 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
by Tom Siciliano 5/29/03
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association July 2003 Newsletter)
Dear Assemblyman Robert Smith:
JCAA was delighted that you introduced Assembly Bill 3326, the Freedom to Fish Bill. We have been involved with the Freedom to Fish Bill at the federal level since its inception. This was a joint effort by ASA, Coastal Conservation Association and JCAA. In our initial discussions we decided that it was counterproductive to include any protections for commercial fishing in the federal bill. JCAA took this position after considerable discussion and a vote by our member clubs. We are seriously disappointed with the recent change in the Assembly version of the Freedom to Fish Bill. The inclusion of commercial fishing was not discussed with JCAA and our input was not considered before this change was made.
On May 28th at our general membership meeting we had a lengthy discussion about this change. Not one member club wanted a change in our original position.
JCAA is not opposed to protecting the rights of commercial fishermen. We are opposed to the inclusion of commercial fishing in the recreational Freedom to Fish Bill. We continue to be opposed to including commercial fishing in this bill because:
1.The original intent of the bill was to protect recreational fishing from the possible creation of no fishing zones without appropriate scientific support.
2. Adding commercial fishermen confuses the original intent of the bill. Commercial fishing is more complex to regulate and has been cited as the cause of the depletion of many stocks. There are also times when commercial fishing may be closed in a specific area due to spatial and other conflicts rather than due to scientific research.
3. This bill was designed to provide protection from the most extreme anti-fishing environmental groups. Adding commercial fishing draws opposition from more moderate environmental groups who are often aligned with recreational anglers. It has a negative impact on the ability of these groups to work together successfully on other issues.
4. The state-by-state effort is intended for each bill to mirror the federal legislation and thereby provide support for the eventual passage of the federal bill. JCAA has much less concern that New Jersey will close an area without appropriate science. Experience shows that decisions at the federal level are often made without science. We need a bill in New Jersey that supports the passage of the federal bill. Adding commercial fishing to the Assembly bill simply confuses the issue and makes passage of either bill less likely.
5. In conversations with environmental groups we have been led to believe that the addition of commercial fishing prompted Commissioner Campbell to take an active role in opposing this bill. He is encouraging environmental groups who were originally neutral on this legislation to actively oppose it.
There are certainly additional reasons why we are opposed to including commercial fishing in this bill but the ones listed above convey the consensus of our member clubs. We want you to remove commercial fishing from this bill. Until that happens, JCAA cannot support this legislation We have no desire to actively oppose this legislation but the inclusion of commercial fishing leaves us no choice.
Sincerely,
Thomas Siciliano
President, JCAA