 |
 |
|
|
||
JCAA Position on Addendum I of Amendment 4 of the Weakfish Management Plan
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association November 2005 Newsletter)
JCAA, a coalition of 75 saltwater fishing clubs in the tri-state area, completely rejects the proposals contained in Addendum I of Amendment 4 of the Weakfish Management Plan with the exception of OPTION 1 Status Quo.
As stated in the plan, the perceived low stock levels of Weakfish are not due to over fishing either on the recreational or commercial side. Thus, we are dealing with a management situation that must be completely rethought by ASMFC. This is a rather unique situation that ASMFC management plans are unable to take into consideration, namely a normal natural decline of a stock. Since the decline in stock is due to some undefined natural forces possibly such as exploding Croaker, Striped Bass, Summer Flounder and Spiny Dogfish populations as well as a very rapidly building of the Bluefish stock, reduced forage base (as evidenced in the Chesapeake Bay situation), increased human coastal expansion and consequential loss of natural habitat and nursery areas.
Weakfish and Croaker stocks have a very historical interrelated cyclic abundance and decline periods. It is highly unlikely that all coastal species have ever been at maximum abundance at the same time. Nor is it likely that such an idealized population is even possible. A perfect example might be the relationship of the fox and rabbit populations. It appears the simple (but not necessarily correct) solution to the weakfish decline is to blame the fisherman and therefore punish him. We find this approach to be completely unacceptable with the current weakfish situation. In fact it would be difficult to convince many anglers in New Jersey that such a shortage of weakfish even exists, with so many areas in New Jersey enjoying some of the finest fishing in 4-5 years. A huge credibility gap is rapidly spreading among the fishing community with fishery management measures! Again, Status Quo until all parties involved can figure this one out!
The options presented within the plan are tantamount to placing a moratorium on the fishery. This approach would severely impact the Socio-Economics of the shore communities by affecting everything from for hire boats, to tackle sales, motels, etc. If the perception is that there are no weakfish, then participation in the fishery naturally declines both on the recreational and commercial side. If we can’t find them, we can’t catch them!
We recognize that we do need data, but the excessively unreasonable unfunded demands for states to supply samples as a condition to remain in compliance is another objection. If the stocks are so low, how do we get these large numbers of samples and WHO IS GOING TO FUND THESE DEMANDS? We need some absolute specifics here, not pie in the sky options or suggestions how this financing might be accomplished. This is placing too great a financial burden on states that are already in financial crisis.
Lastly, we feel that commercial trip limits would be wrong also, as it would tend to create a by-catch only fishery and promote discards. Coast wide, gill nets should be tended and not be permitted to remain overnight. Also bluefish and weakfish coastal gill netting seasons should be co-coordinated so as to coincide. This alone would reduce the discard level on both species. .
|