Forum Navigation

New Posts

Search


Go Back   Reel-Time Forums > Regional Discussion Forums > New York & New Jersey

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-08-2007, 04:25 PM
Frequent Fly-er's Avatar
Frequent Fly-er Frequent Fly-er is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oyster Bay, LI, NY
Posts: 112
Saltwater Fishing License

This statement was taken from another site -

And to further prove that we’re surrounded by assassins note that in 2008 fishermen in Delaware will have to purchase a saltwater fishing license. The fee will be $8.50 and the fee for recreational and charter boats will be increased. Additionally, non-residents and tourists will also be required to buy a license.


According to Jim Donofrio, executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), some Delaware anglers believe they will benefit from the license fee. However, he debunked that notion saying, “They’re being told that they will get political clout from paying the tax. It won't work that way.”

Pointing to the license situation in California, Donofrio explained, “That’s the first state to institute a saltwater fishing license. The fee is now up to $60 but anglers get practically nothing from it. In fact, fishermen have so little political clout that the environmentalists have pushed through the Marine Life Protection Act, which will actually take away some of their best fishing spots.”

Donofrio added that even California fish and wildlife officials admit they’ve lost 200,000 anglers. "The state's population is booming and the number of saltwater anglers is falling every year," Donofrio said. “The license buyers are just not getting anything for their money.”

Donofrio also explained that anglers should not have to pay for fisheries research for a public resource that is increasingly being influenced by environmentalists who do not buy a license.

Nils Stolpe, a spokesman for the commercial fishing industry, said the Pew Charitable Trusts, which pours money into organizations making assaults on commercial and recreational fishing efforts, is an increasing problem.

According to Stolpe, the Conservation Law Foundation has received more than $1 million Pew dollars, Earthjustice has received $20 million; National Environmental Trust has received more than $40 million, Public Interest Research Group has received more than $18 million, Oceana more than $38 million, and Natural Resources Defense Council $5 million.

For Garden State anglers the license question isn’t “if,” but “how soon.”



Interteresting to say the least. So much for "clout" with the saltwater license. Seems that a poster in another thread on this very subject said this would come to pass here in NY. Ummmm!!!

PS - Posted this in NE Freshwater by mistake.
__________________
__________________
Capt. Ken Courtlangus
516-652-1380
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-08-2007, 08:56 PM
Perch Perch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Before Nov. 1999
Location: MA
Posts: 993
Hi Ken:
The RFA is an utterly odious outfit whose shibboleth is “More dead fish for us.” Check out:

http://www.flyrodreel.com/index.php/page/blog/?p=4181

and:

http://www.flyrodreel.com/index.php/page/blog/?p=2486
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-08-2007, 10:20 PM
Frequent Fly-er's Avatar
Frequent Fly-er Frequent Fly-er is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oyster Bay, LI, NY
Posts: 112
Perch

Thanks for the links, more interesting reading. By the way I am not connected to RFA in any way. Just posted the above mainly because of the California information. I also like to read the differing takes on the saltwater license issue. It is comming, just don't know whether a federal or state would be best.

Thanks again for posting. Your input is always enlightening.
__________________
Capt. Ken Courtlangus
516-652-1380
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-09-2007, 08:23 AM
Perch Perch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Before Nov. 1999
Location: MA
Posts: 993
Ken:

I don’t know you (although I’ve met you briefly), but I know about you, and I see you out there. And, from your excellent reputation, I’d have been astonished if you were linked in any way with the RFA. Here’s a piece on the saltwater license issue that might interest you. Despite the guy’s plodding style, he makes some good points:


http://www.flyrodreel.com/index.php/page/blog/?p=548
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-09-2007, 04:40 PM
Frequent Fly-er's Avatar
Frequent Fly-er Frequent Fly-er is offline
Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Oyster Bay, LI, NY
Posts: 112
Perch

Thank you for the kind words. Sometimes when I am "out there" I occasionally get a arm raised high in the air telling me I am number one from my fellow fishermen so it is nice to read some kind words from someone like you.

I had read your link before, found it informative but I still have my doubts.

Maybe someone from the left coast can let us know how they feel about their saltwater license, the decrease in saltwater licenses issued, are they getting what they expected from the state, has their enforcement improved, and what about access? These are just some of the many questions we in the northeast are concerned about besides where and how the money would be spent. Sixty dollars a year is more than a few flys.

Years ago I belonged to S.O.S. when it was first formed, but like many well meaning organizations big egos, self interest and politics got in the way of the mission statement. Many others, myself included, now have a inherent distrust for organizations that want to save our fishery, but I also realize that if sport fisherman do not pull together we WILL loose our fishery as we now know it. I am not convinced that a state saltwater license is the panacea that it has been made out to be. I do not have the answers only questions.
__________________
Capt. Ken Courtlangus
516-652-1380
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-22-2007, 12:02 PM
peteD's Avatar
peteD peteD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Before Nov. 1999
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Posts: 225
Perch,

While I greatly respect Ted Williams I don't agree that opposing a saltwater fishing license makes the RFA odius. I oppose a saltwater licence merely for the reason that it usually winds up as a means to overly tax non residents and is completely unenforceable. I disagree that requiring a license will increase fishermans political clout and moneys collected will do little in terms of management or enforcement.

I may disgree with the RFA on the lunacy of NJs fish management, but not on the licence issue. If we are to have an honest debate we should debate the issues not the people or group making the point and the real issue is how to preserve fishing in the north east for both commercial and recreational fisherman.
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-22-2007, 12:14 PM
Perch Perch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Before Nov. 1999
Location: MA
Posts: 993
Pete: You’re right. The RFA is not odious because it opposes a saltwater license. It is odious because it places its ravenous appetite for more dead fish above every other consideration. (See: http://www.flyrodreel.com/index.php/page/blog/?p=4181)

I also agree with you that we should “preserve fishing in the Northeast for both commercial and recreational fisherman.” I just want recreational fishermen to have an equal voice or at least some voice. They don’t have either now because no one knows who they are; and no one knows who they are because they’re not licensed. There’s no list. In every state with a saltwater license dangerous commercial exploitation of gamefish has been curtailed: eg: redfish.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-22-2007, 02:38 PM
peteD's Avatar
peteD peteD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Before Nov. 1999
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Posts: 225
Perch,

With all due respect, you have to be kidding if you don't think fisherman have a say in NJ. It took all of about a week for pressure from fisherman to have the Coast Guard take down a fence they errected on Sandy Hook. Not all fisherman want to limit killing fish. NJs incredibly stupid slots and bonus system wasn't developed because the fisherman of NJ wanted to keep less fish. A license will change nothing and if NY, CT, MA, and RI all adopt one, what do you think the non resident fee will be? Just look at the out of state freshwater license for a gage, including NJs non resident license. This on top of the tax on fishing equipment that goes into the state coffers. Believe me the state knows how many fisherman are in NJ.

I agree with Ted Williams that we need more conservation. I would love the regulations to allow ony ONE fish UNDER 28 per day be taken an thats it, but how many NJ fishermen do think would support that. On this issue I agree with the odius RFA.
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-22-2007, 05:54 PM
Perch Perch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Before Nov. 1999
Location: MA
Posts: 993
Pete: I didn’t write that they “don’t have a say.” I wrote that they don’t have an equal voice with the commercials even though they outnumber them 100 to one. The state may have an rough estimate of how many rec. fishermen are in NJ, but that cuts no cheese with politicians. They need names and addresses. Here’s a piece I’ve posted before with permission. I often don’t agree with Ted Williams but, despite his plodding style, he pretty much nailed this one:

Posted with permission of Ted Williams and FlyRod&Reel

Do We Need Saltwater Licenses?

Only if we want the power to influence fisheries management

BY TED WILLIAMS
(FLY ROD & REEL APRIL 2005)

The editor of this magazine dropped by for dinner and to talk about an article he wanted on why coastal states need saltwater fishing licenses. Being an avid ocean angler, and having worked for a state fish and game agency, I was eager to get started and knew exactly who I would talk to.

My first source told me, "Anglers will almost certainly lose as the pieces of the marine fisheries pie are cut and distributed. They will come up short because one, they are not counted with undeniable accuracy and precision and, two, their fishing effort and harvest cannot be established with statistical acceptability. . . . Without [licensing] saltwater angling can pretty well expect to be crowded gradually out of the picture over the next decade or two." That source was Dick Stroud of the Sport Fishing Institute. The editor/dinner guest was John Merwin. The year was 1980.

A quarter-century later Stroud's prediction has come to pass, at least in the Northeast. The only coastal states (other than Hawaii) that don't have saltwater licenses are Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Delaware. For the sake of brevity, and because there are other peripheral issues in Hawaii, I'll focus only on the Northeast. Is it just that Yankee salts are tightwads? No, it's also because there are lots of facts about saltwater licensing they don't want to know.

Those facts are getting harder to ignore because in states that have implemented saltwater licensing management successes are increasingly spectacular. Mostly, this is because licensing provides contact information so that anglers looking after their own best interests-including groups of anglers such as the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA)-can organize, energize, educate and direct. And legislators pay far more attention to documented lists of resource users than someone's guesstimate of voiceless, nameless absentees.

In North Carolina (which didn't legislate a saltwater license until 2004) the Division of Marine Fisheries estimated that of 29 species pursued by both anglers and commercials in 1999, anglers took 33 percent of the harvest. And yet there were an estimated 1.1 million to 1.5 million anglers compared to 9,232 licensed commercial fishermen. For the past decade the most popular recreational and commercial fish in the state, southern flounder, has been overfished to near collapse, mostly by commercials. A good recovery plan was shouted down by commercials. With the blessing of managers, commercial fishermen have nearly wiped out the state's blueback herring (important forage for all sorts of gamefish). In the 1970's the annual herring harvest was about 20 million pounds; in 2003 (when the fishery should have been closed) the harvest was 100,000 pounds.

States that require saltwater recreational fishing licenses derive about 80 percent of their saltwater management revenue from this source. It's true that managers don't always use license revenue wisely (although they're getting better); it's also true that in most states they are fed and clothed by license revenue and that they cater to the interest groups providing it. This is why, on the inland scene, game and fish departments tend to ignore that 99.999 percent of fish and wildlife they call "nongame." This is why Northeast states let commercial fishermen call the tune; and this is why Alaska and coastal states in the contiguous US from Maryland south around the Atlantic coast, west along the Gulf, and north to Washington have controlled or eliminated most commercial fishing. The phenomenon is called political reality.

As CCA chairman Walter Fondren puts it: "There is strength in numbers, but only if someone is counting. The owner of a seafood company that employs 100 people has historically wielded far more power in the fishery-management arena than a vast, silent, unknown population of recreational anglers. That seafood company's payroll, landings data and bottom line provide a tiny snapshot of the value associated with a particular fishery, but it may be the only snapshot. That monopoly on information translates into political power."

Because Texas has a saltwater license, it knows it has 900,000 anglers who fish in the ocean and who annually contribute $1.3 billion to the economy and provide 20,000 jobs. Armed with this information-and looking after the best interests of fish, anglers and themselves-managers have basically run commercial fishermen out of state waters (in this case, nine miles into the Gulf). Since 1980, when Texas banned gillnets, redfish and spotted sea trout have recovered from near extirpation to natural abundance. "Because of our saltwater license we have over 30 years of continuous monitoring data on all our recreational fisheries," declares Dr. Larry McKinney, coastal fisheries director for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. "This allows us to make very sound management decisions and identify problems before they become serious. I can't imagine why your [Northeastern] anglers aren't demanding a license. Until recreational anglers are willing to put money on the table to build programs, they're not going to be able to compete with commercial fishermen. It's just not going to happen."

"In providing saltwater fishermen with political standing, a license could revive Florida's decrepit sport fishery-even if all the revenue were blown on junkets and easy chairs," I reported in 1980. "But when the state hosted a series of public hearings on a saltwater license in 1978 and 1979 the response was loud and angry. Fisheries biologist Ed Joyce, who took a few unofficial polls, figures that 'More than 95 percent of the [recreational] fishermen were opposed.'" Thirty roller-rig gillnetters were basically running the show while 7 million recreational fishermen sat on the sidelines. Said one disenfranchised soul, as he scrawled a $100 check to the license-seeking Florida League of Anglers, "I was in a big school of kings and was getting good action. All at once an airplane started flying around, and shortly after that, four gill-net boats stormed into the area like PT boats. The captain of the boat nearest me ordered me to leave. I raised my hand and made a defiant gesture. He picked up a rifle. I decided to leave after all."

It took 10 years; but, as commercial fishermen steadily wiped out mullet, redfish, ladyfish, snook, jacks, pompano, kingfish and other gamefish, Floridians smartened up. In 1996, six years after implementing a saltwater license, the state banned all commercial netting. This would have been politically impossible had no one known how many saltwater anglers there were in Florida or who they were.

Mark Robson, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's marine fisheries director, reports that saltwater licenses are now bringing in $15 million a year, of which, by law, 32.5 percent goes for research and management; 30 percent for fisheries enhancement; 30 percent for law enforcement, and 7.5 percent for administration, education and outreach. The state's artificial-reef program, which I have had reason to criticize on these pages in the past, is fast improving under strict supervision of three fisheries biologists. The department now spends about $600,000 to partially fund 20 reef projects a year. There is less dependence on construction debris and more on scientifically designed "reef balls."

"In most states fees for saltwater licenses are very nominal," observes Jim Martin, former fisheries chief of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and now conservation director of Pure Fishing (a conglomerate of tackle manufacturers). "If fishermen believe they can't spare a little money to win these allocation battles with commercial fishermen and protect habitat, then they're just not paying attention. In Oregon the license protected a lot of our habitat and allowed us to track fisheries [with coded wire tags] so we could get the maximum quotas. If you're not tracking your fishery and you've got endangered salmon mixed in with abundant hatchery salmon, they just close the whole thing down. With saltwater-license revenue we were able to mark stocked smolts so that our ocean fisheries are now almost all on hatchery fish. [If you catch a fish with an adipose fin, you have to release it.] And we used license dollars for hooking-mortality studies so our fisheries could pass muster with [NOAA Fisheries'] endangered-species people."

In North Carolina, and every other state that has legislated a saltwater license, anglers made it happen. In every state without a license anglers are preventing it from happening. Basically, they see the license as another "tax." For example, Jim Donofrio, director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, has this to say about New Jersey's proposed saltwater license: "Recreational fishermen should not bear the burden of increasing the state budget when we already contribute over $50 million in state sales taxes and over $2 billion to the state's economy overall."

According to the United Boatmen of New Jersey and New York, "a saltwater fishing license is another tax, pure and simple."

"This has shown the recreational fishing community that we really can make a difference," accurately proclaimed Doug MacPherson, legislative chairman of the Rhode Island Charter and Party Boat Association after his outfit led a vicious lobby campaign that defeated a saltwater license in 2003. Unfortunately, the difference wasn't a positive one.

"The Jersey Coast Anglers Association has always been opposed to a saltwater fishing license," writes its legislative chair, Tom Fote. "The recreational fishing community pays a considerable amount of taxes on tackle (regular sales tax plus 10 percent excise tax that goes into the Wallop-Breaux Fund). We also find ourselves taxed in other ways." Then, in the same breath, he complains that New Jersey isn't spending enough money on "marine resources."

Fote has it right when he notes that saltwater anglers already are taxed on tackle and other things (such as gasoline). What he and his allies apparently fail to comprehend is that by blocking saltwater licenses they are throwing away their own tax money and the tax money of all the saltwater anglers they purport to defend. What they're demanding and getting is taxation without representation. Under the Wallop-Breaux amendments to the Sport Fish Restoration Act, about a half-billion dollars are doled out to the states each year. Sixty percent of each state's share is based on the number of licensed anglers, 40 on land and water area. (No state can get more than five percent or less than one percent of available funds.) Under this program states can apply for up to 75 percent federal reimbursement on fisheries projects. So, by refusing to pay for a license, which would cost them roughly what they pay for three or four flies lost to bluefish in a morning, they are ensuring that all taxes they pay on fishing equipment and gasoline benefit everyone but themselves. They are getting nothing back in terms of enhanced enforcement, habitat protection or management; instead they are investing in such projects as Kansas catfish studies.

Northeast anglers fantasize that politicians will snatch their dedicated license revenue and spend it on things like welfare. First, most states have laws against this. Second, the Sport Fish Restoration Act provides powerful incentive against such behavior because it requires states that use license revenue for purposes other than fish and wildlife management or sportsman access to refund current and past federal aid (there's a similar program for hunters).

If you haven't logged onto Reel-Time-the Internet journal of saltwater fly-fishing (www.reel-time.com)-do so because there is always fascinating and civil discourse and you can pick up lots of useful information (like where stripers, blues, tuna and albies are being caught on any particular day). But I get discouraged whenever the subject gets around to saltwater licenses. Citing Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's 2003 theft of the Inland Fish and Game Fund, one otherwise thoughtful and informed participant recently wrote: "Politics being politics, I agree with Capt. Ken. Believing license fees are going to be directed to the saltwater fishery is wishful, gullible thinking."

But there's nothing "wishful" or "gullible" about it. The point is this: When Romney attempted to steal inland hunting and fishing license dollars, the US Fish and Wildlife Service informed him that the commonwealth would have to reimburse the feds to the tune of $4.7 million. Moreover, because Massachusetts' inland sportsmen have to buy licenses there's a list of who and where they are. Managers wasted no time telling them about the threat, and through their local clubs, sportsmen were in instant communication. Therefore they were able to lobby the bejesus out of the legislature. Romney never had a chance; he had to restore the Inland Fish and Game fund.

The studied ignorance of Northeast saltwater anglers regularly elicits laments from Reel-Time coordinator Capt. John McMurray who, for example, editorialized as follows in one of his weekly reports: "How come folks can get so worked up about a saltwater license that, more than likely, would have helped the fishery; start petitions; throw out conspiracy theories about how none of the money will go to the Dept of Fish and Game, etc.; but can't get a half dozen people at the Amendment 6 hearing to ask for lower mortality targets for striped bass. Unbelievable!"

I suppose Northeast anglers may be excused for fretting about the possibility of having to stuff their wallets with licenses from little states so close together that, in Long Island Sound for instance, they commonly fish Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York in the same day. "But New England could have regional reciprocity," comments Jim Martin. "We have it in the Columbia River-the border between Oregon and Washington. If you have either license, you can fish anywhere in the river." It's the same with freshwater boundaries most everywhere in the nation, including the Northeast. If states persevere in resisting saltwater licensing, warns Martin, the feds are likely to impose a license of their own. "There are increasing efforts to create one," he says, "and there's a good chance that money would not be dedicated."

There is virtually no marine enforcement in the Northeast because there's scarcely any license revenue for it. So brazen are striper poachers in New York City, for example, that they don't even bother to hide their illegal fish. Turn them in, and they'll sink your boat, as one of my guide friends has twice discovered. Another friend-also a guide, whose name I can't mention because poachers will retaliate against him-writes as follows: "I invite you to watch the poachers, every day, and dozens of different boats, going nuts in our area. There is no one to enforce against these guys. . . . I gave the Dept. of Environmental Conservation three hours of videotape of the poachers doing their thing, gaffing hundreds of shorts, faces and registration numbers in full view, and nothing happened. . . . I have personally had boats try to ram me and had one guy jump in my boat with a baseball bat. I have three children to support who need me more than the crabs on the bottom of the bay."

"Who are the 'sprots'?" FR&R saltwater editor, Jeffrey Cardenas, once asked his Cajun redfish guide after encountering a message scrawled on a gillnetter's shack that read: "F… the sprots."

"We're the 'sprots'," said the guide. Having licensed its saltwater anglers, Louisiana had banned gillnets, and the graffitist had been attempting to spell "sports." Even where they haven't been inconvenienced or put out of business, commercial fishermen don't like sport fishermen. So maybe the best case for recreational saltwater licensing is being made by lobbyists for the commercial fishing industry, who are fighting it like cats fight baths. If it is really an insidious plot designed to shake down sports, why are commercials suddenly so protective of anglers' fiscal well-being?

At the recent hearings in North Carolina, the only organized opposition to the recreational saltwater license came from commercial fishermen. "We don't like a license period," their chief lobbyist-Jerry Schill, president of the North Carolina Fisheries Association-told me this past November. But when I asked why he and his colleagues are so committed to conserving anglers' money, he said only that the license had a "bunch of holes in it."

"So you'd be in favor of a recreational license that didn't have holes?" I asked.

"No," he replied. "When you start making exceptions it sounds as though we favor a license, and we don't. We've opposed it for 10 years. There are reasons to have a license, and the good reason is better data."

"So your association would favor a license that provided good data?" I asked.

"No," he said. "When you look at what the CCA has done in Florida and the Gulf states, it's pretty obvious what they want the power for. So it is my duty to do whatever I can to derail them from getting that power."

"Because you believe that, in fact, they will get power?"

"No. We were opposed to it because that was what they believed." When I told him I didn't understand anything he was trying to tell me he said, "Then you don't understand fish wars."

But if there's one thing I do understand it's fish wars, because I've been in the middle of them my entire adult life. Finally, I asked Schill if increased revenue for the management of southern flounder might not be salubrious for his industry, since that species is the number-one target of both commercials and anglers. "That's the old liberal notion-throw money at a problem, and we'll fix it," he replied. "And it's only been a recent revelation-like this year-that this state has been overfishing southern flounder."

It's "only been a recent revelation" because the state lacked data. It lacked data because it lacked funds. And it lacked funds because it lacked license revenue and the federal aid in sportfish restoration that goes with it.

Schill is not always this long-winded and unintelligible, especially when he is talking to his own people. So tight and terse was his diction in a 2003 statement to The National Fisherman that, in just 55 words, he was able to say everything I've been trying to say up to this point: "Look what happened in the other states," he declared. "Look what the CCA has done with that license when it's been put in place. In some states you've got fish that have been given 'game fish' status, taken off consumers' plates. In other states, gillnet bans. And in Florida, they got the ultimate: a commercial net ban."

Exactly!

- 30 -
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-22-2007, 11:22 PM
jrzfly's Avatar
jrzfly jrzfly is offline
Knuckle Buster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Medford Lakes, NJ
Posts: 161
Its late and my opinion is simple. A Saltwater license anywhere from 20-$60 is well worth it compared to the illegal fish kills in NJ/NY by ego meat taker mentalities. Too many big boat money slay the fish mentalities. Where the funds go is another story. If it helps conserve our waters fisheries its well worth it. More people need to get involed in conservation to keep funds placed properly. These posts are what the citizens voices are all about, let the issues be heard and debated. I go out , like many here, are proud to say all my fish or 98% were released. I here at the ramps & docks how many were kept for bragain rights. Its the diffrence between fly or articial lure fishing and bait fishing.( Not that all bait fishing is for %100 meat taking) Are you in it for the action and suspense of catching a fish and releasing or are you in it to bring fish home to feel manly and superior.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-23-2007, 12:40 PM
peteD's Avatar
peteD peteD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Before Nov. 1999
Location: Wyckoff, NJ
Posts: 225
There is NO commerical fishing for striped bass in NJ. The same cannot be said for NC, DE, or VA which require a license. Ted Williams fundamental premise is flawed if he believes that each fisherman needs to be counted by taxing and recording each one of us and that by doing so recreational fisherman will be better stewards of the resource. He presumes that the problem is commercial fisherman. Even stipersforever acknowledges that 60% of stripers are taken by recs. ( except in MA were any one with a rod and reel can be commercial ) Even if he is correct and we know how many fisherman are in the state, will that benefit fish populations. Fisherman want to catch and keep more fish and each year the regulations in NJ change to allow that to happen.
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-23-2007, 02:11 PM
Gadabout Guinea's Avatar
Gadabout Guinea Gadabout Guinea is offline
Registered Peruser
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northshore
Posts: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrzfly View Post
Are you in it for the action and suspense of catching a fish and releasing or are you in it to bring fish home to feel manly and superior.
Some of us actually like seafood! I would never keep a short fluke, but every one I keep gets eaten and they're great! Does that make me less of a sportsman?!?

I throw back all my bluefish because I don't like them that much! When I used to fish the Rockies, I felt plenty proud throwing a couple of those trouties in the frying pan for a streamside lunch! Feeling "manly" had nothing to do with it! Certainly not as much as feeling hungry for something other than freeze dried food.

Don't go thinking you're a better sportsman because you throw everything back! If you do, that's great, and more power to you, but we obviously don't share the same taste buds!
__________________
Fishing doesn't build character, it reveals it.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-24-2007, 10:00 AM
jrzfly's Avatar
jrzfly jrzfly is offline
Knuckle Buster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Medford Lakes, NJ
Posts: 161
I'm fine with keeping one fish, theres nothing like almond encrusted striper, but i'm talking about the guys at the fish cleaning station that wanna fill there freezer up. The mentality I meant to express is people who are motivated to fish by bringing home as much meat as possible. Sorry to offend anyone

Please don't compare fishing for trout in the rockies with our overpopulated, polluted, & overfished waters in NJ.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-30-2007, 06:58 PM
Lov2Fish's Avatar
Lov2Fish Lov2Fish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Clifton NJ
Posts: 366
Thumbs down Saltwater license

If NY & NJ have saltwater license's then a fisherman like my self, that fishes both states, since I come out of Jersey City, NJ and fish alot of NY waters. And if I bring along a friend or family member, we all would have to have 2 license's each!! Totally absurd! Just like the boundry laws of size limits, one side of Hudson, ie Liberty State Park NJ fluke can be kept at 17" go across the river it's 19 1/2 limit, and so on and so on! I vote NO!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-31-2007, 07:57 AM
Perch Perch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Before Nov. 1999
Location: MA
Posts: 993
Love2Fish: Why do you imagine that you and your friends and family members “all would have to buy 2 licenses each”? Have you not heard of reciprocity? It is a fisheries-management standard in the U.S. For example, I fish in ponds that are in RI and Mass. and in CT. and Mass., and in N.H. and Mass.; and I only need my Mass. license. Guys have fished the Columbia River for years with either a Washington or Oregon license; they don’t need both. On Wed. I fished albies in RI., CT. and NY. If those states all adopt saltwater licenses (and I believe it is inevitable), there is zero chance that one license won’t cover you in all three.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Saltwater fishing License? G-Man Florida 4 01-14-2007 02:17 PM
This weeks fishing review and forecast: S.E. Cape :) RandyJones New England 0 06-29-2005 10:04 AM
Recreational License? Mark Cahill New York & New Jersey 16 01-21-2004 06:08 PM
Petition to repell Saltwater Fishing License in RI (hidden tax) NilsC New England 25 06-25-2003 12:34 PM



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 AM.




vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


Copyright ©1995-2013, Cahill Digital