NOAA Proposes Rule to Require Sal****er Angler Registration

NOAA’s Fisheries Service is seeking comment on a proposed rule that
requires anglers and spearfishers who fish recreationally in federal
ocean waters to be registered before fishing in 2009.
The rule would also require registration by those who may catch
anadromous species anywhere, including striped bass, salmon and shad
that spawn in rivers and streams and spend their adult lives in
estuaries and the ocean.

The proposed rule satisfies the National Academy of Science National
Research Council recommendations to establish a national database of
sal****er anglers, and meets the requirements under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The proposed
rule is a part of a larger initiative of NOAA’s Fisheries Service to
improve the quality and accuracy of data on marine recreational
fishing and catches. The registry will also help measure the economic
effects of recreational fishing on the national and local economies.

“The national registry of sal****er anglers is the key to closing a
major gap in information on recreational fishing,” said Jim Balsiger,
NOAA acting assistant administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “It
will help us conduct surveys to get a more complete picture of how
recreational fishing by an estimated 14 million people is affecting
fish stocks. This will lead to better stock assessments and more
effective regulations to rebuild and manage these valuable fish.”
NOAA may exempt anglers from registration if they already have a
state-issued sal****er fishing license or registration, and the state
provides sufficiently complete information to place in the national
registry. In certain instances, anglers in states participating in
regional surveys of marine recreational fishing may also be exempted.

The new rule allows states to apply for exemptions.
States on the West Coast (including Alaska), the Gulf Coast, and the
South Atlantic offer sal****er fishing licenses. Hawaii and the states
from New Jersey to Maine do not.

“States without sal****er licenses have a strong incentive to adopt
licenses,” said Balsiger. “Any fee that a state collects through a
license can be used for restoration and fishery management in the
state. By law, the registry fee taken by NOAA will offset the cost of
issuing the registration. It can not be specifically directed to
fisheries management.”

Fishermen would be required to be registered annually and NOAA will
not charge a registration fee in the first two years. Beginning in
2011, the annual fee will be an estimated $15 to $25 per angler.
Anglers under the age of 16 would be exempt from registering and fees
would be waived for indigenous people, such as members of federally
recognized tribes. NOAA’s Fisheries Service recognizes that many
indigenous people fish for food as part of ancient cultural
traditions.

Anglers who fish only on licensed party, charter, or guide boats would
also be exempt, since these vessels are surveyed separately from the
angler surveys. Also, persons who hold commercial fishing licenses or
permits, and are legally fishing under them, will be exempt from the
registration requirement.

Registrations will include an angler’s name, address, telephone
number, and the regions where fishing is conducted. This information
will not be made public; it will be used only by NOAA to conduct
surveys.

The National Academy of Science’s National Research Council advised
NOAA’s Fisheries Service in 2006 to redesign its surveys of
recreational fishermen for more accuracy, precision, and transparency.
The NRC’s independent scientific review resulted in more than 200
recommendations for improving marine recreational surveys, including
the recommendation to establish a national database of sal****er
anglers. This recommendation became law in the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the primary fisheries law for
U.S. ocean waters, which was reauthorized in 2007. Please see
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/mrip for additional information on this
effort, the Marine Recreational Information Program.

For the last 28 years, NOAA’s Fisheries Service has conducted
recreational fishing surveys through random telephone interviews with
residents living in coastal counties. NOAA and its regional and state
partners conduct an extensive program of dockside interviews of
anglers to obtain data on their catch.
The national sal****er registry will enable surveyors to interview
only those people who fish, and will reach all anglers, not only those
who live near the coast. To read the proposed rule, go to
http://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov.

Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted until Aug. 11. They can
be mailed to:

John Boreman
Director, Office of Science and Technology
NMFS
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Attn.: Gordon Colvin

Comments can also be submitted electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov.

NOAA is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety
through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related
events and information service delivery for transportation, and by
providing environmental stewardship of our nation's coastal and marine
resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than
70 countries and the European Commission to develop a global
monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes,
predicts, and protects.

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:11:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

NOAA Proposes Rule to Require Sal****er Angler Registration

Nice.....The HMS fee, the NC sal****er license fee, the Sal****er
Angler license fee in 2011, the oversize permit for the boat &
trailer, the inspection fee for the trailer, the TWIC.... what else
will they think of?


That reminds me of that line from "Young Frankenstein" as they are
digging up a dead body from a fresh grave. They are covered in mud.
Young Frankenstein stands up, covered in mud and says "What a filthy
job. Igor says "It could be worse". Frankenstein says "How". Igor -
"It could be raining", and suddenly it starts to rain.

I really don't think you want to ask what will they think of next.

On Jun 14, 7:11*am, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:
NOAA Proposes Rule to Require Sal****er Angler Registration

NOAA’s Fisheries Service is seeking comment on a proposed rule that
requires anglers and spearfishers who fish recreationally in federal
ocean waters to be registered before fishing in 2009.
The rule would also require registration by those who may catch
anadromous species anywhere, including striped bass, salmon and shad
that spawn in rivers and streams and spend their adult lives in
estuaries and the ocean.

The proposed rule satisfies the National Academy of Science National
Research Council recommendations to establish a national database of
sal****er anglers, and meets the requirements under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The proposed
rule is a part of a larger initiative of NOAA’s Fisheries Service to
improve the quality and accuracy of data on marine recreational
fishing and catches. The registry will also help measure the economic
effects of recreational fishing on the national and local economies.

“The national registry of sal****er anglers is the key to closing a
major gap in information on recreational fishing,” said Jim Balsiger,
NOAA acting assistant administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “It
will help us conduct surveys to get a more complete picture of how
recreational fishing by an estimated 14 million people is affecting
fish stocks. This will lead to better stock assessments and more
effective regulations to rebuild and manage these valuable fish.”
NOAA may exempt anglers from registration if they already have a
state-issued sal****er fishing license or registration, and the state
provides sufficiently complete information to place in the national
registry. In certain instances, anglers in states participating in
regional surveys of marine recreational fishing may also be exempted.

The new rule allows states to apply for exemptions.
States on the West Coast (including Alaska), the Gulf Coast, and the
South Atlantic offer sal****er fishing licenses. Hawaii and the states
from New Jersey to Maine do not.

“States without sal****er licenses have a strong incentive to adopt
licenses,” said Balsiger. “Any fee that a state collects through a
license can be used for restoration and fishery management in the
state. By law, the registry fee taken by NOAA will offset the cost of
issuing the registration. It can not be specifically directed to
fisheries management.”

Fishermen would be required to be registered annually and NOAA will
not charge a registration fee in the first two years. Beginning in
2011, the annual fee will be an estimated $15 to $25 per angler.
Anglers under the age of 16 would be exempt from registering and fees
would be waived for indigenous people, such as members of federally
recognized tribes. NOAA’s Fisheries Service recognizes that many
indigenous people fish for food as part of ancient cultural
traditions.

Anglers who fish only on licensed party, charter, or guide boats would
also be exempt, since these vessels are surveyed separately from the
angler surveys. Also, persons who hold commercial fishing licenses or
permits, and are legally fishing under them, will be exempt from the
registration requirement.

Registrations will include an angler’s name, address, telephone
number, and the regions where fishing is conducted. This information
will not be made public; it will be used only by NOAA to conduct
surveys.

The National Academy of Science’s National Research Council advised
NOAA’s Fisheries Service in 2006 to redesign its surveys of
recreational fishermen for more accuracy, precision, and transparency.
The NRC’s independent scientific review resulted in more than 200
recommendations for improving marine recreational surveys, including
the recommendation to establish a national database of sal****er
anglers. This recommendation became law in the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the primary fisheries law for
U.S. ocean waters, which was reauthorized in 2007. Please seehttp://www.st..nmfs.noaa.gov/mripfor additional information on this
effort, the Marine Recreational Information Program.

For the last 28 years, NOAA’s Fisheries Service has conducted
recreational fishing surveys through random telephone interviews with
residents living in coastal counties. NOAA and its regional and state
partners conduct an extensive program of dockside interviews of
anglers to obtain data on their catch.
The national sal****er registry will enable surveyors to interview
only those people who fish, and will reach all anglers, not only those
who live near the coast. To read the proposed rule, go tohttp://www.countmyfish.noaa.gov.

Comments on the proposed rule will be accepted until Aug. 11. They can
be mailed to:

John Boreman
Director, Office of Science and Technology
NMFS
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Attn.: Gordon Colvin

Comments can also be submitted electronically athttp://www.regulations.gov..

NOAA is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety
through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related
events and information service delivery for transportation, and by
providing environmental stewardship of our nation's coastal and marine
resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than
70 countries and the European Commission to develop a global
monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes,
predicts, and protects.

Wow, great article... But I was really hoping to hear your feelings on
the issue.. You have seen fishing from all sides of the table..
Whad'do'U'think of the new rules? How much is it going to cost me??

On Sat, 14 Jun 08, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
The new rule allows states to apply for exemptions.
States on the West Coast (including Alaska), the Gulf Coast, and the
South Atlantic offer sal****er fishing licenses. Hawaii and the states
from New Jersey to Maine do not.

Does this mean that, in effect, this new license will only be required
in Hawaii and the states from New Jersey to Maine? ...... or not?

Rick

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:45:46 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:11:20 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

NOAA Proposes Rule to Require Sal****er Angler Registration

Nice.....The HMS fee, the NC sal****er license fee, the Sal****er
Angler license fee in 2011, the oversize permit for the boat &
trailer, the inspection fee for the trailer, the TWIC.... what else
will they think of?

Mind control.

Do you have a sal****er license now? If so, is it reciprocal with
South Carolina or Virginia?

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:26:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Wow, great article... But I was really hoping to hear your feelings on
the issue.. You have seen fishing from all sides of the table..

I'm not strictly "opposed" to the whole idea of a salt water license -
in fact, in a lot of ways, it makes a lot of sense to require one.

What I'm opposed to is the typical hodge podge approach to the problem
on the East Coast. The West Coast doesn't have the same "problems"
because there are only three states in the CONUS and Alaska/HA as
outriders not near any other state - it's an entirely different
approach.

On the East Coast you have fourteen states that all have an interest
in the Atlantic/Continental Shelf fishery.

If you look at this map...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...East_Coast.png

you see gist of the East Coast problem - border states.

In the area I fish, I can travel from CT waters through RI waters to
NY waters in the space of, and I'm not kidding here, 100 feet. If you
remember back when we launched out of Stonington, the second we left
the launch ramp we were in RI - we launched in CT. That bit where we
rounded Napatree Point, we were in CT - to the breakwater we were in
RI and past the breakwater we were in NY. Remember when we traveled
down to Race Rock and we could throw a rock at the Mystic Harbor? We
were in NY.

Each state has different regulations for their fishery. I can catch a
legal fish in CT waters and be stopped by NY DEM and cited because the
fish I'm carrying isn't fit their regulations. RI requires that the
fish be whole and not filleted on board while CT and NY don't. And the
various DEP/DEM organizations don't want to hear "I caught the fish
in...".

What NOAA is doing here is force those states that do not have a
sal****er license to adopt one - which means, technically, that each
state will have to adopt a separate licensing structure. If it follows
the normal structure, there will be a resident license and a
non-resident license. Which means, in theory, I'll have to obtain
licenses for CT/RI/MA/NY/NJ (if I venture beyond the area of Montauk)
which for four states will be twice what it costs a resident. In
theory, it will cost $230 dollars (based on current licenses for fresh
water) to obtain the licenses I will need to fish the waters I ply.

That's the essential nature of my complaint - five separate licenses
are too much - it's silly and it's plainly stupid. Add the licenses on
top of the varying rules and regulations and it's a freakin'
nightmare.

What I want to see is a permanent Federal license system that
supersedes state licenses for salt water - after all, the fisheries
are basically managed through the Feds via the regional councils so it
would make sense to have the Feds to the license procedures - after
all, their the ones who want the data.

Unfortunately, that's not how it's going to be. It's going to be a
nightmare unless the states have some sort of reciprocity and that
just isn't going to happen.

The interesting part of this is that NOAA is pushing this onto
recreational segement as the behest of the commercial interests. The
commercial types claim that the rec segement is taking too much of the
available stock and thus, ruining the commercial business side. The
commercials want the rec quota lowered ever more than it is and this
is somehow going to prove it.

Right.

And here's the other issue. Let's say that CT/RI/NY/MA don't enact a
sal****er license and you have to get the NOAA license/permit. Nothing
says that the NOAA license/permit is valid for anywhere other than the
state in which you live. Which would seem to mean that if CT enacts
the sal****er license and RI/NY don't, we cannot fish in NY or RI
waters even though we have the NOAA license/permit because the
license/permit is based on residency.

This is going to be a nightmare.

How much is it going to cost me??

In CT, probably $20 - which is what the freshwater license is. Out of
state will be $40.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:26:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Wow, great article... But I was really hoping to hear your feelings on
the issue.. You have seen fishing from all sides of the table..

I'm not strictly "opposed" to the whole idea of a salt water license -
in fact, in a lot of ways, it makes a lot of sense to require one.

What I'm opposed to is the typical hodge podge approach to the problem
on the East Coast. The West Coast doesn't have the same "problems"
because there are only three states in the CONUS and Alaska/HA as
outriders not near any other state - it's an entirely different
approach.

On the East Coast you have fourteen states that all have an interest
in the Atlantic/Continental Shelf fishery.

If you look at this map...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:U...East_Coast.png

you see gist of the East Coast problem - border states.

In the area I fish, I can travel from CT waters through RI waters to
NY waters in the space of, and I'm not kidding here, 100 feet. If you
remember back when we launched out of Stonington, the second we left
the launch ramp we were in RI - we launched in CT. That bit where we
rounded Napatree Point, we were in CT - to the breakwater we were in
RI and past the breakwater we were in NY. Remember when we traveled
down to Race Rock and we could throw a rock at the Mystic Harbor? We
were in NY.

Each state has different regulations for their fishery. I can catch a
legal fish in CT waters and be stopped by NY DEM and cited because the
fish I'm carrying isn't fit their regulations. RI requires that the
fish be whole and not filleted on board while CT and NY don't. And the
various DEP/DEM organizations don't want to hear "I caught the fish
in...".

What NOAA is doing here is force those states that do not have a
sal****er license to adopt one - which means, technically, that each
state will have to adopt a separate licensing structure. If it follows
the normal structure, there will be a resident license and a
non-resident license. Which means, in theory, I'll have to obtain
licenses for CT/RI/MA/NY/NJ (if I venture beyond the area of Montauk)
which for four states will be twice what it costs a resident. In
theory, it will cost $230 dollars (based on current licenses for fresh
water) to obtain the licenses I will need to fish the waters I ply.

That's the essential nature of my complaint - five separate licenses
are too much - it's silly and it's plainly stupid. Add the licenses on
top of the varying rules and regulations and it's a freakin'
nightmare.

What I want to see is a permanent Federal license system that
supersedes state licenses for salt water - after all, the fisheries
are basically managed through the Feds via the regional councils so it
would make sense to have the Feds to the license procedures - after
all, their the ones who want the data.

Unfortunately, that's not how it's going to be. It's going to be a
nightmare unless the states have some sort of reciprocity and that
just isn't going to happen.

The interesting part of this is that NOAA is pushing this onto
recreational segement as the behest of the commercial interests. The
commercial types claim that the rec segement is taking too much of the
available stock and thus, ruining the commercial business side. The
commercials want the rec quota lowered ever more than it is and this
is somehow going to prove it.

Right.

And here's the other issue. Let's say that CT/RI/NY/MA don't enact a
sal****er license and you have to get the NOAA license/permit. Nothing
says that the NOAA license/permit is valid for anywhere other than the
state in which you live. Which would seem to mean that if CT enacts
the sal****er license and RI/NY don't, we cannot fish in NY or RI
waters even though we have the NOAA license/permit because the
license/permit is based on residency.

This is going to be a nightmare.

How much is it going to cost me??

In CT, probably $20 - which is what the freshwater license is. Out of
state will be $40.
It;s not about providing data on anything. It is about harassement and
elimination of individual's access to fish stocks. The commercials say
we don't need to fish that there is plenty of fish in the markets.
What Business wants business gets these days. There is no budget, There
is no economic planning. It is simply give Business anything it wants.
They know best and they are my constiutents. The Laws and soveignty and
our rights are obstacles to their profits. Everyone is contining to jut
give them a little and a little more and a little more. Better get some
backbone and stand up. One other thing our protectors want to know
everyone on the water and where they areand what they are doing. This no
doubt is figured as part of the proposal.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:50:48 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

I've already written my legislators and asked them to address this
matter, since there is a provision to allow the states to report the
figures to the Feds and then exempt that state from the requirements.

Locally we don't have the state-to-state issues that you have in CT.

Why don't you guys get busy with your legislators?

We did just last year when this all started cranking up into high
gear. The problem in CT is that it's going to be an additional
resource for the state - we don't budget by department fee - it's into
the General Fund, then budgeted out to the various agencies. It's a
revenue question.

When I was one of CT's representatives to the NE Fisheries Management
Council, I and one other representative argued for a Federal license
for all states bordering on salt water to fund NOAA's information
gathering and the remainder to be proportional rebates to the states
based on how many salt water permits were issued in any particular
state. I had three state government reps tell me that was impossible
because of the states cost burden in writing and administrating the
license. When I brought up the whole repripocal issue, it was
dismissed out of hand. When I brought up the regional license idea it
didn't even see the light of day.

In CT, the reps and senators only see a source of General Fund revenue
and not as it is intended. My own rep and senator told me in a
meeting that as far as they were concerned, it wasn't a relevant issue
to CT because, according to DEP figures, only 8% of all license
holders would opt for the sal****er option. The DEP rep told the
group that the "special" case of RI/CT and NY would be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis. I asked if that was also true of NY and RI - no
answer.

Excuse my language, but this whole proposal is going to be a huge
cluster f#%k and it's all due to the "states rights" issue when it
really is a Federal issue.

So what do you do? Keep on keeping on and trying to get something
accomplished.

As an example, youmay remember that I posted earlier that NCDOT
& NCHP had jumped on their high horse about oversize boats, class
A drivers licenses, and restrictions on hours and days of transport.

After this was reported and the NC General Assembly went into the next
session there were no fewer than four bills addressing this issue. As
it stands, now, instead of the credulously restrictive rules and
draconian enforcement, NC will permit transport of up to a 120" wide
boat at all times and on all days, permit transport of a boat wider
than 121" on all days in daylight, and drop the requirement for a
class A license.

I'm glad all that worked out for you guys. Up here, I wish it was
that simple. Up here, nobody cares about what the people affected
think - it's a 96% Democrat controlled legislature full of lawyers and
morons.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:50:48 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

I've already written my legislators and asked them to address this
matter, since there is a provision to allow the states to report the
figures to the Feds and then exempt that state from the requirements.

Locally we don't have the state-to-state issues that you have in CT.

Why don't you guys get busy with your legislators?

We did just last year when this all started cranking up into high
gear. The problem in CT is that it's going to be an additional
resource for the state - we don't budget by department fee - it's into
the General Fund, then budgeted out to the various agencies. It's a
revenue question.

When I was one of CT's representatives to the NE Fisheries Management
Council, I and one other representative argued for a Federal license
for all states bordering on salt water to fund NOAA's information
gathering and the remainder to be proportional rebates to the states
based on how many salt water permits were issued in any particular
state. I had three state government reps tell me that was impossible
because of the states cost burden in writing and administrating the
license. When I brought up the whole repripocal issue, it was
dismissed out of hand. When I brought up the regional license idea it
didn't even see the light of day.

In CT, the reps and senators only see a source of General Fund revenue
and not as it is intended. My own rep and senator told me in a
meeting that as far as they were concerned, it wasn't a relevant issue
to CT because, according to DEP figures, only 8% of all license
holders would opt for the sal****er option. The DEP rep told the
group that the "special" case of RI/CT and NY would be dealt with on a
case-by-case basis. I asked if that was also true of NY and RI - no
answer.

Excuse my language, but this whole proposal is going to be a huge
cluster f#%k and it's all due to the "states rights" issue when it
really is a Federal issue.

So what do you do? Keep on keeping on and trying to get something
accomplished.

As an example, youmay remember that I posted earlier that NCDOT
& NCHP had jumped on their high horse about oversize boats, class
A drivers licenses, and restrictions on hours and days of transport.

After this was reported and the NC General Assembly went into the next
session there were no fewer than four bills addressing this issue. As
it stands, now, instead of the credulously restrictive rules and
draconian enforcement, NC will permit transport of up to a 120" wide
boat at all times and on all days, permit transport of a boat wider
than 121" on all days in daylight, and drop the requirement for a
class A license.

I'm glad all that worked out for you guys. Up here, I wish it was
that simple. Up here, nobody cares about what the people affected
think - it's a 96% Democrat controlled legislature full of lawyers and
morons.


WE have a "combo" license here for what could be called "brackish"
waters...the Bay and its tributaries, the Potomac... It's $50 for an
annual boat license, which also gives the individual owner an individual
license and a crabbing license. Honored by Maryland, Virginia, and D.C.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:01:50 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:30:50 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:



I'm glad all that worked out for you guys. Up here, I wish it was
that simple. Up here, nobody cares about what the people affected
think - it's a 96% Democrat controlled legislature full of lawyers and
morons.

You got me curious and I checked. Our House is Democrat controlled and
the Bill most likely to succeed was sponsored 3:2 in favor of the
Dems. The most popular Bill was sponsored by a Republican lawyer (48
Bi-Partisan sponsors and co-sponsors)! I'll be watching the vote with
an eagle eye..... those voting nay will have their voice heard.... by
every boater that uses USENET and/or numerous boating forums.

I know - it's very different up here.

There are two populations in CT - the Gold Coasters and everybody
else. As long as the Gold Coasters are happy, then by default
everybody else must also be happy.

The state is actually bifurcated - it's largely rural and all the
legislative strength is along the coast and big cities which means
that 80% of the state in terms of territory in under represented in
terms of legislative clout.