sports

outdoors with Lou Rodia >

Rebutting Salt Water License Backers

Why the fuss over a salt water fishing license? After all. the proponents say. it is "only" $10 and anyone who can afford to buy bait, tackle, a boat or other necessary equipment should be "glad" to pay for the privilege of fishing. The proponents also say that if a license were put into place, fishing would be better for the 17 million salt

water anglers. They also cite the "free ride" salt water recreational anglers are getting. BESIDES, license proponents say. we need funds to clean up pollution, research, study fish in their habitat and to buy and protect vital breeding grounds. There is also a need for access to the fishing and salt water

> • anglers should also pay for t this access. license pro- ; # ponents say. We also need funds for "enforcement of the regulations". The salt water angler should pay for , N this. also. We need the license to count the anglers, their economic impact and to monitor their catch, license proponents say. We also need to "justify" spending tax money for projects for which the dollar return is unsubstantiated, thev say. IF YOU LISTEN "to the license proponents, there is a groundswell on enthusiasm for the license. They say that most anglers are for a license. That depends on whom you ask and how you ask the ques- ■ tion. The license proponents build support for their cause by carefully asking the question. Usually, the question about license support is coached in language which leads one to believe that.we will get untold benefits from a license for a paltry few dollars. We see and hear questions like: "If you were assured of better fishing, would you support a token license fee? "If you were given boat ramps and better access, would you support a modest salt water license? "IF YOU WERE assured that most of the license money would go to research, habitat improvement, land acquisition, stocking programs and better enforcement, would you support a license ?" This is usually how the question is asked. And usually, a majority of the people agree that if such a program or programs would result, they would favor a license. Who wouldn't, if such were the ' case? In the nearly 30 years we have opgpsed a license, we have written reams of copyon the subject. We have spoken time and again to groups of anglers, interested clubs and organizations and individuals on the license

issue. We have testified from New York to Florida in opposition to the license proposal. We see some support for the license, but we see a plentitude of opposition. AND NO MATTER how much opposition, the issue keeps coming up because the opponents of the license tend to relax once a move is stalled and they forget that it will come up again. After a long series of meetings, the license was put to bed the last time it became a federal issue. It has surfaced in New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland (which did in fact get a license for Chesapeake Bay), and now, again, at the federal level. Here are some of the real truths in the license proposal: LICENSE OR tax? The issue of a fee to fish in salt water can be no more clearly defined as a tax then is in the current proposal for a $10 license at the federal level. It is spelled out in no uncertain terms that revenue from the license at the federal level would go reduce the federal deficit. Department of Commerce figures show that a $10 license fee would be assessed against the 17 million salt water anglers. Of the revenue, half would go back to the coastal states. In the year 1987, it is expected that $20 million in revenue would go to reduce the budget deficit. By the year 1989. $50 million would go to reduce the deficit. Now, if that's not a tax, so\ meone better than I has tdj define tax. AND WHAT IS worse, the $20 or the $50 million used in deficit reduction in no way can go to projects directly involving the sports fisherman No research, no stock assessment, no habitat protection or acquisition, no boat ramps, no better enforcement. In fact, the angler funds would go into the bureaucratic maw to be devoured with the other billions already being spent with little return in wasteful program after wasteful program. WHO CAN afford? Being able to "afford" the license is a questionable attitude at best. It smacks of the worst kind of elitism. What the "afford" says is that if you cannot "afford" to fish because of a lesser economic status, then you should be licensed out of the sport. In case you do not think people think this way. be aware that we have heard the sentiment expressed plenty of times at hearings and meetings. Usually, one of the license proponents will take me aside and whisper that I am a fool for opposing the license because the sooner it gets implemented, the more room there will be for the rest of "us" to fish. It is the same kind of attitude which causes a big disparity between resident ana non resident fees for hunting and fishing in fresh water. WHO WILL QUIT fishing if the license is implemented? In New Jersey, an Eaglet on Survey show-

ed that if a $5 license were implemented. 83 percent of the resident anglers who fish salt water would continue fishing. That means that 17 percent would quit. Of the 1.6 million NewJersey resident anglers who fish in salt water, that means that the sport would lose 275,000 resident anglers. These would be folks who cannot afford an extra $5 or $10 dollars for frivolity; the casual fisherman who is not that far into the sport, and the newcomer who would never start rather than get the license. It would also include the people who would rather quit Fishing than face the inconvenience of securing the license for a day or two on the water while on vacation. AND THE 17 percent figure has to skyrocket when attempts are made to assess a fee against the non-resident tourist who is casual at best for most of his fishing. And, don't . forget, the 17 percent figure applies to only a $5 license. Double the fee, and the percentage has to go up. On the federal level, the effect could be more devastating on the party, charter, livery and pier operation. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that salt water anglers make 73 million trips a year for sport fishing. If 17 percent of these trips were lost, the industry could lose 1.25 million trips. That's staggering on the surface. But what about the periferal sales? TACKLE. BAIT clothing, motor fuel, cigarettes and liquor, boats, ramp fees, room rentals, take-aboard lunches and restaurant meals served . bus charters, clothing, gasolinefor private autos and a host of other fishing-related sales would have to drop. ,And as those sales drop, there is an economic loss to the people whose businesses would be affected. The first impact is loss of individual ineome Next is loss of income tax to the Federal government. Then there is the excise tax on fishing tackle. There are also state and local taxes on many fishing-related sales which would be negated if anglers quit fishing. HOW MUCH of a loss? The price of a fishing trip from Philadelphia to the shore is estimated at $59 for transportation, boat fee. lunch, tackle and other related sales, not including accommodations for an overnight stay. Lots of trips cost much more, but using the $59 figure, the industry would lose close to $75 million in direct

revenue. And since much of what is spent is pre- and i post-trip spending for related items which are purchased at home, the adverse impact becomes real and sizeable. So, if the figures follow, it would seem that the overall tax loss from the sales that tr would not happen would be greater than the revenue generated if no license were imposed. BETTER FISHING? Try California for the answer to this. License proponents like to point to California as a state which has a license. They can count how many licenses are sold but not how many do not fish because of it. On two trips to California. and as avid as I am about the sport, I did not fish on the two half-days that were available to me (one on each trip). It was not so much the license fee which stopped me as the inconvenience of finding the license issuing agency. Since one cannot count negatives, no one will ever know how many people do not engage in an activity because of a license of fee. When it cost $25 for a nonresident hunting license in Pennsylvania. 18 members of my club made it up for a one-day's hunt. SOME STAYED two days. As the license escalated from $25 to $85. the number dwindled until there are only two of'us left. The other 16 still hunt out of state, but they just add a day or two Jo their Maine trips. Virginia trips or New York trips instead of hunting in two states other than New Jersey. That's one effect of a license. The other is that the promise of quality fishing which has been dangled by fish managers in fresh and salt water is becoming more and more a myth rather than reality in a lot of areas. There have been lots of successes. But there are the failures, many of which are habitat and pollution-related. But they are there. AS FOR SALT water fishing and improvement with a license, California ranks high in both areas. That state has been a salt water license lender Over 35 years of licensing there has produced escalating license fees, more permits for more kinds of fish, more regulations and more bureaucratic waste of the license money. And, with all the money collected, has fishing improved? In fact, it didn't even stay as good. Fishing (sports and recreational) has never been as bad as it is at present. So if California is dangled as the example, the poor fishing has to be cited as one of the (Page 57 Please)

~ ALMANAC " MARCH. !»X6 MOOS PH ASKS /POSITIONS CORRECTION TIMES The Moon's tfftct on the Tide it Compute approximate timet greatest when closest to Earth of high * low water for your I In perigee ) and when In direct area by adding or subtracting alignment with Sun A Earth the following number of (full * new moon phases/ On minutes for each tide phase In and about these dates, low the Tide Table, pressure systems and 'or strong winds ( depending upon dire c- » Iron/ may result in flooding and/or extremely low tides Moon I'hases LOW Mints First Quarl.r « Plu. 12 pluslO Full Moon OcM^ity (9th St Bridge) pbaHf plus 22 \pojtrr t« Corson Inlet (bridge) Perigee l.» plus 21 plus 7 • Sea Isle City (Ludlam Tboro Bridge) TIDE TABLE * plus 66 plus 43 Computed for Cape May City Sea Isle City Beach beachfront, for other areas, see minus 2 minus 21 Co.'.ctlan Tim.. Inlet HATE Mlt.H LOW plus 21 plus 4 a m p m. a.m. p.m Seven Mile Beach plus IS o 5 Wed 3 U2 - 3 41 9 27- 9 39 Cirm. w.rtv6 ThU 4 IS- 4 S3 10 36- 10 40 ,r~ VZ? ^ a 7 Kri S 17 5 49 II 22 II 37 , Channel Bridge. R Sal 6 09 6 38 -12:12 P*"**3 plus 40 . 9 Sun 6:57 - 7 20 12 30- 12 S9 Hereford Inlet ( Angksea ) u IU Mon 7 36 7 58 I 16- 140 plus 19 0 11 Tur 8 16- 8 15 2 01- 2 19 Wtldwood Beach 12 Vied I 55 9 12 2 41- 2 54 M.nus2 minus 17 1 13 Thu 9 32 - 9 46 3 19- 3 19 ItW, 14 Fn 10 09 111 25 3 55 4 00 15 Sat IU46 || iu 4 13 4 m 'Grassy Channel bridge) 16 Sun II 28 II 44 5 II 5 04 p)»« plus 43 17 Mon 12 15 ( id 5 46 Cape May Harbor 18 Tue 12 31 I (* 7 04 6 55 plus I minus 4 19 Wed 1 26 2 10 b ia • .1 Five Fathom Bank 2U Thu 2 31 3 22 » 14 9 I4 pha II pha , 21 Fn 3 41 4 28 IU 07 - 10 12 .. P 22 Sat 4 44 5 21 10 58 II 05 . i»P»wyP"nl 23 Sun 5 37- 6 <« II 42 11 54 P"®* plus 34 24 Mon 6 23 6 49 12 27 McCne Shoal 25 Tue 7 (15 7 31 12 44- I 10 plus 28 plus 22 26 Wed 7 47 8 II 1 31- I 53 Delaware Bay ZT Ttw 8 31 H 55 2 18 2 34 Bayshorr Channel " ;s- ;» 30 Sun II 10 II 31 4 41 4 49 ^ plus 36 31 Mon 12 03 5 43 5 49 Miami Beach plus 75 plus 61 Dennis Creek Entrance plus 114 plus 97 • Brand ywine Shoal Lighl plus 77 plus 52 -

Buj^l ^ H HIP

MOSSBROOKS R9 T*re*tone Kai lllmmSE&T&fy 29 Yrs Of Serving Satisfied Customer! If jRjfllli 'fSASW EXPERT MECHANICS - ALL 111/®' WORK GUARANTEED Vv®K$§f? 8L 9 A Store Mar BM., C.M.C.H. 7 AM M S PM MokFrL. S*. 7-5 f. .