FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT

MORE CONCERNS OF MARINE PROTECT AREAS AND MARINE CONSERVATION ZONES

This column was written sitting in Honolulu Airport waiting for my flight home. I needed to get my thoughts down while they are fresh in my mind. It was interesting visiting three of Hawaii’s islands. It was also interesting talking to anglers talk about unnecessary regulations.While touring Maui one afternoon I spotted a perfect spot for some flyfishing. I saw many fish near the shore and planned on some interesting fishing. It was an accessible spot; one of the few I found that I thought would be perfect for a flyrod. When we returned the next day to snorkel and fish, I discovered we would only be snorkeling. We had discovered a marine refuge loaded with fish, large and small but none for the taking. I would have practiced hook and release, leaving plenty of fish for the future.  But I was disappointed not to have the opportunity. 

This reminded me of our continuing discussions on marine protected areas.  Maybe there are good scientific reasons this area was protected, but I do know that recreational anglers have fewer and fewer spots to fish, particularly from the shore.  Either public access is denied or fishing is not allowed.  Perhaps the plan was for me to charter a boat and pay a captain, but my experience was that all the captains were after big game.  They were not experienced in light tackle or flyfishing.  Just to reinforce my fears, I get an email about some proposed marine conservation zones in New Jersey.  The purpose of these zones is really to eliminate the real danger posed by personal watercraft, but because managers and politicians are unable to figure out a politically acceptable way to target personal watercraft, they use a broad brush and attempt to regulate everyone.  This particular proposal would require slow speeds by all vessels in areas off Island Beach State Park.  Boats have not been the problem and have historically fished in these areas.  I have been fishing those areas by boat since 1978 and am not aware of any particular damage done by boats traveling at normal speed.  In fact, the speed at which most boats travel place them on a plane that puts them above the area of concern.  This is not true when boats slow down in the same areas.  There is no science that says we are the problem yet they are trying to put more regulations.  In fact, it is personal watercraft causing the problem in these sensitive areas and any proposals should directly deal with that concern and not include other vessels that have historically used those areas. 

Some anglers will buy into these proposals.  It is easy to look at a short term, and in my mind, shortsighted fix to the problems.  Those of us who have more experience with regulations and bureaucrats know nothing is ever simple and a precedent can be set and expanded before we realize what has happened.  First, slow down.  Then, certain times of year will be off limits.  Before you know it, there will be areas of the bay where you can’t fish from a boat.   There are many other areas in New Jersey, some of them under Federal control, which would be closed quickly if a precedent is set.  I can see the bureaucrats lining up for new regulations.  Remember, the easiest way for a bureaucrat to get paid for doing very little and look good on paper is create a refuge that allows little, if any, public access.  That creates a trouble-free federal or state-funded job for someone.  There are people creating these proposals who have the best intentions.  They simply don’t see the long-term problems that could be created.  An angler-friendly administrator can retire and be replaced by someone who uses the same regulations to shut anglers out.  We have all seen this happen and we won’t stand by quietly and let it happen again.  That is why JCAA is strongly opposed to any regulations that lump personal watercraft and other vessels in the same category.  Just like regulations that punish everyone when commercial fishermen have overfished and collapsed a species, so too would these regulations punish everyone when personal watercraft owners create problems in ecologically sensitive areas. 

 JCAA WILL FIGHT ANY RESTRICTION ON RECREATIONAL ANGLING AND BOATING WITHOUT THE SCIENCE TO PROVE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND THAT WE ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEM.

THERE IS NO SCIENCE TO SHOW WE ARE CAUSING A PROBLEM AT ISLAND BEACH STATE PARK.

SUMMER FLOUNDER

 I received the article below by email. It added to my indigestion so I figured I’d pass it on to you.  I do not see commercial bycatch discussed anywhere in this article.  I also see no discussion about the illegal commercial harvests that were never deducted from the commercial quota.  In fact, if it was not for a lawsuit brought by North Carolina Commercial Fishermen years ago that allowed them to harvest three million pounds over their quota, we would be much further along in the recovery process.  In case you’ve forgotten, the original decision was overturned but NMFS never made the commercial fishermen pay the quota back. 

 BY PATRICIA SMITH

 ENC FREEDOM

THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2001

 Court fights loom over flounder issues

 State, commercial fishing group may have battles with federal government

  MOREHEAD CITY -- Two separate summer flounder issues in North Carolina could come to a head with lawsuits against the federal government.

  Preston Pate, director of the state Division of Marine Fisheries, has informed the Marine Fisheries Commission that the state may sue the National Marine Fisheries Service over commercial flounder quota. And North Carolina Fisheries Association President Jerry Schill said his group is talking with attorneys about suing NMFS over recreational flounder catches.

  The division wants NMFS to add 109,000 pounds of flounder North Carolina commercial fishermen did not catch of the 1999 quota to this year's allocation to offset overages in the 2000 fishing year.

  "We are waiting for the National Marine Fisheries Service to set the 2001 quota for commercial harvest," Pate said. "Only then will we know if they have honored our request to carry forward the under-harvested quota from 1999."

  Pate said he does not expect NMFS to grant the request, but cannot decide to go forward with a lawsuit until he knows for sure.

  Likewise, the Fisheries Association is waiting for the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission meeting later this month to see what, if anything, is done to curb the recreational harvest of the fish, which has exceeded the federal target by 22 million pounds over the past five years, Schill said.

  Schill said he wants something more said or done than what happened in December at a joint meeting of the summer flounder boards of the ASMFC and Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council.

  "There was virtually no concern shown at that meeting about the overages," he said.

  Each year, the federal government sets a poundage for the overall summer flounder fishing quota for Atlantic states. Then, 60 percent of the quota is marked for commercial fishing and allocated to each state based on historical commercial catches. The other 40 percent is tagged for a coastwide recreational fishing target.

  The commercial summer flounder fishery is a closely governed industry with permit and reporting requirements. Once commercial fishermen catch their quota, the fishery shuts down. If they catch more than their quota, the overage is subtracted from the next year's allocation.

  The recreational fishery has no permit or reporting requirements. Catches are estimated, and there are no direct consequences for overages.

  Division Spokeswoman Nancy Fish said state officials want federal authorities to solve the issue of unharvested quota once and for all.

  "If we overharvest a quota, then we have to deduct quota from the next year, so we feel we should get credit for the under-harvested quota," Fish said.

  Dan Whittle, senior attorney with N.C. Environmental Defense, said he agrees with the division in principal but not practically.

  "We can't afford to do that in the flounder fishery," Whittle said. Summer flounder populations are seriously low and the species is overfished, he said.

  Last year, Environmental Defense won a lawsuit it filed in 1998 that claimed the federal government was setting the overall summer flounder quota, for both commercial and recreational fishing, too high for recovery of the species. The conservation group is asking federal authorities to consider the high quotas in 1999 and 2000 when they set the 2001 poundage.

  "The amount North Carolina fishermen actually caught (in 1999) is probably more in line with what they should have been allowed to catch," Whittle said.

  Whittle said that Environmental Defense is somewhat on the same wave with the Fisheries Association in seeking stricter regulations on recreational summer flounder catches.

  "We do agree with them that the objective is that recreational fishermen not exceed their own quota," Whittle said.

  The two groups have different motivations, Whittle said.

  In setting an overall summer flounder quota for a year, federal authorities take into account the overages from recreational fishing and that affects the amount commercial fishermen are allowed to harvest, Schill said.

  Schill said commercial fishermen want fairness.  "If we have to live by the rules, they have to live by the rules," Schill said.

ASMFC Meeting Week

We will have a better understanding of the proposed regulations for summer flounder, scup, seabass, and other species after this meeting.  New Jersey Striped Bass regulations will remain the same for 2001.  The agenda for the meeting is included below.

 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission

January 29 - February 1, 2001

Quality Hotel and Conference Center
1200 North Courthouse Road
Arlington, Virginia
703-524-4000

Revised Preliminary Schedule (as of 1/8/01)

*Dates and times are subject to change up to the times meetings are held

[News Contents] [Top]