There’s no free lunch in New Jersey, and that includes fishing, according State Senator Bob Smith [D-17], the Middlesex County legislator who chairs the Senate Environment Committee.

“The state is broke” Smith told Jersey Shore Fishing recently, after he made the decision to block a vote on a bill sponsored by Senator Jeff Van Drew [D-1] that would have created a free registry of New Jersey anglers. According to the federal Magnuson-Stevens Act, the controversial piece of legislation that sets forth the policies of managing America’s fisheries, each state must have a system in place by 2010 that registers anglers. If a state doesn’t have a registry, the federal government will create one itself, which will be free initially but range from $15-$25 starting in 2011.

Some states, such as Florida, already require a saltwater fishing license for certain types of fishing, so they already have a mechanism in place to register anglers. But in New Jersey, where no saltwater license has ever been required, no such registry system exists. Therefore, state legislators are rushing to create a registry system by 2011 when anglers would begin to see charges from the federal government’s system.

In a state that boasts 800,000 saltwater anglers who pump $1.6 billion in direct sales of equipment into the economy, many have argued the state should pick up the comparatively nominal cost of the registry, which is estimated to be approximately $1 million to $1.5 million per year. But Smith doesn’t see it that way.

“There’s no free lunch,” Smith reiterated. “The state is broke.”

At the Dec. 2 meeting of the Environment Committee, Van Drew, who proposed the free registry program, wouldn’t allow for an amendment supported by Smith that would have added a $2 fee to the bill which would be imposed on each angler who registers, causing the measure to die in committee then and there.
Two dollars may not seem like a lot of money, but that amount could be just a start, according to Van Drew.

“The $2 registry opens the door to it going from $2 to $10 to $20 to $50,” said Van Drew. “The number one issue is that this fee would radically and quickly increase.”
Also, there would be no constitutional protection on where the funds from the fee would actually go if it were to be raised beyond the amount required to run the registry. That means that legislators could fund anything from transportation projects to urban school construction from fishing registry fees over time if the fee is raised to become a moneymaker for the state.

“His concern is absolutely legitimate,” said Smith, referring to Van Drew’s claim.

Van Drew points to New York, which in 2009 imposed a license fee on anglers that was pointed at helping to close the state’s $3.2-billion budget gap. In New York, he said, legislators are using the license fee as a cash cow to replenish the state’s empty coffers, and anglers aren’t seeing any benefits out of the fee that was originally billed as a program that could help fund fisheries research and public access to the waterfront. U.S. Senator Charles Schumer [D-NY] is the latest legislator to call for the New York license fee to be abolished.

Then, there’s also the issue of compliance. Smith admitted that there hasn’t been much discussion about how to get anglers to pony up the money to register, but added that anglers are “an honest group” who wouldn’t go against regulations. As it stands now, the state employs just eight full-time Conservation Officers and has a small number of boats that are limited to patrolling back bays. According to Van Drew, angler participation in registry and licensing programs is often unsuccessful elsewhere, including North Carolina, which has a registry program. If more enforcement is needed, “we’re going to have to pay that person’s salary, health benefits and retirement,” Van Drew said.

“I also think, how wonderful would it be for once in New Jersey just to allow people to breathe, to cut them one break,” said Van Drew. “In between working two jobs to pay your bills, we’re gonna let you throw your line in the water without charging you.”

For Smith’s part, he favors a full-on licensing system with a fee more than what it would cost to simply register anglers.

“The fishing community should decide what it wants,” said Smith. “Even if you spend the $2 on the registry, that does nothing for fishing in New Jersey. It doesn’t provide any information or go to any studies. A number of the more progressive recreational fishing groups say maybe we should have a license, and maybe we should use the extra money to defend against quota reductions [proposed by the federal government].”

Van Drew’s alternative plan is to fund the registry through the state lottery system. He’s currently reworking his bill to provide for a conservation-themed lottery game that would cover the cost of implementing the registry system.

Van Drew is holding out hope that a free registry system can be enacted in the nation’s highest-taxed state.

“When legislators attempted to amend my bill and tried to get support to amend my bill, the support wasn’t there,” said Van Drew. “While my bill didn’t pass, neither did any bill with a fee. So it’s going to be a continuing debate.”

In the mean time, the federal government’s registry system is already in place, and New Jersey anglers must register before wetting their first line in 2010. Anglers under 16 years of age and those who fish only on party and charter boats that hold a federal fisheries permit are exempt. All others, including surf anglers, back bay anglers and anglers who operate their own boats, must register. Online and telephone registration will begin Jan. 1., and anglers can register online at www.countmyfish.noaa.gov or call toll free 888-674-7411.