Commercial fishermen are on the attack against striped bass. Having destroyed numerous other species through overfishing, excessive bycatch and under-reported landings, they now have their sights set on selling striped bass from New Jersey waters. Through two legislators, they have introduced a bill (A2165) that would permit the netting of Striped Bass in from state waters. Recreational fishermen can not and will not allow this to happen. The legislation was introduced by Assemblyman Asselta, Republican from Cape May (Sun Bank Building, 226 West Landis Avenue, Second Floor, Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone 609-691-3004, fax 609-691-3234) and Assemblyman Impreveduto, Democrat, Bergen County (400 Plaza Drive, Secaucus, NJ 07094-3605 Phone 201-864-3232, fax 201-348-8625). You must act immediately to contact them and demand they withdraw this bill. All clubs should write or fax on club letterhead, and individual members and other recreational anglers must do so as well. If you live in either district, be sure to indicate that they are your representative and that you are an active voter.

Way back in 1952, New Jersey legislators and the governor decided to do away with the bycatch fishery for striped bass because it was simply a guise for a significant directed net fishery. Since the 1970s, the recreational community has worked very hard to return striped bass to the viable recreational fishery it once was before it was brought to its knees by commercial overharvest in other states. This fishery is one of the few where our management efforts have paid off because recreational fishermen and their clubs and associations held the managers feet to the fire and forced them to do the right thing. Now the commercial fishermen want to reap the harvest of our hard work and put another fishery into collapse.

In his comments in a recent press release, Mr. Reichle states that, "the striped bass has recovered and there are more than we know what to do with." I guess Mr. Reichle doesn’t fish much. If he did, he would realize there are more striped bass because recreational anglers haven’t been taking many home due to current size and bag limits. We are catching increased numbers of small striped bass, but few keepers of legal size. The majority of recreational and subsistence anglers still have few opportunities to take home striped bass to eat because there are so few keeper size fish. Why now would we want to continue to bite the bullet and put the shorts back only so commercial fishermen can net them? One net full of striped bass represents more fish taken from the ocean than hundreds of recreational anglers have taken home to eat in the last three years. Our message needs to be loud, clear and immediate. We will not tolerate the opening of the striped bass fishery to greedy commercial fishermen who have destroyed every other fishery they have been permitted to dominate.

Mr. Reichle needs to get his facts straight. The Atlantic States Fisheries Commission manages striped bass and they have not indicated that there are more striped bass than ever before. We can produce the records that clearly dispute his statements about available, especially concerning the numbers of large striped bass. He also states that the commercial fishery was shut down in 1991, but fails to mention that they were initially closed in the 1980’s due to PCB contamination. In New Jersey there was no commercial fishery since 1991 because the remaining commercial hook and line commercial fishery was shut down in the 1980’s because of contamination. The net bycatch fishery had been closed since 1952 and the only remaining loopholes were closed in the late 70’s. Mr. Reichle is calling for the supposed restoration of a fishery that hasn’t existed in New Jersey in over 40 years. Would he also call for the resumption of commercial duck or buffalo hunting?

Striped bass represent the only protected recreational species in this state. One that we take great pride in and will fight to continue that protection harder than anything we have fought for in the past. Commercial overfishing has accounted for the loss of many viable recreational fisheries, including striped bass in other states. We will not allow this one species to be slaughtered on the alter of commercial harvest when the commercial legacy has been one of reeking havoc on each and every species they pursue until regulations finally reign them in.

JCAA does not want to go to war with the commercial fishing industry, but this legislation is like waving a red flag in front of an enraged bull. That is why we are calling on reasonable commercial fishermen to address this issue and get this bill withdrawn. We will not back down on this issue. JCAA fought this battle before and made striped bass a gamefish in New Jersey. No one should doubt that we have the resources to do it again and tackle other issues as well.

Tom Fote

Legislative Chairman
Jersey Coast Anglers Association
New Jersey Federation of Sportsman's Clubs
Phone 732-270-9102 Fax 732-506-6409 Email tfote@jcaa.org

RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #602.
June 11, 1998
HEADLINES: TOXIC TURNAROUND
Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403.Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.org .

The Environmental Health Coalition (EHC), working in San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico, is one of the premier environmental justice groups in the U.S. Founded in 1980, EHC is a coalition of savvy citizens, many of them low-income people of color, who started off fighting toxic contamination in their neighborhoods. As time passed, they realized that they had to get at the source of these toxic problems if they were ever going to make any permanent progress. So they started thinking about how to prevent pollution. Now they have become experts in the subject, showing others how to get off the toxic treadmill.

Since 1980, EHC has come a long way, as anyone can see who reads their new report, TOXIC TURNAROUND.[1] TOXIC TURNAROUND is a step-by-step guide for local government officials (municipal or county), showing them how to reduce their agency's reliance on toxic materials --toxic solvents, cleaning preparations, paints, pesticides, etc.

As this new report shows, local government agencies use toxics just the way private firms do. Many local governments and private firms maintain inventories, at any given moment, of roughly 300 pounds of toxic materials per employee.[1,pg.6] City governments use toxics in maintaining their fleet of vehicles, for custodial purposes (cleaning, painting and coating, disinfecting and maintaining buildings), in their printing plant, and in their public parks (pesticides, and toxics related to swimming pool maintenance). In a city the size of San Diego, with 12,400 employees, this means city government maintains a stock of 3.8 million pounds of toxic or hazardous materials at any given moment (not including the gasoline used in city vehicles). But it doesn't have to be this way. Local governments can become leaders in reducing the use of toxic materials. This is important, because a government that is addicted to toxics isn't in a very strong moral position to urgea private firm to clean up its act.

EHC is convinced that abandoning toxics is the only way we're ever going to solve our environment-and-health problems. "Gradually," says EHC's executive director, Diane Takvorian, "it became apparent to us that toxics cause health and safety problems in every situation where they are used, and that better law enforcement and control strategies are not the whole answer. We need farther-reaching solutions that reduce society's dependence on toxic chemicals. Because toxic materials generate pollution and hazards at every stage of their life-cycle --manufacturing, transportation, incorporation into a product, use of the product and final disposal --we have come to believe that the best solution to the problem of toxic pollution is preventing the pollution in the first place. Eliminating a toxic material eliminates its problems at every stage."[1,pg.1]

Remarkably, even the federal EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] has never developed an official prioritized list that tells people which toxic materials they might want to eliminate first. So EHC has developed a list of its own, based on toxicity to humans and damage to the environment. EHC says the top pollution prevention targets are these:

** Volatile organic compounds (which includes such things as benzene, toluene, acetaldehyde, xylenes, phenol, formaldehyde, acrolein, acetic acid, butyric acid, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, butyl alcohol, and other hydrocarbons).

** Toxic pesticides, of which there are many.

** Other chlorinated or brominated compounds (for example, perchloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, para-dichlorobenzene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs], etc.).

** Toxic gases, such as chlorine.

** Toxic heavy metals, such as lead, mercury and cadmium.

Reducing the use of toxic materials can pay off in many ways. In Massachusetts, where a 1989 state law mandated reductions in the use of toxics, a survey of 434 firms found that 67% of the firms that reduced their use of toxics saved money on waste disposal and/or materials during the period 1990-1995. Some 66% of these firms also reported improvements in worker health and safety. About 45% of the firms reported reduced compliance requirements. And 27% said that reducing toxics had given them a marketing

advantage.[2]

For governments, the three main areas of cost savings would be:

(a) Reduced cost for materials. Where they will do the job, soap and water are cheaper than toxic cleaning solutions.

(b) Reduced costs related to worker health problems, including direct medical costs, worker compensation claims, lost earnings and lost productivity due to illnesses, plus unquantifiable costs resulting from reduced quality of life caused by ailments such as headaches and skin rashes.

(c) Reduced administrative costs. Governments that reduce their use of toxic materials can save substantially on management costs. A government that uses toxic materials in significant quantities probably generates hazardous wastes as a result. Wastes must be tested to see if they are hazardous. Any site producing hazardous waste must have a federal identification number assigned to it, for tracking waste produced at that site. Hazardous waste must be stored in non-leaking containers with tight-fitting lids. Containers must be labeled with waterproof stickers identifying the type of waste. The containers must be routinely inspected. Incompatible wastes, such as cyanide and acids, cannot be stored near each other because they might create deadly hazards if they came in contact with each other. Any site that generates hazardous waste must have a contingency plan for fires, explosions, or other unplanned releases of toxic materials. Personnel must be trained to handle hazardous materials. And on and on. Hazardous and toxic materials create administrative problems that governments must solve. It is often simpler --in some cases MUCH simpler --to do away with the problematic chemicals, thus preventing the headaches and the administrative overhead.

No doubt about it, pollution prevention saves taxpayer dollars. It is a way of cutting government costs without sacrificing public service.

Furthermore, there is evidence that reducing the use of toxics can improve morale among employees because they don't have to worry so much about conditions on the job, and they begin to feel that their employer is part of the solution and no longer part of the problem. Toxics use reduction becomes a source of hope for government employees and for citizens alike. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, pollution prevention gives government credibility when it urges the business community to reduce its use of toxic materials. And it can give government employees new resolve to pressure the private sector to get off the toxic treadmill. Government officials begin to think, "Hey, we did it --now you should too."

If government officials want to take stock of local practices, to see if it is feasible to reduce their use of toxics materials, they could start by picking up a copy of this new report.[1] Everything they need to get started is right here between two covers.

The TOXIC TURNAROUND report includes a half-dozen case studies from California cities ranging in size from Santa Monica (population: 87,000) and Chula Vista (population: 160,000) to Los Angeles (population: 3.4 million). Some of the information is really exciting. For example, the City of San Francisco in late 1996 passed an ordinance requiring an immediate ban on the most toxic pesticides and a complete ban on all pesticide use by city government by the year 2000.[1,pg.29] Giant steps are possible.

(The San Francisco ordinance is reprinted as Appendix A of TOXIC TURNAROUND.)

Because EHC has been working for so long in San Diego, the group is grounded in all aspects of advocacy. They know what it takes to get governments to move. So TOXIC TURNAROUND includes everything necessary for a local government to start to reduce its use of toxic materials. Pollution prevention starts with a Toxics Use Reduction Policy. No pollution prevention plan can work unless it becomes official agency policy. The TOXIC TURNAROUND report offers a Model Pollution Prevention Policy on pgs. 35-36.

The next step is to identify alternative materials that are less toxic or non-toxic. TOXIC TURNAROUND offers specific recommendations for:

Chapters 7 through 12 explain in detail how to develop specifications for the purchasing department, then how to locate sources of less-toxic or non-toxic cleaning products, disinfectants, pest control agents, fleet maintenance products, print shop supplies, and swimming pool chemicals. (Appendix C gives a sample purchasing specification.)

The report ends with an excellent list of printed resources, useful web sites, and organizations that specialize in specific aspects of pollution prevention.

Lastly, if your local government isn't quite ready to reduce its own use of toxic materials, TOXIC TURNAROUND includes a special Appendix D for citizens: "Organizing to Get Pollution Prevention in Your Community." How to get your government off the dime.

If we expect firms to shift over to sustainable business practices, our local governments must show the way. After all, to a large extent, local governments are us. Municipal and county officials can set the tone and temper of the discussion around sustainable communities --but if their own habits and practices aren't sustainable because they are toxic, who will accept their leadership?

All across the country, local and regional economies are being made more democratic and more responsive to local needs, as they are being restructured by community development activists, such as those gathered under the umbrella of Sustainable America (www.sustamer.org). TOXIC TURNAROUND from the Environmental Health Coalition[1] offers all these community development groups, and their local governments, practical steps they can take to make their local economies more environmentally sound and sustainable.

Hats off to the Environmental Health Coalition. First-class work from the grass-roots. Where would we be without them?

-Peter Montague

(National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

[1] Joy Williams, Sonya Holmquist and Diane Takvorian, TOXIC TURNAROUND (San Diego, California: Environmental Health Coalition, 1998). Available for $28 from EHC, 1717 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92101; telephone (619) 235-0281; fax: (619) 232-3670; E-mail: ehcoalition@igc.apc.org; or www.environmentalhealth.org.

There is little to report concerning the Menhaden Protection Bill proposed by Senators Andrew Ciesla and Louis Bassano in the senate and Assemblymen David Wolfe and James Holzapfel in the legislator. The bill has yet to be introduced into Senator MacNamara’s Environmental Committee, as that committee has been extremely busy with other issues. Obviously, we are disappointed, but we have been told it will be on the agenda before the summer recess.

The ASMFC Menhaden Board met on June 8. Many commissioners were astounded to find that there is no Menhaden Technical Committee to analyse the science and stock of this species like there is for all the other species managed by the commission. There is only an Advisory Committee, which is comprised of five scientist who all come from states with a vested interest in the continuation of unrestricted menhaden harvest, and five members of the commercial menhaden industry. Talk about letting the fox guard the hen house! There was a great deal of discussion and a call for an independent peer review of the stock assessment and performance of the Advisory Committee by the majority of the states. There was also a motion put forth by Florida, Rhode Island and New Jersey members to completely reorganize the Menhaden Board and to create a Technical Committee. Because of the reorganization of the Menhaden Board that took place early this year, there was a "wait and see" attitude on this motion, but everyone was in agreement concerning the peer review.

There is a great deal of questioning concerning the status of the menhaden stocks. How can they be in healthy condition if there are so many areas where they have not been present in recent years. There is also a great deal of concern about spawning success and missing year classes.

Watch the JCAA website for breaking news on the proposed legislation. We will also put a message on the answering machine should there be any movement on the bill. Here is another interesting article.

"Don't even touch a striped bass with lesions" was the most alarming information learned by fishermen attendoing a symposiim last Sunday at the Virginia Beach Pavillion. Sponsored by the Coastal Conservation Association, the symposium featured five speakers from various Maryland and Virginia public and private organizations charged with maintaining the health and welfare of the Chesapeake Bay. Their subject was the decline of key forage fishes in the Chesapeake.

Forage fishes include menhaden, bay anchovies and other species that feed primarily on plankton. According to a recent article in the technical journal, Science, all maritime nations are stepping up their exploitation of forage stocks from which such profitable products such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paint, fertilizer and livestock feed are made. This targeting has led to "major changes in the structure of marine food webs" and already produced "widespread fisheries collapses."

In the Chesapeake, menhaden are targeted by every fish-eating species from ospreys to striped bass. In the striper's case menhaden are an essential component of it's diet. Yet purse seiners also target menhaden, which have suffered a steep population decline in recent years. Netting may not be the only reason for the decline, but since reducing netting is the only practical handle that managers have for improving menhaden stocks, scientists and state officials elsewhere along the coast are puzzled why Virginia continues to allow the same high menhaden quotas it had before the decline began.

Meanwhile striped bass must find alternate sources of food. These include soft shelled clams and mantis shrimp sucked from the bottom. Jim Price of the Acid Rain Foundation observed that just as fat people aren't always healthy, a fat striper -- one that 's just eaten -- may be malnourished. Price believes this is an important reason for the escalating incidents of Fish Cleaner's Disease contracted by people handling striped bass that have ulcerated sores on their sides and belies.

"This is not Pfiesteria" said Price "It's worse."

Dr. Herb Austin of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science concurs and urges anglers to cut loose any striped bass with suspicious lesions -- unless that fish can be dropped directly into a plastic bag and brought to the VIMS labotatory in Wachapreague for analysis.

Although the symposium experts disagreed over why menhaden are decreasing and diseased stripers are increasing, they all agreed that public agencies must start managing fish stocks on a multi-species (ecosystem) basis rather continue with the single-species, single user group business as usual.

CCA officer Richard Welton said his organization sponsored the symposium because "Although we're mostly anglers, we want to improve fishing for everyone, commercial and recreational guys alike."

Until the American Eel FMP is approved, the ASMFC requests that all states currently allowing a fishery for eels smaller than six inches cap participation and effort, and that all states that currently do not allow a fishery for eels smaller than six inches continue their closures.

This motion passed with no votes against and only Maine abstaining.

On Monday, May 18^th, without prior notice, the NJ Senate voted to amend Assemblyman Gibson's Elver Bill, Assembly Bill A675 and Senate Bill S457. This amendment allows for an unrestricted glass eel fishery in 1999 unless the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has an Eel Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) in place. The amendment allows this fishery for one year only (1999) and then closes this fishery until the ASMFC Eel FMP is in place.

The ASMFC Eel Board is meeting for the first time in June. Given the time necessary for public hearings, it is unlikely that there will be an Eel FMP is place for the 1999 eel season. Our legislators are aware that this delay is likely. Knowing this, they still gave in to the pressure from the special interests and passed an amendment that directly contradicts what we asked them to do when the original legislation (S457) was being discussed. While they may just be looking for a loophole that can satisfy all the interests and get them off the hook, this amendment will not accomplish that goal. We are furious that they would even consider a plan that would open the fishery for 1999 and are additionally upset with the way this amendment was handled. The legislators know how we feel about the eel fishery. If they wanted to discuss this amendment openly instead of sneaking it through, they would have sent this amendment to committee for a public hearing. They would also have let us know this amendment was under consideration. Perhaps some legislators were misinformed and thought this would be an acceptable compromise. We need to tell them clearly that this is totally unacceptable. It is puzzling that any legislator could publicly claim that they would vote no on the original bill and yet vote yes for this amendment. This amendment just reinstates the original bill under the guise of a one year plan. Because of the biology of eel reproduction (they only spawn once in a lifetime), opening the eel fishery for just one year could severely damage an entire generation.

The American Fisheries Society is putting together an August workshop to consider the impact of a glass eel fishery around the world. The ASMFC will have a management plan in place as fast as the process allows. With the exception of Maine and Connecticut, every state along the East coast has closed the unrestricted fishery, limiting glass eel harvest to a very small quota fishery for instate aquaculture. We cannot afford to join Maine and Connecticut in allowing an unrestricted harvest. Not only would it be devastating our own eel population, but NJ would again become the center for laundering illegally caught glass eels from surrounding states. These states continue to encourage NJ to keep its glass eel fishery closed.

See the voting records of individual Senators are elsewhere on our site. Interested citizens need to contact their legislators and let them know that a yes vote on the amendment was unacceptable and that they expect them to vote no on the bill if it comes to the Senate floor. Additional information is available at the JCAA website or by contacting Tom Fote

Tom Fote
Legislative Chairman
Jersey Coast Anglers Association
New Jersey Federation of Sportsman's Clubs
Phone 732-270-9102
Fax 732-506-6409
Email tfote@jcaa.org

Please read the attached press release for the latest information about S457 (Glass Eel Bill). We are putting together another letter to members of the legislature. Since this is not really different than first letter I if I do not hear from you I will assume you are signing on signing on. I have included a draft. Send me any comments or suggestions. Please let me know immediately since I am sending this letter out on Wednesday May 27.

It is important that your organization write you own letter to each of the Senators and encourage your members to do so as well.

Dear Senator:

We are disappointed in your recent vote to amend S457 (Glass Eel Bill). You have already received a great deal of correspondence from us, our members and other interested voters letting you know how opposed we are to any action that would open the glass eel fishery for other than a limited quota for instate aquaculture. We need not repeat all the reasons that we are opposed to this fishery, but we would gladly mail or fax you copies of all the previous letters and newspaper articles if you need them.

The most recent motion by the ASMFC requests that states that currently do not have a glass eel fishery maintain their closures until the commission can prepare a complete FMP.

American Sportfishing Association, 1033 North Fairfax St | Suite 200 | Alexandria, VA 22314
Web Site http://www.asafishing.org
tel: 703.519.9691 | fax: 703.519.1872 |
Email: info@asafishing.org

Congress Passes and President Signs a Major Initiative to Strengthen Aquatic Resources Trust Fund as Part of Massive Highway Package

ALEXANDRIA, VA--May 22, 1998--Legislation that will overhaul and strengthen the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, commonly known as the Wallop-Breaux Trust Fund, was signed by President Clinton after both the Senate and House of Representatives gave their final approval to the provisions that were contained in the massive federal highway bill.

"The Aquatic Resources Trust Fund language is probably the most important legislative initiative affecting recreational fishing that has passed Congress in the last decade," said ASA President Mike Hayden. "There is no question that this bill will dramatically improve the facilities and fishing resources America's 50 million anglers use each year."

Hayden said the final bill includes language to:

1. Establish for the first time a national program to introduce America's youth to the sport of fishing and increase their awareness of the need to protect and conserve our nation's aquatic resources.

2. Provide more than $200 million a year to state fishery programs to enhance game fish populations through habitat enhancement and restoration programs.

3. Expand the popular Clean Vessel Act, a grant program that helps local officials build pump-out and dump stations so waste from boats is not discharged in lakes, streams and estuaries.

4. Earmark more money for state efforts to improve boat safety programs.

5. Provide more money to build and repair boat ramps to enhance water access.

Funding for these initiatives comes from the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, a user-fee program that is supported by excise taxes paid by anglers and boaters on fishing products and motorboat fuels.

Also contained in the final bill was language that will return to the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund during the next six years about $70 million in motorboat fuel taxes paid by anglers and boaters. Hayden called the language a victory for the sportsmen who pay those taxes and said the provisions was recognition by Congress that those taxes revenues should not be diverted and spent on federal programs with no connection to fishing, but instead should be spent for fisheries conservation and boat safety.

"We are savoring this victory, but we know our work will not be done until we get Congress to change the law so that 100 percent of the motorboat fuel taxes paid by anglers and boaters is spent on programs that improve the resource. That is the essence of user payers/user benefits that has been the guiding principle behind the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund and its predecessors for the last 48 years," Hayden said. "No other group is treated the way anglers and boaters are, and we will work as hard to get this change made as we did to achieve today's victory."

Mike Nussman, ASA's vice president for government affairs, said the fishing provisions contained in the highway bill were a direct result of lobbying efforts by the ASA and other fishing and boating groups during the past 18 months. The efforts resulted in significant strengthening provisions contained in the initial highway bills that passed the House and Senate in March. He said the fishing and boating community had been lobbying almost around the clock in recent weeks to make sure those provisions were contained in the final bill.

"We are elated by the outcome," Nussman said. "Recreational fishing will be stronger because of the action taken by members of Congress."

Nussman added that several members of Congress played key roles in the victory. They include senators John Chafee, R-R.I.; John McCain, R Ariz.; Ernest Hollings, D-S.C.; and Don Nickles, R-Okla. Key supporters in the House of Representatives included John Tanner, D-Tenn.; Bill Archer, R-Texas; George Miller, D-Calif.; and Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.

"These members went to bat for America's anglers and boaters, and they deserve proper recognition," Nussman said.