Fisheries Management & Legislative Report

There has been much public discussion about why JCAA belongs to the Marine Fish Conservation Network. In 1994 when the Marine Fish Conservation Network was first formed, JCAA was invited to participate along with many other recreational organizations. JCAA decided to participate to ensure that the recreational interests and our point of view were represented in the Network. Some major recreational groups approached JCAA and asked us to serve on the board in 2001 to represent all of our interests including keeping the MPA issue off the MFCN agenda. The MPA issue is still a major issue and at our urging the Network has remained neutral on this issue. There are many other issues that are important to JCAA and are also a high priority for the Network. For example, the Network has an initiative on protecting forage species including menhaden. They are also pushing for funding in next year’s Federal budget to pay for the best possible science. Together we share a commitment to the environment dealing with issues like endocrine disruptors and water quality and quantity. Over the years, there have been disagreements, discussions and compromises but JCAA has always represented recreational interests. Although there was some internal pressure to keep all discussions private within the Network, JCAA has never agreed to that. Recently, JCAA has been criticized for remaining in the Network given their position on the lack of flexibility in the 10 year rebuilding plans. Our participation in the Network has been discussed many times at JCAA Board and General Membership meetings and members of the Marine Fish Conservation Network have been present for some of these discussions. The general consensus of the JCAA membership maintains that there is still value in being represented in the Network. Recently, we worked hard to get the Network to refrain from sending a letter on the summer flounder issue that would argue for a much reduced quota. Fishing groups who do not belong to the Network cannot influence its decisions. IGFA and ASA supported JCAA’s position and some of the commercial groups supported us as well. Had we not been at the table, the Network would have sent a letter to NMFS that reflected the positions of some of their membership who don’t fish and lack understanding about recreational issues. Every recreational organization has a right to an opinion and JCAA respects that. However, our membership has a made a decision that we are more valuable to the Network and the recreational community by maintaining a seat at the table and being part of the discussion and decision-making process. JCAA is concerned about new directions at PEW and the impact those decisions will have on the Network. We also have concerns about the new direction that the Network has taken since it became an independent 501C3. The Network represents a diverse and influential group of interests and the JCAA will try to steer it to also represent the best interests of the angling community.

No one outside of the Network and the JCAA, IGFA and ASA boards has any idea how much time and energy was invested in the recent discussions to steer the Network in the right direction. It would have been far easier for me, Bruce Freeman and Tom Siciliano to just walk away and criticize from afar. Personally, I have spent hundreds of hours with the Network. It is easy to be part of a coalition of the like minded. It is harder to work with others who have very different points of view. JCAA has decided that it is more important at this time to do the thing that is harder rather than make the easy choice.

Article by Tom Fote, JCAA Newspaper December 2003

It is a shame that we have to spend so much time on issues that really should be non-issues. I am upset that every statement is put under a microscope because of the strain with the NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) community. I feel some people are just looking for things to discredit a person or group. JCAA is an NGO as are some other recreational and commercial fishing organizations. Some NGOs have decided to ignore this and treat all recreational and commercial organizations as the enemy. It has made some groups look for allies in the wrong place. It has also made most recreational anglers and commercial fishermen very suspect of the motives of other NGO groups that do not fish for consumption and we are always looking for their hidden agendas. Since I am also legislative chairman for New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen Clubs, even though I do not hunt I believe the same feelings are true in the hunting community. Without the help and support of fishing and hunting groups many of the environment successes in the last 100 years would not have happened. Just think of all the land that has been purchased to protect the environment and wildlife with hunting and fishing funds. How many land acquisitions, state and federal parks and environment laws been passed due to the hard work of fishing and hunting groups.

We also have some NGOs that think fishing and hunting should not occur at all and this also makes it tough for the community to work together.

What are the costs of these divisions? As I see it, the distrust among groups that should be allies has brought us to a standstill on many important issues. It also puts legislators in a difficult position as they are torn between two constituent groups. The groups that oppose our work in conservation and environment are united and can take advantage of our dissension to meet their own aims.

Some of our environmental allies are occasionally oblivious to the consequences of their actions and don’t see the big picture. What they think is a minor point with little impact may, in fact, have a major disruptive impact on the fishing community. For example, the subway cars. People who fought against the subway cars had their stated reasons but they were totally unaware of the positive social and economic impact of those cars for the recreational fishing community. The reefs built with these subway cars provide quality of life for the anglers who want to bring fish home to eat. They provide jobs to the recreational industry because the reefs encourage more people to fish. The same was true of summer flounder. One of the lawyers said to me, “It’s only a million pounds. What’s the big deal?” A million pounds meant 20 - 30 days closure in states. A million pounds meant people didn’t fish for those 20 – 30 days, bringing no fish home for personal consumption and no money spent. I would guess along the coast the total economic impact was in excess of $250,000,000.

Some of us who have been doing this for a time wonder where it all went wrong. We wonder when friends became adversaries, allowing our opponents easy victories.

What I do know is that I spend an inordinate amount of my time on the 3% of the issues that we disagree on instead of the 97% that we all agree on. Most of the time, these issues are not even crucial to the environment. I have certainly been guilty of taking things personally. But I have also learned how destructive this can be. We are only successful when we can leave our egos in the parking lot and focus on the big issues that unite us.

My involvement in the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program has taught me many lessons. Most importantly, I have learned to put myself in the other person’s shoes and find ways to work for consensus. Consensus means none of us win and all of us win. We find ways to satisfy the varying needs and opinions that bring us to the table and allow everyone to participate in the decision-making. On occasion, we will not reach consensus for the group and will take the issue off the table. That may leave groups or individuals to pursue an issue on their own outside of the framework of the umbrella group. At least the discussion gives us all a better understanding of the different positions and an opportunity to come back together again as a functioning community. I believe it also leads to more civility and understanding. We may be adversaries on occasion when we decide the issue is important enough but we can take those adversarial positions outside of the group, allowing the group to continue functioning on issues where we agree.

Article by Tom Fote, JCAA Newspaper February 2004

After writing the article Working Together in the NGO Community for the December JCAA newspaper, I began to think about more reasons why there is a lot of difficulty with groups and people working together lately both at the state and federal level. JCAA has been in the middle of some of these battles where former friends and allies are not talking or working together anymore. These battles get a lot of press but it is not the best utilization of our time. There are a lot of missed positive opportunities because of this.

This was not to single out any particular group but to discuss the problems. There is enough blame to go around and none of us are without blame. As a volunteer, I am concerned with the amount of time that I am spending on nonproductive battles. I could instead be spending my limited time on issues of substance that will make a difference. The same is true for the paid staff and volunteers at some of the other organizations.

What I was trying to say is that we should be a little more civil with each other and try to work things out. We really should make an effort to understand the other person’s concerns and to address them. The comments I have received on this article have been very positive. This was especially true from the people who have been in the middle of these battles from all parts of the NGO community. They were happy someone said it out loud. I was trying to be constructive based on some of the lessons I have learned in over 30 years of doing this. It was not a ranting but an attempt to stimulate some productive dialog between groups.

Many people are afraid to put anything in writing since they feel it can be misunderstood or taken out of context. We communicate much differently than we did 10 years ago. Face to face meetings and phone conversations are interactive and seem to be more civil. Looking into the face of someone or talking to them gives you a better understanding of how they are really feeling and tends to make you think a little more about what you are saying. Letters and articles take time and you have the opportunity to read them over again before you finish and do a lot of changes. You might give a letter or article to someone else to be proofed and receive comments.

Emails and some internet conversations are not like that. For the most part they are instantaneous and done without a lot of deliberation. The emails are short and sometimes they are your first thoughts on a subject. People do not look them over and think about how they would sound to another person. I do not know how many emails there has been that I have sent back and asked the person to read his or her email as if I were sending it to them. It is surprising how many apologies I have received or how often people say that is not what they meant and then they restate it in a more productive way. I have learned not to send an email written when I am upset but to let it sit and read it over again and try to think about the impact. I need to consider whether I am trying to pick a fight, discuss an issue or bring about a solution to a problem.

It seems to be even worse when people do not use their real names and feel they can say whatever they want. They really do not want to discuss an issue but, instead, look for fights or an opportunity to prove how right they are and how wrong you are. Sometime they just want to be the center of attention. I call these internet bullies. Some of the most negative comments and the strongest attacks I have received have been from people who will not say anything to me in public. One individual has made numerous attacks on me on the internet but has never called me or showed up to a meeting to even ask a question. This does not lend itself to open discussion or a solution to the disagreement. I feel sometimes as though that is not what these people want any way and that they are just looking to make attacks to get attention.

Writing this has also been helpful for me in doing a little reflection on my interaction with people. After spending two weeks in Hawaii I am also learning to hang loose a little more.

By Todd B. Bates, Environmental Writer, Asbury Park Press 11/18/07

Mercury contamination is so widespread in New Jersey that all of its fresh waters are covered by advisories warning people — especially pregnant women, children and others at high risk — to generally limit or avoid eating freshwater fish.

Although the state has reduced mercury emissions, "the problem we're dealing with is all the coal-fired power plants" in the Midwest, said Thomas P. Fote of Toms River, a recreational fisherman and legislative chairman of the Jersey Coast Anglers Association.

However, the state Department of Environmental Protection is investigating the hypothesis that significantly reducing mercury emissions from individual sources here will lead to a significant reduction in mercury levels in fish in nearby water bodies, according to DEP information e-mailed to the Press.

One of the four lakes being studied is Lake Assunpink, which is in Upper Freehold and Millstone townships.

The mercury issue, which became high-profile in New Jersey after high levels of the toxic metal were found in largemouth bass and chain pickerel in 1994, is about as persistent as the metal itself.

For mercury, the state has a general statewide advisory for all fresh waters and freshwater fish species, and 23 are covered by advisories for specific water bodies, the DEP says.

Aside from Lake Assunpink, Mountain Lake, Merrill Creek Reservoir and Parvin Lake are the focus of a new DEP long-term mercury monitoring project focusing on the mercury reduction hypothesis.

The project began last month, and the hypothesis has important implications for how mercury emissions are regulated in New Jersey and, potentially, nationwide, the DEP says.

Largemouth bass and surface water in the four lakes will be sampled every two years through 2013.

Leaf samples upwind and downwind of mercury sources also will be analyzed as an indicator of mercury that falls from the sky.

The DEP is also sampling fish from about 32 freshwater ponds, lakes and other waters within the Atlantic coastal region, including the Pinelands, according to the DEP.

Fish are being tested for mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, which are long-lasting industrial chemicals, pesticides and polybrominated diphenyl ethers, which are flame retardants, according to the DEP and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Web site. Results are expected next year.

Other research involves sampling in the Raritan River watershed, including lakes, reservoirs, streams and rivers that drain into the North or South Branch of the Raritan River and ultimately into Raritan Bay. Limited sampling was done in the tidal Raritan River and Raritan Bay, according to the DEP.

The information will be used to update advisories next year, the DEP says.

"In the long run, we should be reducing the inputs of mercury to the environment," according to an e-mail from Dr. Michael Gochfeld, a professor of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway.

Gochfeld chaired the New Jersey Mercury Task Force, which released a comprehensive report on mercury in 2002.

Some sources of mercury, including waste incinerators and mercury switches in cars, have been or are being addressed, according to Gochfeld's e-mail. But "the main problem" is emissions from Midwest power plants that are carried by the prevailing winds over New Jersey and New England and then deposited on land and water, mainly when it rains, Gochfeld wrote.

By Todd B. Bates, Environmental Writer, Asbury Park Press 11/25/07

Cutting-edge research on endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which may feminize male frogs and cause other abnormal impacts, is under way in New Jersey, according to state officials.

"It's scarier than global warming," said Thomas P. Fote of Toms River, legislative chairman for the Jersey Coast Anglers Association.

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out something's wrong here," he said.

Recent evidence suggests that levels of the herbicide atrazine that are common in New Jersey surface waters can cause male frogs to develop female characteristics, according to a 2003 state Department of Environmental Protection publication on the Web.

The causes of gross frog deformities are still unresolved, but environmental contaminants may play a role, the paper says.

In addition, male fish in waters with effluent from sewage treatment plants have been found with female characteristics, including egg-containing testes. The discharge of female hormones, including birth control metabolites, appears to be involved, according to the paper.

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that interfere with hormones in the body, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council Web site. Known or suspected disruptors are in pesticides, plastics and other common chemicals.

"It's one of those issues that's like global warming," Fote said. "It affects every country, every area."

It's a relatively new field of study, and the DEP has "no indicators of trends at this time" in New Jersey, according to an e-mail from DEP spokeswoman Elaine Makatura.

"Other than the frog study, we in (New Jersey) have no evidence of effects of endocrine disruptors on humans or critters," her e-mail says.

The state is looking into how to reduce the impacts of endocrine disruptors on wild-life and people by limiting the ability of such chemicals to get into surface and drinking water, according to e-mailed DEP information.

Studies also are under way to learn more about the potential impacts of endocrine disruptors. Here's DEP information on the studies:

Samples of maternal urine, maternal serum, amniotic fluid, cord serum and infant meconium (first stool) have been collected from 150 mother-infant pairs at St. Peter's University Hospital in New Brunswick.

The samples, which reflect fetal exposure during gestation, are being analyzed for a wide range of potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals. They include phthalates, organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides, phenols and flame retardants.

Despite concern about widespread exposure to such chemicals and their impact on health, this is the first time such data have been collected in New Jersey, and almost the first time anywhere.

The data, to be published in scientific and medical journals, represent the first step in understanding the extent of exposure during pregnancy. The information also provides the foundation for investigating sources of exposure, identifying populations at higher risk and linking health to exposures.

By U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton

In November 1984, I was pleased to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time, and I immediately became a member of the committee with jurisdiction over fishery management at that time: the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. On January 3, 2008, I will begin my final year in Congress, having announced my retirement some weeks ago.

My predecessor, the late Congressman Ed Forsythe, had been the highest-ranking Republican on the committee, which was, of course, chaired by a member of the majority party, the late Democrat Walter Jones Sr., of North Carolina.

I remember many things about my early years on the committee. As a freshman, I was surprised to experience the friendly atmosphere among the members, both Republican and Democrat. I was also surprised (although I should not have been) to find that many of the members were from coastal states, and I was soon to learn that fisheries issues were very complex and thus mighty confusing to a freshman member who had never really been exposed to fisheries governance and the many competing interests and issues.

I soon realized that I had much homework ahead of me. Learning about the complexities of coastal marine issues would take time. Strange terms were abundant: anadromous fish species (fish that live in salt water and spawn in fresh water), estuarine waters (areas in coastal waters where fresh water and salt water mix), and ecosystem management, just to name a few.

There was one topic that totally confounded me, and I was to soon learn that it would be one of the most difficult with which I would deal. I kept hearing about “collapsed fisheries.” That is, fisheries where the valuable fish species subject to management had virtually disappeared. Ground fish in New England, striped bass and shark in the Atlantic, redfish in the Gulf of Mexico, sea urchin on the West Coast, these were all fishery stocks that had “collapsed.”

Several colleagues on the committee articulated the situation in clear terms. Our management system had numerous successes in fishery recoveries, but the prelude to such a success was almost always a failure, the collapse of a fish stock population. This meant that a fish stock had to collapse before Congress would pass laws or a federal agency would issue regulations that would permit the recovery of the species.

Over time it became clear that our system was badly flawed. Why in our management system was it necessary for a fishery to fail before the cause, usually intense fishing pressure, could be fixed? It didn’t make sense. Why not put in place a system to ward off or slow that overly-intense fishing pressure in the first place?

Then in 1996 a battle occurred. On one side, it featured those of us who believed in what I called “sensible management.” Put simply, we wanted to pass a law to provide forward-looking management rather than to continue the old concept that had embodied the necessity of failure and collapse before we could have a success in rebuilding a fish stock. On the other side were a number of groups of interested people who thought we were intent on destroying the commercial and recreational fishing industries forever with forward-looking management.

Consequently, the law that emerged, the “Sustainable Fisheries Act,” provided, among other things, that targets be set for populations for various species that were on the decline. This was an effort to ensure our regulations and laws would reflect a concept of growing fish populations to meet established targets before the stocks collapsed.

The new law, as modified by the courts, provided for 10-year periods, during which regulators were to manage the growth of species populations toward targets, through the use of quotas, fishing seasons, bag limits and size limits.

As a result, fish populations grew. On the East Coast, summer flounder (fluke) provides a good case study. The population surged ahead, as explained by an accomplished summer flounder fisherman friend of mine who remarked that “there are more summer flounder today than at any time in my lifetime.”

The case of summer flounder, however, is an interesting one. Today, fishermen are fit to be tied because most have experienced the same observation as my friend. And, while there is in fact an abundance of summer flounder, the regulators had been forced, under the “10-year rebuilding time limit,” to set the goal for total population growth, 10 years in advance. In the world of fisheries, it is hard to know what will happen in a fishery next year, never mind 10 years in the future, and in this case the target was set too high and could not be reached as the 10 years ended.

As we neared the deadline, seasons were shortened, bag limits decreased, and minimum size limits increased, each intended to help reach an “out of reach goal” within the 10 years. In spite of the great success we had in growing the summer flounder population, we had not reached the artificial goal, and fishermen suffered from lower quotas, size, season and bag-limit restrictions.

Today, some want to repeal the law. But there are other options. I would much rather enjoy the successes we have had as a result of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, which in this case has been an abundance of summer flounder. At the same time, we should consider modifying the law to provide the appropriate flexibility to give regulators the ability to adjust the time frame available to meet the target, or perhaps adjust the target itself. In the case of summer flounder, Congress legislated a 3-year extension to the law, bringing the time frame to 13 rather than 10 years. This was a “seat of the pants” adjustment and has proven to be inadequate in itself.

However, a law which could provide for a periodic review of population targets, and progress in fisheries population growth toward those targets, could be enacted. For example, we could maintain the 10-year time frame, understanding that regulators or “target-setters” are not able to look accurately 10 years into the future.

Flexibility could be built in by providing for interval reviews of progress toward targets at, say, years 4 and 7. These reviews could result in an extension of the 10-year rebuilding period, and hence, changes in annual quotas. The ability to modify the time frame based on scientific information in a timely way would provide a system built on the successes provided by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, and at the same time provide the flexibility to let the law work.

Those of us who had a hand in writing the current law have no “pride of authorship.” In other words, we are not trying to keep the law because we wrote it, but rather to rationally evaluate the law we passed. I recognize that it has merit in that stocks are growing. But, we also recognize the need for realism in achieving a balanced approach which will protect and enhance fish populations and at the same time protect and enhance fishing opportunities.