Information about FWC, FWC Funding, Wallop-Breaux, Pittman-Rodman, FWC canoeing locations, BAC, etc.
(Note: this information was an information handout at the September 2005 FPPA meeting, some information may be out-of-date at this time, please contact Becky Bragg, canoefla@desoto.net with any question and comments. Publication to the web has distorted some of the formatting, working on fixing that. Document (25 pages) is available in Word or PDF format by e-mail if needed))
Canoe & Kayak Registration Information
Florida Professional Paddlesports Association
9/9/2005
 
1.   Title Page/Table of Contents
 
2.   FWC Fast Facts
 
4.   About FWC
 
7.   Position of FPPA, PPA, and ACA regarding Canoe & Kayak Registration
 
8.   ACA/Canoe & Kayak Registration FAQ
 
11.  NASBLA Model Act of Numbering & Titling of non-powered vessels
 
13.  Wallop-Breaux Aquatic Resources Trust Fund-History, definition
 
15.  Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration's 50th Anniversary
 
16.  Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration (SFR)
 
18.  The Federal Aid to Sport Fish Restoration Program/FWC Boat Ramps
 
19.  U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service-Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration (Dingell-Johnson and the Wallop-Breaux Amendment)
 
21.  U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service-Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (Pittman-Robertson)
 
22.  Boating Advisory Council
 
23.  Boating Advisory Council Membership
 
24.  FWC Canoeing and Kayaking Opportunities

 
http://myfwc.com/facts/index.html
FWC FAST FACTS
January 2005
 
Our Mission
Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being
and the benefit of people
 
Our Staff
·         1,867 full-time employees, including…
·         722 sworn law enforcement officers
·         574 scientists
·         Locations
·         Headquarters in Tallahassee
·         Five regional offices
  Panama City, Lake City, Ocala, Lakeland and West Palm Beach
·         Fish and Wildlife Research Institute in St. Petersburg
·         73 field offices
 
Our Territory
Florida has…
·         53,927 square miles of land
·         5,983 square miles of water
·         More than 34 million acres of public and private land including 5 million acres of wildlife                            management areas (one of the largest public hunting systems in the country)
·         2,276 miles of tidal shoreline, (8,426 “detailed” miles)
·         About 10,550 miles of rivers, streams and creeks
·         About 7,700 lakes greater than 10 acres
 
Our Fish and Wildlife
The FWC protects and manages…
·         572 species of wildlife
·         More than 200 native species of freshwater fish
·         More than 500 native species of saltwater fish
                …balancing with the needs of more than 17 million residents and the millions of visitors who          share the land and water with Florida’s wildlife.
 
Annual Economic Impact
·         Hunting - $747 million, 7,300 jobs
·         Saltwater Fishing - $5.5 billion, 59,000 jobs
·         Freshwater Fishing - $2 billion, 19,000 jobs
·         Total Fishing - $7.8 billion (some anglers don’t specify fresh or salt),
                  number one in the nation (California, the next highest state, generates $5.1 billion)
·         Wildlife Viewing - $1.8 billion, 19,000 jobs
·         Commercial Fishing - $1.1 billion, 13,000 jobs
·         Boating Industry - $15.7 billion
 
Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching Participation
·         Number of hunters - 226,000
·         Number of freshwater and saltwater anglers - 3,104,000
·         Freshwater (state residents) - 1,079,000
·         Freshwater (nonresidents) - 237,000
·         Saltwater (state residents) - 1,591,000
·         Saltwater (nonresidents) - 846,000
·         Number of wildlife-watchers – 3,240,000
 
Our Public Responsibilities
·        Law Enforcement – enforces rules to protect fish and wildlife, keeps waterways safe for millions of boaters, and cooperates with other law enforcement agencies providing homeland security. FWC law enforcement officers are among the first on the scene to help with natural disasters because of our specialized equipment to access remote, hard-to-reach locations.
·        Research – scientists work to provide information for the FWC to make management                                    decisions based on the best science available involving fish and wildlife populations, habitat issues and the human dimension aspects of conservation.
·        Management – the FWC manages the state’s fish and wildlife resources based on the latest scientific data to conserve some of the most complex and delicate ecosystems in  the  world along with a wide diversity of species.
·        Outreach – the FWC communicates with a variety of audiences to encourage  participation, responsible citizenship and stewardship of the state’s natural resources.  This includes:
                                    Hunter safety training
                                    Boating safety classes
                                    Birding classes and outdoor recreation classes including  fishing and hunting
                                    Programs specifically for people who are not traditionally taught outdoors activities
                                    Programs and messages designed to help Floridians coexist with a variety of wildlife
                                    Public information – annually answers thousands of telephone calls and e-mail                                                                  questions on subjects relating to hunting, fishing, wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation,                                                 weapons, boating, protected species and nuisance animal complaints.
 
http://myfwc.com/aboutus/aboutfwc.html
About the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
 
Our mission: Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people.
 
The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission came into existence on July 1, 1999, the creation of a constitutional amendment approved in the 1998 General Election as part of the package proposed by the Constitutional Revision Commission. 
 
In the implementation of the Constitutional Amendment, the Florida Legislature combined all of the staff and commissioners of the former Marine Fisheries Commission, elements of the Divisions of Marine Resources and Law Enforcement of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and all of the employees and Commissioners of the former Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 
Five years later, after consulting stakeholders, employees and other interested parties, the FWC adopted a new internal structure to address complex conservation issues of the new century. The new structure focuses on programs, such as habitat management, that affect numerous species. It will focus on moving the decision-making process closer to the public and did not require any additional funding or additional positions.
 
The Commissioners are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Florida Senate to five-year terms.  There are currently seven commissioners who are to exercise the “...regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life, except that all license fees and penalties for violating regulations shall be as provided by law.”  The constitution further requires that “The Commission’s exercise of executive powers in the area of planning, budgeting, personnel management and purchasing shall be as provided by law.” 
The executive director serves at the pleasure of the commissioners, and any new appointee the commissioners select must also be confirmed by the Senate.  Ken Haddad is executive director.
The agency has 1,867 full-time employees.
 
Within the Office of the Executive Director are Regional Operations, Office of Information Technology, Legislative Affairs, Legal Office, Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Strategy and Planning, Finance and Budget Office, Office of Licensing and Permitting and the Office of Human Resources.  
Included under the executive director’s direct supervision is the Fish and Wildlife Research Institute based in St. Petersburg. FWRI scientists conduct research, monitor marine and freshwater resources, wildlife and habitats, and develop and implement techniques for restoring plant and animal species and their habitats. The institute collaborates extensively with other academic, non-profit and private research institutions on marine and wildlife conservation and management issues. The Institute has approximately 570 employees and is directed by Gil McRae. More than half of the FWRI staff members work at the downtown St. Petersburg headquarters. The others operate out of field laboratories at key inland and coastal locations throughout the state.  Although FWRI became part of the new FWC in 1999, the groups that form the institute have been generating quality science in support of resource management for more than 50 years.
 
The Division of Hunting and Game Management facilitates safe and responsible use of game wildlife resources for the long-term benefit of Florida’s hunters and other resource users. The Division provides scientific expertise on game wildlife species such as alligators, deer, small game, waterfowl and wild turkeys. The Division also develops sound management recommendations based upon scientific information, provides hunter safety training and certification, with a cadre of volunteer instructors, per statutory requirements including instruction in safe and lawful use of firearms, principles of wildlife conservation and outdoor ethics, constructs and maintains public shooting ranges, coordinates development and management of public shooting ranges, coordinates development of partnerships, and develops rules, regulations and publications pertaining to wildlife management areas, wildlife and environmental areas and other public hunting areas throughout the state.  Nick Wiley is the director
Through these activities the Division strives to accomplish a high level of satisfaction among those who use and depend on healthy game wildlife resources.
 
With a goal of ensuring healthy, diverse fish and wildlife populations for future generations, the Division of Habitat and Species Conservation uses a mixture of the best-available science, applied habitat management and successful partnerships.
To provide the greatest benefits to the widest possible array of fish and wildlife species, projects are designed on the ecosystem or landscape scale. The work includes:
Aquatic habitat management for marine, estuarine and freshwater systems;
Habitat management for terrestrial systems, including public lands management;
Land acquisition;
Scientific support and assistance for habitat-related issues to private and public sector landowners including local, state and federal governments;
Species management and recovery plan development;
Exotic species coordination focused on prevention and control divisions;
Manatee, Florida black bear, Florida panther and sea turtle population recovery.
Tim Breault is the division director.
 
The Division of Freshwater Fisheries Management (DFFM) provides expertise on freshwater fish populations, angler use, or other aspects of freshwater fisheries needed for management decisions by the FWC, and to assess impacts of decisions made by others to ensure quality fisheries and fishing in selected Florida lakes, fish management areas, rivers and streams.
DFFM biologists are the first line of support for inquiries by the public for information on freshwater fisheries management issues, fishing opportunities, fish pond management, fish kills or other general fisheries-related issues. The DFFM also delivers aquatic education and outreach to future anglers to expose them to angler ethics, fisheries management, aquatic ecology, tackle crafting, angling skills, fish identification and other aspects aimed at promoting responsible life-long participation in sport fishing. Additionally, freshwater fish production facilities provide a dependable supply of the specific size, quantity and quality of freshwater fish for specific freshwater fisheries management objectives.
The division has 69.5 FTE, two sections (Regional Freshwater Fisheries Management and Hatchery Operations and Stocking) plus a special projects group. These individuals protect and enhance 3 million acres of lakes, ponds and reservoirs, and 12,000 miles of rivers, streams and canals. The recreational fishery resources alone in these waters provide entertainment for 1.14 million anglers annually, who have an economic impact of $1.4 billion. Those expenditures provide $37.4 million in taxes and create 18,873 jobs in Florida. In addition, freshwater commercial fishing generates $13 million per year. Darrell Scovell is the Division Director.
 
The Division of Marine Fisheries Management develops regulatory and management recommendations for consideration by FWC Commissioners designed to ensure the long-term conservation of Florida’s valuable marine fisheries resources.  The director of the division serves as a liaison to a number of federal agencies on marine issues and is the state’s representative on the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council.  Division activities include recreational and commercial marine fisheries outreach and education programs, facilitating artificial reef development and deployment, preparation of fishery strategic plans, issuance of special activities licenses, conducting wholesale fish dealer audits and assisting trap retrieval efforts.  The division has 26 employees and is led by Mark Robson, Director.
 
The Division of Law Enforcement represents about half of the agency’s personnel, with 902 employees, 722 of whom are sworn officers. The division emphasizes compliance with fishing and hunting regulations, they enforce state and federal laws that protect threatened and endangered species, they enforce laws dealing with commercial trade of wildlife and wildlife products, and they enforce boating safety laws and regulations. The division is a partner with other state law enforcement agencies pursuant to Florida’s Mutual Aid Plan, administered by the Department of Community Affairs, they perform search and rescue, and they provide information and law enforcement service and assistance to citizens and visitors alike. The director of the division is Col. Julie Jones.
 
The Office of Policy and Stakeholder Coordination serves to coordinate agency position statements on big and emerging issues; coordinate the agency’s technical assistance and recommendations to regulatory and planning agencies from the fish and wildlife resource perspective; coordinate and enhance partnerships that leverage benefits related to agency strategies; coordinate effective communication with stakeholders; and provide efficient and effective services for FWC rulemaking. Ensuring effective and consistent communication with agency stakeholders is a principal function of the office. It identifies issues for potential stakeholder involvement in partnerships, and facilitates partnerships throughout the agency. This office has a staff of six. MaryAnn Poole is the director.
 
The purpose and function of the Office of Data Portal is to make it easier for staff, stakeholders and the public to locate, retrieve, and process FWC-related information. FWC maintains and creates vast amounts of scientific, management, and enforcement data ranging from routine monitoring through highly targeted species research to recommendations for management of Florida’s wildlife, habitats and land.
The Data Portal staff is responsible for the efficient management of these valuable data from “cradle to grave.” This is accomplished through efforts such as: developing standards so data can be easily exchanged, integrated and accessed; maintaining data catalogs so information can be readily found; developing Geographic Internet Mapping applications to allow the viewing and querying of data in an integrated forum; creating data collection systems to improve consistent entry of data and building productivity databases such as project lists and employee directories.
The Office of Data Portal works very closely with the Offices of Information Technology and Community Relations to ensure that all work endeavors are complimentary and not duplicative or exclusive.
 
The Office of Recreation Services (ORS) provides opportunities for Floridians and visitors to view wildlife and experience the rugged expanses of Florida's wildlife management area system.  ORS staff work with agency biologists to develop wildlife-viewing sites and recreational trails.  Our staff also develop recreation guides and interpretive products to increase visitors’ enjoyment and understanding of wildlife and wildlife habitat and how the FWC works to sustain them.  ORS staff also develop statewide wildlife-viewing projects such as the Great Florida Birding Trail and provide technical assistance to local governments and other agencies to help them develop wildlife-viewing sites and programs that conserve wildlife habitat while creating economic benefits in their communities.  Hundreds of volunteers help develop recreational trails, offer interpretive programs and conduct conservation work through the volunteer projects coordinated by this office.  The office has 15 employees and is directed by Jerrie Lindsey.
 
The Community Relations (CR) Office coordinates the public-communication efforts of the divisions and offices. These efforts include issuing news releases on agency programs and activities and serving as media spokespersons. CR coordinates activities to educate Floridians and visitors of the role and value of Florida’s fish and wildlife resources and to foster a sense stewardship for these resources. The FWC was a pioneer in developing a marketing program for nature-based activities, including working with the private sector to harness the economic value of fish and wildlife. CR coordinates these efforts as well. CR also is responsible for publishing Florida Wildlife Magazine, re-established by the 2004 Legislature. Community Relations has 14 employees, and Sharon Lobello is the director.

 
In 2002, the membership of the Florida Professional Paddlesports Association voted to not support canoe & Kayak Registration.
 
PPA & Canoe & Kayak Registration
In October 2002, the PPA Board passed the following resolution:
"At this time PPA opposes canoe registration legislation but would like to participate with [the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators] NASBLA in creating a model bill.  PPA will work with NASBLA to create of a model bill for canoe and kayak registration that takes into account key issues to the paddlesports community, including stickering, multiple boat ownership, and funding for paddlesports programs."

The purpose of this resolution and the creation of a model bill would be to draw a line in the sand with regards to what issues our industry would have to have assurances on in order for us to support a bill.  No model bill has been drafted as a result of this resolution.  For the time being, PPA remains opposed to canoe and kayak registration.
Matt
 
Per Matt Menashes via e-mail on 8/25/2005 at 12:04 p.m. (copy in FPPA Info Book)
 
ACA & Canoe & Kayak Registration
http://www.americancanoe.org/stewardship/boat-regulations.lasso (link does not work at this time, see revised info at  10/20/05)
 
Boating Regulations
 
Like it or not, paddlers are subject to state and federal boating regulations that are sometimes put in place by people with a limited understanding of paddlesports. ACA makes sure that the voice of paddlers is represented as state and federal boating agencies make regulatory decisions.
One regulatory issue paddlers frequently face is canoe and kayak registration. Periodically, state legislators and/or boating law administrators consider potentially burdensome canoe and kayak registration requirements. Some of the proposals considered recently would have required paddlers to register and number every canoe and kayak they own. The ACA has worked hard to defeat these proposals, and has been successful in several states.
Paddlers also face other potential boating regulations, such as life jacket carriage/wearage requirements, canoe and kayak titling requirements, manufacturing standards, lighting and visibility requirements, mandatory education, and access restrictions.
Working in conjunction with local paddling clubs, ACA makes sure that the voice of paddlers is represented as state and federal boating agencies make regulatory decisions. As part of these efforts, ACA is a member of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA). ACA staff members serve on three NASBLA Committees: (1) Paddlesports, (2) Numbering and Titling, and (3) Waterways Management.
The ACA is also an active member of the National Safe Boating Council (NSBC), and works closely with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) on boating safety and regulation issues.
Paddlers who need the ACA’s assistance in addressing a proposed or existing boating regulation can send an email to stewardship@americancanoe.org or call the ACA Director of Stewardship and Public Policy at (703) 451-0141 ext. 20.
 
http://www.acanet.org/conserve-canoe-reg.htm
Canoe & Kayak Registration FAQ
Why do state boating agencies and the motorized boating industry seek legislation establishing canoe and kayak registration?
Most state boating agencies are under funded and they are constantly looking for ways to increase revenue. The potential funding from canoe/kayak registration is more than just the registration fees. Increasing the quantity of numbered vessels in a state increases a state's federal dollars from the Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund. In recent years state boating agencies have contended that registration will increase available data on paddlers and aid in the delivery of safety messages and services. Some state boating officials also argue that paddlers are not contributing "their fair share" to support the boating agencies.
Why the motorized boating industry is pushing for canoe/kayak registration is less clear. Given the traditional focus of state boating agencies, an additional revenue stream into these agencies would likely benefit the motorized boating community.
Why should canoes and kayaks be treated differently than motorized boats with respect to registration?
There is much to argue against requiring canoes and kayaks to be registered the same as large or motorized craft:
What would the money collected from registration fees be used for?

Exactly how registration fees are spent is usually left to the discretion of the state boating agencies. During recent canoe/kayak registration efforts, state boating agencies have resisted suggestions that canoe/kayak registration dollars and the resulting Wallop-Breaux dollars be set aside specifically to serve the needs of the paddling community. Since many states are most accustomed to serving motor boating interests, paddlers have little confidence that these agencies would spend canoe/kayak registration monies on legitimate paddling related needs.
What economic impact would registration have on paddlers?

Many paddlers own numerous canoes and kayaks in order to accommodate the wide variety of water conditions and paddling objectives. Avid paddlers often own in excess of ten canoes and kayaks. Being required to register each canoe or kayak owned can easily result in a typical paddler paying far more for registration than other boaters. In addition to the registration cost, the multi-digit registration numbers often will not stay affixed to canoes and kayaks for more than a year and must be frequently replaced. In some states state boating registration also authorizes the imposition of various local fees.
Canoeing and kayaking are boating activities that are available to people of modest income, and the accumulation of used or new canoes and kayaks can stretch over many years. For these paddlers, the costs associated with registration can suddenly make owning/using these canoes or kayaks unaffordable.
What economic impact would registration have on the paddlesports industry?

Canoe and kayak manufacturers rely heavily on the desire of avid paddlers to own a variety of canoes and kayaks to meet different paddling needs. The costs associated with canoe and kayak registration is likely to discourage that practice among paddlers, especially those of modest income. The resulting impact on canoe and kayak sales could be significant.
What economic impact would registration have on states that require canoe and kayak registration?

States with canoe and kayak registration unwittingly encourage their resident paddlers to go outside the state to paddle. Testimonials from paddlers in Ohio indicate that they will more frequently paddle in neighboring states to avoid registering all of their canoes and kayaks. This means that a state that enacts canoe and kayak registration can expect to lose some recreation-related revenue to neighboring states. Canoe/kayak registration requirements can adversely impact tourism revenue by discouraging out-of-state paddlers from visiting.
How do states determine which types of vessels are required to be registered?

Federal law only requires states to register motorized vessels. Many states have also required that sailboats above a certain length also be registered. Beyond that, the decisions become much more arbitrary. Canoe and kayak registration seems to be largely driven by the realization that there are a significant number of them in operation. State boating agencies associate those large numbers with revenue potential and the need and demand for services such as law enforcement and rescue personnel.
Registration categories are often established by vessel length. In the non-motorized realm, using boat-type and length to determine which craft should be registered is problematic. Canoes and kayaks come in a wide-variety of lengths, and any length-based registration law is likely to require some paddlers to register while ignoring others. Also, registering canoes and kayaks raises the question of whether such registration requirements are fair unless surf skis, sail boards, rowing shells, surfboards, rafts, and wave skis are also required to be registered.
What is the ACA position on canoe/kayak registration?

The ACA believes that states should encourage and support canoeing and kayaking as healthy, non-polluting activities that are generally preferable to motorized boating. Most canoe/kayak registration proposals that ACA has seen to date are onerous plans that would have the result of discouraging participation in canoeing and kayaking. These registration proposals typically reflect a lack of understanding about paddlesports and a lack of research into the proposals' impact on paddlers.
A majority of state boating agencies do not have an established record of serving the needs or interests of paddlers. The traditional focus of these agencies has been serving other boating constituencies, constituencies whose needs and interests can be different than the needs and interests of paddlers.
State boating agencies should have a clear record of collaborating with, and serving the needs of the paddlesports community prior to seeking funding support from paddlers. Registration or any other legislative proposal affecting paddlers should be the result of collaboration between paddlesports clubs and organizations and state boating officials. Paddlers as well as state boating agencies should oppose registration efforts that are not the result of such collaboration.
The ACA will judge the merits of any registration bill that results from such collaboration on a case-by-case basis. ACA will oppose any proposal that fails to address the following issues to its satisfaction:
What is ACA doing to address threatening canoe and kayak registration proposals?

As soon as ACA learns of a new canoe/kayak registration proposal, it works with local paddlers to evaluate and respond to the proposal. ACA helps local paddlers develop a strategy to defeat bad proposals, shares relevant information, communicates with state boating officials and legislators, and conducts grassroots outreach to ACA members in the affected state.
Additionally, the ACA is a member of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) and serves on its Numbering and Titling Committee. Through its service on that committee, ACA represents the views of the paddling community to state boating officials, works to educate these officials about paddling, and suggests ways they can better serve the needs of paddlers.
Paddlers who want ACA assistance in addressing a proposed or existing boating regulation can send an email to conservation@acanet.org or call the ACA Director of Conservation and Public Policy at (703) 451-0141 ext. 20.
 
 
www.nasbla.org
http://www.nasbla.org/pdf/Nonpower%20Registration%20Act.PDF
NASBLA-National Association of State Boating Law Administrators
NASBLA MODEL ACT FOR NUMBERING
AND TITLING OF NON-POWERED VESSELS
Adopted September 13, 2000
 
SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY
This act applies to each non-powered vessel that is used on waters of this state.
 
SECTION 2. DEFINITION
The following words, as used in this act, have the meaning indicated:
(a) “Issuing authority” means a state that has a numbering system approved by the United States
Coast Guard or the United States Coast Guard where a state numbering system has not been
approved.
(b) “Operate” means to be in charge of or in command of or in actual physical control of a vessel upon
the waters of this state, or to exercise control over or to have responsibility
for a vessel’s navigation or safety while the vessel is underway upon the waters, or to control or
steer a vessel being towed by another vessel upon the waters of the state.
(c) Vessel means every description of watercraft, other than a seaplane, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water.
 
SECTION 3. CONTENTS OF APPLICATION
(a) A person apply to the issuing authority (agency name and authorized agents) for a certificate of
number in a form as prescribed by the issuing authority.
(b) The application must state the names and addresses of all owners of the vessel and be signed by the owner.
 (c) Application for certificate of number shall be made to the issuing authority (agency authority) on a
form the issuing authority shall provide. The issuing authority may specify the information required on
the application, including that which is required by federal regulation. A state-assigned vessel number
and certificate of number shall be issued by issuing authority upon receipt of the approved application
and the fee(s) prescribed by law.
 
SECTION 4. CONTENTS OF CERTIFICATE OF NUMBER
Each certificate of number must contain the number issued to the vessel, expiration date of the
certificate, state of principal operation, name(s) of owner(s), owner(s)’ address, primary use,
manufacturer’s hull identification number, if any, make, model year, manufacture year, length, vessel
type, hull material, propulsion and any other information required by the issuing authority.
 
SECTION 5. FORM OF STATE ASSIGNED NUMBER
Once issued, a number assigned by an issuing authority to a vessel cannot later be reassigned to a
different vessel.
 
SECTION 6. DISPLAY OF NUMBER
The number on all except non-motorized canoes and kayaks, shall be securely affixed on each side of
the forward half of the vessel for which it was issued in such a position as to provide clear and legible
identification. The letters and numerals must comply with 33 CFR 173.27. State validation decals
must comply with 33 CFR 174.15
 
or
 
SECTION 6B. MARKING OF NON-MOTORIZED CANOES, AND KAYAKS.
All non-motorized canoes and kayaks shall display decals furnished by the issuing authority for such
watercraft. These decals shall be securely affixed on each side of the forward half of the vessel for
which the decal was issued, in such a position as to provide clear and legible identification. (The decals
shall contain the number assigned to the vessel as assigned by the department.)
 
SECTION 7. FEES
The fees for a vessel license for a canoe or kayak ___ feet in length or less is $___.
 
SECTION 8. TITLING
SEE MODEL TITLE ACT
 
SECTION 9 RECIPROCITY
Vessels from states not requiring registration of non-powered vessels may be used on the waters of this
state for a period not to exceed 60 consecutive days.
 
Reasons for numbering non-powered vessels, i.e. canoes
There is a need for states, as well as, the United States Coast Guard to know how many nonpowered
vessels are being used in this country. Since the majority of the states do not require the numbering of non-powered vessels, there is no accurate data available to determine what percentage of the boating accidents or deaths occur from the operation of non-powered vessels, such as canoes, kayaks, etc.
There are many advantages and disadvantages to the requirement of numbering non-powered
vessels. They are listed below:
 
ADVANTAGES:
1. Traceability of vessel if stolen.
2. Statistical information for vessel accidents etc.
3. Defray costs of programs which directly benefit canoeists, i.e. acquisition and
development of access sights, river safety programs-remove or marking hazards,
barrier float systems, rescue training, portages, and campsites.
4. Defray costs associated with the printing, distribution of safety pamphlets and canoe
route maps.
5. Funds used for search and rescue operations for lost and drowned canoeists. (Most
boating fatalities are capsizing and falling overboard accidents involving small boats and
canoes.) Having canoes and small boats registered/numbered aids law enforcement
officers in the identification of abandoned, capsized and stolen non-powered vessels
which ultimately benefits the vessel owner.
6. It’s easier to inform the canoeist, etc of law changes, i.e. PFD requirements if the
vessels are numbered and a mailing list can be made available.
 
DISADVANTAGES:
1. Affixing the state assigned number and decal to certain hull material.
2. Many canoes and kayaks are purchased at carport sales or have been abandoned
making registration and titling difficult because of the lack of a clear chain of ownership.
Small vessels sit for years and change ownership several times before registering.
Broken chain of ownership or abandoned vessels are very common.
(Conditional/Distinctive Title & registration).
3. Hull identification numbers on many kayaks do not meet United States Coast Guard
configuration.
4. Kayak owners state that they should not have to register as they do not use the facilities
(boat ramps etc) But they do use the boating guides, brochures, films etc provided
by the departments.
5. Costs related to livery owners to pay the registration fee for many canoes. (They make
that up in the rental fees paid by the customers.)

 
http://www.wallop-breaux.org/
Wallop-Breaux Aquatic Resources Trust Fund
Trust Fund Pays Off
By Kimberly Hermes, Editor, Small Craft Advisory
Recreational boating fatalities have dramatically decreased since the 1960s and ‘70s. This decline is even more significant considering that the number of recreational vessels has more than doubled since that time. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, the lives of an estimated 27,000 boaters have been saved through the nation’s various boating safety measures over the past three decades. This success is due in large part to the implementation of a series of boating safety legislative acts, namely those that have established and improved the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, which generates money to support various safe boating outreach efforts through public education, awareness and enforcement. With the upcoming reauthorization of the trust fund, now is a good time to review the history of this funding. 
History

The federal government first became involved in recreational boating safety with the Motor Boat Regulations Act of 1910 (36 Stat 462). This statute set minimum safety standards for motorboats by requiring certain vessels to use navigation lights and carry life preservers and fire extinguishers. The biggest problem with early boating legislation in the United States was that each requirement was part of the law passed by Congress. This meant that it took an act of Congress to change, improve or add new requirements as the need arose. The Coast Guard’s authority was greatly expanded by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, the model for today’s program. The FBSA created a more flexible regulatory authority concerning the use of boats and associated equipment to include all recreational vessels and expanded its jurisdiction to all United States navigable waters.  
The 1971 act also included provisions for the Recreational Boating Safety (RBS) federal financial assistance program to “encourage greater state participation and uniformity in boating safety efforts, and particularly to permit the states to assume the greater share of boating safety education, assistance, and enforcement activities” (46 U.S.C. 13101). Administration of the program was delegated to the Coast Guard. With general revenue funds authorized by this act, the State Recreational Boating Safety Grant Program was established, but the first appropriation was for 1973.  
Authorization for the State RBS Grant Program expired in 1979 but was reestablished by the National Recreational Boating Safety and Facilities Improvement Act of 1980, also known as the Biaggi Act. In addition, the act provided that a portion of federal excise tax receipts attributable to motorboat fuel use would be transferred to a new RBS account to fund the program.  
By returning a portion of the fuel taxes paid by boaters to boating safety, the Biaggi Act ensured that those benefiting from the program would also help pay the costs – “user pays, user benefits.” The Biaggi Act authorized a total of $20 million per year – $10 million for boating safety and $10 for facilities. However, Congress never supported the facilities improvement part of the program and appropriated funds only for boating safety. The first appropriations under this new mechanism were not approved until 1982.  
Congress built upon the Biaggi Act with the Wallop-Breaux Amendments to the Sport Fishing Restoration Act in 1984. Sponsored by Sen. Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming and then-Congressman John Breaux of Louisiana, this legislation created the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, also known as the Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund, with two separate accounts – one for boating safety funds and another for sport fish monies – and authorized the transfer of all but $1 million of the motorboat fuel taxes to the new trust fund. It also expanded the excise taxes and import duties on fishing equipment and recreational boats deposited into that account.
An amendment in 1988 (102 Stat. 1836) increased the amount of motorboat fuel taxes authorized to be transferred into and appropriated from the Boat Safety Account from $45 million to $60 million for fiscal years 1989 and 1990, then to $70 million for fiscal years 1991-1993.  
In 1990, Sen. Breaux developed a new program for Coastal Wetlands Restoration to be funded from small engine fuel tax revenues but appropriated through the Sport Fish Restoration Account’s permanent appropriation. Following the five-cent gas tax increase that same year, a proposal by Congress in 1991 to increase the Boat Safety Account authorization from $70 million to $90 million was opposed by the Coast Guard because the discretionary appropriation of Boat Safety Account funds were scored against the Coast Guard budget.  
The Clean Vessel Act enacted by Congress in 1992 left the discretionary BSA authorization at $70 million per year and provided additional state RBS funding via Sport Fish Restoration’s mandatory appropriation – but only half the amount originally proposed. The original proposal would have increased the BSA authorization by $10 million in fiscal year 1992, $15 million in FY1993-94 and $20 million in 1995. However, half the increase was taken out for another program and RBS did not get the full $20 million until 1998. 
Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, Congress expanded on the Clean Vessel Act transfer of mandatory appropriations from the Sport Fish Restoration Account. The Boat Safety Account remained subject to the annual appropriations process. However, the amendments guaranteed a minimum funding level of $59 million, with a maximum of $71.6 million for fiscal years 1999-2003, for boating safety if the $70 million authorized from the BSA is appropriated. In addition, the Coast Guard receives $5 million mandatory funding for coordination of the national RBS program. Yet funds from the Boat Safety Account have not been appropriated and the states are receiving only $59 million per year in mandatory funding transferred from the Sport Fish Restoration Account under the formula in the Clean Vessel Act. 
Gauging success
Annual boat registrations have more than doubled in the past three decades. In fact, just since 1988, annual boat registrations have steadily increased from 10 million to nearly 13 million boats – an increase of 23 percent. Approximately 78 million Americans enjoy recreational boating each year. Yet, due to the cooperative efforts of various organizations, recreational boating fatalities have continued to decline.  
At the time the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 was approved, the fatality rate for recreational boaters stood at 29.2 deaths per 100,000 registered boats. And in 1973, the number of reported recreational boating fatalities reached a high of 1,754. Last year, the fatality rate dropped to 5.4 deaths per 100,000 registered boats, with a record low of just over 700 deaths reported to the Coast Guard from the 50 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. These encouraging figures confirm the effectiveness of the Recreational Boating Safety program supported by the Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund. The money generated through the fund is being well used toward spreading the word about safety among boaters through public education, awareness and enforcement.
 
 
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration's 50th Anniversary
 Compiled by: Bob Wattendorf
http://www.floridaconservation.org/fishing/updates/sfr50th.html
 
If you spend any time fishing, you have probably bought a variety of tackle and maybe even a boat. Did you know that most of your fishing-related purchases and even fuel for that boat help to improve your fishing experience? Money from your purchases supports fisheries research, fisheries management, and boating-access improvements through the Sport Fish Restoration (SFR) Program (a.k.a. Wallop-Breaux, or Dingell-Johnson).
Look for the Sport Fish Restoration logo to identify projects that are funded with these "user pays/user benefits" dollars. Remember also that your purchase of a fishing license helps us to claim about $4 of excise and motor boat fuel taxes from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Sport Fish Restoration projects here in Florida.
 
Answering the need for a consistent funding source for research and management of America's sport fisheries, Congress enacted the Sport Fish Restoration Act in 1950. The Act and its future amendments established the "user pays/user benefits" system of excise taxes. Nationally, this program generates approximately $300 million annually. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with distributing the funds to the states based on the number of their licensed anglers (60%) and on their total land and water area (40%).
For Florida, this means approximately $6 million annually. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) then allocates these funds to individual projects, with freshwater receiving $2.29 million annually and the rest going to saltwater projects. Each project that uses SFR revenues must match at least 25% of the amount with state dollars. The matching source is typically your fishing license fees. A good example of how these monies are used in fresh water is the Community-based fishing program, which received $373,000 this year. As Florida has become increasingly urbanized, with more than 10 million residents (out of 15 million) living in metropolitan areas, it has become more-and-more necessary to service these urban anglers. In 1947, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (a predecessor of the FWC, which only dealt with freshwater fisheries not saltwater) held its first four "fishathons" to interest children living in urbanized areas in fishing. However, it was not until after the Wallop-Breaux amendments substantially increased SFR funding that an official "Urban Pond Program" was developed in the Jacksonville area. Its success led to the project being recognized as the SFR project of the year, after which three additional urban fishing projects were added around Orlando, Tampa and Miami. These programs provide 450-900 hours of fishing pleasure per acre per year, by utilizing intensive management techniques including put-grow-take stockings, supplemental feeding, and aeration. A natural lake, for comparison, offers 35-50 hours of fishing per acre per year. Urban fisheries projects are cornerstones of our outreach program by conducting fishing clinics and rodeos. They are also showcases for cooperation with local governments and conservation groups.
A similar example of how funds are expended on the saltwater side involves the Division of Marine Fisheries' education program. In 1995, the then Department of Environmental Protection began using a small percentage of its SFR funds for educational efforts. "Ecoventures"TM, an interactive CD-ROM program featuring a fictitious coastal park, was developed and distributed to all 67 county school districts and to 75 private school systems. Thousands of Florida school children have learned about healthy ecosystems and managing the use of ‘R.U. Green State Park' from this program.
Currently, the Office of Outreach and Education within FWC's Division of Marine Fisheries, has expanded its use of SFR and saltwater license funds to include a series of coastal kid's and women's fishing clinics, a quarterly newsletter, a comprehensive angler's guide to marine resources which includes 116 fish images, a series of fish ID posters as well as many other publications designed to inform the public about the marine environment that surrounds them.
Future articles in this column will feature additional examples of how your license fees and excise tax monies are used to improve the quality of fishing, to provide information and education about fishing opportunities in Florida and most importantly to manage the fish populations for "optimum sustained use." As you will see, habitat protection and enhancement is a cornerstone of these programs, but other tools such as regulation management and fish stocking are also used to ensure the future of fishing in Florida. For more information about how SFR operates, visit their web site at:
http://www.restorewildlife.org/main.cfm
 
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration's
http://www.floridaconservation.org/fishing/Fishes/SFR.html
 
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration (SFR) provides one of the most vital sources of funds for managing the nation's recreational fisheries. In 1950, congressmen Dingell and Johnson created the original program wherein fishing tackle is assessed an excise fee at the manufacturers' level, and resulting funds are allocated to state game and fish agencies. Monies are used to reimburse the states for three dollars of every four spent on qualifying sportfish restoration projects. The original "Dingell-Johnson" act was expanded in 1984 through the "Wallop-Breaux" amendment. The W-B Amendment established the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund that added import duties on sport fishing equipment, pleasure boats and yachts as well as tax revenue from motorboat fuel sales.

In 1994, passage of the Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) authorized a National Outreach and Communications Program to increase participation in angling and boating and to impress on boaters and anglers the importance of healthy aquatic habitats. It also increased the minimum level of spending for boating access to 15% and raised the maximum allowable expenditure of SFR apportionments for aquatic education and outreach to 15%. TEA-21 further created a Boating Infrastructure Grant program (BIG) for construction, maintenance, or renovation of transient facilities for non-trailerable recreational boats (boats longer than 26 feet) TEA-21 raised the amount of Federal gas tax credited to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and established a “permanent” appropriation for the Boating Safety Account. The result is one of the most successful "user pays--user benefits" programs in the world.

The amount of money Florida receives is based on the size of the state and the number of licensed anglers. Since we do not charge license fees to youth under 16 or adults over 65, and many states do, we recover a somewhat smaller proportion of the funds than do other states. However, we are not likely to become one of the maximum states which receive 5 percent of total SFR funds ($13.3 million in FY 2003), because of the relative size of Florida.
SFR generated $7.4 million dollars for Florida in 2003, of which 15% ($1.1 million) provides for both fresh and saltwater boating access. Of the remaining, $6.3 million, freshwater fisheries conservation received $2.6 million (based on the estimated number of resident freshwater anglers).

Florida freshwater fisheries’ SFR funding is used primarily to manage Urban Fisheries, the Tenoroc Fish Management Area, near Lakeland, and the Commission-Managed Impoundments in the panhandle. These programs manage and regulate fisheries to provide quality fishing experiences in areas with extremes of fishing pressure. Urban fisheries programs intensively manage small lakes and ponds by use of aerators, feeders, fertilization, stocking and other techniques that allow them to support upwards to 2,000 hours of fishing pressure per acre per year, versus an average natural lake having about 40-50 hours per acre per year. Key elements of urban fishing programs include the following: development and maintenance of fish populations for a diverse group of anglers; fishing events to increase awareness and participation by novice anglers; and reliance on cooperators to provide and maintain access and appropriate facilities to encourage family participation. Urban fishing programs are located in Duval, Orlando, Tampa-St. Pete, and the Palm Beach/Miami-Dade area.

In addition, SFR funds support aquatic education and outreach programs. Florida has over 10 million urban residents, and these programs seek to bring fishing closer to them. Aquatic education programs provide resources for elementary and secondary students to gain understanding of freshwater aquatic ecosystems, fisheries science, angler ethics, and angling skills aimed at promoting responsible life-time participation in sport fishing and resource stewardship. Two approaches are taken: direct training, primarily through the Joe Budd Aquatic Education Center (Gadsden County), and indirectly through teacher training from the Boca Raton Aquatic Education Center (Palm Beach County).
For additional information see:  A History of Sport Fish Restoration's Impact on Florida's Freshwater Fisheries, written by Bob Wattendorf, for the Special Issue of Fisheries Magazine Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of SFR, which covers all 50 states and the details of the program.
The American Sportfishing Association, legislative affairs office is a good source for up-to-date information on Legislation affecting SFR and other fisheries bills.
Federal Aid maintains a website of their own that provides additional information.

 
http://www.myfwc.com/boating/access/ramps/
THE FEDERAL AID TO SPORT FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM
The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program (Formerly known as the Dingell-Johnson (D-J) or Wallop-Breaux) is a "user-pays, user benefits" program seeking to improve sport fishing and boating opportunities. Federal funds are collected from taxes on fishing tackle and motor fuels, and import duties on tackle and yachts. The money is returned to appropriate State Agencies for research, management and development activities that deal with sport fish. For every $4.00 the state spends, these funds repay $3.00.
Federal law requires 12.5% of these funds must go to building and repairing boat ramps. Another part of the fund is used for stocking fish, providing Urban Fisheries Programs and placing fish attractors. In addition, 15 major freshwater Fisheries Projects within the Division of Freshwater Fisheries depend on these funds to continually improve the quality of fishing you enjoy. Also, some of the money is used to fund an "Aquatic Resource Education Program" to inform youths, anglers and resource managers about important concepts of habitat, fisheries preservation/enhancement, ethics and fishing skills.
The Sport Fish Restoration logo now appears on fishing tackle and many other items, the purchase of which supports the program. You will also see the logo on boat ramp signs, brochures and other products produced for you with these funds. This user-pays, user-benefits program has been one of the most highly acclaimed of Federal/State cooperative ventures since its inception in 1950 and has greatly expanded in the past decade to benefit anglers and boaters.
 
BOAT RAMP PROJECT INFORMATION
Since the mid-1950's, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has built boat ramps in the State that are available to the boating public free of charge. Most sites are open 24 hours a day. The Commission currently maintains approximately 200 access sites which represents approximately 25% of all the State's freshwater ramps. Due to the public need for access, the Commission staffs a full-time crew to handle construction and repair.
 
Power loading has caused many of the State's ramps to age prematurely. Early ramps were not built to handle the prop wash caused by power loading. Many ramps have been undermined by prop wash and collapsed. Also a sediment berm or delta is formed waterward of the ramp by power loaders and can block boater access to adjacent waters during low water periods. New ramp designs are utilized by the Commission to reduce damage caused by power loading. However, it is preferable not to race your engine while loading.
 
Current site designs call for upgrading facilities to provide universal accessibility for the disabled. This entails constructing upland parking and paths for the physically impaired. At many sites, floating dock systems will be placed for better access as monies become available. Project staff are working with county and city personnel to ensure all work at these sites is universally accessible. Universal accessibility for the disabled not only guarantees that a facility is accessible to everyone, but also provides a safer and easier facility for all users.
 
New sites are being added to our program each year. To qualify, each site must be at least two acres in size and have at least 90 feet of water frontage. The owner of the land must be willing to deed the property or grant a permanent easement for the site to the FWC. A Cooperator Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding is entered into between the Commission and a local governing body for upland maintenance of the facility.
 
This project is funded in part by Sport Fish Restoration monies made available by the Department of the Interior and the State Game and Fish Trust Fund. Sport Fish Restoration funds are generated by a tax on sporting equipment and motorboat fuels.

 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration
(Dingell-Johnson and the Wallop-Breaux Amendment)
Where Does the Money Come From
 
The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act, commonly referred to as the Dingell-Johnson act, passed on August 9, 1950, was modeled after the Pittman-Robertson Act to create a parallel program for management, conservation, and restoration of fishery resources.
 
The Sport Fish Restoration program is funded by revenues collected from the manufacturers of fishing rods, reels, creels, lures, flies and artificial baits, who pay an excise tax on these items to the U.S. Treasury.
 
An amendment in 1984 (Wallop-Breaux Amendment) added new provisions to the Act by extending the excise tax to previously untaxed items of sport fishing equipment.
 
Appropriate State agencies are the only entities eligible to receive grant funds. Each State's share is based 60 percent on its licensed anglers (fishermen) and 40 percent on its land and water area. No State may receives more than 5 percent or less than 1 percent of each year's total apportionment. Puerto Rico receives 1 percent, and the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia each receive one-third of 1 percent.
 
The program is a cost-reimbursement program, where the state covers the full amount of an approved project then applies for reimbursement through Federal Aid for up to 75 percent of the project expenses.
 
The state must provide at least 25 percent of the project costs from a non-federal source.
 
Amendments to the Sport Fish Restoration Act
 
Four amendments to the Sport Fish Restoration Act significantly altered the Program:
·         Enactment of the Wallop-Breaux Amendment (W-B) in 1984
·         Inclusion of wetlands conservation provisions in 1990
·         Creation of a boat-related waste pumpout facilities program through amendments in 1992
·         Enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998
 
The major element of the W-B Amendment established a new Trust Fund, named the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. Funds are also received from import duties on sport fishing equipment, pleasure boats and yachts. Another source of revenue is a tax from motorboat fuel sales. These motorboat fuel taxes are collected by the U.S. Treasury and then transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service for distribution among the States and territories.
 
The passage of TEA-21 authorized a National Outreach and Communications Program to increase participation in angling and boating while reminding boaters and anglers about the importance of clean aquatic habitats. It also increased the minimum level of spending for boating access to 15% and raised the maximum allowable expenditure of Sport Fish Restoration apportionments for aquatic education and outreach to 15%. TEA-21 created a Boating Infrastructure Program for the construction, maintenance, or renovation of facilities for non-trailerable recreational boats (boats greater than 26 feet in length.) TEA-21 raises the amount of Federal gas tax credited to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and establishes a “permanent” appropriation for the Boating Safety Account.
 
Programs
 
Aquatic Resource Education
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
Clean Vessel Act Pumpout Grant Program
Boating Infrastructure Grant Program
 
Contact Consultants
 
For any further information about Sport Fisheries resources and the Act, Contact: The Division of Federal Assistance, FederalAid@fws.gov
For any further information about Aquatic Education resources and the Act, Contact: The Division of Federal Assistance, FederalAid@fws.gov
 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Federal Assistance
4401 North Fairfax Drive, MBSP 4020
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(703) 358-2156 (voice), (703) 358-1837 (fax)
Last revised: August 27, 2004.
 

 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration (Pittman-Robertson)
 
Where Does the Money Come From
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly know as the Pittman-Robertson Act, was approved by Congress on September 2, 1937, and begin functioning July 1, 1938.
The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation and improvement of wildlife habitat, wildlife management research, and the distribution of information produced by the projects.

The Act was amended October 23, 1970, to include funding for hunter training programs and the development, operation and maintenance of public target ranges.
 
Funds are derived from an 11 percent Federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. These funds are collected from the manufacturers by the Department of the Treasury and are apportioned each year to the States and Territorial areas (except Puerto Rico) by the Department of the Interior on the basis of formulas set forth in the Act. Funds for hunter education and target ranges are derived from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment.
 
Each state's apportionment is determined by a formula which considers the total area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state. The program is a cost-reimbursement program, where the state covers the full amount of an approved project then applies for reimbursement through Federal Aid for up to 75 percent of the project expenses. The state must provide at least 25 percent of the project costs from a non-federal source.
 
Programs