|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Fisheries Management & Legislative Report
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association November 2010 Newsletter)
Contents:
I will be attending the ASA Summit in Ft. Lauderdale and the ASMFC Annual Meeting in Charleston. I am always hopeful that we can accomplish good things to promote the marine resources and protect the people who are dependent on these resources. I am always optimistic that people will do the right thing. Even though I have been disappointed at the results of some of the meetings I have attended, I remain committed to the process. Sometimes I feel like Don Quixote chasing windmills. Now it looks like the windmills are moving offshore. I think what keeps me going is that, in the 30 years I have been involved, I have met a lot of good people who have the same goals I do. I think sometimes we disagree on the implementation but agree on the outcome we hope for. JCAA needs an infusion of young blood. We need people with the energy and enthusiasm that will make a difference. Many of us are getting older and for a variety of reasons are no longer able to invest the same time and energy. This is true of JCAA and many of our member clubs. You need to get involved with your local fishing club. The rewards are great and you are protecting the future for your children and grandchildren. It is time to step up to the plate. Striped Bass Nothing has changed since last month. We will be voting on Addendum 2 at the ASMFC Annual Meeting. Hopefully, the states that voted to increase the commercial quota before public hearings will change their vote. I will keep you posted. Striped Bass Draft Addendum II This Draft Addendum proposes two changes to the striped bass management program: (1) an increase in the coastal commercial quota, and (2) revising the definition of recruitment failure based on Technical Committee advice. Weakfish (Reprinted from the October JCAA Newspaper) Last year after the weakfish stock assessment was approved through peer review, we decided we needed to take action. By any form of stock assessment, this stock is in dire shape. Even though strong management measures were in place for 15 years, the stock began to reverse itself and go in a negative direction. If this was a stock managed federally, we would be in a moratorium. When we went to public hearings, the recreational community and most of the commercial community (with some southern exceptions) were supporting a moratorium. I voted to include an option to allow one fish recreationally and a 100 pound bycatch. The only reason I did this was all the stock assessments and all the advice from the technical committee suggested that the problem was not fishing pressure. The problem is some unknown natural mortality. I knew recreational anglers would not target weakfish for one fish and commercial fishermen would not direct a trip to return with 100 pounds. The reason I supported this is that it would allow an angler to keep one fish. It also would allow the commercial fishermen who landed weakfish unintentionally while fishing for other species to keep and sell the bycatch rather than throwing it back with 100% mortality. This was not a percentage reduction. Essentially this vote closed the fishery with the two small exceptions. To my surprise, at the next weakfish board meeting, North Carolina presented a proposal to use conservation equivalency to allow 10% bycatch up to 1,000 pounds. They justified this proposal by saying it would achieve a similar reduction to the original proposal. I have never seen more voodoo math in my life. Regardless of the math, there was never any discussion about conservation equivalency before the original vote. The original discussion was either a complete moratorium or allow for a minor bycatch fishery. The National Marine Fisheries Service has been unbending on overfishing definitions and on implementing draconian reductions on the recreational community or allowing no increase on stocks that are recovered. I could not believe they would support this North Carolina proposal. But they did. I could not believe several other states that previously supported a moratorium because of the outcry from the commercial and recreational anglers would support this North Carolina proposal. But they did. The North Carolina proposal passed and you can check out the votes below. If you read through the record you will notice that I spoke in opposition to this proposal. New Jersey, Delaware and New York spoke out against this proposal. I was really disappointed that the US Fish and Wildlife Service did not say a word against the proposal even though historically they supported the moratorium. They did vote no but I expected more active opposition. I can only speculate. I feel I must apologize to the public since I made the original motion. I should have simply supported the moratorium. I got snookered but I have learned from my mistake. What I found most disappointing was that my original motion sought to accommodate North Carolina and Virginia and they bit the hand that fed them. It will be a long time before I am so accommodating again. Shad and River Herring As I stated in last month’s JCAA Newspaper, some states think a moratorium clearly does not actually mean a moratorium. Instead it means we should allow a bycatch since the fish will be caught any way in a pound net fishery which can release fish alive. What a moratorium means will be debated again in Charleston at the annual meeting. If this reinvention of a moratorium comes to pass, it would allow a bycatch in pound net fisheries which could be a huge catch, while forcing other states to completely close their recreational catch even though the numbers are negligible. It would also force states to close their directed fishery as well. The issue is clearly not “fair and equitable” for everyone. It is “every man (or state) for himself.” This is not what the compact intended. Hopefully, we will see a different result than the weak fish travesty. Barnegat Bay Bills I serve on the policy committee of the Barnegat Bay Partnership. I also serve on the advisory committee representing JCAA. I have been involved with protecting Barnegat Bay and the other bays and estuaries in New Jersey for over 25 years. I have seen many initiatives like C-1 designation for streams. These are positive attempts to deal with the ongoing problems in our waters. Senator Bob Smith and Assembly John McKeon are the sponsors of this new legislation and chairs on their respective environmental committees. They have invested a great deal of time and energy to craft the legislation listed below and deserves our thanks and our support. They both have summer homes on Barnegat Bay and understand what needs to be done to correct the deterioration of Barnegat Bay. They don’t have any agenda but to do what is best for Barnegat Bay. Listed below are the six bills that are currently in the NJ State Legislature. These bills have bipartisan support and would be a good start to deal with problems in Barnegat Bay. Some of these bills will also have a positive impact on all of the other lakes, rivers and bays in New Jersey. That is particularly true of the fertilizer bill. These bills are works in progress and we won’t know the final impact until the bills are passed. We need you to write to your legislators in favor of these bills. We have also not heard how Governor Christie views these bills. Please contact his office as well in favor of each of these bills. We need to be vigilant in our support of the original intent of the legislation and not allow other interests to water down the impact of these bills. For example, one of the current bills addresses the practice of applying fertilizer to your lawn in ways that have no positive impact on the health of the lawn. Lawns do not need fertilizer in the winter. This attempt to create more work and charge you more money is not a good reason to diminish the positive impact of this legislation. Let’s keep your eyes on the real objectives and not fall prey to the phony arguments. S1411/ A2290 - Establishes standards for certain fertilizer applications, provides for certification of professional fertilizer applicators, and regulates sale and labeling of certain fertilizers.
Senate sponsors S1410/A2501 - Requires State Soil Conservation Committee to adopt standards concerning soil restoration measures. *
Senate sponsors S1815/ A2577 - "Ocean County Stormwater Management System Demonstration Act."
Senator Bob Smith as Primary Sponsor S-1856 / A-2501 - Authorizes measures by Ocean County Planning Board for control of stormwater runoff and nonpoint source pollution.
Senator Bob Smith as Primary Sponsor S2275 - Directs DOT to study stormwater basins in Barnegat Bay watershed.
Senate Sponsors S2341/A3415 - Requires DEP to adopt total maximum daily loads for Barnegat Bay.
Senator Bob Smith Primary Sponsors ASMFC 69th Annual Meeting Agenda
November 7 - 11, 2010
Preliminary Agenda
[News Contents] [Top] |