 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
Fisheries Management & Legislative Reportby Tom Fote (from Jersey Coast Anglers Association June 2006 Newsletter) Contents:
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission MeetingI attended 2 days of the ASMFC meeting on May 9 & 10. It was interesting to see how much discussion there was and how little was actually accomplished. Sometimes it is okay to decide not to take any action or to postpone actions pending more discussion or more information. That was true of weakfish. There has been a big push by some of the Northern states and some members of the technical committee to further restrict the weakfish recreational and commercial catch. There were concerns that the numbers for the recreational and commercial catch were decreasing even though there seems to be no spawning problem. As you will see below, they went to the Stock Assessment Workshop to get the stock assessment peer reviewed. The peer review did not approve the stock assessment as they have done before. This means this issue will be revisited in August and it will be interesting to see which faction holds sway. What I tried to point out twice at this meeting, never getting a real response, was that one of the crucial concerns is the lack of weakfish in Delaware Bay. The technical committee looked at natural mortality as a possible culprit. I suggested they look at the stocks of three species in Delaware Bay, striped bass, croaker and weakfish. I asked if there is any relationship in the sizes of the stocks and the interreaction of those stocks. In the mid 90’s, both the striped bass and weakfish stocks were increasing in Delaware Bay with striped bass making the greatest strides. In 2000 croakers on the east coast began to make a phenomenal comeback. The commercial fishery increased tenfold and the fishery began to move up the coast. Suddenly, croakers were being caught in Delaware Bay. Their numbers continued to grow and so did their migration up the coast. As they moved up the coast into Barnegat Bay and other areas, the weakfish population did decline. Croakers moved so far up the coast they were caught in Shark River and Raritan Bay. It is interesting that the only real dramatic catch of weakfish last year was in Raritan Bay, the northern part of the croaker invasion. When I suggested a possible relationship to the technical committee I was told they had looked at the relationship but couldn’t define it using the current assumptions in the stock assessment. They need to change their assumptions in order to gather relevant data. Can we sustain three large populations of predator fish that may be competing for food and space in a limited area? Does one stock suffer at the expense of the other two even if their diet is different or they are not eating one another? As we learned in human population, when we reach a certain population density, there are serious consequences. It may be that the decline in weakfish is due to a natural occuring event which is out of our control. Before we create regulations that have negative consequences for both recreational and commercial fisheries, we need to look at all the facts. We need to know if any regulations we create will actually make a difference if there is no spawning problem. The technical committee needs to look at this option as well. What happened with regard to menhaden was just the opposite. Since ASMFC was having a hard time getting Virginia to comply with the menhaden plan, they decided to forego taking action. It frequently occurs to me that there are more delaying tactics for decisions that have a negative impact on commercial interests. This is an example of the commission having plenty of data to make a decision and refusing to do so.
Blackfish or TautogThere appears to be a huge illegal blackfish fishery in New Jersey. It also seems that the pot fishery on blackfish has grown quickly in relationship to the price increases in the market for live blackfish. Blackfish are not fish that migrate up and down the east coast. They are a regional fish in New Jersey and New York and if we can control the fishery in the New York bight, we should be able to rebuild the stocks. This is also true of the Delaware Bay region. The rebuilding of the stocks does not appear to be occuring despite the restrictive regulations. The real problem is the legal and illegal commercial fishery. New Jersey and New York both complain that law enforcement is stretched to the max and it is difficult to catch people who violated the regulations. New York and New Jersey are also focusing more attention on illegal pin hooking instead of keeping track of the never ending increase in the number of pots. There are many groups with suggestions. One suggestion is making blackfish a gamefish. JCAA will be forming a committee and discussing this issue at the next JCAA meeting. We need to look at all the reasonable options to protect and rebuild this important recreational species in New Jersey.
Registration (Back Door Fishing License)I spent a good deal of time during the past month speaking with the Federal New Jersey delegation about the proposed registration of recreational anglers by the National Marine Fisheries Service. On May 9th I spent five hours on Capitol Hill discussing this issue with the staff for Senator Lautenberg, Senator Menendez, Congressman Pallone and Congressman Saxton. Bill Holgarth has already admitted under careful questioning by Congressman Pallone that registration is only one small piece of data collection. All that registration would do is give NMFS the telephone numbers of recreational anglers to contact for a telephone survey. NMFS is pushing this only for states without a saltwater fishing license. None of the states along the east coast that have saltwater fishing licenses demand that everyone obtain a license. There are exemptions for senion citizens, disabled, children, and residents depending on the state. Florida admits that only 20% of their anglers are registered. So if NMFS is really serious about data collection, it would require every state along the east coast to have every angler registered. Clearly, this is not simply about data collection. All you really do with the telephone census is find out if the respondent actually went fishing and how often. The real key to data collection is angler intercepts. How do we pick up the people who don’t appear in the dock data because of their fishing habits? We miss surf fishermen, night fishermen, people who fish from private docks or from boats docked at homes. The real problem with recreational data collection is that the Federal government spends so little money on it. NMFS barely spends 15 million dollars to gather recreational data while they spend hundreds of millions to gather commercial statistics. When we look at the economic impact of recreational and commercial fisheries they are almost the same. But since the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries became the National Marine Fisheries Service and absorbed the Bureau of Sport Fisheries, the commercial bias has continued. If we look at what recreational anglers already contribute in state and local taxes while the commercial community is exempt, there seems to be no justification to “tax” recreational anglers again. Recreational anglers contribute billions of dollars annually nationwide. And we get very little in return. All we have to do is look at New Jersey’s poor record, balancing fees collected against benefits gained. New Jersey spends about 1.3 million dollars on marine fisheries and actually has contributed about 3 million dollars to the Division of Fish and Wildlife from the general fund while pulling in over 200 million dollars in taxes and fees from the recreational community (boat registrations, trailer registrations, sales tax and excise tax, fuel tax, beach buggy fees and fishing permits). I am not asking the Federal government to immediately equalize the funding for commercial and recreational fisheries. But I would be happy to have 20% of what is spent on data gathering for commercial interests spent on recreational concerns. That would get at the root of the problem and address what the NRC report recommended. This problem will not be solved by a Federal registry. If the Federal government really wants a registry, it should be free to all anglers. This would be a step in the right direction.
Striped Bass EEZThe Federal government is again pushing a proposal to open up the EEZ for striped bass fishing. The JCAA response was finalized at a meeting on May 18th and is included in this Newspaper. With all the problems NMFS has managing the national recreational fishing, why increase their problems? Right now they don’t have to gather information about the EEZ since it is legally closed for all striped bass fishing. Again, every year we face the situation where we might be overfishing the big fish and might need further restrictions on the recreational catch. Opening the EEZ could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. And who will suffer? The fishermen who fish from the beaches and piers along the rivers, bays and estuaries. It would also hurt the boaters who prefer to fish close to the beach. There will be some recreational anglers who would like to fish the EEZ for their own personal advantage. They need to look at the long-term consquences and the impact on all recreational anglers. There may be some recreational anglers who practice catch and release in the EEZ or may be illegally fishing that area. But since a majority of anglers obey the regulations, the impact of this illegal fishing is small. But open up the EEZ and the numbers will increase dramatically. The short-term advantage may result in greater long-term restrictions. Please send your comments to your federal legistlator and
GETTING JCAA ALERTSPeople I meet have many questions about JCAA and fisheries management. I always ask if they read the current JCAA newspaper. Or I ask if they are on the JCAA email list for frequent updates. Too many of them say no to both. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is considerable effort put into every JCAA newspaper and all the email alerts. If you don’t read them, all that time and energy doesn’t have much payoff. If I don’t have your email address, you miss the alerts entirely. If you want to be on the email list, go to the JCAA webpage (http://www.jcaa.org) and click on the word “subscribe” about half way down the page. Or send me an email and I will add you to the list. All I need is your name and email address. This list is confidential and is never shared with anyone outside of JCAA. . What is also disappointing is that every club does not have a representative on the email list. This is something your club can remedy easily. Just send me an email at tfote@jcaa.org and say you are the club representative.
Amendment blocks saltwater licenseAsbury Park Press on 05/19/06 By John Geiser NO FEE: House committee accepts Pallone's change to Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization to prevent it The next battle: Pallone, Saxton fighting to prevent reopening of EEZ to striped bass fishing
New Jersey recreational fishermen are fortunate to have two congressmen who appreciate how important fishing is to their constituents and the state's economy. Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and H. James Saxton (R-N.J.) have been weighing in forcefully on several matters of importance to not only New Jersey anglers, but those from other states on the East Coast.
Pallone was able to get House Resources Committee approval Wednesday of his amendment to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that prevents the National Marine Fisheries Service from imposing a saltwater fishing license on recreational fishermen.
James A. Donofrio, executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, said the amendment was a vital step in protecting the liberty so long associated with saltwater fishing in New Jersey. "Without congressmen Pallone and Saxton to represent us, we'd be in trouble," he said. "They go to bat for the saltwater fishermen of New Jersey every time they are asked." Donofrio said the RFA and the Jersey Coast Anglers Association have stated countless times that a saltwater fishing license is unacceptable. "We've been fighting this together," he said. "We're presenting a united front, and it is gratifying to hear that the resources committee understood what this means to recreational fishermen."
"We know from what the director of NMFS has said that, if we didn't stop them, they would go ahead and impose a fee on anglers," Pallone said. "It's critical that we put into law this provision saying that they can put no new fees on recreational fishermen."
Thomas P. Fote, legislative chairman of the JCAA, said the glaring example of NMFS and a fee is the so-called "tuna permit" that anglers who fish offshore are forced to buy. "New Jersey has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to NMFS for those permits," Fote said, "and what have we ever gotten back?" The only evidence of payback this tuna season is apparently going to be the elimination of the fishery for small school bluefin tuna. U.S. recreational fishermen may have to stop fishing for the small bluefins because European, African and Caribbean nations are overharvesting the resource.
During a committee hearing earlier this month, Pallone, a senior member of the House Resources Committee, questioned William Hogarth, NMFS director, about mandatory license fees. Hogarth admitted to Pallone that the Bush administration planned to implement a mandatory charge on anglers of $20 to $25 annually for the right to fish.
Pallone's amendment, which was passed unanimously by a voice vote Wednesday, prevents NMFS from moving forward with this proposal. Pallone said he separately secured a commitment from Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Resources Committee, to hold a hearing and work on language concerning the current moratorium on striped bass fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
NMFS is considering whether or not to reopen the EEZ to fishing and harvesting of striped bass, which Pallone believes could have a serious negative impact on recreational fishermen along the East Coast. "We need to highlight for other members of Congress what the impacts on anglers and the recreational industry would be, if we opened the EEZ to striped bass fishing," Pallone said. "This hearing, which should happen before August, would be the perfect way to highlight these impacts," he continued.
Pallone also worked with Saxton to pass an amendment expanding the current definition of "fishing community" to include bait and tackle shops, marina owners and operators, charter boats and other elements of the economy dependent on recreational fishing. This amendment will help ensure that fisheries managers must more closely consider the economic impacts of their decisions on the entire recreational fishing community, Pallone pointed out.
The House Resources Committee put the finishing touches Wednesday on H.R. 5018, the bill that will reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it will now be considered by the full House.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries CommissionSpring 2006 Meeting Summary
SUMMER FLOUNDER, SCUP, AND BLACK SEA BASS MANAGEMENT BOARD (May 9, 2006) ASMFC Board Approves Addendum XVI to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Plan Addendum Establishes Procedures to Address Delayed Implementation of Required Fisheries Management Measures
Arlington, VA – The Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board has approved Addendum XVI to the Fishery Management Plan. The Addendum addresses issues of delayed implementation of required management measures for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries. It provides a species-specific mechanism of ensuring that states meet their obligations under the plan in a way that minimizes the probability that a delay in complying does not adversely affect other states’ fisheries or the conservation of the resource. The measures promote the long-term conservation of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The Addendum responds to an ISFMP Policy Board directive to its management boards to improve the states' implementation of all interstate fishery management plans (FMPs). Summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass management programs have been given the highest priority since these species FMPs have repeatedly been affected by delays in implementation of required regulations. This has limited the effectiveness of the management program and adversely affected the timely conservation efforts of other states. The Addendum establishes a mechanism to ensure states meet their obligations under the management program and provides disincentives to minimize delayed implementation of required management measures. The Addendum addresses delayed implementation of both commercial and recreational fishing measures. In the commercial fishery, season closures will be used to address delays in implementing size and trip limits, while quota adjustments will address harvest overages. For example, if a state does not implement appropriate minimum fish sizes for the first two weeks of the fishing season, in the following year the season would be closed for the first two weeks of the season. In the recreational fishery, season closures will be used to address delays in implementing size limits, possession limits, and seasons. For example, if a state does not implement appropriate possession limits for the first two weeks of the fishing season, in the following year the season would be closed for the first two weeks of the season. The addendum also deals with the timeliness of the notification period for management changes. Copies of the Addendum will be available by June 1 via the Commission’s website at www.asmfc.org under Breaking News or by contacting the Commission at (202) 289-6400. For more information, please contact Toni Kerns, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, at (202) 289-6400 or tkerns@asmfc.org.
BLUEFISH MANAGEMENT BOARD (May 10 2006)
Meeting Summary The Bluefish Management Board met to discuss the 2006 commercial quota. On February 24, 2006 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published the final 2006 quota for the bluefish commercial fishery. Updated landings projections for the 2006 fishing year that were not available at the time of the joint Board/Council meeting held in August 2005, suggest that recreational harvest levels would be exceeded if the NMFS adopted the quota transfer from the recreational to the commercial fishery recommended by the Council and approved by the Board. Based on this information, the NMFS adjusted the transfer amount, resulting in a discrepancy between the federal and ASMFC quota. The Board agreed to take no action regarding the ASMFC quota but will work with states that may wish to pursue interstate quota transfers. For more information, please contact Julie Nygard, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, at (202) 289-6400 or jnygard@asmfc.org .
AMERICAN EEL MANAGEMENT BOARD (May 10, 2006)Meeting Summary The American Eel Management Board discussed the recommendations of the Technical Committee regarding follow-up from the Peer Review Advisory Panel Report. The Board tasked the American Eel Stock Assessment Subcommittee with addressing the Technical Committee’s recommendations for Board consideration in late October. For more information, please contact Julie Nygard, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, at (202) 289-6400 or jnygard@asmfc.org .
ATLANTIC MENHADEN MANAGEMENT BOARD (May 10, 2006)
Meeting Summary The Atlantic Menhaden Management Board reviewed the implementation of Addendum II by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commonwealth has until July 1, 2006 to implement the regulations included in Addendum I. At this time, Virginia has yet to implement these regulations. The Board will re-visit this issue at the August Management Board Meeting. Staff presented the Plan Review Team Report on State Compliance. All states are found to be in compliance and Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina were granted de minimis status. The Technical Committee Chair updated the Management Board on the 2006 stock assessment. The Technical Committee held a data workshop in March 2006. It will use this data at a stock assessment workshop in July, and plan to present the final updated assessment at the 2006 annual meeting. For more information, please contact Nancy Wallace, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, at (202) 289-6400 or nwallace@asmfc.org .
WEAKFISH MANAGEMENT BOARD (May 10, 2006)
Meeting Summary The Board heard from the Technical Committee an update on the weakfish stock assessment. The assessment underwent an external peer review in March 2006. A representative from the Peer Review Panel presented its Terms of Reference and Advisory Report to the Weakfish Stock Assessment Peer Review. The Panel does not endorse the recommendations of the Technical Committee regarding stock status of weakfish along the Atlantic coast. The Board accepted the Peer Review Panel’s report recognizing that the Technical Committee did not agree with all of the Panel’s conclusions. The Board tasked the Technical Committee with several items: (1) review all relevant literature and data on stock structure; (2) compile all known data and information on discards of weakfish; (3) develop written comment on agreements and disagreements between the Technical Committee’s stock assessment report conclusions and Peer Review Panel’s report conclusions; and (4) produce an accounting and timeline of implementation of recommendations from the SARC 40 peer review. The Technical Committee will present its report on these items during the next Weakfish Board meeting in August. The Board took no management action on the commercial and recreational measures deferred from its November 2005 meeting. It requested that ASMFC staff develop a draft Addendum II containing those measures for Board consideration in August. The Board will have the opportunity to take final action in August to reduce fishing mortality on the weakfish stock. The Board approved the nomination of Chris Heald, a recreational fishermen from Maryland, to the Weakfish Advisory Panel. For more information, please contact Braddock Spear, Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, at (202) 289-6400 or bspear@asmfc.org .
|
