 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association January 2004 Newsletter)
New Jersey Preparing to Tackle ASMFC's Plan (Thursday, December 18, 2003 BY AL RISTORI Star-Ledger Staff)
Rejection of 'Slot' Limit, Elimination of Producer Status Will Cut Catch (Published in the Asbury Park Press 12/19/03 By John Geiser)
It is always interesting to compare my expectations with reality at the end of an ASFMC meeting. As far as I am concerned, the right decision was made on summer flounder and the wrong decision was made on striped bass. I have been working the ASMFC for many years. I can’t remember a time when I was this disappointed with the process. When it comes to fisheries management, I usually point to ASMFC as one of the better systems. I have done that repeatedly. I’m not suggesting we throw out the existing system but mistakes are made. The good thing is when ASMFC makes a mistake there is ample opportunity to correct it. Any of the problems I am about to discuss could be remedied in a short period of time if all of the commissioners would honestly work for the common good and for fairness among states. I hope that happens. Below are also are articles by John Geiser Al Ristori and a letter by Congressman Pallone on this subject
After about a year and a half of discussion Addendum 8 of the summer flounder and sea bass plan has been finalized. The decision is that we will not require recreational paybacks at this time based on the Marine Recreational Statistical Survey. I was happy to second the motion that finally put the current proposal for recreational paybacks to rest. Having said that, Amendment 13 to summer flounder and sea bass will be looking at ways to keep recreational summer flounder anglers within the quota. This has to be done but using the Marine Recreational Statistical Survey is not the answer. Under Amendment 13 we will be exploring other methods to address this problem. I would like to thank the United Boatmen, the RFA and, of course, the Jersey Coast Anglers Association for all the hard work involved in resolving this issue. Without this coalition we would not have reached a positive agreement.
It is interesting to take a good look at the actual catch of summer flounder. The National Marine Fisheries Service and ASMFC claim that we are all reaping the benefits of a rebuilt summer flounder fishery. And they are taking the credit. However, while the number of pounds of summer flounder caught recreationally has increased, the number of summer flounder landed by the recreational community is down almost a million and a half fish. This means some anglers are catching larger fish and other may be catching a lot of fish without being able to keep any. If you are fishing in Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay or Barnegat Bay you have seen your success rate for catching keepers drop dramatically. The people, who fish offshore in deeper water, are now catching bigger fish but their number of keepers is not increasing. The way I gauge a success is when more anglers have more fish to take home. I don’t measure success when fish are reallocated from the back bays, piers and shore-based anglers to the off shore anglers. It is not a victory to pit one group of anglers against another. I think the National Marine Fisheries Service and ASMFC are celebrating a non-victory.
Bruce Freeman and I left the December 2002 striped bass meeting on Amendment 6 feeling certain things had been done. We believed no major changes to Amendment 5 were being considered except for an increase for the commercial fishery. Because of an interpretation of certain motions made at the December 2002 meeting, the draft amendment that went to public hearings and arrived at my desk for the February 2003 meeting had removed 144 references to producing areas. This led to a discussion in February 2003 about whether or not there was such a thing as a producing area. To get around this, motions were passed to exempt North Carolina’s producing areas and the producing area of the Chesapeake Bay. A motion was also passed to exempt the commercial fishery in the Delaware Bay on 20 inch fish. There was a lengthy discussion at the February 2003 meeting and there was major confusion about how we reached this dilemma. States and agencies stated for the record that they never intended to eliminate the producing area status. And they also said their intention was not to change the current regulations in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. After saying that, the Striped Bass Board approved Amendment 6 which did exactly the opposite of what was the stated intention. In other words, Amendment 6 significantly reduced the recreational catch of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, allowed for a 43% increase in the commercial fishery, supported the opening of the EEZ for striped bass fishing and did not reduce the catch of any other state recreationally. After much discussion many states promised to address this shortcoming at the next meeting scheduled for June 2003.
When I arrived at the June 2003 meeting, those promises were forgotten. To address my concerns, the Striped Bass Board stated they would do an addendum to Amendment 6 but gave no clear timelines. I returned to New Jersey and discussed these issues with NJ DEP Commissioner Bradley Campbell and Marty McHugh, Director of New Jersey Fish and Wildlife. At the August meeting, since there was no striped bass board meeting, Marty McHugh and I made an impassioned appeal to the policy board to direct the striped bass board to review this issue and try to get some relief for New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. The policy board sent our concerns to the striped bass board for review. At the December meeting in New York City, the striped bass board overwhelmingly voted to deny New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware any consideration under Amendment 6. In effect, they said Amendment 6 stands and it is okay to discriminate against individual states.
What does Amendment 6 actually do? It tells recreational anglers who fish in the producing areas of New Jersey and Pennsylvania that they should reduce their catch so the commercial fishery can be increased by 43% and allow for the opening of the EEZ for people who fish offshore. It is clear that the anglers of New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania will be the only anglers to shoulder the burden of these changes. Other commissioners continue to offer verbal understanding and sympathy but do nothing to remedy the problem. It matters not one bit what their original intention was. The anglers from New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware must live with the results of these changes. And the results are that commercial fishermen will see an increase, some states will be allowed to expand their fisheries and the anglers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware and New York anglers above the George Washington Bridge will be the only anglers to see a reduction. This is totally unfair.
After the meeting there was a suggestion that New Jersey and ASMFC find a way to work this out. I have been hearing that same story since last February. I am hoping that ASMFC and the Commissioners have an epiphany and make a proposal to address the unfairness of Amendment 6. My experience suggests this will not happen and, therefore, I am recommending that Governor McGreevey sue the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to redress our grievances about the Striped Bass Plan and the discriminatory nature of Amendment 6. It is also my recommendation that we include weakfish in this suit since the last amendment to that plan was even more discriminatory.
In the weakfish amendment that was passed last year that was implemented for 2003, the recreational anglers of New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania had a reduction in the weakfish fishery. When we went to public hearings, the plan discussed many reasons for reductions in the recreational sector. New Jersey constantly complained about the poor rationale for the reduction and demanded to know the real reason behind the proposed reduction. Our demands were ignored until after the public hearing process was completed. Only then, a week before the final meeting, were we told that the tables that were done in 1996 did not accomplish the proper reduction for the recreational fishery. I can understand that. If a prior table was set to accomplish a 32% reduction but in reality only accomplishes an 18% reduction, I understand there is some validity to moving forward with an amendment to the plan. The other reason given was since there is no quota, the recreational catch continued to expand its percentage of the total weakfish catch. The board wanted to make sure the recreational catch did not significantly increase its percentage. Those are understandable reasons. But in reality, what is actually accomplished with the new tables? Under the previous amendment in order to accomplish the required reduction, states north of New Jersey implemented a 16 inch size limit with no bag limit. That fulfilled their requirements under the previous amendment. The table now says if you have a 16 inch size limit you must have a 10 fish bag limit. But if you look at the MRSS, in the states that have a 16 inch size limit, no one is catching 10 fish. So on paper this looks like a reduction, but it isn’t. I will accept this part of the plan even though it has no immediate impact. Under the previous plan, New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania were able to meet our reduction with a 14 inch size limit and a 14 fish bag limit. What happens to us with the new tables? The new tables allowed for 9 fish at 14 inches. This was a true reduction since many anglers were already catching at the old bag limit. We lost 5 fish at 14 inches, a big reduction. ASMFC pretended to do us a favor by allowing 9 fish since the tables were actually lower at 14 inches. Under the previous amendment, states that wanted to fish at 12 inches were required to have a 4 fish bag limit. Under the new amendment, these states needed to go from an 18% reduction to a 32 % reduction. I would imagine that would require a smaller bag limit. I was taught old math. According to ASMFC’s new math, to get a reduction you need to catch more fish. These states are now allowed 12 inch fish with a 7 fish bag limit, an increase of 3 fish. Again, the only states who actually face a reduction are New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware.
I will be working with the Governor’s Office to try to find a solution to the striped bass situation with ASMFC. In the meantime, you should send letters to Governor McGreevey asking him to stand firm and pursue any action necessary to keep the anglers of New Jersey from being discriminated against. You need to state your support for a lawsuit as a last resort. Thank the Governor, Commissioner Campbell and Director McHugh for their continued support in resolving this issue.
Dear Mr. O'Shea,
I am writing to express my disappointment with the treatment that the State of New Jersey has received with regard to the striped bass and weakfish fishery management plans under the jurisdiction of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).
I have contacted you several times in the past year to relay my opposition to Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP), due to the arbitrary size limits that the amendment places on the recreational catch in New Jersey. New Jersey should be able to maintain the status quo under Amendments 5 and 6 until an addendum to the FMP can be put in place to fully address the new policy of not distinguishing producing areas. I find it completely arbitrary that some states have been allowed to maintain this status quo, while others (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware) have not.
Unfortunately, this unfair treatment of New Jersey's recreational fisheries is also apparent in the weakfish management plan. As I understand it, the reduction of the recreational weakfish catch under a 1996 amendment to the FMP was miscalculated in the weakfish plan, such that the reduction was supposed to be 32%, but was only reported as an 18% reduction. Once this mistake was recognized, New Jersey Commissioners tried to reach a compromise on catch limits to meet this revised reduction estimate. However, several other states were somehow able to increase their bag limits under this corrected, higher reduction in catch.
Each of these management plans is disadvantageous to New Jersey's fishermen, and they even seem to favor other states over New Jersey. In fact, it appears that our neighboring states of Pennsylvania and Delaware are also receiving questionable treatment within the ASFMC. The Commission should serve as a means of finding an equitable solution to the fisheries concerns of the member states. I hope that the Commission will quickly address and remedy the issue of equitable allocation among concerned states, in a manner befitting the mission of the organization.
As a Representative of a state that has some 800,000 recreational anglers, I can assure you that I will be tracking the Commission's efforts in this regard, and I will take my concerns to the Secretary of Commerce, if necessary.
Sincerely,
FRANK PALLONE, JR.
Member of Congress
New Jersey's striped bass bag limit of one at 28 inches or more plus a slot fish from 24 to less than 28 inches will be out the window if the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has its way, but it's likely that state officials will take legal action in an attempt to prevent that change.
Division of Fish and Wildlife director Marty McHugh, Division marine scientist Bruce Freeman and governor's appointee Tom Fote made forceful presentations at Tuesday's meeting in Manhattan's Roosevelt Hotel, but the Striped Bass Management Board turned down their request to retain the slot for another year, 13 to 2, with support coming only from Pennsylvania.
Fote then told me he's recommending to the governor that New Jersey should sue the ASMFC over unfair treatment on this issue and also in the Weakfish Management Plan that was approved earlier in the year. There's a good chance that tactic will at least delay federal enforcement of Amendment 6 regulations that limit coastal fisheries to two bass at 28 inches.
When the ASMFC decided a few years ago that there was too much pressure on stripers over 28 inches, New Jersey made the second fish in the limit a slot. Reducing the size limit would normally incur a penalty (such as having to institute a season), but New Jersey was able to gain approval due to its status as a producing area.
Though New Jersey could have duplicated the 20-inch minimum for the Delaware and Hudson river spawning regions, it never did so and applied the coastal limit throughout the state. New Jersey opposed Amendment 6, which gave coastal commercial fisheries a 42 percent increase despite opposition at the public hearings, from written comments and by the ASMFC Striped Bass Advisory Panel. Then, after approving the amendment, the ASMFC later decided there would no longer be a distinction as to producer areas -- though the Chesapeake states were allowed to retain their low minimum. Fote contends this was a major action which should have required public hearings and is thus a basis for the lawsuit.
A re-evaluation of stock assessments indicates that striped bass fishing mortality (F) has been higher than previously assumed. The 2002 assessment set the F for the fully recruited ages 8 to 11 at 0.36 which is well above the plan's target of 0.30, but still below the threshold of 0.41. Total recreational striper landings in 2002 declined to 1,828,367 fish weighing 8,409 metric tons. Commercial landings that year were 654,062 fish. It will be some time before 2003 figures are available and, with those including the increase in commercial quota, there could be a spike which would require action to lower recreational catch rates.
There was some positive news from Monday's ASMFC session as the effort to impose a payback on recreational overages was defeated in a close vote. Commercial fishermen are subject to having any overages deducted from the next year's quota, but their landings are "hard" numbers based on poundage shipped to market. Recreational catches are only estimated, and there can be wild variations in such "soft" numbers which aren't believed by anyone familiar with the fisheries. Basing a payback on a questionable survey can't be justified.
The previous leading advocate of the payback scheme was Gordon Colvin, New York's Marine District director. Fortunately, it was New York which the survey showed to be more than 100 percent over their quota in fluke and porgies this year, and Colvin's payback would have closed down those fisheries in his state next year. Not surprisingly, Colvin introduced the motion not to use the payback and was able to gain enough support to prevent it from becoming effective.
New Jersey fishermen would certainly seem justified in feeling that they are isolated -- if not discriminated against -- when the striped bass resource is divided among the states.
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's striped bass management board met Tuesday in New York City, and quietly but firmly rejected New Jersey's "slot" limit of one 24- to 28-inch fish.
Instead, the board insisted that New Jersey abide by the coastal plan that provides for a limit of two fish at 28 inches or more.
In the past, New Jersey qualified for the slot limit because of its status as a "producer" state, similar to Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland and New York, because spawning takes place in its waters -- the Delaware River.
However, the word "producer" was deleted from Amendment 6 of the Atlantic striped bass management plan last winter while exceptions were allowed for the Roanoke River-Albemarle Sound, Chesapeake Bay and upper Hudson River producing areas. In other words, the southern producer states could catch fish under 28 inches, but New Jersey could not.
Thomas P. Fote, the governor's appointee for New Jersey on the ASMFC, said he argued at length for the regulations to remain the same. "I wanted status quo," he said. "I made a motion not to change anything -- to keep it fair and equal -- but they shot it down." Fote said New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania are going to appeal the decision to the ASMFC's policy board.
"The system is closing us out," he said. "They allowed a 43 percent increase in the commercial fishery, and they're trying to get the EEZ opened, but they won't allow us a slot limit. "I'm utterly frustrated by the process. They allow an 18-inch minimum in Chesapeake Bay. The Delaware River is a producing area, but they won't make an exception for us in the regulations."
Fote said what the commission board did approve was an exception for Delaware commercial fishermen, allowing them to harvest 20- to 26-inch striped bass.
"How can they treat Delaware commercial fishermen differently? The board did it," he said.
Tony Bogan, a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and a representative of the United Boatmen, told the board that the United Boatmen were concerned about the way in which the word "producer" was stricken from the plan. "Our position is that this was not done properly," he said. "It's procedure. As far as we're concerned, there was no reason for removing producer areas from the plan -- no discussion -- they just did it."
Bogan said he repeatedly asked for an explanation and justification in the spring and early summer, and the only one offered at an ASMFC meeting in August was that it was done in response to discussions and comments. "There was no motion," he said.