 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
PO Box
1118 • West Babylon, NY 11704 |
||
|
February 2, 2010 Senator Antoine M. Thompson Dear Senator Thompson: Coastal Conservation Association New York (“CCA NY”) is taking this opportunity to express its strong opposition to Senate bill S6250, which would repeal New York’s marine recreational fishing license (the “License”), and replace it with a supposedly “free” angler registration. CCA NY believes that the repeal of the License would be in the best interests of neither New York’s salt water anglers nor the marine resources of the state. Such repeal would leave the Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) without adequate funding to discharge its duties to conserve, rebuild and manage the marine resources of the State of New York and, contrary to its intent, would actually cause many, and possibly all, of New York’s salt water anglers to ultimately pay more in license and/or registration fees than they would have paid had the License not been repealed. Implementing the “free” registration could also place an unreasonable financial burden on the hunters, anglers and trappers of upstate New York. CCA NY is the local state chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association (“CCA”), the largest marine fisheries advocacy organization in the nation. CCA has nearly 100,000 members, located in state and local chapters in seventeen states on the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific coasts, and is comprised almost entirely of salt water anglers who believe that good fishing depends on healthy and well managed fish populations. The reasons for CCA NY’s opposition to S6250 are set forth in greater detail below. Repeal of the license would create a finding crisis within the marine bureau of the DEC Historically, the DEC has received a substantial amount of its funding from the state’s General Fund, and the DEC’s Marine Bureau has long depended on such funding for a portion of its program and personnel costs. However, the recent economic slowdown, and the resultant state fiscal problems, has changed such historical funding patterns. DEC-related items that once were paid for out of the General Fund must now be funded by the Conservation Fund, a dedicated account comprised solely of license revenues and revenues incidental to the DEC’s operations, while the Marine Bureau must fund its operations from the Marine Resources Account, a subaccount within the Conservation Fund in which all revenues from the License, as well as other marine-related income, are deposited. That being the case, repeal of the License would effectively deny the Marine Bureau the funding needed to carry out its day to day duties, and would further deny the agency the additional federal Wallop-Breaux matching funds that would have otherwise been directed to the State of New York as a consequence of the License.[1] Even under existing funding mechanisms, the DEC is unable to hire and retain the scientific staff needed to monitor and manage stocks of fish and other marine organisms.[2] In addition, the illegal harvest of fish is rampant on Long Island, due largely to the DEC’s inability to fund an adequate law enforcement response.[3] There would certainly not be any funds available in the Marine Resources Account to fund the so-called “free” registration, the cost of which is estimated to be between $1,000,000 and $3,000,000.[4] Thus, unless the State of New York is willing to forego virtually all management of its marine resources, given the current economic environment, repealing the License and initiating a “free” registration program is not a viable alternative. The Conservation Fund is not a viable source of funding for a “free” registration program, and would place an undue burden on upstate anglers, hunters and trappers At the end of 2008, the Conservation Fund was facing a multi-million-dollar deficit. The shortfall was so severe that a number of programs important to hunters and freshwater anglers, most notably the pheasant stocking program, were in danger of being cancelled. To avoid such a result, the State of New York increased the basic hunting and freshwater fishing license fees by almost 50%, from $19 to $29. Anglers and hunters were not pleased, but most understood that such increase was the only way to maintain important DEC programs. At the same time, the $10 marine sport fishing license was created. We are now debating legislation which would not only repeal the License, but also require the DEC to establish a “free” angler registry. However, the legislation does not suggest where the $1-$3 million required to fund such “free” registry would come from. It can’t come from the Marine Resources Account, for without the License, the Marine Resources Account will contain insufficient funds to support a registry or any other significant program. At a time when legislators are debating the need to slash appropriations for health care, education, mass transit and local tax relief, it is also not too likely that millions of dollars for a “free” registration will come from the General Fund. That leaves the Conservation Fund as the sole funding alternative. As mentioned above, the Conservation Fund is comprised of the license revenues from freshwater anglers, hunter and trappers, to provide money for programs important to those interests. The Conservation Fund itself is stretched very thin, and only an increase in freshwater fishing, hunting and trapping license fees could keep it solvent last year. Thus, it is difficult to understand how the State of New York could justify repealing the License and instead instituting a “free” angler registration funded out of the Conservation Fund. To do so would be to divert license revenues away from primarily upstate residents, who already endured seeing their licenses increase to $29, just so downstate residents who fish in salt water would be able to fish without paying anything for a license at all. For purposes of illustrating the inequity that would result, CCA NY has prepared the following chart, which shows how the $10 fee charged for the License compares to the other license fees paid by the anglers, hunters and trappers resident in the State of New York.
In view of the above, it quickly becomes clear that the fee charged for a recreational salt water fishing license compares very favorably with the fees paid by upstate sportsmen in order to pursue various outdoor activities.[5] To require upstate anglers, hunters and trappers to fund a “free” registration, much less any costs of marine resources that would otherwise have been supported by the License, just so salt water angler can continue to fish for free, is manifestly unfair, and should not be permitted. The current license is in accord with actions taken by almost every other coastal state in the nation While the License represents a new concept in New York, it is not a novel ideal elsewhere on the coast, as the majority of the coastal states had adopted a license requirement for salt water anglers well before 2009. Today, among all of the coastal states, only three—Maine, New Jersey and Hawaii—have failed to adopt some form of salt water license. Of those, both Maine and New Jersey have legislation establishing a license, and not merely a free registration, pending in their state legislatures. Below find a chart which sets forth the status of the salt water license in each coastal state, including New York, with relevant data included. (Note that all fees are for full-year licenses, and that various shorter durations are offered by the several states. Some states also require stamps for species subject to special management, such as snook in Florida or king salmon in Alaska.)
As the above chart demonstrates, the License is not an aberration unique to New York, but rather a trend in fisheries management funding that has been embraced by nearly every coastal jurisdiction in the United States. What should also be noted is that not as single state has adopted a “free” registration in lieu of some form of salt water license, although one or two may offer such registration for the relative handful of persons within the state not required to purchase a license. Licensing salt water anglers is clearly the norm in the United States, and there is nothing in the demographics of this state which suggests that charging a $10 license fee to residents wishing to enjoy New York’s marine resources is unreasonable. In fact, New York’s $10 fee compares very favorably with the license fees charged by states such as Mississippi or Louisiana, where the per capita income of residents is far less than it is in New York, as well as with fees charged by states such as Texas and California which, with their large populations, significant urban areas and diversified business base might be more comparable with the State of New York. New York anglers could ultimately pay more if the license was repealed The current effort to repeal the License is based on the dubious propositions that 1) imposition of a licensing requirement will discourage some anglers from fishing, and 2) salt water angling always has been, and should continue to be, free.[6] It is then ironic that repeal of the License could actually result in many, if not all, of New York’s salt water anglers paying more in order to be licenses and/or registered in the waters in which they fish. Part of the reason for that rests on geography, as well as the basic nature of fish and the anglers who pursue them. Fish have a tendency to move, following tides, concentrations of forage and favorable water conditions. For the New York angler who lives or maintains a boat on the North Shore or North Fork of Long Island, in Westchester County, or the Boroughs of Queens and The Bronx, that often means that to be successful, one must follow the fish into the waters of Connecticut or Rhode Island. Both of those states have adopted fishing licenses, and both charge fees to non-residents who, even though sailing from a New York port, run their boats into Connecticut or Rhode Island waters. While Rhode Island’s non-resident fee is modest, Connecticut charges $60 to out of state anglers who fish in Connecticut’s portion of Long Island Sound. Currently, licensed New York anglers do not have to pay such fees, as the laws of both neighboring states offer them reciprocal fishing privileges. However, should New York repeal the License, such reciprocity will cease, and the non-resident fees will apply (as they will for New York anglers who fish in New Jersey’s waters, should New Jersey adopt a license, as it is presently expected to do. Such a cost would only affect anglers who fish outside of New York’s waters, but there is another real possibility that could affect nearly everyone who fishes in New York’s salt waters. Should the License be repealed, there is a real chance that, despite the language of S6250 , New York will not be able to fund the “free” registration. Should that be the case, all New York anglers who ever fish in federal waters (which is where many summer flounder, tautog and black sea bass are caught off the South Shore of Long Island) or for anadromous fish such as striped bass will have to register with the National Marine Fisheries Service.[7] Such registration will be free on 2010, but a fee will be charged beginning ind 2011,[8] and such fee will be substantial. Any federal registration fee will be based on the estimated $10 million cost of the federal program, pro rated among the states without a qualifying program. Should New York revoke the License, and should Maine and New Jersey adopt licenses, as expected, the entire $10 million cost will be shouldered by anglers in New York and Hawaii. At a minimum, the registration fee is estimated at $15-$25. It could be more. Thus, should the License be repealed, the North Shore angler, instead of paying $10 to New York, will probably end up paying $60 to fish in Connecticut waters, and if he or she fishes far enough east, maybe will have to pay another $10 to Rhode Island. If, in addition, New York finds it impossible to fund the “free” registration, every angler in New York may end up paying the federal government $25, while the total of the fees payed by the unfortunate North Shore anglers add up to $95. That is not a very good alternative to paying $10 to the DEC, and having the license revenues go to improving the natural resources of the State of New York. However, it is what anglers have to look forward to should the License be repealed. Conclusion Repealing the License is a bad idea. Doing so strips the DEC’s Marine Bureau of critically needed funding and, should the anticipated “free” registration program be adopted, will place the burden of funding salt water anglers’ registration on the backs of upstate anglers, hunters and trappers who already make a disproportionate contribution to the DEC’s operating budget. There is nothing radical or unusual about licensing salt water anglers. Such licenses have been required in most states for a very long time, and are currently required by virtually all of the coastal states in the nation. New York’s License fees, far from being exorbitant, are at the low end of the national spectrum, and are particularly low when compared to other sporting licenses right here in the State of New York. While there are certainly people in the state who would like to continue to fish for free, the plain fact is that the License, and the revenues that it generates, are in the best long term interests of the anglers and the marine resources of the state. S6250 should not be made law. Thank you for considering CCA NY’s views on this matter. Sincerely, Scott Emslie State Chair [1] Wallop-Breaux funds are apportioned among the states in accordance with a formula that, in part, takes account of the number of licensed anglers in each state. [2] Last year, New York was technically “out of compliance” with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s monitoring requirements for weakfish. Although ASMFC chose to ignore the state’s failure to provide mandated data to ASMFC, under the governing statute such failure would have justified ASMFC initiating an action, through the Secretary of Commerce, leading to the closure of New York’s commercial and recreational weakfish fisheries, until such time as the state was again in compliance. Repealing the License and thus denying the Marine Bureau the funds needed to assure compliance with ASMFC mandates affecting most of the important inshore species will, at some point, probably cause ASMFC to seek a non-compliance finding, particularly since the overwhelming majority of member states have a recreational license in place, and can hardly be expected to have sympathy for a non-compliant New York that fails to avail itself of such a logical source of funding for fisheries management. [3] For example, there are tight restrictions on overtime, making it difficult to detect and apprehend the most pernicious illegal harvesters who, more often than not, operate at night when enforcement officers are unlikely to be on the water. A few years ago, CCA NY donated a night vision scope and related accessories to the DEC Region 1 Law Enforcement office, in order to help them get poachers off the water, but we fear that the current restrictions on overtime have largely frustrated that effort. [4] Opponents of the License have bandied about lesser costs for the “free” registration. However, the DECALS system currently used to license New York’s anglers, hunters and trappers costs the state $3 per licensee to administer, and estimates of the number of salt water anglers in the state run from a low of about 300,000 to a high of more than 1,000,000. Thus, unless the State of New York decides to bid out the “free” registration to a vendor other than Verizon, which provides the DECALS system, and unless it can then find a vendor which will offer a better price than that charged by Verizon, the $1-3 million estimate for any registration program appears to be sound. [5] CCA NY chose to include only license fees associated with the DEC-managed activities of fishing, hunting and trapping. However, if the costs of other recreational activities on public facilities were included (i.e., greens fees for a single round of golf at a public course), paying $10 for a full year’s angling in New York’s coastal waters would appear an even greater bargain [6] CCA NY also notes that part of the argument is that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the federal law that mandates angler registration, offers exemptions to federal registration to anglers residing in states which have their own registration programs which comply with federal requirements. While CCA NY admits that such statement is true on its face, it also believes that it is largely irrelevant to the debate, as it addresses neither the question of whether License revenue is critical to the operations of the DEC’s Marine Bureau nor the question of how New York might fund a “free” registration [7] Opponents of the License are making a lot of false claims regarding this provision, arguing that the provision with respect to anadromous fish is unenforcible, that people can fish for striped bass but, so long as they don’t retain any, claim that they’re fishing for bluefish, etc. In fact, any angler who is fishing at a time and place where striped bass may be present, using a bait or lure likely to attract such fish, are likely to be deemed to be fishing for striped bass, and required to register with the federal government. [8] Again, we run into claims from License opponents who argue that we don’t know for certain that such fee will be charged. In fact, we do. Gordon Colvin, former Chief of the DEC’s Marine Bureau, is currently supervising development of the federal registration program, and both CCA NY and CCA have spoken with him at length with respect to future charges. Mr. Colvin has assured CCA NY that a fee will be charged for federal registration, and has predicted that such fee will be substantial |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
