New York to Decrease Sporting License Fees

[Joe D]

This might be old news to some or news to others, but effective 2/14, NY is lowering their sporting license fees. The license year is changing too with licenses being issued for 365 from date of purchase instead of running on a season year.

New York to Decrease Sporting License Fees

 

[dcabarle]

This might be old news to some or news to others, but effective 2/14, NY is lowering their sporting license fees. The license year is changing too with licenses being issued for 365 from date of purchase instead of running on a season year.

New York to Decrease Sporting License Fees

My NY license will only cost $50.00 instead of $70! Not bad!

 

[Rusty Spinner]

They had shot themselves in the foot several years ago when they jacked up prices an unbelievable percentage and ultimately lost sales and revenue. Lots of out of state hunters and anglers bailed from NY after that. Perhaps these more moderate prices will bring some back. I like the 365 days idea and don't know any other state that offers that. Most states are either calendar year like NJ or begin on the federal fiscal year of Oct. 1st and run for one year.

 

[GARYB]

So I save twenty bucks, but the streams will be getting more crowded.......that's not really a bargain.

 

[BrownChickenBrownTrout]

This is interesting bit doesn't help us fall stellheaders.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

So I save twenty bucks, but the streams will be getting more crowded.......that's not really a bargain.

And NY DEC gets more funds to do conservation work and purchase new lands which is the flip side to the equation. More lands + less pressure over time. Especially since hunter and angler ranks continue to dwindle or remain static.

 

[CTobias]

And NY DEC gets more funds to do conservation work and purchase new lands.......

Hahaha. You're funny Rusty!! We both know politicians in NY love to rape the money from the licenses since it all goes into the general fund.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Hahaha. You're funny Rusty!! We both know politicians in NY love to rape the money from the licenses since it all goes into the general fund.

Bad deal for NY sportsmen. At least NJ has a dedicated hunter and angler fund!

 

[CTobias]

Bad deal for NY sportsmen. At least NJ has a dedicated hunter and angler fund!

There used to be a dedicated conservation fund. Not anymore though (well last I checked). I doubt anything has changed. NY loves to piss away their money and tax the hell out of their residents.

 

[Joe D]

Hahaha. You're funny Rusty!! We both know politicians in NY love to rape the money from the licenses since it all goes into the general fund.

Each state gets their proportionate share of a 10% federal excise tax on fishing tackle. The amount is determined by the number of licenses sold in that state, so the more sales, the bigger the piece of the pie, and the total amount of land open to public fishing. That law is called the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act or commonly the Dingell-Johnson Act or Wallop-Breaux Act. This Act or a form of it has been around since the 1950's.

The money comes from a 10-percent excise tax on certain items of sport fishing tackle (Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161), a 3-percent excise tax on fish finders and electric trolling motors, import duties on fishing tackle, yachts and pleasure craft, interest on the account, and a portion of motorboat fuel tax revenues and small engine fuel taxes. In 2009 that number was more than $740 million.

To be eligible to participate in the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration program, states are required to assent to this law and pass laws for the conservation of fish which include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees for any other purpose than the administration of the state fish department.

NY does get funds form the program, so either the law is being broken and the other states robbed by NY, or NY is in compliance. Sport Fish Restoration Program - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

 

[golden beetle]

I think the fishing license reduction is unfortunate.

I always enjoy paying the government to provide services, especially services that only the government can provide fairly and competently.

Of course, I respect the fact that the New York State DEP is an efficiently run government agency, and that they are passing savings on to the consumer.

Just be thankful for the little bit of socialism we have in this country.

 

[tomfly]

When I was in up state NY in the spring. The guys I was fishing with and myself were in one of the fly shops on the Ausable. I do not remember witch one. I think it was Betters old shop but I could be wrong. The guys operating the shop were ranting about: They said Cuomo is attempting to raid the DEP’s Fund. They said that there was a substantial amount of capital in the fund. Cuomo wanted all of it. They said there was a federal law suit to stop him, but I saw nothing on the internet to support their claims. I guess they were right on the fund raid. They were also pissed off about the majority of the stocked fish were yearlings 7” fish. They also said that the state was stocking yearlings to save money so they do not have to feed them to maturity. They said that the hatcheries were ordered to do that by the governor. They also said the information was obtained from the guys stocking the fish. I can say this from a personal observation. We were fishing The Salmon River below the town of Malone. Around noon time A Hatchery truck stopped on the bridge and dumped its tanks that had 4- 7 inch fish in the river. There were not any fish bigger then that. Dan and I were laughing about how they charge 70 dollars for a license. He said they should call it the 10 dollar an inch lenience. I do not know if any of what they were ranting about was true. From what is being posted on this thread. It is supporting their claim.


I did find this today

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/08/new-york-could-lose-millions-in-wildlife-funds/#axzz2i4cPqa00

 

[Future Fanatic]

The amount is determined by the number of licenses sold in that state, so the more sales, the bigger the piece of the pie, and the total amount of land open to public fishing.

Looking through the aquisitions over the last few years, the amount of lands in Delaware and Sullivan counties is tiny. NYC has provided some to the DEC it seems... but NYS gets to administer those free of charge.

Just sayin'...

Annual Land Acquisition Reports - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Just a "FYI":
NYDEP = New York CITY waterlords
NYDEC = New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

 

[CTobias]

Each state gets their proportionate share of a 10% federal excise tax on fishing tackle. The amount is determined by the number of licenses sold in that state, so the more sales, the bigger the piece of the pie, and the total amount of land open to public fishing. That law is called the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act or commonly the Dingell-Johnson Act or Wallop-Breaux Act. This Act or a form of it has been around since the 1950's.

The money comes from a 10-percent excise tax on certain items of sport fishing tackle (Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161), a 3-percent excise tax on fish finders and electric trolling motors, import duties on fishing tackle, yachts and pleasure craft, interest on the account, and a portion of motorboat fuel tax revenues and small engine fuel taxes. In 2009 that number was more than $740 million.

To be eligible to participate in the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration program, states are required to assent to this law and pass laws for the conservation of fish which include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees for any other purpose than the administration of the state fish department.

NY does get funds form the program, so either the law is being broken and the other states robbed by NY, or NY is in compliance. Sport Fish Restoration Program - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Saying and doing are two totally different things. To really find out where all the money is going I believe a FOIA request would have to be made.

 

[Joe D]

Looking through the aquisitions over the last few years, the amount of lands in Delaware and Sullivan counties is tiny. NYC has provided some to the DEC it seems... but NYS gets to administer those free of charge.

Just sayin'...

Annual Land Acquisition Reports - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Just a "FYI":
NYDEP = New York CITY waterlords
NYDEC = New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

It's the total amount of public land open to public fishing, statewide not county. No mention about land acquisition. So you believe that NYS shouldn't accept free open land from NYC whereby NYS just administers it and didn't have to purchase the land.

Just sayin'...

 

[tomfly]

When I was in up state NY in the spring. The guys I was fishing with and myself were in one of the fly shops on the Ausable. I do not remember witch one. I think it was Betters old shop but I could be wrong. The guys operating the shop were ranting about: They said Cuomo is attempting to raid the DEP’s Fund. They said that there was a substantial amount of capital in the fund. Cuomo wanted all of it. They said there was a federal law suit to stop him, but I saw nothing on the internet to support their claims. I guess they were right on the fund raid. They were also pissed off about the majority of the stocked fish were yearlings 7” fish. They also said that the state was stocking yearlings to save money so they do not have to feed them to maturity. They said that the hatcheries were ordered to do that by the governor. They also said the information was obtained from the guys stocking the fish. I can say this from a personal observation. We were fishing The Salmon River below the town of Malone. Around noon time A Hatchery truck stopped on the bridge and dumped its tanks that had 4- 7 inch fish in the river. There were not any fish bigger then that. Dan and I were laughing about how they charge 70 dollars for a license. He said they should call it the 10 dollar an inch lenience. I do not know if any of what they were ranting about was true. From what is being posted on this thread. It is supporting their claim.


I did find this today

New York Could Lose Millions in Wildlife Funds

I am surprised that more of you are not infuriated by this. At least Dennis understands what is going on here. NY has one of the best if not the best program in the Northeast. It is that way because it is well funded. What will happen to it, if the Governor get his way and allocates the fund away from the DEP. The DEP could fall short from it budgetary requirements. NY has 12 hatcheries to NJ’s 0ne. not to mention its gem on the Salmon. That is a big expense to sustain that. So if the fund is raided and the DEP can no longer afford to service the hatcheries. Do you think the Governor will take money from tax payers to maintain the stocking program? I don’t think so. This is you license money being taken. You agreed to pay for a license. The state agrees to maintain its DEP programs with your license money. (It is a social contract) The money is supposed to be use by the DEP to run its programs, not put into the States budgetary needs. It is a separate fund. (Not the general fund) Just dropping the license fee to appease the sporting community to keep them quiet is not going to fix any problems that may occur due to this. Do not be fooled by this. Do not allow them to pull the wool over your eyes by making the license cheaper. I would rather pay the $70 dollars and not have the fund raided. What he is doing should be posted on every fishing and hunting site in the northeast.

 

[Trout Nazi]

Well that explains how the browns and bows get so big in that river, your feeding them with 6-7" steaks. Also, trying wading there with rubber soles.

 

[eddavidson9]

there is clearly a lot of misinformation on the topic. as it appears to me, the budget office makes large sweeps from DEC overall, and DEC gets creative in managing what little they have left. money cant be taken directly out of the conservation fund, but, at least according to this, that seems to be the end result. and the CFAB seems to have had enough of it.

 

[tomfly]

I was wrong in my assumption . The state assembly passed a bill on the 23 of June to keep the governor from raiding the conservation fund.

Here is the bill that prohibited the governor from allocating the fund for anything but for the purpose that it was intended for.

Bills

 

[CTobias]

I was wrong in my assumption . The state assembly passed a bill on the 23 of June to keep the governor from raiding the conservation fund.

Here is the bill that prohibited the governor from allocating the fund for anything but for the purpose that it was intended for.

Bills

This is just a bill. Did the fuehrer sign it into law?

 

[Rusty Spinner]

NY has 12 hatcheries to NJ’s 0ne.

You make that sound like it's a good thing. I'd like to see restored and protected rivers with wild trout over the grow-and-dump mentality that far too many states have. Montana has it right....

 

[tomfly]

You make that sound like it's a good thing. I'd like to see restored and protected rivers with wild trout over the grow-and-dump mentality that far too many states have. Montana has it right....

And how do you propose to protect natives in those streams from Jonny Stringer. Montana is the 4th largest state with the entire population equating to the population of a small city. If Montana had the same population density as the northeast, would it have the same trout management policy? It is not a good comparison, just by population alone.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

And how do you propose to protect natives in those streams from Jonny Stringer. Montana is the 4th largest state with the entire population equating to the population of a small city. If Montana had the same population density as the northeast, would it have the same trout management policy? It is not a good comparison, just by population alone.

Creel limits in addition to size limits of course. Nobody is creeling a ton of 6" to 9" brookies. But we're not just talking about natives. MT is loaded with non-native trout that are wild fish they protect better than other states. Most states have the mentality that stocked fish are the goal and they miss the concept of protecting wild trout altogether. NJ actually has some decent regs to protect our native brookies, especially in their headwater streams where most of them live these days.

My point was only to make anglers think about why we focus far more on hatcheries than on habitat.... One hundred twenty five years ago we had wild trout living everywhere and only natives in those respective areas. Then we polluted our streams and lost many of the natives so we built hatcheries and spread non-natives north, south, east and west. Are we better off today than 125 years ago? What lessons have we learned? Do we all want to catch stocked trout in muddy ditches? Or would most anglers prefer to catch a wild trout in a beautiful, healthy river system? Answers likely vary based on the individual, but I know what my vote would be.

 

[tomfly]

Creel limits in addition to size limits of course. Nobody is creeling a ton of 6" to 9" brookies. But we're not just talking about natives. MT is loaded with non-native trout that are wild fish they protect better than other states. Most states have the mentality that stocked fish are the goal and they miss the concept of protecting wild trout altogether. NJ actually has some decent regs to protect our native brookies, especially in their headwater streams where most of them live these days.

My point was only to make anglers think about why we focus far more on hatcheries than on habitat.... One hundred twenty five years ago we had wild trout living everywhere and only natives in those respective areas. Then we polluted our streams and lost many of the natives so we built hatcheries and spread non-natives north, south, east and west. Are we better off today than 125 years ago? What lessons have we learned? Do we all want to catch stocked trout in muddy ditches? Or would most anglers prefer to catch a wild trout in a beautiful, healthy river system? Answers likely vary based on the individual, but I know what my vote would be.

I agree with every point you made. I don’t think anyone I this site would disagree with you. We on this site have some how acquired a dissimilar attitude that differs from the “If I don’t keep the fish someone else will” mentality. We are the minority. We do not always show respect for each other but we all do have a vigilant respect for conserving the few wild habitats that we have left. That is because understand how easily it can taken for a strip mall or housing development.

The justification attitude on why so many fishermen kill every fish that they can is a hard one to tackle. It is ingrained in them from father to son and repeats with every generation. How do you change that? It is disheartening. I am not talking about the guy that keeps a few because he likes to eat them. I am talking about the majority of guys that stick them in their freezer until they become spoiled with freezer burn and in the trash they go. I do not think any of those guys know or cares if they have a stocked or a wild trout on the end on their stringer. Because of their beliefs they are blinded by stupidity. I have seen guys with wild trout on their stringers. (I am not the only one). I have caught some sizeable browns above Califon. I know that they do not stock browns in that stretch of the SB. Your heart sinks when you see one on the end of a stringer. The Stocking program does in a twisted way protect wild fish due to the inherent stupidity of the stiockie. They will easily be caught before any wild fish would. Changing the attitude of Johnny Stringer and his buddies is a monumental task. That would have to be rectified before any restoration of a wild population could be maintained. Without fixing that first, it would be a lesson in futility.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

The justification attitude on why so many fishermen kill every fish that they can is a hard one to tackle. It is ingrained in them from father to son and repeats with every generation. How do you change that? It is disheartening. I am not talking about the guy that keeps a few because he likes to eat them. I am talking about the majority of guys that stick them in their freezer until they become spoiled with freezer burn and in the trash they go. I do not think any of those guys know or cares if they have a stocked or a wild trout on the end on their stringer. Because of their beliefs they are blinded by stupidity.

I have always held the belief that stocking causes that mentality to begin with and I fully agree with you that it is now ingrained in many hunters and anglers. I see the exact same thing here in NJ with stocked pheasants. Guys shooting them sitting in trees or standing still on the ground instead of the sporting attempt to shoot them in the air claiming that "I paid for the stamp and I'm going to kill my limit!". You never see grouse and woodcock hunters doing those things - not ever. Why? Stocked vs wild, IMO. The idea is you pay for your trout or pheasant stamp so someone can raise them just for you to kill them. Imagine if those stamp funds went into habitat creation, preservation or restoration for wild fish and birds. State fish and game departments created this nightmare over 100 years ago and are afraid in almost every case (MT being one exception as mentioned for at least trout) to break the vicious cycle. And it's a cycle I think we need breaking of. When do you see your worst hunter or angler behavior? For me, it's always on stocked fish and birds.

 

[tomfly]

I have always held the belief that stocking causes that mentality to begin with and I fully agree with you that it is now ingrained in many hunters and anglers. I see the exact same thing here in NJ with stocked pheasants. Guys shooting them sitting in trees or standing still on the ground instead of the sporting attempt to shoot them in the air claiming that "I paid for the stamp and I'm going to kill my limit!". You never see grouse and woodcock hunters doing those things - not ever. Why? Stocked vs wild, IMO. The idea is you pay for your trout or pheasant stamp so someone can raise them just for you to kill them. Imagine if those stamp funds went into habitat creation, preservation or restoration for wild fish and birds. State fish and game departments created this nightmare over 100 years ago and are afraid in almost every case (MT being one exception as mentioned for at least trout) to break the vicious cycle. And it's a cycle I think we need breaking of. When do you see your worst hunter or angler behavior? For me, it's always on stocked fish and birds.

I agree totally with you. That is one of the reasons I no longer hunt on WMAs. I afraid the dog would get shot while working a bird. I do not want to go to prison for retaliation that would follow. So I would rather pay and use a gun club. My attitude is; I could care less if I ever shoot another pheasant. I just enjoy watching the dog work.

You are probably right about the Stocking effect. It is most likely what originated the mentality. Stopping the stocking program would not change that attitude. Brian I know you are really busy with your position at TU. I do not know if you could answer this. Has TU ever held a comprehensive survey on why people kill their limit? Setting up a table at Stevens State park and just have a questioner and what the response would be on trying to establish a wild trout population and how lowering the daily bag limit and amount of stocked fish would help to establish that. Polling anyone with a fly rod would be pointless. You would have to go after the spinning rod guys. I could almost tell you what the response would be. Not all of them would be against it but a majority would. They won’t admit and this might sound a bit elitist. I don’t care, it needs to be said .Their response would be that policy favors the fly fishing. That is far from the truth. The truth is most of them only know; toss the line in the stocked pool get a bite and reel in the fish. Not having any concept of how to read water and understand where a fish will take refuge, the fact are most of them do not have the mental capacity to catch wild fish. They do get lucky once in a while. The few of them that are not mental midgets . After a bit of time they realize how much that sucks and pick up a fly rod. It will never work because you can’t fix stupid.

 

[Pete]

There's another aspect you're forgetting....

Fish are FOOD!

My parents were raised during the depression. I was raised to fish for the table. I adopted "catch and release" as a teen, to avoid having to eat bass every day.

My wife was raised in rural western PA, when the coal mines closed, poverty became the norm. Subsistence farming, hunting and fishing, were how her family survived some bad times .... To this day she can't understand why I "throw back" (waste) good food.

People who "catch their limit" and bring it home, probably just consider themselves "good providers". Stocking gives them ready access to edible sized fish.

 

[Johnny Utah]

Dan and I were laughing about how they charge 70 dollars for a license. He said they should call it the 10 dollar an inch lenience.

Shit! now they will stock 5" trout!

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I do not know if you could answer this. Has TU ever held a comprehensive survey on why people kill their limit?

Not that I am aware of anywhere in the nation, but it bears asking. I have been heartened by our push to improve conservation ethics on some of our better NJ trout waters including making the KLG TCA a 100% no-kill and doing the same for the current 4.2 mile FF only (except the 9 days after Opening Day) on the Flat Brook. The reason I'm encouraged is because our push forced the Division to take surveys and do the science that included creel surveys on stocking and non-stocking days on the Flat Brook, temperate data collection including on the hottest ever summer (2012), online surveys, random phone surveys to anyone with a NJ fishing license and trout stamp, and electro fishing surveys.

What Division biologists learned is that approx. 75% of NJ trout anglers identify themselves as either 100% C&R or "predominently" C&R anglers for trout, stocked or wild. That shocked all of us, at least I know it did me. It says a lot about conservation mindedness and the growing trend in that area. I wonder if the same can be said of other states that rely so heavily on stocked trout(?). But I'm encouraged because I see attitudes changing for the better.

 

[dcabarle]

75% of how many people surveyed and where was the survey taken?

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk