National Angler Registry / M-s Reauth Act

[Bob Allen]

MIKE:
you have done an admirable job of clearing out the smoke. The present system(MRFSS) is badly broken, NMFS is going to make it better by the Registry.
There is a deadline, Jan 1 , 2009.
Virginia's recreational liceense legislation has been plagued by poor administration and inadequate record keeping since the inception. DGIF was commissioned to sell the salt water license and they could have cared less. That has been a problem since the first day.

VMRC has attempted to create some new , Virginia, way to collect fishing reports on a volutary basis . I have been registering my catches there , on line, (very simple to do), since it came out this summer:
https://wwwvasaltwaterjournal.com/

Had the VA license law been handled better by the legislature and the DGIF, ours may have been a model for others...and VA would have been exempted for the Federal Registry. One of the big problems is the "boat " license because no one knows exactly how many are fishing and who catches what under the "boat " license provision. That needs to be addressed, as does the fishing "pier" permit.

Government has let us down. (no one is surprised)

Each VA angler should possess an INEXPENSIVE individual license and DGIF or VMRC should have a record of each license holder with his address, name and telephone number. Problem solved!!!!

The Virginia recreational fishing license was never intended to create a reservoir of cash that the Legislaure, VMRC or the Governor could dip into whenever he wished.

Thanks for everyone contributing to this NEW facet of our fishing politics.

Bob
Allen

[Tom Powers]

This email written by Deputy Commissioner Travelstead came across my computer this morning. I am posting it here with his permission. Tom

All, Here is some more information on this topic for your consideration. Some time in 2008, sooner hopefully than later, the NMFS will publish a proposed rule listing the types of state licensing provisions that the NMFS will support for development of a national angler registry. The rule was supposed to be out in late 2007, but has been delayed. I am told, for example, that the rule will not accept the private boat license, but will support a continuation of the under 16 and over 65 age exemptions. As soon as we have the proposed rule in hand, I would like to gather representatives of the angling clubs, CCA, etc. to determine the level of support for making some serious changes to the way Virginia licenses its anglers. Dr. Bob has suggested this is the perfect opportunity to make some major corrections, and I agree. I’m just not sure how willing our anglers will be to make the changes that will be needed. Many anglers like the boat license for its convenience, and may not be willing to give it up. On the other hand, in 2011, anglers in those states who have not designed their licensing programs to meet the standard for the national registry will have to purchase a federal license, if fishing in federal waters or in state waters for anadromous species, like striped bass. The federal license is rumored to cost $30-40. So that may be sufficient incentive to change our license structure. As for introducing legislation in the 2008 Session, I think it would be too early. Let’s see what the proposed rule looks like and how all of the states react, before proceeding in that direction. As you know many states have no license at all. It will be interesting to see how quickly they move to “comply” with the registry standards, when they have been reluctant to have any license for so long. Also, many of the states that already have licenses will have major changes to make, like Virginia. I am hearing a number of complaints out of Maryland and the PRFC, because they want to keep their boat license and think that changes to the survey format can be made to accommodate the boat license. So, until these types of issues are resolved, I would not want to move toward legislation. With your assistance, our time for now should be devoted to informing our anglers of this issue and encouraging them to support the changes needed to improve the quality of the data that are used to regulate their fisheries. Reps form the NMFS have expressed a willingness to travel to VMRC to discuss the details with our public, when we think the timing is right. Let me know what you think of this approach. Jack

[Bob Allen]

GOOD: SOME COMMENT FROM JACK TRAVELSTEAD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES FOR VMRC;

All, Here is some more information on this topic for your consideration. Some time in 2008, sooner hopefully than later, the NMFS will publish a proposed rule listing the types of state licensing provisions that the NMFS will support for development of a national angler registry. The rule was supposed to be out in late 2007, but has been delayed. I am told, for example, that the rule will not accept the private boat license, but will support a continuation of the under 16 and over 65 age exemptions. As soon as we have the proposed rule in hand, I would like to gather representatives of the angling clubs, CCA, etc. to determine the level of support for making some serious changes to the way Virginia licenses its anglers. Dr. Bob has suggested this is the perfect opportunity to make some major corrections, and I agree. I’m just not sure how willing our anglers will be to make the changes that will be needed. Many anglers like the boat license for its convenience, and may not be willing to give it up. On the other hand, in 2011, anglers in those states who have not designed their licensing programs to meet the standard for the national registry will have to purchase a federal license, if fishing in federal waters or in state waters for anadromous species, like striped bass. The federal license is rumored to cost $30-40. So that may be sufficient incentive to change our license structure. As for introducing legislation in the 2008 Session, I think it would be too early. Let’s see what the proposed rule looks like and how all of the states react, before proceeding in that direction. As you know many states have no license at all. It will be interesting to see how quickly they move to “comply” with the registry standards, when they have been reluctant to have any license for so long. Also, many of the states that already have licenses will have major changes to make, like Virginia. I am hearing a number of complaints out of Maryland and the PRFC, because they want to keep their boat license and think that changes to the survey format can be made to accommodate the boat license. So, until these types of issues are resolved, I would not want to move toward legislation. With your assistance, our time for now should be devoted to informing our anglers of this issue and encouraging them to support the changes needed to improve the quality of the data that are used to regulate their fisheries. Reps form the NMFS have expressed a willingness to travel to VMRC to discuss the details with our public, when we think the timing is right. Let me know what you think of this approach. Jack T

[highland61]

Maybe I don't understand, but how effective can this registry be if they do not create some sort of tagging program for data collection, enforceable on and off the water? ...something similar to deer, turkey and bear hunting.

Someone more creative than I should be able to come up with a better solution, unless this is their intended end result.


I thought about it....

1)add boxes at ramps with forms available for filling out. pre-sorted return envelope. Low maintenance, they don't need a pension and can be restocked by officials.
2)online identification and forms for filling out. make it one stop shopping and include state awards programs. this will include land and pier owners filling out data forms for all individual catches.
3)mandatory LEO and USCG participation.....they stop us anyway, add this to their checklist.
4)owners of boat license's required to report information for all individuals onboard.
5)tail counters at ramps, at least on weekends. No further action required by angler, or report the event online as "data collected on site".

The gov can re-raid our once was ours license fee and redirect the funds to pay for the maintenance of the data collection instead of creating new taxes and fees.....


.

USCG Master 100T
A.F. & A.M.
Sail Army

[Tom Powers]

The regsitry will only be used in determining the effort (i.e. number of anglers and number of angler-trips). It will most probably be done using telephone interviews, expanded by the number of registered anglers, plus the under 16 crowd. Currently when they call they do not ask you about what you caught just when you went and your port of departure.

Currently dockside interviews are the method used to get catch per angler-trip by species. I have yet to hear of any changes to that part of the program, but I am confident that there will be some.

Tom

[BigJim]

The regsitry will only be used in determining the effort (i.e. number of anglers and number of angler-trips).
Tom

First of all I agree with Sanity. I think his post is the best in the thread. I particular disagree with the foresight of the above statement.

Tom, you inability to see into the future has at least been consistant. I compare this statement to the one that if we increase fishing license fees the money will stay for fishing interest.

[Tom Powers]

The stated intent of the registry is for getting better data.

Jim, please enlighten us as to the other intended uses. Also if you have a better way for them to gather the effort and catch per angler trip data please let us know. I can forward it to the folks that are making these decisions.

Currently, they use a random digit dial method for coastal counties in order to get the effort data. In 2006 out of the 22,947 calls that they made they got a hold of 1850 people that said that they went saltwater fishing (ever). So there already is a survey out there. By having a land-line phone at your house and living in a coastal county, your number is included on that list. This registry should eliminate most of the “nobody fishes in saltwater from this house” calls.

Currently anyone is allowed to go to DGIF and buy a list of names addresses for registered boaters
§ 29.1-707. Records. All records of the Department made or kept pursuant to this section shall be public records and shall be open for inspection subject to conditions the Board may prescribe.

I am pretty confident that the same is true regarding the fishing/hunting licenses, etc. as I am pretty sure that it is not currently in the list of exclusions in the VA FOIA laws. The only thing that I could find had to do with public release of information relating to amount a specific individual or vessel actually harvested. Maybe one of the things that we need to put on the table is what will the registry data be used for other than the Survey.

Oh and although I agree that the money should be going through RFAB and not be short circuited as the Governor has done in his balanced budget deal (and it appears in his 2008/2010 budget), enforcement and stock assessment are "for fishing interest". One of the things that came out of the 2003 license round table that Secretary Murphy Chaired and I was a member, was that these funds not be used to supplant general funds, I doubt that I would have signed on to the document had it not said that.

Tom

[BigJim]

Sure Tom. I'll tell you a better way, at least for the larger game fish such as drum and cobia and even striper. Issue tags just as they do for deer hunting or commercial fishing. At the end of the year collect the remaining tags and you will know exactly what was caught. I guess the same could be done for smaller species but I'm not exactly sure why they need a croaker count.

As for the "intended" uses. Data is valuable. It has a remarkable market. I am always amazed at what people can think up to use data for. My brother makes a very good living managing data. Now, I may not know the exact usage but I can assure you that once the data is available there is no control on how it may be used. You seem to be ok with that risk. I'm a little more conservative and I trust the government a whole lot less.

Just remember, I was the guy who told you that the increase in license fees would go to sources outside of providing improved fishing or fish habitat and you said that I did not know what I was talking about. I think that history has shown differently.

I really have not taken the time to figure out the ways that this data can be used for ill. But, I don't believe that we can trust the organization gathering the data.

[barnold]

I agree with the good Doctor, Big Jim and others, those doing the collecting of our personal information can not be trusted. That said, I'm still not clear how having this tracking information on each and every one of us is going to help create a more accurate count of our catches throughout the year. Having this information allows them to track us down and ask us questions or send us surveys. Doesn't that assume we will (as a whole) provide accurate and complete information? Do we do that? I don't think so. Especially when we know this information may lead to cut backs, shortened seasons or other limits. Am I missing something here?

An example could be taken from the Tagging program. While it helps provide raw numbers about caught fish, where they go and how long they might live, much of the other data is a total waste. Location for example. We fish therefore we lie! I'm sorry, I just can't find any good reason to support this. May as well go ahead and implant a GPS transmitter into my ass cheek, tattoo a serial number (registry number) to the other and call it a day.

[A Disciple]

The Information is Marketed to advertisers and groups such as Save the Bay Foundation Melton Tackle, Saltwater Sportsman, Sport Fishing, Boat US, Chesapeake Bay Foundation and who knows who else. Just look in your mailbox. Its really a win win isnt it. I pay them a TAX to be able to fish and then they can collect money by selling my personal info to ANYONE who wants it because its public record you know. Its real plain to us working class folk that Government has an agenda and its not in our or our Fisheries best interest. They see a damn dollar and they will do anything to extract it from our pockets. Frankly Sir Uncle Sam doesnt want to count fish, he wants to tax it. He cant stop a poacher any more than he can stop Betty Boop from selling her hind end on Craigs List.