries across the pond who have scraped up the bottoms for everything it's worth! We are far far away from the times when we just went fishin, caught a mixed bag for dinner, and assumed we will catch em again next time we went. Effort has exponentially increased as well as being exponentially more efficient w gear and technology, nursery area has been degraded, bycatch is huge, enforcement is disproportionately low based on numbers of fishermen vs COs, and so on and so on. Pay up now for the tomorrows fishing!
you have strict regulations because the wont listen to anyone else's data.. There is no shortage of fluke, they just raised the size limit until the threshold was hit where guys started complaining they werent catching keepers. They wont use anyone else's data for 2 reasons.
First is it doesnt fit their agenda of starting their catch shares programs.
second is the would have to admit that they have mismanaged the fishery for over 20 years while collecting a paycheck.
Regulations need to be set , but they need to be based on reality not false numbers. with the 10% mortality given on fluke, the average guy is being charged for 10 times more fish than he is taking home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
It seems to come down to the fact that States with a sufficient number of marine biologists get the best deal from the feds because they can solidly support their positions with data. Our State on the other hand has to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to marine fisheries data and enforcement. Most of our Marine Enforcement is funded by NMFS and they are more interested in the commercial aspect than the recreation, therefore we end up short handed in the law enforcement arena. Sooo it all boils down to if you want better data and results with the feds you need to pay your fair share.
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Top