For example, in 2008 the DEC filed suit against the U.S. Commerce Department, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, stating the agencies used "flawed data" from the 1998 fishing season to set unfair limits on fluke fishing in New York, without considering changes in population and harvesting patterns over the past 10 years. New York was also "saddled with a disproportionate burden of the federal plan for the fluke's recovery. For instance, an angler on the New York side of Raritan Bay can land four fluke per day that must be at least 20.5 inches long, while someone on the New Jersey side of the bay can land eight fish that only have to be 18 inches long."

Another important point, John said, is that if New York instead opts for the federal option, anglers would still have to register with the feds and pay $15-$35 a year after 2011, and none of that money will go to marine programs, either for the state or for the federal government. The state would still be responsible for collecting the data and providing it to the government, it's just that the money required for surveys and data collection would come from somewhere else, like the state freshwater and hunting license funds. "If we did it for the federal government that would be a cost to us and someone else would have to eat part of the cost, or we will have to lose programs and staff" he said. Under the bill sponsored by Brian Foley, bill S6250, the state would ostensibly be responsible for even more since the bill aims to create a "free registry" for saltwater fishermen, meaning more cut programs or siphoning funds from somewhere else other than those that would be provided by saltwater license.

The DEC estimates the number of saltwater anglers in New York to be between 200,000 and 300,000. They targeted $3 million in license revenue. So far John said they've collected about $1.35 million in fees and sold about 60,000 licenses. The money from the licenses will go into a marine reserve account, he explained, along with money collected from crab, clam, and commercial licenses. The account is then used for various programs like marine habitat protection and shellfish study, as well as administrative costs.

This lack of participation in the license program is significant, John said. One of the issues anglers resented most was having to pay $10 for a license in October, then having to shell out another $10 in January. John said for the most part the DEC has tried to increase awareness of the program for the first three months and has not been issuing fines or confiscating equipment. "We hope next April, late May to gradually increase the degree of enforcement activity," he said. "There's very little enforcement activity in the East End towns because of the lawsuit, and if we can't really enforce it there then it's unfair to enforce it anywhere."

When I asked him about the validity of the East End town's argument citing the Dongan Patent, the pre-Revolutionary War document that gave local control to waterways and public lands, he said, "Our position is that the Patent is irrelevant with regards to finned fish."

"We will not be in compliance with the federal program by January 1, 2010," John said flatly. "Assuming we win this lawsuit and the East End towns lose, we will have a more compliant program with the federal registry requirements and therefore be exempt. Right now we have a partial house, and not a full house in compliance. If we lose the lawsuit, [the state] will not benefit in any extent if we join the federal registry, and the state will have to come up with two or three million dollars to offset the cost of the program."