CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY
APRIL 1, 1996
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
SUBJECT: STATUS OF BLUEFISH
Thomas P Fote
22 Cruiser Court
Toms River NJ 08753
PH 908-270 9102 Fax 908-506-6409
Jersey Coast Anglers Association would like to thank
Congressman James Saxton for holding this field hearing on
bluefish in Toms River and Congressman Frank Pallone for
attending this hearing. JCAA is aware that both Congressmen
understand the importance of bluefish for the citizens of New
Jersey.
Do bluefish play an important role in the fisheries industry
of New Jersey? Absolutely yes! Just look at the statistics and
you will understand that bluefish are important to the
recreational and commercial fishing industries. Most saltwater
anglers, as children, made their first catch on snapper blues.
They were abundant, easy to catch and provided an immediate,
positive reward for the child's' effort. Tackle store owners know
that fishing for bluefish creates business for them. The nature
of bluefishing creates the need for new lures and new tackle.
Bluefish can empty an anglers' tacklebox faster than any other
species. It may be frustrating to the anglers but it's certainly
good for business. In the 60's, 70's and 80's, bluefishing was
the bread and butter experience for the party, charter and
private boat owners as well as surf fishermen. Companies such as
Ultimus Lures got their start making bluefish lures. I often
spent September, October and sunny November days on my boat
chasing bluefish.
With the decline of the bluefish stocks in New Jersey, these
industries (tackle shops, tackle manufactures, party and charter
boats and marinas) have suffered economically. No other species
has filled that gap. As the bluefish declined, so did these
industries.
Having expressed my concern about the economic impact of a
decline in the bluefish stock, let me now address the questions
submitted.
What is responsible for the decline in bluefish stocks? There
does not seem to be a simple answer. For some species,
overfishing or a loss of habitat are clearly the reasons for a
decline in the stocks. This does not seem to hold true for
bluefish. The commercial fishery has remained constant since the
60's. There has been no dramatic increase in the commercial
fishery to blame for the decline in the bluefish stocks. The
recreational anglers dramatically increased their catch in the
60's with no restrictions and had no measurable effect on the
stocks. The ten fish bag limit imposed in the early 90's did
nothing to stop the collapse of the stocks. The bag limit was not
imposed to preserve the stocks but implemented as a poorly
conceived conservation measure. The dramatic collapse of the
stocks followed rather than preceded the bag limit. I am not a
scientist but I have been involved in fisheries for a long time.
It takes no scientific training to realize as forage fish that
feed the bluefish stock decline, the bluefish will soon decline
as well. From the 60's to the 80's sand eels were in abundance,
especially in the New York Bight. I could go out Barnegat Inlet
and travel to Manasquan Inlet and constantly record sand eels on
my chart recorder. This is no longer true. The discovery of an
isolated pod of sand eels is the exception rather than the rule.
These sand eels provided the fattening needed for the bluefish
fall migration. Today's bluefish are described as runners, long
and slender with little of the usual body fat. As a response to
stress, many species decrease their reproduction. No wonder the
stocks of bluefish are declining! We have theories but no
definite explanation for the decreased in forage stocks. Until
the forage stocks increase and the conditions improve, we must
implement a management plan to insure that the spawning stock
biomass of bluefish is large enough to rebuild the stocks. The
heyday of the 80's may never return, but we cannot allow the
stocks to fall beyond the point of recovery.
What will be the impact of eliminating the Mid-Atlantic
Council from the management of bluefish? The elimination of the
Mid-Atlantic Council from bluefish management would be a
disaster. Public input would be curtailed severely. By comparing
the records of the Mid-Atlantic Council and the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission, we can clearly see that the
Mid-Atlantic Council affords the citizens of New Jersey with much
more access and more ability to participate in the decision
making process. Last year, the Mid-Atlantic Council held two
meetings in New Jersey, in Atlantic City and Long Branch. The
Atlantic States Fisheries Commission has not held a meeting in
New Jersey since 1988. This year's scheduled meeting in
Philadelphia was relocated to Norfolk, VA. Until the ASMFC
revises its meeting schedule to provide access to all states and
their citizens, then we need the Mid-Atlantic Council to fill in
the gaps and insure public participation.
How should the bluefish management plan be amended? We need to insure the historical split of this fishery. During the 80's the recreational sector made up over 92% of the catch. The current management plan calls for an eighty/twenty split. In practice the split has not been holding at eighty/twenty and we must manage bluefish the same way we manage fluke. We need to rely on the scientists to determine the bottom line figure for bluefish stocks so we do not slide below that figure while waiting for conditions to change. Both the commercial and recreational communities need to share the burden in a way that reflects their historical catch. We also need to consider if it is to our advantage to slow the harvest in the short term, hoping for a long term increase or a longer sustainable yield of bluefish. Science does not currently provide data to make a definitive decision. A full moratorium might not substantially increase the stocks at this time. Or, for that matter, not slow the decrease but it would cause economic disaster for the fishing industry. Any plan that will come from the Mid-Atlantic Council and ASMFC must do two things:
Remember, the original bluefish management plan was not designed to address a declining stock. It was written to protect the historical split from any new fisheries that might develop. The great fear was that any new foreign markets could devastate the stock. Any new plan must be based on different assumptions that recognize the current decline in the stock.
Return to JCAA Home
Page