FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT

by Tom Fote

(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association - July 1997 Newspaper)

DEALING WITH THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION

ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION SPRING MEETING

STRIPED BASS

BLUEFIN TUNA

AMERICAN EELS

ASMFC ADOPTS S.A.V. POLICY AT SPRING MEETING

ASMFC APPROVES WINTER FLOUNDER DRAFT ADDENDUM FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

ASMFC APPROVES SUMMER FLOUNDER AMENDMENT 10

ASMFC ESTABLISHES PEER REVIEW PROCESS

OCEAN DUMPING

NOAA ANNOUNCES TWO ADVISORY PANELS ON HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES:

NOAA NAMES ADVISORY PANEL ON ATLANTIC BILLFISH

NOAA NAMES ADVISORY PANEL ON ATLANTIC PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERIES

GLASS EELS (Elvers) NJ MEETING

DEALING WITH THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION

The questions I am most frequently asked are, "What should we do about the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission? Should we just get rid of it? How do we correct the problems we experience in dealing with the commission? Why does the commission ignore our comments and concerns?" These questions are often on my mind as well. I have tried to discuss these issues in previous issues of the JCAA Newspaper, but I feel that I need to be perfectly clear on these important questions.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission consists of fifteen states, each with three commissioners. In most states, the governors appoint two of the three commissioners, with the third appointed by the state legislature. The voting members on most boards are the state directors of those states that have a declared interest in that species, one governor’s appointee who represents all the governors’ appointees from all the states, one legislative appointee who represents all legislative appointees, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. If you look at the membership of a specific board you’ll discover about 90% of the voting members are appointed by a governor.

The Commission is not controlled by federal bureaucrats. It is controlled by the states through the appointments made by the governors. When you are unhappy with actions taken by ASMFC, remember to check how your state representatives voted. If they did not express your opinions accurately, write to the governor and complain about the appointments she/he had made. If your representatives voted appropriately, let your governor know about the good job they are doing. If the representative of the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service votes the wrong way, write to the Secretary of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) or the Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service). Don’t let your elected officials blame the ASMFC for unpopular decisions. Governors have the authority to control what goes on there through the appointment process. In most states the state director works for the governor and he or she can tell the director how to vote. We blame the commission because it is frequently easier than doing the hard work that is required to control the voting behavior of the people who represent our state. Some of the biggest complainers come from states where the recreational community exercises no control over the state director or whose state director rarely attends a commission meeting. It is time to stop complaining in general and complain specifically to the people who are responsible. The ASMFC does what state directors tell it to do and we must impact the way the state directors vote through public action and the political process.

I do not think we should do away with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. It is the only organization, once decisions are made, to look beyond its own self interest. Without the commissions power to compel states to comply with the management plan on striped bass, we would not be seeing a recovery of the stocks. The same holds true for weakfish. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission still has many faults that need to be corrected. The solution to the problem lies with the recreational community within each state and its ability to impact its representatives on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. In general, we have done a poor job of tracking our state directors and their votes. Every time an important issue is voted on, I call for a roll call vote. We need to closely watch how state directors vote and hold them and the governors who appoint them responsible.

ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION SPRING MEETING

I attended the annual spring meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in Washington, DC. Information about each species will be contained under individual headings. I attended for four of the six days and did miss the Weakfish Board and Policy Board meetings. I find it difficult to spend six consecutive days in Washington when there is so much to be done here in New Jersey. I certainly understand why others find this difficult as well. I don’t know how to resolve this dilemma. The ASMFC has a lot of information to cover. Many of the state directors had attended a Mid Atlantic Council meeting the previous week for four days and then spent six more in Washington. It is unusual for me to feel sorry for state directors but this is ridiculous. We need to come up with a better system that will cut down on the number and often protracted length of these meetings.

STRIPED BASS

The Striped Bass Advisory Committee and the Striped Bass Board met during ASMFC’s spring meeting. The board finally acknowledged that it will not be able to go to a state by state quota in 1998. There is still talk of getting the VPA peer reviewed at the Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) in November. Even though the SAW peer review will not be done in time for 1998, the commission is considering using the VPA because the system they are using has never had an outside peer review.

One of the issues discussed was whether we should stay at status quo in 1998. What status quo means to me is that everything is frozen, recreational and commercial quotas, bay and coast wide. This would be a conservation measure. I can guarantee that this is not what status quo means to other people and there will be lots of negotiating to get the best "status quo" possible. Fisheries management is far from an exact science though many people try to justify their decisions on their "scientific" data. For example, science can determine what a quota will be and we develop rules and regulations based on that quota. In retrospect we often find that the commercial catches have been under recorded or there is much hidden mortality that we can’t account for. That is why we need to be more restrictive than the "best available science" might call for. In 1990 if every state had implemented regulations based on what the ASMFC allowed based on the scientific data, we would not be anywhere near as far along in the recovery of the stocks. Just imagine if states north of New Jersey had all gone to a 28 inch size limit or if we opted to drop Delaware Bay sizes to 20 inches as was allowable.

The JCAA and the American Sportfishing Association are planning a striped bass meeting similar to last December’s prior to the ASMFC meeting in Providence, Rhode Island. The meeting will be held on July 27th or 28th. I should know by July first and will notify interested parties. It is important for the recreational community to come together and come up with a unified position from Maine to North Carolina. This position must include the bays and the entire coast. It is difficult to make decisions if we send the Commission different messages.

BLUEFIN TUNA

As of this writing (June 11th), the National Marine Fisheries Service has not reopened the bluefin tuna fishery. It always amazes me how the National Marine Fisheries Service can show such little regard for the recreational fishing industry. Charters have been canceled, tackle has not been bought, bait and gas have not been purchased. States’ economies are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars while the National Marine Fisheries Service fiddles around with people’s businesses and livelihoods.

On June 13th I was informed by press release that the National Marine Fisheries Service had opened the bluefin tuna fishery. To my dismay, NMFS proved again it has no concept of the recreational fishery and demonstrated total disregard for the recreational fishing industry by only opening this fishery for one fish per boat in the angling category. First, they tell us we need to pay eighteen dollars for a permit when they don’t even guarantee a season. Then they make the ludicrous proposal of one fish per boat. The six pack charter boat captains can’t book trips with a one fish per boat maximum catch for six people. The larger charter boats and party boats are basically shut out of the fishery and will have no use for bluefin tuna fishing except as a bycatch. What NMFS is really saying is that U.S. citizens don’t have the right to eat bluefin tuna, that recreational fishermen cannot bring fish home to eat. What NMFS seems to be doing is turning the bluefin tuna fishery into strictly a commercial fishery much like the swordfish fishery. The only difference is that we actually get to eat swordfish. The bluefin tuna that are caught commercially are all headed for Japan. This is a catch twenty-two. If we can’t catch fish, we will stop buying their ridiculous eighteen dollar permits. Then they will say no one is buying permits, this must be a commercial fishery. My father’s generation can remember when there was a viable recreational swordfish fishery. As this generation is no longer actively fishing or living, there is not one fighting the battles who actually experienced a recreational swordfish fishery. Most of the information I have about this fishery comes from Stan Blum who is eighty-three and Lester Smith who is deceased. Is NMFS waiting for my generation, the generation that can remember a viable recreational bluefin tuna fishery, to stop fishing or die so they can turn this into a strictly commercial fishery too? This is clearly demonstrated at NMFS hearings on swordfish and bluefin tuna. When NMFS conducts a hearing on swordfish there is almost no recreational representation. I was the only recreational person at two or three hearings before I realized I could have no impact. When I first started attending bluefin tuna hearings there were still many people representing the recreational community. In the past few years the numbers have dwindled as people have become more and more disgusted with the process. They feel completely ignored at public hearings.

If we cannot have a recreational fishery then maybe the only recourse is to shut the fishery down entirely for both the recreational and commercial anglers until there are enough bluefin tuna to support a recreational catch. That’s what we had to do to striped bass in order to rebuild the stocks. NMFS has had a so called management plan in place for rebuilding the bluefin tuna stocks for twenty-two years. According to NMFS, we are now in worse shape than we ever were. It is important for you to contact your congressional delegation and the president on this issue. They are they only ones who can get NMFS to change their plans. JCAA highly migratory committee will meet to discuss options in bluefin tuna management. A meeting date will be announced at the next regular JCAA meeting.

AMERICAN EELS

There was an interesting presentation by Mr. O’Mara of the Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Branch on the elver fishery. He has traveled all over the world and seen the "gold rush" mentality devastate various species. He did not expect to see the same behavior in the United States, but admitted that is what is happening with the elver fishery, especially here in New Jersey. We are allowing unrestricted harvest on a species for which there is almost no scientific data. We have no understanding of the consequences removing all of these elvers from the population at such a rapid pace might have.

After doing further research, I realized that because the female elvers are the ones primarily available in fresh water, they represent the bulk of the catch. We know this could have a serious impact on the reproductive cycle, which is long and barely understood. Mr. O’Mara discussed the collapse of the fishery in Europe and Asia and suggested that we are headed in the same direction. Most of the board members were in agreement. The only ones speaking in favor were people who had a vested interest in keeping the fishery open. In favor of keeping the fishery open were law enforcement officials from Maine who receive funds from the elvers permits, and people who are actually in the business of harvesting and selling. Every other scientist or state director that I spoke with agreed that we should have a six inch minimum size until a true scientific study can be completed. We do not want to see eels go the same way as the passenger pigeon or have the stocks so reduced that they wind up like the groundfish fishery in New England.

Now is the time to close this fishery down. Some of the commissioners are considering an emergency action for next year that would do just that. We will be paying close attention to this issue. JCAA president, Frank Richetti, will include a report on the elver meeting in New Jersey.

ASMFC ADOPTS S.A.V. POLICY AT SPRING MEETING

When I was chairman of the habitat committee, Al Goetz brought his concerned about Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) to our attention. In a relatively short period of time, after much hard work by the habitat committee, ASMF adopted an SAV policy at its spring meeting. It outlines some very specific actions for individual states and their combined efforts under the commission.

The goal is to preserve, conserve and restore this habitat where possible, in order to achieve a net gain in SAV distribution and abundance along the Atlantic coast and tidal tributaries. States are encouraged to prevent any further losses of SAV by:

To order a copy of the policy, contact Claire Miller at the commission office (202-289-6400 ext. 325). For more information, please contact Diane Stephan, Habitat Coordinator, at 202-289-6400 ext. 309.

ASMFC APPROVES WINTER FLOUNDER DRAFT ADDENDUM FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

Draft addendum 2 to the FMP for inshore stocks of Winter Flounder was approved for public comment. There will be a public hearing in New Jersey on July 10, 1997 at the Galloway Township Library (306 E. Jimmie Leeds Rd, Pomona, NJ) to take public comments. For more information, contact Bruce Freeman at 609-984-6051.

The addendum provides a schedule whereby each state would submit plans to reach target fishing mortality rates corresponding to the plan’s F25, F30 and F40 reference points. States were to submit plans to reach F30 by July 1, 1993 and implement them by January 1, 1995. Plans to reach F40 were to be submitted by July 1, 1997 and implemented by January 1, 1999. The most recent assessment suggests the fishing mortality rates were very close to F30 and that no additional actions to reduce fishing mortality were required at this time. However, in order to protect two moderately strong year classes poised to enter the fishery, the Management Board decided to work with the New England Fishery Management Council to develop measures to protect these year classes as framework adjustments to Amendment 7 of the Groundfish Plan.

The Technical Committee has been charged with updating the VPA this fall. The last VPA was performed in 1995 and was based on data up to and including 1993. The Technical Committee will examine the status of the stock through an updated assessment which will include data through 1996. The current level of fishing mortality will then be determined and, if necessary, states can develop plans to reach the F40 reference point based on this information. Another benefit to this course of action is that the updated assessment will incorporate the effects of those measures already implemented under the New England Council’s Groundfish Plan.

The Commission’s preferred alternative is to postpone the submission date for state plans by size months to January 1, 1998. The implementation date would remain January 1, 1999 as it was originally set in Addendum 1.

For more information, contact Heidi Timer at 202-289-6400, ext. 312 or plan coordinator, Dr. Joseph Desfosse at ext. 329.

ASMFC APPROVES SUMMER FLOUNDER AMENDMENT 10

Approval was made on May 23, 1997 approving the amendment jointly developed by ASMFC and the Mid-Atlantic Council., and the Summer Flounder Board has been directed to proceed immediately to consider the development of another amendment to the plan that would address the reallocation of state shares through interstate transfers, as allowed in Amendment 2. Issues to be addressed in the new amendment include a re-examination of the impact of differing size limits in state waters and other issues. These actions are taken in light of the significant concerns of some state members regarding issues of fairness and equity in the state-by-state commercial quota system. It was also agreed that the Commission should make stronger use of its advisors throughout the amendment process.

The provisions in Amendment 10 include:

Commercial Minimum Mesh

Commercial Moratorium

Vessel replacement criteria

Expiration of Moratorium Permit

State Landings

Special Permits for Party/Charter Vessels

De Minimis Status

For more information contact, John Carmichael, 202-289-6400 ext 318.

ASMFC ESTABLISHES PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The JCAA has been critical of some of the scientific models used by the ASMFC and has often asked for peer review of these models. We just received the following press release:

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission announced today the establishment of a stock assessment peer review process to improve the scientific basis for its fishery management decisions. According to the Commission’s Chair, Dr. Paul Sandifer of South Caroline, "Implementation of a peer review process for all species managed by the Commission will standardize the process and validate the Commission’s stock assessments."

The purpose of the Stock Assessment Peer Review Process is to : (1) ensure that stock assessments for all species managed by the Commission periodically undergo a formal peer review; (2) improve the quality of Commission stock assessments; (3) improve the credibility of the scientific basis for management; and (4) improve public understanding of fisheries stock assessments. The process will be used to review not only the assessment model and its assumptions, but can also be used to review the science underlying the species management (i.e., life history information).

The Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board will semi-annually prioritize the species for which assessments will be reviewed based on an approved set of criteria. These criteria, in order of priority, are:

  1. assessments for new fishery management plans (FMPs);
  2. a major change in a stock assessment model used in the management process;
  3. assessment for existing FMPs undergoing amendments;
  4. assessments that are updated annually but with no major changes; and
  5. assessment reviews recommended by an appropriate Commission group (plan review/development team, technical committee, stock assessment committee, or management board).
  6. Additionally, any species that has not been reviewed in the previous five years will automatically be up to re-evaluation.

The primary method for conducting annual stock assessment reviews will be the Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW/SARC) process. The Commission has historically utilized the SAW/SARC process to review stock assessments for jointly managed species of the New England/Mid-Atlantic region, and will continue to do so as fully as possible. The Commission supports current efforts to restructure and expand the SAW/SARC process coastwide. To ensure full integration of the SAW/SARC process with the Commission process, the Commission will also continue to provide state and Commission membership to the SAW Steering Committee and as members of the SARC.

When the SAW/SARC process is unable to accommodate all prioritized species assessments, the Commission may either; (1) appoint a small stock assessment review panel, (2) use the structure of existing organizations such as the American Fisheries Society, or (3) conduct an internal review using the Commission’s existing structure. These options are listed in order of priority.

Over the next several months, standard protocols for the review of Commission stock assessments will be developed to guide all review panels. These protocols will include standards for review of the data used in the assessment; the strengths, weaknesses, and appropriateness of the assessment model; and the applicability of the assessment results. For more information, please contact: Dr. Lisa Kline, Director of Research & Statistics, at (202) 289-6400, ext. 305.

OCEAN DUMPING

Cindy Zipf gave a report at the last JCAA meeting on what is happening regarding the September closing of the mud dump. By the time you receive this newspaper we will have attended a meeting in Monmouth Beach to discuss how the closing of the mud dump will occur. We have serious concerns about how the Army Corps of Engineers will go about remedying the problem of existing toxic material at the mud dump. We must make sure that any capping that is done is done with true category one material, not category two material adjusted up to category one. We cannot allow the capping procedure to be an excuse for dumping additional toxic waste. We will discuss this at the June 24th JCAA meeting and have a full report on what happened at Monmouth Beach. I suggest we don’t start celebrating the closing of the mud dump until we know all the details. If you have any questions call Clean Ocean Action at 732-872-0011 and speak to John Tiedeman.

NOAA ANNOUNCES TWO ADVISORY PANELS ON HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES:

Listed below are the members of NOAA’s first two advisory panels on highly migratory species. I see commercial fishermen and environmental groups included, but I also see a lack of recreational anglers. I wonder if NMFS feels that billfish and swordfish are not important to the recreational community. Why am I surprised? Almost ten years ago NMFS was proposing a recreational limit of 125 swordfish for the entire East coast. It was clear they had decided that a once important recreational fish and the focus of over fifty tournaments on the Eastern seaboard for over 75 years would be given entirely to the longliners, an industry that didn’t exist before the 1960’s.

Historically, NMFS rewards the groups that cause the problem and destroy the resource. This same mindset is in operation when they give the longliners all the swordfish and when they give the purse seiners one third of the bluefin tuna quota. We cannot let this happen. We must demand equal representation on all boards. I would guess that the commercial interests would like to keep us off the advisory boards for yellowfin and sharks. This means that you have to step forward as a recreational angler. We need qualified people who will give the time to participate in the process. You cannot expect a fair shake unless you sit at the table. Sitting at your kitchen table or your computer complaining doesn’t count. Write to the National Marine Fisheries Service, 1335 East West Hwy., Silver Springs Maryland 20910 Fax 301-713-2258 Phone 301-713-2239 or call the JCAA office. We also need people to serve on the JCAA highly migratory committee. Call John Koegler at 610-687-2208. John needs help!

NOAA NAMES ADVISORY PANEL ON ATLANTIC BILLFISH

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration today named a list of panelists to assist NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service in the collection and evaluation of information as the fisheries service proposes improvements to the Atlantic Billfish Fishery Management Plan.

The advisory panel was formed to meet requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Panel members will assist the fisheries service by providing information and identifying options to be considered when drafting fishery management plan amendments. The fisheries service will consult with the advisory panel throughout the amendment process.

The billfish panel members represent a balance of recreational and commercial fishing interests and related industries, environmentalists, academics, and government agencies. Meetings are expected to be held three to five times this year. The first meeting of the billfish advisory panel will be held in Silver Spring, MD on July 22 and 23.

Nominations to fill the billfish advisory panel were requested from the public by March 28, 1997 through a published notice in the Federal Register.

Voting members

Carl Safina National Audubon Society Islip, New York
Nelson Beideman Blue Water Fishermen's Association Barnegat Light, New Jersey
Rom Whitaker ,Hatteras Harbor Charter Boat Assn. Hatteras, North Carolina
Bob Hayes,Coastal Conservation Assn. Washington, DC
Ellen Peel The Billfish Foundation Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Bob Zales Panama City, Florida
Linda Lucas ,Eckerd College St. Petersburg, Florida
Rep. - New England Fishery Management Council
Rep. - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Rep. - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Rep. - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
Rep. - Caribbean Fishery Management Council

Non-voting members

Rep. - Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Rep. - Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
One rep. from each Atlantic and Gulf Coast state
U.S. Advisory Committee Chair - International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

NOAA NAMES ADVISORY PANEL ON ATLANTIC PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERIES

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration today named a list of panelists to assist NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service in developing a comprehensive management system for pelagic longline fishing vessels that participate in highly migratory species fisheries.

The advisory panel was formed to meet requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Panel members will assist the fisheries service in the design and implementation of a fishery survey, workshops, and consideration of a comprehensive management plan for the fishery. The survey and workshops will seek input from affected fishery participants and identify options to be considered when drafting the feasibility study. The fisheries service will receive recommendations from the advisory panel throughout the process.

The panel selectees represent a balance and mix of commercial and recreational fishing interests and related industries, environmentalists, academics, and government agencies. Meetings of the advisory panel will be held three or four times per year. Consulting with the panel, the fisheries service will develop a plan to conduct the workshops and survey. The first meeting of the longline advisory panel will be held in Silver Spring, MD on July 9 and 10.

Nominations to fill the advisory panel were requested from the public by March 28, 1997 through a published notice in the Federal Register.

Voting members:

Putnam Maclean, Eagle Eye Fishing Co. Marshfield, Massachusetts
Emmerson Hasbrouck Cornell Cooperative Extension Service Riverhead, New York
Carl Safina National Audubon Society Islip, New York
Nelson Beideman Blue Water Fishermen's AssociationBarnegat Light, New Jersey
Ellen Peel The Billfish Foundation Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Robert Spaeth Southern Offshore Fishing Association Madeira Beach, Florida
Steve Loga Tuna Fresh, Inc.Dulac, Louisana
Rep.- New England Fishery Management Council
Rep. - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Rep. - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Rep. - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
Rep. - Caribbean Fishery Management Council

Non-voting members:

Rep. - Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Rep.- Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission
One rep. from each Atlantic and Gulf Coast state
U.S. Advisory Committee Chair - International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

GLASS EELS (Elvers) NJ MEETING By Frank Richetti

The elver fishery in New Jersey in the last three years, has grown at an explosive rate and has reached alarming proportions .The State issued 2,100 licenses for glass eel harvest for the 1997 season.

There are a number of serious problems with this fishery that include potential over harvest, physical conflicts, enforcement of fishing laws and monitoring harvest and distribution.

The life cycle of the American Eel is unique; mature eels travel to the Sargasso Sea in the mid-Atlantic to spawn. They spawn only once and then die. The egg and larvae distribution is dependent on ocean currents. The juveniles, about two inches long and refereed to as glass eels because they lack pigment, migrate to fresh water to feed and grow. This migration takes place in New Jersey from mid February through mid April. When they reach fresh water and begin feeding their color becomes darker and they are known as elvers. They stay in fresh water for a year or two and move into brackish water as they mature. Females grow larger than males and take longer to mature. Maturation takes between eight and twenty-four years, then they migrate to the Sargasso Sea to spawn and die.

The commercially valuable stage is the glass eel (before it has begun to feed) because it can be captured and raised on aquaculture farms. Eels that feed in the wild will not feed in captivity. The glass eels are sold to farms in Asia and Europe for up to $350 a pound. There are an awful lot of these tiny eels in a pound.

This is a very fine mesh fishery and has been outlawed in all but five coastal states. New Jersey did modify it’s rules for the 1997 season by forbidding any fixed gear. Before that, fyke nets were stretched across entire creeks, not allowing eels or any other life forms to escape. The 1997 season , February 15th through April 20th, allowed only the use of hand held dip nets with a maximum diameter of 24 inches. This sounds like an improvement until you realize that 2,100 dip net permits were issued and that hordes of fishermen descended on the streams and creeks as the glass eels moved up the waterways. The most efficient places for harvesting are dams, culverts or other obstruction that impede the migration and concentrate the glass eels in smaller areas. The fact that these eels move only at night on certain tides, serves to concentrate them further and knowledgeable fishermen take full advantage.

When you consider the life cycle of this fish and the man made gauntlet that the young eels must run in addition to the natural mortality it suffers, it causes grave concern for the future health of the eel population. One of the sad things is that we have very little information on landings of the glass eels and also poor data on adult eel landings. This makes it very difficult to assess the impact this fishery will have on the health of the population as it matures. We wont notice the stressed population until bait eels are expensive and hard to come by. That will take about five years to show up, but by then the damage will be done and we will have to rebuild yet another fisheries stock.

The current fishery causes competition among fishermen for the limited prime fishing spots, many conflicts have arisen and gun shots have been fired. Trespassing on private property has been a serious problem in some areas. These problems coupled with the fact that it is a late night fishery in remote locations severely stresses the resources of the law enforcement agencies. It is difficult for officers just to check that participants are license holders, let alone do any significant monitoring of the fishery as a whole.

This is primarily a cash business where wholesale buyers set up on back roads near the better fishing locations. It is likened to the illegal drug trade where large chunks of cash are exchanged and no records kept. Without accurate landing data we can not monitor the size of this fishery or assess in any meaningful way it’s impact on the resource.

More than two years ago Jersey Coast Anglers Association saw this problem coming. At that time we voted on a position to not support a glass eel fishery and that the State of New Jersey should maintain it’s 6 inch minimum size limit on eels throughout the entire year. At our April meeting we reaffirmed that position with another vote from our membership.

The NJ Marine Fisheries Council is currently working to modify and reduce the fishery. They recently held an advisors meeting by inviting interested parties to participate. There was a good cross section of interests in attendance, sportfishing groups, commercial fishermen, equipment suppliers, academic researchers and law enforcement. A number of representatives argued to close the fishery down for at least one season, to take the public pressure off this issue and give adequate time to develop a detailed plan for the future. But in the end a modification of existing rules was favored by the majority.

One of the more notable proposals is to increase the license fee to reduce the number of participants. The suggested fee would jump from the current $12 to $1000.This would probably deter the "weekend" fishermen and keep only serious fishermen working. This would certainly reduce some of the conflicts over prime locations and probably ease the trespassing problems as well. A potential drawback to this is that the State will come to depend on this new revenue source and if not encourage its growth, will be reluctant in the future to close the fishery.

Another proposal is to shorten the work week from the current 6 nights to only 5 nights. This is a token, it serves only to give the fishermen a rest without providing significant relief from fishing pressure on the glass eels. Some other proposals were for better reporting of catches and restrictions on possession of any gear except for dip nets.

Overall, these modifications will not significantly reduce the landings of glass eels, but will reduce stress on the fishermen and the law enforcement agencies. These changes will not resolve the concerns that JCAA has for the future health of the eel stocks. We stand by our position of a 6 inch minimum size.

[Contents] [Top]