Chairman Wise briefed the Council on the activities of the marine recreational fishing license discussion group.  In 2003, the Council acted on a recommendation of the Marine Resources Program Financing Needs Subcommittee and directed that two discussion groups be formed to develop, if possible, a licensing-based initiative to raise funds to satisfy unmet needs of DEC's marine resources program previously identified by the subcommittee. The Council stipulated that one discussion group involve commercial fishermen and focus on increasing present state commercial fishing license fees; the other group would involve representatives from the recreational fishing community and focus on the development of a proposal for a state marine recreational fishing license (aka, "saltwater license").

Mr. Wise stated that the recreational group was created first, in January 2004, and had met several times throughout the year.  From the beginning of its discussions, it was agreed that the group would act by consensus and that any saltwater licensing proposal developed by the group would only be reported back to the Council if it enjoyed the consensus support of the group.   The "marine recreational fishing license discussion group" did eventually produce a straw licensing program proposal and a list of possible programs and activities that might be funded from revenues produced through such a license.  Copies of the draft licensing program and license revenue expenditure plan are attached to this bulletin.

Mr. Wise reported to the Council that, at its meeting of 27 October 2004, the marine recreational fishing license discussion group was unable to achieve consensus support for this licensing proposal and he was transmitting the proposal to the Council for its information, but not as a recommendation from the discussion group.  The principal concerns cited by some discussion group members and the organizations they represented that opposed the licensing proposal were:

• institution of a saltwater license would result in a decline, temporary or permanent, in participation in marine recreational fishing at a time when many marine recreational fishing-dependent businesses were barely holding on
  
• skepticism about the state's commitment and/or ability to spend license revenues as promised, i.e., on programs and activities of benefit to marine recreational fishing in New York
  
• many recreational fishermen think they are getting the short end of the stick in marine fishery resource management decisions and this will make them loathe to accept and support a saltwater license proposal.

Mr. Wise reported that the marine recreational license discussion group, based on its inability to achieve consensus in support of a licensing proposal at this time, had decided to suspend its meetings.  He stated that he was not able to get the commercial license discussion group off the ground.  Commercial fishermen wanted to see evidence from the recreational license discussion group that a saltwater license program might be instituted before they sat down to discuss raising existing commercial license fees.  Mr. Wise concluded his report by saying that the discussions of the marine recreational fishing license discussion group had been useful and, generally, very informative for its members.  The proposal developed, while not recommended at this time, could serve as a useful starting point in the future if the economic climate of the marine recreational fishing industry improves and the view of the fishery management process taken by many in the marine recreational fishing community becomes more positive. 

Chairman Wise complimented the DEC staff who assisted the work of the marine recreational fishing license discussion group for staying neutral concerning the saltwater license issue while at the same time being extremely helpful in offering to the group facts, figures and other necessary information.

Councilor Robert Danielson felt the marine recreational license discussion group, in developing its own potential license revenue expenditure plan, went astray from the list of unmet needs of DEC marine resources program previously outlined by the Council's Marine Program Needs Financing Needs Subcommittee, and this was a mistake.  He noted that the subcommittee identified other potential funding sources to should follow through by looking at avenues of generating money other than creating a license fee for recreational fishermen; one idea was exploring the sales tax issue.

Councilor John Mason suggested, as an alternative to a saltwater fishing license, a $25.00 state boating license fee payable by all recreational boat owners.  This suggestion was met with skepticism because it left out people who fish without a boat but would include people who have a boat and don't fish.

Councilor John Davi, Jr. thought a voluntary saltwater fishing license would be a good idea.  Those who owned a license would be entitled to privileges that a non-license holder would not be.  This would work for those people who only go out fishing a few times a year and wouldn't want to bother getting a license.  Perhaps, a person who holds a license would be eligible for a larger recreational bag limit.

Councilor Tony Somma thought that the Council should communicate with State legislators and have them funnel more state funds into DEC's marine program.  He thought that directing a portion of state fuel tax revenues to support DEC marine resource programs would be appropriate.

Councilor Danielson made a motion that Chairman Wise send a letter to the State Legislature on behalf of the Council, enclosing the list of unmet DEC marine resource program needs prerpared by the Marine Resource Program Financing Needs Subcommittee and requesting the Legislature to meet these needs through a greater allocation to DEC from the State's General Fund. 

Responding to Mr. Danielson's motion, Gordon Colvin of DEC stated that the unmet marine resource program needs list is now two years old and somewhat out-dated and it does not include marine resource law enforcement needs.  He suggested that the subcommittee meet once or twice in the next months with staff from the Bureau of Marine Resources and the Division of Law Enforcement to update this list.

The Board adopted Mr. Danielson's motion.  The vote was 9 in favor; 0 opposed; 2 abstentions.

Mr. Gerry Barnhart, Director of DEC's Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources, thanked Council, its Subcommittee of Marine Resource Program Financing Needs, and the marine recreational fishing license discussion group for their work.  In response to a question, Mr. Barnhart informed the Council that the former Congressional initiative CARA (Conservation and Reinvestment Act) was never enacted, but aspects of its spirit live on in the State Wildlife Improvements Grants (SWIG) Program.  CARA would have produced a couple of billion dollars to be balloted to the states for fish, wildlife, and conservation purposes.  The SWIG Program produces about $65 million annually to be apportioned to the states.  Of this national total, New York State receives about $3 million.  Mr. Barnhart observed that there is some discussion generated by the federal Oceans Commission report that looks to the same source of revenue that CARA looked at as ways to increase funding for state marine programs (royalty revenue from offshore oil and gas leasing).  The next Congress may look very closely at the recommendations of the commission report and there may be an opportunity to push a CARA-like initiative through.

Mr. Colvin noted several interesting developments concerning the report of the Oceans Commission.  Sometime in December 2004, the Bush Administration, through the President's Council on Environmental Quality, will complete its review of the Oceans Commission report and issue its conclusions and recommendations on how to address the issues raised in the report.  Serious attention will be given to reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.  Senator Stevens is assuming chairmanship of the Senate Commerce Committee and he has been quoted as saying he plans to take action.

Mr. Barnhart concluded that, when CARA was almost passed (it had gotten through the House, through the Senate committee and almost to the floor of the Senate), times were different.  The United States was at peace; there was surplus in the federal budget; neither of these is true today and it will be more difficult to get CARA-type legislation through Congress now.

 

Page last modified Sunday, January 9, 2005 by George E. Carroll