STRIPED BASS

Included in this newspaper is the JCAA position on the bonus tag program.  The position paper is self explanatory.  As of this date, we have not heard anything more from the Division of Fish and Wildlife and DEP about implementing this program.  In our position paper we ask for public hearings but we have not heard if any will be scheduled. 

The RFA is doing a new survey and JCAA hopes to hear about the results soon.  JCAA is working to get co-sponsors for the striped bass bill introduced by Assembly Sean Kean.  You need to write letters to you representatives in the Assembly asking them to co-sponsor this bill.  We should have more information about a senate bill at the next JCAA meeting. 

The current regulations are one fish 24 inches or greater but less than 28 inches and one fish over 34 inches.  Until the bonus tag program is implemented, these are the only legal striped bass you can catch and keep in New Jersey waters.  Remember, if you are fishing areas like Delaware Bay, Delaware River, Hudson River or Sandy Hook Bay, you need to be aware of state lines.  If you are crossing state lines, the only legal striped bass in all areas is one fish at 34 inches or larger. 

MERCURY UPDATE

There are two interesting articles included below.  The first is about a study JCAA is funding with Dr. Mike Gochfeld and Dr. Joanna Burger.  JCAA voted to appropriate $10,000 to support this study and will provide volunteers to assist in sample collection.  This study looks at recreational fish.  We would like to expand the study with more samples and additional species.  If your club would like to co-sponsor and add additional funds to increase the scope of the study, please contact me.

The second article deals with a study done by Dr. Mike Gochfeld, Dr. Joanna Burger and DEP.  This study tested fish purchased at fish markets.  I was surprised at some of the results and recommend everyone read the article carefully.  In next month’s JCAA Newspaper we include the complete study. 

Are Jersey's Coastal Fish Free of Harmful Mercury?

by Joanna Burger and Michael Gochfeld

            In the early morning fog, we drift along slowly, line in the water, waiting.  A chill is still in the air, and only the soft sound of the ocean breaks the silence.  A few lone Common Terns drift low over the gentle swells, searching, as we are, for elusive schools of Bluefish.  Suddenly the terns begin to coalesce into a dense flock, swirling and dipping toward the water. More birds fly out from their nesting colony on the beach.  As the flock grows the first terns dive into the water, and emerge with a small fish, which they swallow quickly and then return to their task.  Terns dive downward from the thick mass of swirling birds, each successfully plucking a fish from the frantic school swirling at the surface, forced up by a hungry school of Bluefish just below them.  We are using the terns as an indicator of where the Bluefish are, and we drift into the surge of boiling baitfish trying to escape the voracious Bluefish below,and hungry terns above.  We cast our lines and are soon successful.

            When the frenzy is over, the Bluefish school moves on and the baitfish drop quickly away from the surface.  The terns disperse and fly over broad areas, waiting for their next opportunity. With the Bluefish and baitfish gone for the moment, we pause to look at our catch, wondering what they harbor. Really large Bluefish may have accumulated more mercury than we want to eat. Fortunately the two in the boat are fairly small, probably OK, great to eat fresh.  We have spent the last twenty years studying mercury, lead and cadmium in fish, often near heavily contaminated sites, like Superfund dumps, Department of Energy sites, and contaminated harbors and bays.  But we are along the Jersey shore, a relatively pristine environment - and have become interested in whether our coastal fish are free from mercury and other harmful contaminants.  We are conducting a study to examine the levels of mercury in the fish we catch here, in our own backyard.

Importance of Fishing to New Jersey

            Fishing is important to New Jersey as a commercial and recreational enterprise worth about $2 billion annually, as well as contributing to the $16 billion dollar coastal tourism income.  Fish are an important source of protein, and fishing is a popular pastime all over the World, including our urban areas, such as the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area and the Jersey Shore.

            Over the years our studies of birds, fish, and anglers, often involving interviews with anglers fishing along the Jersey shore and in the NY-NJ harbor, have shown that:

            1) Many people fishing along our shore eat most of the fish they catch, and they eat more fish than the average American which means they are eating more fish than EPA or FDA use in their estimates.

            2) There are ethnic and cultural differences in the information base and compliance with fish consumption advisories issued by the state (mainly for freshwater fish).

            3) People generally believe the fish are safe to eat, but have little information about mercury in the specific fish they eat.

            4) Many people would eat more fish if they only knew which ones were safe to eat.

            5) Anglers, fishing boat captains, and others involved with recreational fishing would like more information about mercury in fish, particularly for popular coastal fish.

            Benefits and Costs of Eating Fish

            Over the past 25 years health-conscious Americans have increased their consumption of fish. There are nutritional benefits of fish, particularly as an alternative to red meat.  Fish are good quality protein, low in cholesterol, and have polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids. Adults who eat fish frequently (once a week or more) generally have lower cholesterol and a reduced risk of heart disease compared to those eating fish less than once a month.  Likewise, pregnant women who eat fish are less likely to have low birth weight babies than are those who don't eat fish.

            However, contaminants in fish, such as mercury, can cause health problems, especially in unborn babies and children.  There is even a report that mercury may counteract the heart protection benefits for adults. And adults who eat large quantities of fish, particularly predatory species at the top of the food chain, have developed symptoms of mercury poisoning.

            Remarkably, despite the interest in self-caught fish, little attention has been directed at salt water fish and fish that are commercially available in supermarkets and fish stores, the source of fish for most New Jersey residents.  In some cases, important recreational fish, like Bluefish, are also available in New Jersey fish markets and supermarkets. 

            Government Agencies and Fish Consumption Advisories

            Governmental agencies have different responsibilities. EPA, for example, is responsible for freshwater fish, NOAA/NMFS for marine fish, and FDA for commercial fish. The agencies have different philosophies and resources. Different state and federal governmental agencies issue fish advisories telling people what fish to avoid because of high contaminant levels.  The Food and Drug Administration issued advisories based on methylmercury that warn pregnant women and women of childbearing age, who may become pregnant, to limit their fish consumption, and avoid entirely four types of marine fish (shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, and Tilefish). Additional consumption should be limited to just 12 ounces per week (see FDA website). 

            Telling people what to avoid is only part of the story. People who fish or like to eat fish are interested in what fish are low in mercury - a different question from the government's.  It is easy to guess which fish are at the top of the food chain and will be high in mercury (sharks, Swordfish), but not whether medium-sized predatory fish (Bluefish) or bottom dwellers (flounders) have dangerous levels of mercury.  Also, age is important because older fish have had more time to accumulate mercury than do younger fish.  Some very large fish (like a 100 pound Halibut) are younger than some smaller fish (such as Rock Fish, which are only a foot long).  Guessing isn't good enough!

            Our recent research with mercury levels in fish purchased in supermarkets indicates that the levels in some fish are sufficiently low as to provide no appreciable risk no matter how much is eaten, while this is not the case for other species.  Fresh tuna steaks had the highest levels, as high as Swordfish in some cases, and were in the range that could potentially provide health problems for unborn babies (see JCAA article on Toxins in Fish, January 2005). Canned tuna isn’t as high as tuna steaks, but albacore, or white tuna, has three times the mercury level as light tuna. The FDA was reluctant to make a distinction between white and light tuna, even though their own research showed this distinction in the early 1990s. Recently FDA has added a slight caution about white tuna to its web site.

            People who want to eat more fish need to know the relative levels of mercury in fish.  We feel that the public has a right to know so that they can make informed decisions about what fish to eat, and our study is aimed at providing this information.

Our "Mercury in New Jersey Fish" Study

            Our objective is to determine mercury levels in fish commonly caught by recreational anglers in New Jersey's bays, estuaries and the ocean.  We will enlist anglers to help us collect a range of different species of fish, with a range of sizes of each type of fish.  Generally small fish of any given species have lower mercury levels than bigger fish, but this should be checked with Bluefish, flounder and other popular New Jersey fish.  We will then analyze the mercury levels in these fish in our laboratory at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, in Piscataway, and provide information to anglers and fish consumers about mercury levels in these fish.  Information will be provided in the JCAA newsletter, in public meetings, in scientific papers, and through other sources (any other suggestions are welcome).

            We will begin our study with Striped Bass and Bluefish, and will consider incorporating other species such as summer flounder, winter flounder, croaker,and porgy.  These are some of fish that our coastal anglers like to fish for, and to eat.  We hope to add more fish if funds become available.

Plea for Help

            Anglers can participate by providing a small sample (2 ounces of fillet) from your fish for mercury analysis, and should email us at the address below.  We will also need information on where and when you caught the fish, and its total length and weight.  Details on collection will be provided by email or mail.  After analysis we will inform you of the levels in your fish, and in the other fish in this study. 

Joanna Burger (Rutgers University, 604 Allison Road, Piscataway New Jersey 08854-8082) and Michael Gochfeld (UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School).  Both are members of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, and the Institute of Coastal and Marine Sciences.

For more information, references for our papers, advice on species we should examine, or to volunteer, contact us at burger@biology.rutgers.edu  and gochfeld@EOHSI.rutgers.edu . 

Mercury on the Rise

The  Record
Thursday, March 3, 2005
By LINDY WASHBURN

Most of the fish sold in supermarkets and fish stores in New Jersey contain more mercury than the federal government expects, say the authors of a new study. The study tested commercial fish statewide and found tuna was most contaminated with mercury and flounder was the safest fish for the money.

The mercury level found in croaker bought in New Jersey was three times the FDA estimate. The level found in fresh tuna was up to twice as high as the federal government expects.

Besides flounder, the fish with the lowest levels of mercury included whiting, porgy and cod. Salmon was not tested because research already has established that wild salmon is comparatively low in mercury.

Mercury is most dangerous to developing fetuses and small children, in whom it can cause developmental delays and lower intelligence. Adults who eat large amounts of certain fish, such as shark, tuna, mackerel and swordfish, may suffer nerve damage, memory loss and fatigue.

The researchers argue that it's time for the state to step in with up-to-date information about what types of fish available in local stores are best for health. Their study was published in the March edition of Environmental Health Perspectives.  It didn't matter where the fish was bought - at the supermarket or the fish store, in rich towns or poor, or in northern, central or southern New Jersey, the study found. Flounder bought at the Shore had more mercury than flounder elsewhere, probably because it came from local waters, but it was still safer than other species.

"The vast majority of people buy their fish in the supermarket," said Dr. Michael Gochfeld, a mercury specialist at the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute in Piscataway and a professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.  "We don't know where it comes from. The supermarket rarely knows where it comes from. The take-home message is: We have to monitor the commercial fish supply. That's an important issue."

Bradley Campbell, state commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, said his department and the state Health Department "have jointly agreed to explore how we can ensure our public health advisories in the future can take into account the risks from commercial fish." His department partially funded the study.

FDA data in doubt

Until now, state guidelines about consumption have focused on fish caught recreationally in local lakes, rivers and streams. The government has relied on the federal Food and Drug Administration to provide guidance on commercial fish.  But the study by three New Jersey scientists found that the level of mercury in locally bought fish exceeded that predicted by the FDA's database.

Some possible explanations are that the New Jersey study used fish purchased in 2003, while the FDA information is based on data from 1990 to 1992. Mercury contamination may have worsened, fishing practices changed, or smaller fish been sampled by the federal government, said one of the authors.

The researchers bought fillets of three types of fish - tuna, flounder and bluefish - at two fish stores and two supermarkets in each of eight towns. The towns were located in four different regions of the state. Then they bought additional samples of six additional fish and two shellfish in central New Jersey. All of the fish were purchased between July and October 2003.

Fish is an important source of protein, and the omega-3 fatty acids it contains help to protect heart health, lower cholesterol and reduce the incidence of stroke and pre-term baby delivery. But high levels of contamination in some species can override those health benefits.

"Fish is a really good food for people," said Joanna Burger, a professor at Rutgers University and the study's lead author. Gochfeld and Alan Stern, of the state Department of Environmental Protection, were co-authors.  "It's a good source of protein. It has lots of good, positive health benefits. But people need to make good choices," Burger said. To do that, up-to-date information is needed about the healthfulness of fish found where most people get it - not at the end of a fishing line, but in a refrigerator cabinet at their local store, she said.  "We are a long way from having sufficient info on mercury for people to make these decisions," the study noted, "but we suggest that agencies should go in this direction."

Campbell cautioned against drawing firm conclusions from a comparatively small sample size. The FDA itself has admitted that its database is outdated, he said.  "We have always taken the view that FDA standards are not sufficiently protective," he said.

Through the food chain

Mercury is a toxic byproduct |of burning coal, the nation's primary energy source. It enters |the air from the smokestacks of power plants, and falls to earth in rain. Eventually it makes its way into lakes, rivers and oceans, where it accumulates in the bottom mud.  There, it is transformed by bacteria into methylmercury, and enters the food chain. As large fish eat smaller fish, the concentration of mercury accumulates.

At the top of the food chain are humans.

The state has issued warnings about the consumption of certain kinds of fish from every river, stream and lake in New Jersey. It has also moved to limit mercury emissions from coal plants and to require the recycling of auto switches containing mercury.

Last year, the FDA established guidelines for commercial fish. It warned that pregnant women should not eat more than one serving a month of swordfish, shark, king mackerel or tilefish, and limit their servings of tuna.  "A woman of child-bearing age should absolutely choose to eat light tuna, rather than white," said Burger, whose previous studies with Gochfeld compared the level of mercury in different types of canned tuna.

Many fish and shellfish have low levels of mercury, and pose little risk to a developing fetus, the study found. Generally, the smaller the fish, the lower it is on the food chain, and the lower the concentration of contaminants.  One exception is shrimp: larger shrimp have lower levels of mercury, perhaps because their growth dilutes the concentration of the toxin.

When buying whole fish, or fillets, said Burger, "I always say that I want the smallest one. You can do that - and if enough people do that, maybe supermarkets will get the idea."

Burger herself said she eats a lot of seafood. Her choices? "Salmon and tilapia and flounder."

UPCOMING MEETINGS

In the next few weeks I will attend two meetings of the National Marine Fisheries Service.  The first is scheduled for March 24 – 26 and the second is scheduled for April 13 & 14^th.  The March meeting is about managing the nation’s fisheries and I will report at the JCAA meeting on March 29^th.  The second deals with recreational fishing and there will be a panel discussion about a saltwater fishing license at that meeting.  This meeting is scheduled for St. Petersburg, Florida.  Send me an email if you want additional information about either meeting. 

MEETINGS ATTENDED

I went to an interesting luncheon in California sponsored by the United Anglers of California.  The luncheon was scheduled before the opening of the Fred Hall Show.  I was impressed with the 15 speakers at the meeting.  Among the speakers were the California Director of Natural Resources, the California Director of Fish and Wildlife, the president of ASA, and many notable speakers from the tackle and advocacy groups in California.  There were over 300 people in attendance to discuss statewide marine issues.  I travel from one end of the country to the other and the problems are similar to the ones we have in New Jersey.  Like New Jersey, there are funding problems with all of the money for natural resources coming from their hunters’ and anglers’ fund with many of the programs having nothing to do with recreational fishing. 

In the past month I attended many dinners, shows and flea markets and had an opportunity to speak with many of you.  I am always impressed with the knowledge our anglers have.  I don’t always find this is true of anglers in other states.  We must be thankful for the fine work the outdoor writers do in keeping all of us informed about fishing and about all the issues that surround fishing.  It is also interesting when issues important to us are not restricted to the sports pages but make their way into the news and editorial sections.  You should thank the newspapers letting them know how much you appreciate the expanded coverage.  It makes my job and JCAA’s job much easier. 

JCAA’S RESPONSE TO CLEAN OCEAN ACTIONS LETTER

Enclosed in this month’s JCAA newspaper is JCAA’s response to Clean Ocean Action’s letter requesting that the Army Corp of Engineers deny New Jersey’s permit for the artificial reef program.  I have also enclosed an article that Al Ristori wrote dealing with this topic.  What really concerns me is that the clubs I have spoken to who are listed on Clean Ocean Action’s letterhead as participants were never contacted to discuss this position.  They had no idea Clean Ocean Action was writing this letter to the Army Corp of Engineers and were disturbed at the request to deny the permit.  I have enclosed the email response I received from one of the listed clubs.  This is typical of the reactions from other clubs.  If you are a club listed as participating, please consider the following questions and send me a response.  Could you please let me know if your club or organization had input into this COA letter and agreed to its contents?  Were you even aware that this letter was being sent?  This is not just subway cars but the whole program.  If your club answers no to the above questions, it is important that you write your own letter to the Army Corp of Engineers, Governor Codey and NJDEP as well as any other individuals or groups who were sent copies of the original letter.  Make it clear that you do not agree and that you were not consulted about this position. 

This has happened before and that is why JCAA does not allow our name to be used on coalition letters unless JCAA approves the content.  In allowing letters to be written with your club’s name on the letterhead, there is implied agreement.  JCAA is also concerned that some organizations have no process in place to allow member organizations to vote on positions or even seek input before decisions are made.  As everyone knows, JCAA operates democratically and every major position is approved at a meeting by majority vote.  Closing down New Jersey’s artificial reef program is not a minor issue to the hundreds of thousands of anglers who use the reefs regularly.  This is a reply that I received from one of our member clubs.

“Thanks Tom, Our club does not support the position of the COA on the artificial reef program. We have always been a strong supporter of the program. We were never contacted by the COA requesting our position or comments on the artificial reef program. We are drafting a letter to the COA calling for a retraction of their letter to the Army Corps of Engineers and severing any relationship/membership we have with the organization. A copy will be forwarded to JCAA, RFA, Al Ristori, Rep. Frank Pallone, US Army Corps of Engineers, NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife and Acting Governor Codey.” 

[News Contents] [Top]