Press Release  8/30/2005

STRIPED BASS LAW CHANGE UPDATE

The waiting time is over.  Jersey Coast Anglers Association, the New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s Club (NJSFSC’s), and the anglers of New Jersey have waited long enough.  We waited while the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) completed two separate surveys, both of which supported JCAA’s and NJSFSC’s position for 2 fish at 28 inches.  We waited for Assemblyman Smith to pass new legislation, a step he would not take until after the August meeting of ASMFC.  The meeting is over. We are done waiting.  Now is the time for action. 

ASMFC’s striped bass board meeting was held on August 18^th.  No action was taken to change the current regulations, which would allow for 2 fish at 28 inches as soon as the New Jersey legislature can take the necessary action.  It is important to acknowledge that the next possible time ASMFC meets on striped bass is November.  The most they could do at that time is to prepare an addendum.  Given the timelines for public hearings, the earliest any changes coast-wide could realistically be put in place is 2007.  Through the summer, JCAA has been in contact with our legislators building support for a change to 2 fish at 28 inches.  We have discussed this issue with both Democrats and Republicans on the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.  We believe they are ready to take appropriate action to put 2 fish at 28 inches into law as soon as they reconvene.  With this in mind, I want to review for everyone the actions that took place to bring us to the current problem with striped bass. 

I was the Governor’s Appointee to ASMFC in 2003 when the ASMFC changed the striped bass regulations.  New Jersey’s three commissioners fought a difficult and losing battle to maintain the regulations in place for 2003/2004.  When we were unsuccessful, it became necessary for New Jersey’s legislature to change the law to reflect Amendment 6 of the Striped Bass Management Plan.  At that time, I strongly recommended New Jersey adopt legislation for 2 striped bass at 28 inches.  I thought this was the best solution to a difficult problem because it reflected the regulations that were in place prior to the changes in 1998.  This recommended change was also compatible with regulations in Pennsylvania, Delaware and, for the most part, New York and the rest of the east coast. 

I brought this recommendation to JCAA and our member clubs and after much discussion there was an overwhelming vote to recommend this plan (2 fish at 28 inches) to the legislature.  The NJ State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs also voted in agreement.  I reached out to the United Boatmen, the Recreational Fishing Alliance and other interested groups in an attempt to build consensus for this plan.  Even though JCAA, United Boatmen and the NJSFSC were in agreement, Assemblyman Smith introduced different legislation at the request of the RFA.  The Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee passed this bill in August.  It was then passed by the NJ Assembly.  By the time the bill entered the NJ Senate; most anglers recognized the inherent problems in the proposed legislation.  At that time a moratorium was pending and the only bill that was on the table to avoid the moratorium was Assemblyman Smith’s legislation.  Assemblyman Smith’s bill was eventually passed and signed by the Governor to avoid a moratorium.  Once the bill was passed and a moratorium was avoided, JCAA asked Assemblyman Smith to immediately introduce the 2 fish at 28 inches legislation.  He was unwilling to do so. 

It quickly became apparent that New Jersey’s anglers were not happy with the new law.  There was a great deal of confusion and discontent.  This law was particularly difficult for anglers who fished in areas bordering two states.  The RFA completed a survey which offered anglers multiple choices.  The choice that received the most votes was 2 fish at 28 inches.  Again, in February, JCAA suggested to Assemblyman Smith that a new law be introduced to change the regulations to 2 fish at 28 inches.  At that time, Assemblyman Smith was still unwilling to do so.  He voiced his concerns about the upcoming 2005 stock assessment and suggested he would take no action until after the ASMFC meeting in August. 

The RFA conducted an additional survey with only 2 options and the winner by a clear majority was 2 fish at 28 inches.  JCAA understood that Assemblyman Smith would take no action until after the August ASMFC meeting.  We recognized that with the NJ budget crisis and the summer recess there was virtually no opportunity to resolve these issues until September.  September is almost here.  The legislature will reconvene and we are tired of waiting.  We want the new legislation to provide for 2 striped bass at 28 inches to be the first bill posted for hearing at the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Environmental Committee.  There is no need for prolonged discussion.  There is overwhelming agreement among New Jersey’s anglers and we want this resolved.  It appears the NJ Assembly is the stumbling block and all the members are up for reelection in November.  You need to write, call, and email your representatives in the NJ Assembly.  Tell them you want this legislation passed now and you will be watching with interest before you vote in November. 

CREDIBILITY GAP GROWS LARGER BY DECISION

Are ASMFC and NMFS out of touch with reality?

Credibility is not something you have, it is something you earn.  With that in mind, let’s look at the recent history of ASMFC and NMFS.  In the 1990’s, with the rebuilding of striped bass, summer flounder and other stocks, ASMFC and NMFS were gaining credibility and respect among recreational anglers and the organizations that represent them.  However, more recent decisions have significantly decreased the credibility and respect these agencies worked hard to establish.  They are unsure and unclear in their management of rebuilt stocks.  The models that worked well during rebuilding are becoming more and more inappropriate as stocks recover.  But no one seems to want to challenge these old methods.  In addition, the tools used by NMFS to estimate stocks are not always connected to the reality that anglers experience.  The biggest credibility problem is the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Survey.  ASMFC continues to use this questionable survey to make state-by-state quota decisions for the recreational community.  Their credibility is also damaged by a continued lack of consistency.  Those of you who have attended ASMFC and NMFS meetings know there can be a two-hour discussion about small statistical changes when in reality none of the statistics being discussed represent actual catches.  The latest example is sea bass.  At the monitoring committee and the joint meeting, there was lengthy argument about a quota of 8.3 or 7.7 million pounds.  NMFS was pushing for 7.7.  The Council and Commission members were opposed and the final settlement was for 8.0 million pounds.  The catch data was clearly showing we weren’t catching the quota for at least two years and there was not reason to set a different quota.  Yet, with bluefish, they had no difficulty ignoring the lack of stock assessment and other data and pushed for a larger harvest.  Below I have discussed three of the most important stocks and the decisions that are being made. 

What scares me the most is that there are not enough law enforcement officers to enforce the rules for the recreational sector.  This is true in every state.  With the impact of homeland security issues, there is almost no enforcement in federal waters.  What we are doing is taking law abiding anglers and pushing them to be law breakers.  Anglers no longer feel any trust or respect for the system.  And when rules can only be enforced by peer pressure and individual accountability, rules that make no sense will often be ignored.  If NMFS and ASMFC continue on this path, we’ll see the same type of flaunting of the law that we did during prohibition.  Personnel at the NMFS have stated that they need to reduce recreational participation. I was assured by other NMFS personnel that this was not the case.  With what is going on in a number of NMFS regulated fisheries, I am beginning to believe that NMFS’goal is to curtail the number of recreational anglers and in so doing decimate the recreational fishing industry.  The more complicated the rules, the more aggravated the anglers, the less participation there will be.

SUMMER FLOUNDER

2005 has been an interesting year for fisheries management.  In 2004, the National Marine Fisheries Services told us that summer flounder biomass and spawning stocks were increasing.  NMFS also told us that recruitment has been average or above average in recent years.  In 2004 the measured biomass was the highest recorded in the last 20 years.  With this information in hand, NMFS and ASMFC set the quotas for 2005/2006.  The quota for 2005 was about 30 million pounds and the quota set for 2006 was over 33 million pounds.  SURPRISE, SURPRISE!  When NMFS stock assessment ran the models with the most recent data, the assessment team said that all the earlier predictions were true but, when running the virtual population analysis, we are failing to meet the goals set for the ten year rebuilding period.  The NMFS is telling us that even though all the indicators suggest the stocks are continuing to improve at a good rate, this improvement does not meet the expectations of their models.  Remember, when ASMFC and NMFS set the goals for 2005 and 2006, they used 75% probability.  This is the highest probability of success we have used in 10 years.  Yet now the models say we’re wrong.  As a result of this change, NMFS is telling ASMFC and the Mid-Atlantic Marine Fisheries Management Council to reduce the 2006 total allowable catch for summer flounder from 33 million pounds to just over 23 million pounds. 

The impact of this change will be devastating to both the recreational and commercial fishing industries from Massachusetts to North Carolina.  Economically it will have the greatest impact on the recreational fishing industry by raising size limits, establishing smaller bag limits and shortening the season.  This means less time to fish and less money spent at all the recreational businesses.  This also means fewer fish for people to take home to eat.  If this reduction is fully implemented, the recreational community will take home fewer summer flounder in 2006 than in 1994 when the stocks and quota were considerably lower.  The successful angler will take home a bigger fish but the number of anglers taking home fish will be much smaller.  In 1994 with a 14 inch size limit, anglers who fished off docks, piers and in the bays were able to take home fish to eat.  In 2006 we may see size limits of 18 inches and above.  It will be very difficult for anglers who fish off docks and piers and in the bays to catch a summer flounder that meets these size limit regulations.  These anglers were never the ones who caused the collapse of the summer flounder stock but NMFS and ASMFC are making them pay the greatest price.  And most disappointing is that NMFS and ASMFC don’t seem to care that poor and subsistence fishermen will be shut out of the summer founder fishery. 

What can we do?  We should demand that ASMFC stand up to NMFS and maintain the quota already approved for 2006, 33 million pounds.  You must contact the three commissioners from your state and let them know how you feel.  You should also contact the governor of your state and demand that he or she direct the governor’s appointee and state director to do whatever is necessary to maintain the already approved quota for 2006.  Go to the ASMFC website and find the names of your state’s commissioners. 

WEAKFISH

Weakfish will be another interesting situation for 2006.  New Jersey and Delaware have expressed their concerns to ASMFC about the lack of weakfish in the Delaware Bay.  The models on weakfish have suggested the stocks of weakfish are growing.  However, anglers are not seeing this increase in the Delaware Bay and along the coast.  Finally last year, ASMFC took notice of this problem because the recreational catch dropped dramatically.  When the technical committee met to review the data they suggested the problem was not caused by an increase in the recreational or commercial fishery.  The technical committee believes the natural mortality has risen and this has caused the decrease in stocks.  At this time, we are not sure of the reason for this change.  An increase in the croaker population may be one cause.  But at this time, we are simply speculating.  You may remember a similar situation with bluefish.  The difference is that the weakfish plan has already limited the bycatch, put tougher recreational size and bag limits in place, eliminated certain commercial fisheries and pushed all the right buttons to rebuild the stock.  In 1994 there was a huge commercial fishery on weakfish 6 – 7 inches long and there was a huge bycatch in the shrimp fishery and there were few regulations on recreational anglers.  In 2003 by an amendment to the plan, we further reduced the recreational catch, especially in New Jersey. The ASMFC did allow in this amendment for an increase in the commercial fishery bycatch. We did this to make sure the recreational catch stayed at a small percentage of the commercial catch. 

ASMFC is proposing a change in the plan that could restrict the recreational catch to one weakfish.  This would destroy the recreational weakfish industry.  No one will charter a boat for weakfish, go fishing on a party boat for weakfish, buy bait or gas if the result is that they can only keep one weakfish.  There are no guarantees that limiting the fishery so severely will have any impact on the stocks.  ASMFC, like NMFS, is making decisions with little interest in the negative impact on the recreational industry.  In the meantime, there is no quota on the commercial side and the current proposal would only cut back on days at sea.  The commercial boats could simply fish harder during the allowed days and not limit their overall catch at all.  The consequence of a one fish bag limit is, in effect, a moratorium for the recreational community.  If the stocks are that decimated and the commercial community is responsible for over 2/3 of the catch, we need to rethink the proposals.  I don’t favor a moratorium but if there is to be one, it should be for both recreational and commercial anglers.  I think we should look at the earlier work with bluefish and not rush to draconian bag limits on the recreational community. 

There will be public hearings to discuss any proposals.  You need to attend and make your concerns known.  JCAA will have meetings before the public hearings to develop a position on changes to the weakfish management plan. 

BLUEFISH

Given NMFS precautionary approaches on sea bass, summer flounder and scup, it amazes me when I look at their proposals for bluefish.  But why should I be surprised?  This is a fishery that has historically been a recreational fishery.  The management plan for bluefish call for an 83% recreational and 17% commercial allocation.  This plan has never put that allocation in effect.  In recent years, NMFS and ASMFC have allowed for the transfer of unused recreational quota to the commercial industry so they can maintain their historical catch.  The actual quotas are about 70% recreational and 30% commercial.  In reality, with the transfer of quota, the catch has often been closer to 50/50.  Many recreational anglers catch and release.  This transfer of quota is done without an approved stock assessment by NMFS.  My greatest fear is that when a stock assessment is finally approved, NMFS will decide we are overfishing bluefish and the recreational community will pay the price while the commercial quota remains at the historical rate.  Remember it wasn’t too long ago that NMFS proposed a 3 fish bag limit on bluefish.  JCAA has voiced concerns about the transfer for the last few years.  New Jersey’s commissioners have also expressed concerns and voted against the most recent transfers.  It is interesting to consider how strong the bluefish stocks would be if the additional recreational quota had not been transferred to the commercial anglers.  We can’t know for sure but we can certainly speculate that this transfer is the cause of the decreasing stocks. 

[News Contents] [Top]