Blackfish (Tautog) Committee Report

By Pat Donnelly

(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association - April 1996 Newspaper)

Notes from the ASMFC combined Tautog Board and Advisory Panel Meeting in Norfolk, Va.

I hope you will bear with me for a second as I try to put a positive spin on my introduction to fishery politics. This meeting served more as a lesson in how things get done that an excercise in tautog management.

Briefly, the meeting was held to discuss the public hearings concerning the plan, and to possibly vote on the plan. The fact is that New Jersey had 141/313 attendees at the hearings , yet their opinions carried the same weight as the 7 attendees at the Massachusetts hearing. I offered some discussion on this point, but I do not beleive that the public comments were at the top of anyones priority list.

The morning session centered on the North/Sputh regional split, and how the southern states, from New Jersey South, needed more time to gather data and determine the state of the fisheries. However, an abruptly scheduled lunch changed the mood.

The afternoon began with a motion from Mr Colvin (NY) to acknowledge that a North/South regional split is necessary, and that the size limits should increase incrementally to 14". These are all points that we had looked for. However, the motion indicated that a "new" line be drawn through Delaware Bay, and New Jersey would have to accept the provisions of the preferred alternative. This motion was vehemently objected to by our voting board members, Senator Lou Bassano and Pete Himchak, but as it impacted no other states, it passed with the two objections. Naturally, this led to the passage of the FMP with only the same two objections.

My thoughts:

• If there really was data to include New Jersey in the northern region, it should have been part of the document discussed only one month earlier.
• My attorney says that it would take about six months to move a property line only one foot. This North/South dividing line moved 200 miles over a power lunch.
• The real issue in this plan should be to address what caused the problem. The FMP unilaterally regulates the people who had historically participated at levels which would not harm the stock. The commission has repeatedly egnored the pleas of the fishermen to regulate the fishery that has created the controversy, thelive fish market.

I believe that an important part of any FMP is the public perception of the plan. For there to be any hope of compliance, there must be a public belief that the plan is fair, equitable, ane spreads the responsibility equally. This plan fails on all points. The participants who follow the rules, participate in the process, and report their observations are the ones penalized. The live fish fishery storms ahead, unchecked, with no impending regulation. The historical participants, both commercial and recreational, will continue to pay for abiding by the rules.

[Contents] [Top]