JCAA

      

 

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT

by Tom Fote

(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association July 2001 Newsletter)

Last month I missed my famous indigestion column.  This wasn’t due to a lack of indigestion, just a lack of time.  The next two articles should more than cover my indigestion quota for this month and the last.

Subway Car Issue

For the time being the subway car issue has been laid to rest in New Jersey.  Acting Governor Donald DiFrancesco decided not to use the subway cars because he is not willing to take even the smallest risk given the information he had available and the pressure he was under from Clean Ocean Action.  I do not believe New Jersey should have given up the opportunity to use the subway cars. 

However, the Acting Governor has a history of being risk adverse on environmental issues.   For example, as Senate President he supported keeping the glass eel fishery closed because we lacked the science to prove it was a good idea.  We knew it was not a human health risk but we were trying to determine if it was harmful to marine organisms. In this case, while there was no science to prove the cars are a danger to marine life, there was also no science to prove they were safe.  EPA and other environmental groups can cite research that would suggest that asbestos is not dangerous in the ocean.  But without specific studies on subway cars in the ocean, the Acting Governor was unwilling to okay their use. 

The New York Transit Authority was unwilling to participate in the Governor’s Taskforce.   They were concerned that publicity about the cars would impact on their ability to use the cars in other areas.  In reality, the minute New Jersey turned them down, the Transit Authority made additional information available that would have supported using the cars.  They let us know that the floor tiles, which contained the major source of asbestos, had been replaced in the 1980’s.  Other states have contacted me and are enthusiastic about the use of subway cars for artificial reefs. 

Clean Ocean Action and the American Littoral Society temporarily accomplished the goal of denying the use of subway cars for artificial reefs.  They used the asbestos as a red herring to get what they wanted.  They were opposed to the use of subway cars before they knew anything about asbestos and they used their clout to deny us the fishing opportunities and the increase in marine habitat.  Clean Ocean Action and the American Littoral Society clearly do not speak for other environmental organizations in this matter.  A few organizations were willing to speak up on our behalf but many were unwilling to go on the record in opposition to Clean Ocean Action even though they were supportive of using the subway cars in private conversations.  They were unwilling to give the public appearance of dissension in the environmental community.  And we suffered because of it.

How will the loss of these cars impact on New Jersey’s anglers?  Six hundred and fifty subway cars could have expanded existing reefs, creating several areas that would have supported approximately 1300 boats during each day of the fishing season.  You know how difficult it is to find a wreck that can support the number of boats that are now at sea.   There would have been opportunities to catch seabass, tautog, croakers, summer flounder and many other species.  You can do the math and you can clearly see that this cost us tens of millions of dollars and has a major impact on our quality of life.  There will be a new governor and we will revisit this issue.   Stay tuned.

Below is a press release from Delaware:

DELAWARE WILL BUILD REEFS WITH OLD NY SUBWAY CARS

            Nicholas A. DiPasquale, Secretary of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control announced today (6/1/01) that Delaware will acquire 400 obsolete subway cars from New York City Transit and deploy them over the next year as marine habitat in the Atlantic Ocean about 16 miles east of the Indian River Inlet at reef site number eleven.

            “After careful consideration and public input, the Department has decided to move forward on an agreement with New York City Transit to use subway cars for the creation of artificial marine reefs.  We are persuaded that this is excellent and safe reef material that will enhance habitat for marine life off Delaware shores.  Building and restoring wildlife habitat is an important part of our biodiversity efforts,” said DiPasquale.

            Reef site eleven is 1.3 square nautical miles and has a depth of 80 – 90 feet.  It was chosen as the best Delaware reef site for the subway cars because it has sufficient depth for deploying the subway cars and leaving the required 50-foot clearance.

            The subway cars have the approval of National Marine Fisheries Service and the Army Corps of Engineers for use as artificial reef material.  The cars will be cleaned according to protocols established by the U.S. Coast Guard and approved by the EPA.

            Andres T. Manus, Director of DNREC’s Division of Fish and Wildlife is proud of the process that resulted in this agreement and feels certain that it will become a national model.  “We conducted a thorough technical and public review to ensure that a sound and acceptable recommendation in the best public interest was presented to the Secretary.  Our review process included our asbestos specialist and other technicians in a complete inspection of the NYC Transit cleaning operation,” said Manus.

            According to Jeff Tinsman, Reef Project Manager with DNREC’s Division of Fish and Wildlife, “this is an exciting acquisition because it is such a large volume of stable, durable and non-toxic material.  Reefs have so many benefits including physical protection for reef fish and an enhanced invertebrate community.  This helps to maintain and increase biodiversity and it also enhances recreational fishing and diving opportunities for Delawareans and tourists.

            The first deployment of 30 – 40 cars may occur as early as mid June.  New York City Transit is donating tug and barge transport service as well as the cars themselves to the reef program.  This donation will triple its worth to Delaware because the value of the material and transport will be used as a local match for federal funding through the Wallop-Breaux Sport Fish Restoration Fund.  The program has a 3 to 1 federal to local match provision.  The additional federal funds will allow Delaware to purchase more material for the development of its other ten reef sites.

Summer Flounder

I just studied the port catches for the JCAA Fluke Tournament.  After reviewing previous Fluke Tournament data I am amazed how much bigger the reported catches are.  Fish that would have won port prizes three years ago did not qualified for eighth place this year.  These numbers held up for all eleven ports. 

This scares the hell of me?  When the number crunchers take the size and weight of the fish we are reporting and extrapolate data using their current models, we will probably face another crisis.  It won’t be because we have landed more fish.  We will probably dramatically cut our catch.  But the fish are big and getting bigger every year and that will work against us again.  If this makes no sense to you, you are in good company.  Using the Marine Recreational Survey (MRS) we see the recreational catch has continued to drop.   It is the poundage that puts us over on the quota.  And therein lies the problem.  We aren’t allowed to keep smaller fish that would have less of an impact on the poundage.  No, we are required to keep larger fish and continue to fish over the allowed quota.  You just can’t win!  Catch 22 is alive and well in fisheries management.

I sat through a four-day meeting on summer flounder hoping to resolve some of these issues.   The purpose of the meeting was to bring together the recreational, commercial and environmental communities, state directors, National Marine Fisheries Service, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council in order to discuss the management of summer flounder.  We all received very short notice of this meeting and the recreational and commercial fishermen all adjusted our schedules to attend all three days of meetings.  I was disappointed.  Not that I expected much but I did hope the environmental community would come to some realization about the impact of their stand on summer flounder.  I am unsure if that is true.  One of my major concerns is that they lack a true understanding of how these decisions can have a major impact on both the recreational and commercial communities.  This seems to escape them completely.  In a discussion with an attorney representing one of the environmental groups, I made the point that there was no scientific reason to go to the lower quota.  I assured the attorney that ASMFC had met their original request by using 50% probability.  There was no reason to extract an additional pound of flesh by going to the lower quota.  Those paybacks had already been accomplished in stock assessment.   The response I got was that it was only a million pounds recreationally.  It is responses like that, which clearly represent a mindset that makes no sense to me, that really makes me nervous.  They simply don’t understand what a million pounds means to us in dollars and cents.  I explained that a million pounds meant a reduction in the fishing season in New Jersey of 22 days along with an increase in size limit.  Other states suffered even more pain to meet the additional decrease in quota.  Despite my conversation, I’m still not sure they are sensitive to the economic impact.  I estimate this million pound decrease cost states $150,000,000.  That million pounds will not impact significantly on the resource but may well put people out of work and have a long lasting negative impact on the industry as a whole. 

Do they get it yet?  I’m not sure.   My one hope is that meetings like this can establish a dialogue and convince them we are not the enemy.  Another attorney asked me, “Don’t you care about the fish and the resource?”  If this person had been involved in recreational fisheries for the past 20 years I doubt that I would have been asked the question.  This only indicated to me that they are uninformed about the experience and dedication of the people who volunteer their time for fisheries management.  In all the years I have been involved in fisheries management, even though I sometimes disagree about how we meet our goals, the commercial and recreational fisherman are mainly conservation-minded and looking to protect the resource.  Those people involved for many years are clearly in for the long haul and in for the resource.  They understand that a healthy resource is good for us all.  The environmental groups need to find out that we are every bit as concerned about the environment and the long-term impact of fisheries management decisions as they are.  They also need to find out that most of us have worked in this area for a very long time and the environmentalists have a great deal to learn from us.   They need to see as allies and learn to listen to more than incomplete science.