Sampson: National registry a first step in improving flawed statistics
By BOB SAMPSON
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted Jan 06, 2010 @ 11:21 PM
As of Jan. 1, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented its National Saltwater Angler Registry, which amounts to the marine recreational fishing license that many have fought hard against and dreaded for so long.
This registry is designed to help improve the national (which filters down to state) marine recreational fisheries statistics data base.
The old computer geek saying “Garbage in, garbage out” fits.
The current system was originally designed for large-scale regional, management purposes. This original system, with a few modifications through the years, was a first step into this arena back in the early 1970s. Problem is, state agencies and the feds have used what is often slow-coming information, designed for observing general trends, to micromanage marine recreational fisheries on a much smaller scale than intended.
The management mistakes that have piled up during recent years have come to a head.
This is why the federal government required all marine anglers to register, so fishermen can be contacted promptly, when they are fishing and memories aren’t faded, in order to compile a more timely and realistic database from which to operate. The intent is that data can be processed more quickly, so decisions in the future aren’t based on stale information.
As all of us who fish for fluke, stripers, scup, sea bass and most recently in Florida, for red snapper know, the system is a mess and needs fixing.
This new system may not be the absolute elixir, but it should be a major improvement compared to what we’ve had to fish under in the past.
The federal registry and individual state marine recreational fishing licenses are a step toward cleaning up this huge mess.
Connecticut anglers (along with New Yorkers) do not have to apply through the federal registration process, because both states have a license on the books that fulfills federal requirements.
Other exemptions include: children younger than 16; others who by the laws in a given state may not be required to hold a license in that state; people who pay to fish on a licensed party charter, guide boats or those fish commercially under a valid commercial license, to paraphrase NOAA.
In Connecticut, to fish along the coast after Jan. 1, anyone older than 16 must have a 2010 saltwater or “All Waters” license in hand or risk paying a fine.
Our neighbors in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire, states that have balked at marine licensing for so long, must register with the feds this season before venturing out on their marine waters. If you fall into this category, go to www.countmyfish.noaa.gov or call toll-free to 1-888-674-7411 from 4 a.m. until noon.
‘Fish gods’
At this point, there’s nothing anyone can do to avoid the marine licensing. Everyone must comply with the “fish gods” in Washington, like it or not.
Here in Connecticut, after having license fees doubled by a panic stricken bunch of legislators in October, the saltwater license is only a pinch of salt in the huge wound.
There is a movement among state legislators that needs to be shored up by anyone who hunts, fishes, bird watches or gives a darn about natural resources and their management at some time during this winter’s legislative sessions.
Non-consumptive users of the great outdoors don’t always acknowledge or even realize the fact that the turkeys in our woods, launch areas they kayak from, habitat programs and much of the land they hike and bike on, has been and will continue to be purchased and/or enhanced through the hundreds of millions of dollars generated by excise taxes and license fees paid by hunters and fishermen, not hikers, bikers and paddlers.
Anyone who enjoys our woodlands, waters and wildlife for any purpose must help in the effort to urge our legislators to reduce the 100 percent license fee increase that was put into effect on Oct. 1, 2009. License and permit buyers are, in essence, paying the majority share in fisheries and wildlife conservation, an effort everyone and every species from butterflies to bison benefits from.
In order to stay informed about this very important issue, go to the Connecticut Coalition of Sportsmen’s Web site at www.ctsportsmen.com, follow the prompts for names and how to contact your local politicians, then urge them with short, concise, non-confrontational letters and/or e-mails to reduce the currently oppressive license fees structure.
Even if you don’t participate in fishing and hunting, a generation of the people who have and will in the future, continue to pay the bills is at risk of being lost.
Unless the tens of millions of dollars in federal excise taxes that sportsmen pay into fisheries and wildlife management programs can some how be replaced by taxes on the gear that non-consumptive users buy, such as sneakers and back packs, if that generation of sportsmen and women are lost, the conservation landscape in this country will certainly take a huge step backward during the coming years.
By BOB SAMPSON
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted Jan 06, 2010 @ 11:21 PM
As of Jan. 1, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented its National Saltwater Angler Registry, which amounts to the marine recreational fishing license that many have fought hard against and dreaded for so long.
This registry is designed to help improve the national (which filters down to state) marine recreational fisheries statistics data base.
The old computer geek saying “Garbage in, garbage out” fits.
The current system was originally designed for large-scale regional, management purposes. This original system, with a few modifications through the years, was a first step into this arena back in the early 1970s. Problem is, state agencies and the feds have used what is often slow-coming information, designed for observing general trends, to micromanage marine recreational fisheries on a much smaller scale than intended.
The management mistakes that have piled up during recent years have come to a head.
This is why the federal government required all marine anglers to register, so fishermen can be contacted promptly, when they are fishing and memories aren’t faded, in order to compile a more timely and realistic database from which to operate. The intent is that data can be processed more quickly, so decisions in the future aren’t based on stale information.
As all of us who fish for fluke, stripers, scup, sea bass and most recently in Florida, for red snapper know, the system is a mess and needs fixing.
This new system may not be the absolute elixir, but it should be a major improvement compared to what we’ve had to fish under in the past.
The federal registry and individual state marine recreational fishing licenses are a step toward cleaning up this huge mess.
Connecticut anglers (along with New Yorkers) do not have to apply through the federal registration process, because both states have a license on the books that fulfills federal requirements.
Other exemptions include: children younger than 16; others who by the laws in a given state may not be required to hold a license in that state; people who pay to fish on a licensed party charter, guide boats or those fish commercially under a valid commercial license, to paraphrase NOAA.
In Connecticut, to fish along the coast after Jan. 1, anyone older than 16 must have a 2010 saltwater or “All Waters” license in hand or risk paying a fine.
Our neighbors in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire, states that have balked at marine licensing for so long, must register with the feds this season before venturing out on their marine waters. If you fall into this category, go to www.countmyfish.noaa.gov or call toll-free to 1-888-674-7411 from 4 a.m. until noon.
‘Fish gods’
At this point, there’s nothing anyone can do to avoid the marine licensing. Everyone must comply with the “fish gods” in Washington, like it or not.
Here in Connecticut, after having license fees doubled by a panic stricken bunch of legislators in October, the saltwater license is only a pinch of salt in the huge wound.
There is a movement among state legislators that needs to be shored up by anyone who hunts, fishes, bird watches or gives a darn about natural resources and their management at some time during this winter’s legislative sessions.
Non-consumptive users of the great outdoors don’t always acknowledge or even realize the fact that the turkeys in our woods, launch areas they kayak from, habitat programs and much of the land they hike and bike on, has been and will continue to be purchased and/or enhanced through the hundreds of millions of dollars generated by excise taxes and license fees paid by hunters and fishermen, not hikers, bikers and paddlers.
Anyone who enjoys our woodlands, waters and wildlife for any purpose must help in the effort to urge our legislators to reduce the 100 percent license fee increase that was put into effect on Oct. 1, 2009. License and permit buyers are, in essence, paying the majority share in fisheries and wildlife conservation, an effort everyone and every species from butterflies to bison benefits from.
In order to stay informed about this very important issue, go to the Connecticut Coalition of Sportsmen’s Web site at www.ctsportsmen.com, follow the prompts for names and how to contact your local politicians, then urge them with short, concise, non-confrontational letters and/or e-mails to reduce the currently oppressive license fees structure.
Even if you don’t participate in fishing and hunting, a generation of the people who have and will in the future, continue to pay the bills is at risk of being lost.
Unless the tens of millions of dollars in federal excise taxes that sportsmen pay into fisheries and wildlife management programs can some how be replaced by taxes on the gear that non-consumptive users buy, such as sneakers and back packs, if that generation of sportsmen and women are lost, the conservation landscape in this country will certainly take a huge step backward during the coming years.
Can I fish in federal waters or in another state’s waters with a Connecticut Marine Waters license?
Federal waters: Federal registration is not required until January 1, 2010. Thereafter, CT Marine Waters fishing license holders will be exempt from the federal registry requirement. The CT Marine Waters Fishing License law was crafted to meet the federal criteria necessary to exempt our license holders from the federal registry.
New York: A saltwater license is not required for New York waters until October 1, 2009. Thereafter, New York will permit CT Marine Waters license holders to fish in the waters of Long Island Sound lying between NY and CT. Reciprocal privileges in other New York waters (ex. Block Island Sound) still need to be determined by New York officials.
NH: A saltwater license is not required for New Hampshire waters until January 1, 2011. There is no reciprocity with CT.
RI, MA, ME do not have marine license laws yet, so it is not possible to provide an answer for these waters. We will update this page as information becomes available for each state.
this is from the dep site
Federal waters: Federal registration is not required until January 1, 2010. Thereafter, CT Marine Waters fishing license holders will be exempt from the federal registry requirement. The CT Marine Waters Fishing License law was crafted to meet the federal criteria necessary to exempt our license holders from the federal registry.
New York: A saltwater license is not required for New York waters until October 1, 2009. Thereafter, New York will permit CT Marine Waters license holders to fish in the waters of Long Island Sound lying between NY and CT. Reciprocal privileges in other New York waters (ex. Block Island Sound) still need to be determined by New York officials.
NH: A saltwater license is not required for New Hampshire waters until January 1, 2011. There is no reciprocity with CT.
RI, MA, ME do not have marine license laws yet, so it is not possible to provide an answer for these waters. We will update this page as information becomes available for each state.
this is from the dep site