 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association October 2003 Newsletter)
This money is for the proposed groundfish permit that would go into the general fund just like the Tuna Permit. It does not go for science but to reward some contractor for collecting names of recreational anglers that want to fish. Compared to a freshwater fishing license that stock streams, supports law enforcement and scientific research, this permit does none of the above. License fees and increases at the state level have to be voted on by state legislatures and Governors. These fees come down from the mountain from NMFS without any public support or input. That is why recreational federal permits upset us. It also makes it less likely that the state will ever get a license passed since anglers are already paying the federal government for the right to fish and for questionable management. Here is an article I wrote on the Tuna Permit in 1997 and the same arguments apply to this permit. Nothing ever changes.
The JCAA has been instrumental in keeping the bluefin tuna angling permit a no-fee proposition. When the recreational bluefin permit was first required, the plan was to institute a fee, but JCAA and a number of other advocacy groups successfully stopped the government from charging for them. This is all changing. One of the arguments used at that time was that the chances of actually harvesting a bluefin tuna was so small, that they would be requiring thousands of boats that might not catch a single one the entire year, to purchase a permit. They saw the wisdom in this thinking and backed down on the fee. The overwhelming majority of the permitted boats obtain a permit, so “if” they catch a bluefin, either targeted or as an incidental catch, they would have the ability to keep it for personal consumption.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, in the last 12 months, has revised the bluefin tuna angling category permit to require all recreational boats fishing for or harvesting any species of tuna including bonito, skipjack, blackfin, yellowfin, bigeye, albacore and bluefin, to obtain a permit. This expansion of the permit schedule will astronomically increase the number of permits issued.
There are at least 160,000 registered boats in the state of New Jersey that operate in coastal waters. Of those, it is estimated that over 60% are used for fishing in saltwater. When the permit was exclusively for bluefin, only a very small percentage of these boats were participants in the fishery, so the number of permits issued was only a couple of thousand. Now the permit is extended to inshore species like bonito, the number of permitted boats could grow to over 50,000, if NMFS can get even moderate participation. The larger number of people who will now require a permit will probably never know it, because most of the time they will be fishing for bluefish and bonito are just a common incidental catch. It also means that they will be fishing illegally when they land bonito.
New Jersey becomes almost insignificant when compared with Florida, where blackfin tuna are caught on the inshore grounds and where everyone who trolls will catch some during the course of the year. This is in addition to a large and widespread yellowfin fishery. Keep in mind that Florida has the largest number of registered boats in the country and the vast majority are either kept in saltwater or are accessible to saltwater. Florida asked the NMFS if they could handle an additional 200,000 permits and the NMFS representative stated they could not.
Subsequently Florida testified at the South Atlantic Council that approximately 300,000 vessels would require a permit in that state alone. North Carolina estimates that they will have 100,000 permitted vessels and South Carolina and Georgia would have to permit almost every vessel that fishes along the coast since they all have easy access to blackfin.
Now, to cover the cost of administering this massive NEW permit program, NMFS has very quietly announced the imposition of an $18 fee for the permit, and a permit fee by any other name is a federal saltwater fishing license. Now that the universe of boats that falls under the guidelines of a federal general tuna permit has risen to a potential number that could easily go from 500,000 to one million boats along the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, let’s see how much money NMFS will raise for doing nothing more than managing a permit system. This permit system will put a lot of money in the hands of the outside contractors who will administer the program. We already know what a great job the NMFS’ hired contractors do in conducting the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey (MRFSS) and how screwed up the figures are in showing what recreational anglers are supposedly catching. The NMFS’ hired contractors conducting the Large Pelagic Survey (LPS) have not counted one recreationally caught swordfish in the last three years. However, the newspapers list numbers of recreational anglers catching swordfish each year. The numbers they publish for recreationally caught yellowfin, bigeye and albacore are ridiculously low and no one trusts these figures.
Just how much money are we talking about fleecing the angling public out of this time? Using the conservative figure of 750,000 tuna permits being issued, NMFS will collect a cool $13.5 million dollars. This is more money than NMFS spends on the entire Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey (MRFSS) by at least triple. What does this money cover? It just covers the issuance and maintenance of records for permitted vessels. And where does all the money go? It will go into the coffers of the outside contractor and the general treasury. Recreational anglers will be required to spend 13.5 million dollars on a system just to keep records on which boats are permitted, but this system will not give us the valuable information that we really need such as landings data and directed trips.
Over the years we’ve heard a great debate over state imposed saltwater fishing licenses and it is always a heated argument. But one thing has remained true regardless of whether you’re in favor or against the concept, the state must go through the legislative process where the license bill is debated by your representatives in state government. It must be voted on in the legislature and signed by the governor. The public has a voice in determining whether the license will be imposed, or not. The only states that have a saltwater fishing license have done so with the support of the general public, but more so with the support of the recreational angler. These were more a case of self imposition of a license, with the goals of improving the resource and access for the recreational angler. In many states, the license bill required an advisory committee or council that had input on where and how license moneys were spent. That is most definitely not the case with this new federal permit scheme.
In addition to the states that already have a saltwater fishing license, Florida, Maryland and Virginia to name a few, other states including Georgia, North Carolina and New York are presently testing the waters on the subject or actively pursuing a license to help them better fund recreational angling programs and management systems. How does this new federal tuna permit fit into the picture, since it accomplishes nothing but to count the supposed number of boats in the fishery in a very costly manner? Will fishermen be willing to pay for a state license and a federal permit to go fishing, especially for species that for many are incidental catches? We do not foresee any good coming to the recreational fishing industry as a result, just a continued chipping away at the number of people who participate and the resulting loss in revenues, taxes and jobs. Another problem is that this permit is species specific. Which species will we have to buy a federal permit for next? Sharks? Bluefish? Striped Bass? This boggles the imagination!
Is this permit really necessary? When we look at the manner in which the federal government collects statistical information, be it on participation or on tracking the health and harvest of specific fisheries, the track record is weak at best and downright horrible in some cases. As a matter of fact, the Congress and the President have become more aware of these deficiencies at the federal level and of the federal bureaucracies’ inability to perform these duties in a cost efficient and accurate manner. That’s why there has been such a strong move to return control of many federal programs to the states for implementation.
A perfect example of a state doing a far better job of managing statistics than the federal bureaucracy is found in North Carolina. The present system in North Carolina records what all recreational boats in the state are catching with a high degree of accuracy. This program has been started and run for just a few hundred thousand dollars. They took the thirty-five dollars that NMFS was paying for each intercept and used it to design an overall program. NMFS is now using North Carolina data on bluefin and yellowfin. The federal programs, like MRFSS and LPS, use poorly developed statistical modeling programs that collect very little actual catch data. They then expand the data over a predetermined universe of participants. It leaves a lot of room for abuse, error and faulty catch estimates. North Carolina is considering instituting a recreational saltwater fishing license to help pay for this new, state of the art program that is producing data that is accurate enough to be used to manage the fisheries. The funds will also be used to improve access, increase fishing opportunities and help fund additional studies to benefit conservation.
One of the things that really bothers me about this new federal fishing license is that the recreational user group has been paying for more than its share of management. Funds from the purchase of recreational fishing tackle, boats and even fuel are used to support programs that track and aid in collecting commercial statistics. The Wallup-Breaux tax of 10% we pay on all of the above items and more are raided by the states and federal government and used for purposes that do not exclusively or in some cases not even remotely benefit recreational fishing. At the same time, the government provides many tax subsidies to the commercial fishing industry. They don’t pay federal fuel taxes; they pay no sales tax on the equipment they purchase from boats to nets; they are offered low interest loans to purchase and upgrade commercial vessels; and when they are allowed to collapse entire regional fisheries ecosystems like has been done in New England, the government comes along with special programs to relieve their burden. They even go so far as to set up multi-million dollar boat and permit buy back programs with your tax dollars. In the last two years, over 50 million dollars have been put into these programs. They help commercial fishers buy their boats, overfish the fisheries, and then buy back their boats, all with tax dollars.
NMFS is locked into its own budget and guidelines in trying to resolve this problem. Although I am dissatisfied with their proposed solution, I do understand that they are simply trying to solve a problem within their parameters. What we need is for Congress to take an active role in resolving this problem by allocating funds directly to the states. Each state can spend the money in a much more cost effective fashion and each dollar spent will result in better, more reliable data. That is, after all, what all of us say we need. We are asking Congress to allocate only a small portion of the money they spend on commercial fishing for the recreational sector. For the last three years, I have served on a committee with representatives of the AFMFC, NMFS, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the states to develop a cooperative agreement to handle all the statistical problems in fisheries management we experience along the coast. This committee is holding hearings and meeting with people involved in fisheries all along the coast. NMFS should not make us fund a new program that has no possibility of providing us with more accurate catch information. The guiding principle of the cooperative agreement is that the states and agencies should develop one coordinated program that will provide data that can be used by everyone and is valid, reliable and understandable. The most fiscally responsible way to do this is to give each state the funds needed to participate in this cooperative venture. Rather than NMFS Band-Aid approach which won’t even handle the tuna problem, we need a system that can handle all the large pelagics and the inshore fishery.
The bottom line is to write the President and your Congressional Delegation and let them know your displeasure with this Federal Saltwater Fishing License. NMFS is answering our inquires about holding public hearings on this Federal Saltwater Fishing License by saying they were not going to take this to public hearing. NMFS said they have the right to implement a permit fee. This is not a permit fee but Federal Saltwater Fishing License. I never knew the President and Congress gave the power to NMFS to institute a Federal Saltwater Fishing License. Act now before it is too late.
In the upcoming months there will be a discussion about opening the EEZ for striped bass fishing but JCAA has historically been opposed to this action. In the 1990’s there was a move to open the EEZ but JCAA and the fishermen of New Jersey were instrumental in defeating this move. At one public hearing alone in New Jersey over 900 people spoke in opposition to the opening and the other two public hearings that were held were also well attended and we were clear about the opposition to opening the EEZ. JCAA has not changed our position - we still support keeping the EEZ closed for striped bass fishing. And I recently received an email from the CCA that states their opposition to opening the EEZ.
It is interesting that when the motion to open the EEZ was discussed under Amendment 6 at the ASMFC, a majority of the states did not vote for the opening. It was the two federal agencies that cast the deciding votes. That does not demonstrate widespread support from the states or the public for the proposed opening. It is ironic that Amendment 6 began as a proposal being pushed forward by some recreational anglers who were looking for a more conservative management for striped bass. They were also looking for a management plan that would produce larger striped bass. What they got was just the opposite, a relaxation of the regulations. For example, the commercial fishery was increased by 43%. When we talk about increasing commercial fisheries, one of the reasons given is that it allows them to use fish they are already harvesting and allows them to use that bycatch of dead striped bass. Many fisheries have demonstrated that increasing the commercial quota or harvesting opportunities increases bycatch. So you are not just utilizing dead bass that would have been killed but instead increasing the number because of the increased effort. This was clearly demonstrated this year when the increased quota was in place in North Carolina. In order to keep the harvest open for a longer period of time and retain the price, there was an implementation of trip limits. I understand the reasons for trip limits but trip limits promote highgrading (culling out the biggest fish) and increase discard. This is always lost in the discussion. Fisheries managers turn a blind eye when confronted with this problem. The opening of the EEZ will only compound this problem. It will create new fisheries in areas that are presently closed. Striped bass in the EEZ will be targeted since many other fisheries will be closed at that time. If trip limits are in effect, bycatch will only increase. Depending on regulations small fish may have to be discarded, which will only increase the discard mortality.
New Jersey’s waters have been closed for the commercial harvesting of striped bass since 1995 because PCB testing places these fish above the FDA levels for the sale of striped bass. New York also has areas closed due to the same PCB contamination. Once the EEZ is open there will be no enforcement of those closed areas since state jurisdiction does not extend there. This could allow for the harvesting and sale of contaminated striped bass.
Some states are considering relaxing recreational regulations that have been in place for a long time. There are also periods during the fishing season when recreational anglers have not been able to harvest legal striped bass in state waters because the largest fish seem to be in the EEZ. This reduces the recreational harvest. Once the EEZ is open these areas became fair game all year long and no longer provide a sanctuary for the migrating striped bass.
This discussion has just begun and JCAA will keep you informed. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Policy Committee has this topic on the agenda for discussion during the August 25th meeting week.
By Al Ristori
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association - June 1996 Newspaper)
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) made a presentation relative to opening the EEZ to striped bass exploitation during the May 17 meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Striped Bass Advisors in Washington, but Dick Schaefer of that agency found no support for that proposal. Schaefer did address some of the concerns expressed in the ASMFC resolution calling for continued closure of federal waters until striper stocks are fully restored and all loopholes are closed.
All state landing laws along the Atlantic coast were reviewed, and it was determined that only four states and Washington, DC were possible problems. Connecticut, D.C. and Florida have enough requirements to prevent illegal bass from getting through, but Georgia could be a problem in connection with the wintering stocks off Hatteras .... and I emphasized to Schaefer that Pennsylvania isn’t merely a potential problem but an ongoing one. Though it’s illegal to sell stripers caught in Pennsylvania, it’s no problem to bring them into the Philadelphia market without any paper trail even with the EEZ closed.
Opening the EEZ would complicate the situation, and I pointed out that N.J. netters were clamoring at the Long Branch public hearing for the right to catch stripers in the EEZ even though N.J. law doesn’t allow netted stripers to be landed and prohibits the sale of all stripers. As if to emphasize my point, an attorney for the Cape May draggers appeared to ask for reopening of the EEZ.... and he had no answer for my question as to why they wanted to catch fish which they can’t legally land.
Schaefer said it was a shame that draggers were discarding striped bass by-catch instead of charging it to each state’s quota. However, I noted that with a 28 inch minimum there would probably be even more waste if draggers got quotas and started targeting migrating or wintering bass. I made a motion to continue the ASMFC position while requesting that the Commission look into by-catch problems should the EEZ be opened in the future. That motion was passed unanimously by advisors from Maine to North Carolina
The advisors also discussed the proposed VPA allocation system which will provide each state with a quota which they can divide up as they please. However, that won’t come into effect until stocks can be fished at the maximum .... and scientists agree with the advisors that it won’t come about until 1997. Release problems with bass hooked during hot weather in the Delaware river was discussed, but the advisors agreed it wasn’t a resource problem as the Delaware stock is healthy. the states should study
The following are two articles pertaining to the EEZ from 1996 and 1995, respectively.....
By Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association - July 1996 Newspaper)
The Striped Bass Board met on May 29th and heard a report from the technical committee. This report stated that although the coastal abundance indices rose between 1994 and 1995, the technical committee expressed some concerns regarding trends and biomass indices in the principal spawning areas of Chesapeake Bay and the Hudson River. They also expressed that they would not be ready to introduce the virtual population analysis for 1997. Because of this and the recommendations of the advisory committee, the board decided that the interim fishing rate will continue for another year before moving to full MSY. This means that there will be no increase in the fisheries for 1997 but 1998 will be the year that we look at major increases in the striped bass fishery both commercial and recreational.
The EEZ discussion was opened again. NMFS presented the survey done to identify loopholes that will exist with the opening of the EEZ. NMFS did think NJ would be a problem but because of court cases in other states such as Florida, we feel that these problems will exist until language is introduced in the Magnuson Act to correct it. Other states still have loopholes and are not sure when they will be corrected. A motion passed by the Striped Bass Board at its previous meeting stated that the EEZ should not be open until we reach full MSY. If NMFS follow ASMFC recommendation then the earliest opening date for the EEZ will be 1998.
The next major decision period for Striped Bass will be in 1997 to decide what will happen in 1998. The time to start working on this is now. JCAA is working with advocacy groups from North Carolina through Maine concerning this. We have started establishing a list of suggestions on what we feel should be done for the 1998 season. When they are done we will circulate them along the coast to different advocacy groups so we can go forth with a coastwide united position. The JCAA Striped Bass Committee needs to meet to come up with these positions. This committee needs more members and if a club wishes to participate, call the office and leave the name of your representative. The striped bass advisors recommendations will receive careful consideration in our deliberation Amendment 5 was crucial, but what happens in 1998 will determine the fate of this fishery for the next ten years. This is not the time to sit back and when your group is called upon to participate, it must be willing to take the time to respond. We must put aside any …… not now in the fishery.
By Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association - November 1995 Newsletter)
On November 7th and 13th there were two additional hearings on opening the EEZ for striped bass fishing. The turn out was phenomenal and a good indication that the recreational and commercial public are involved in the process. In my comments at the second hearing I emphasized the importance of closing legal loopholes. NJ and parts of NY are closed to the commercial harvesting of Striped Bass because of public health standards for PCBs. By opening the EEZ without safeguards similar to shellfish transport laws, are we also opening the sale of these contaminated fish in other commercial markets? The public has the right to assume that all fish sold commercially meet the FDA requirements. NMFS had not considered this essential point. Commercial, recreational and environmental spokespersons were able to discuss the importance of not allowing category 2 materials at the mud-dump and re-authorization of the Clean Water Act. The commercial, recreational and environmental community were all in agreement that no contaminated material should be dumped in the ocean and will work together to support Governor Whitman on this issue. The Governor has been subject to intense pressure to change her decision and allow the Port Authority to dump contaminated material in the ocean. She needs to hear from all of us, loud and clear, that we support her strong environmental stand on this issue. The commercial and recreational communities proved we would show up in force for a striped bass hearing. Now we need to prove we can have the same showing at the hearings about expanding the mud-dump site and other environmental hearings.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission meeting week in December (12/5-12/8) will be filled with striped bass meetings. The Striped Bass Tagging Working Group will meet to discuss the future of the coastwide tagging program and improved public outreach. The Stock Assessment Subcommittee will meet to finalize the details of the virtual population analysis (VPA) slated for adoption in 1997, determine any effects of the Chesapeake Bay spring striped bass fisheries, and assess possible impacts of the Roanoke River fish kill. The Technical Committee will meet to review proposed changes in state management programs, and to hear updates from the tagging and stock assessment groups. Finally, the Management Board will convene to hear reports form the Technical Committee and to discuss the proposed changes to state management programs. At the Striped Bass meeting on December 7th I will discuss my concerns about opening the EEZ and expect to hear a report on all the coastal hearings. Do I think the NMFS will open the EEZ immediately? I think they will respond appropriately and take the necessary time to insure that the legal loopholes are closed before opening the EEZ. They appear to realize that the credibility of the NMFS and the ASMFC could be hurt if the management of Striped Bass is undermined by opening the EEZ without insuring that existing regulations are not circumvented. They also need to consider public health paramount.