# [SALTWATER SPORTFISHING Partners Meeting]{.underline}

#### St. Petersburg, Florida April 13-14, 2005

**Licensing Saltwater Fishers -- A Necessity Not a Luxury**

## Dick Brame, Coastal Conservation Association

The Coastal Conservation Association is a private, not for profit,
fishery conservation organization with over 90,000 members in 13 state
chapters from Texas to Maine. We have a representative Board of
Directors of over 100 individuals from the 13 state affiliate chapters
that manage CCA's business and set policy goals for the organization.
While composed primarily of recreational fishers, we believe the proper
conservation and management of the marine fishery resource benefits all
users. Our history of advocacy for the conservation of the marine
fishery resource clearly demonstrates our commitment to this important
resource.

CCA believes that fisheries management, including recreational fisheries
management, should be science based and data driven. In some important
fisheries, like Atlantic striped bass, the recreational portion of the
catch represents the majority of the harvest, comprising over 70% of the
annual fishing mortality, making the need for accurate recreational data
manifest.

Improving recreational fisheries data has 2 components germane to
today's discussion, better data and a saltwater license. I will speak to
both today as an angler and from my odyssey implementing a recreational
saltwater license while Executive Director of CCA North Carolina. The
process started in 1989 with the suggestion of a revamped licensing
system, which quickly died, but was resurrected by the Fisheries
Moratorium Steering Committee which, after over 2 dozen public hearings,
several "blue ribbon commissions" on the saltwater license and much
public debate over a 2 year period, culminated in the Fisheries Reform
Act of 1997.

I have heard every argument against the license you can imagine, from
the usual "It's a tax," and "There ought to be one thing left that's
free," to some of the more colorful, like a character at a public
hearing dressed in buckskins yelling "This is taxation without
representation, lets take the Capitol," to one esteemed legislator
telling me in a committee hearing he "Could not support a license
because his constituents like to swim when they go to the beach," and
the bill called for the license to be kept on their person.
Significantly the only organized opposition was the commercial fishing
lobby, while there was support for the license among the general angling
audience.

There were 3 polls done independently that showed essentially the same
thing: Only about a third of the angling public supposedly supported a
license; however if you asked the question another way: "Would you
support a license if the money went into a fund dedicated to marine
fishery conservation, enforcement, management, etc, and there was angler
oversight of the funds?", then nearly 80% were in favor of a license.
Thus, despite loud protestations from some individuals and from the
commercial industry, a properly-designed license had the support of the
angling public.

The Fisheries Reform Act had 3 basic provisions:

1\. Change the 17 member Marine Fisheries Commission to a 9 member board
with 3 recreational, 3 commercial, 1 scientist and 2 at-large fishers.

2\. Require that all future fishery management be done through a data
driven Fishery Management Plan process.

3\. Institute a recreational saltwater fishing license for better data
and to fund the FMP process.

The plan generated by the Division of Marine Fisheries called for hiring
a couple dozen new fishery biologists and writing 5 FMP's annually.

The very first thing to be deleted from the FRA was the recreational
license because it was "too controversial" and threatened the passage of
the bill. This comment came specifically from 2 coastal senators who
were minions of the commercial lobby. The Act passed sans license and
the outcome was exactly what the commercial lobby wanted at the time: a
feckless piece of legislation that purported to provide better fishery
management but was in fact bankrupt from the start. In the 8 years since
its passage employment at the Division has not increased and they have
only written 7 FMP's. This in now way is a reflection on the N.C.
Division of Marine Fisheries, who wwas handed this unfunded mandate.
They have worked steadily to make the process work despite budgetary
problem.

Since then a license bill has passed the House 3 times; it was finally
introduced in the Senate in 2004 and ultimately passed. However, the
license was not to be implemented until 2006, and the original
legislation may now be amended.

We know that good management depends on good data for good decisions,
and that the recreational fishery will be increasingly dependent on
accurate data for better management. A properly designed licensing
system will provide a universe of anglers to sample as well as provide a
dedicated funding source for fisheries management. Therein lies the key
points in favor of a license:

**Data:** Like it or not, recreational fishery data will always be
derived from a survey. A properly designed licensing system will provide
a universe for sampling and make the process more efficient and more
precise. The present MRFSS sampling system is designed to provide data
on a coastwide and sometimes regional level and is a good tool for this
application. There are a minimum number of intercepts required by NMFS
under this system. If the data is to be used for allocation or at any
finer level than by region, additional sampling is required. Below is a
table of the current number of intercepts done by each state on the
Atlantic coast:

[State Intercepts]{.underline}

Maine 1,580

New Hampshire 2,883

Rhode Island 5,194

Massachusetts 4,493

Connecticut 2,171

New York 3,939

New Jersey 6,340

Delaware 4,326

Maryland 4,045

Virginia 4,646

North Carolina 14,946

South Carolina 2,023

Georgia 1,823

[Florida 13,616]{.underline}

72,025

Conversely, California just implemented a new system where they did over
120,000 intercepts in 2004 alone. They found that the previous system,
when applied at the state level, overestimated harvest. Today some
states "add on" to the minimum number of intercepts to obtain better
estimates of the catch, some states also have staff do the intercepts
versus an outside contractor. We believe both additions are critical to
get the data necessary for today's contentious fisheries management
environment.

**Funding:** A properly designed licensing system will provide the
funding necessary for marine fishery management. The fishery management
agency will now have a recognizable constituency paying the freight.

**Investment:** Once anglers pay into the system they will naturally
come to expect something from it, more fish. Perhaps the least
understood aspect of a instituting a marine recreational license is the
effect on an anglers perception of management. Whereas before a license
is implemented the average angler feels little connection with
management, once they pay a state agency for the privilege they begin to
wonder what they are getting for their money. This ownership of
management is what effectively changes a fishery management system
Managing for a recreational fishery is still a novel idea, since most
management is based on maximum sustainable yield. A recreational fishery
should be managed for maximum encounter rate, not yield. After a license
passes, a once apathetic constituency will have a vested interest in how
their fish are being managed.

**Education:** Without a license it is extremely difficult and costly to
contact the average angler. Once identified, anglers can be contacted
with regulations or educational materials. They can also be surveyed to
determine their views on fishery issues.

Given the present antipathy to a license in many states, perhaps a
federal permit could be implemented to provide a surveyable universe of
anglers until states decide to put a license in place on their own. Any
such federal permit could establish standardized criteria for a state
license, and provide exemptions for the citizens of any state that has a
conforming license system in place. In that way, managers would enjoy
the advantage of a universal licensing system, free of the loopholes
that exempt many anglers from coverage under present state licensing
schemes, which could provide a uniform source of data available from all
of the states.

What anglers want from the fishery management system is a fair shake. In
my view, this will be a difficult proposition until anglers are willing
to stand up and be counted, both their numbers and their dollars. Of one
thing I am certain: Where anglers have invested in a license, management
has been far more attuned to their desires. Where they have not invested
in a license system, they are getting what they pay for.