 |
 |
|
|
||
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association September 2001 Newsletter)
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association September 2001 Newsletter)
Amendment 6 to the Striped Bass plan
is moving forward. As usual, I attended the
last striped bass meeting representing JCAA. The
schedule is to have the Amendment 6 ready for public hearing by mid October, after
ASMFC’s annual meeting. We will start
discussing the JCAA position at the next JCAA meeting.
We need to discuss uniform size and bag limits for the coastal and producing areas
and how to implement these limits. Will we
look at raising the size limits for the producing areas or make greater use of slot limits
for everyone?
We will also look at plans to
continue the existing limits on the commercial catch.
The commercial fisherman will be looking for an increase and try and justify
their demands with the fact that they have been at status quo since 1995 along the coast. What they will say is that the recreational catch
has increased and they will be right. They
will fail to mention that commercially along the coast they are allowed to harvest up to
70% of the catch during the base years. In
the producing areas the commercial harvest has exceeded those of the base years. The recreational community is still fishing under
restrictive rules and landing much less than they landed during the base years.
I have been fishing for striped bass
since the late 50’s and some JCAA members think of me as the new guy. We’re lucky to have our eighty years plus
members of JCAA to remind us of the history of striped bass fishing.
The final version of Amendment 6 to
go to public hearings has not been voted on by the ASMFC, but it seems the battles have
already begun. I felt the recreational
community was able to work together on Amendments 4 and 5.
Although we didn’t get everything we wanted, we were working as a
unified force. I am fearful that will not be
the case for Amendment 6. Some recent
postings on the message boards have concerned me greatly.
I don’t really have the time to
participate in the message board conversations. I
frequently find people are not there for discussion but to promote their agendas. However, I feel I must reply to some recent
comments about JCAA. There is nothing more
frustrating than when people ignore our history of striped bass management in New Jersey. When other states had no bag limit the anglers in
New Jersey decided in the 50’s to place a bag limit and had the highest size limit of
any state. We did allow for the netting of
striped bass since the early 50’s and eliminated commercial hook and line sale in the
mid 80’s. JCAA was instrumental in the
passage of the striped bass gamefish bill in 1991. JCAA
was consistently represented at striped bass board meetings since 1988 and has attended
many of the technical committee meetings and other workshops and symposiums.
For anyone to claim that JCAA cares
only about catching more fish is ignorant and untrue.
Because of our work at Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Board
meetings and hearings JCAA have saved millions and millions of pounds of striped bass and
are proud of the increase in the stocks that we are seeing.
We did not save these millions of pounds just for ourselves. We saved for the common man. Everyone who wets a line should have an
opportunity to participate in this fishery. It
makes me ill when I read garbage like this, “That the Common man should not be
allowed to catch fish. There aren’t
enough bass to go around if everyone takes one home.
Who is the ‘common man?’ It’s
the guy who isn’t willing to learn the ropes, put his time in, pay his dues –
you know what I’m talking about. The guy
who thinks he can buy a clam, walk down to the beach at one in the afternoon and is
‘entitled’ to a bass.” I
think what upsets me the most is that these statements come from people residing in states
that make no effort to control their commercial fishery, either the illegal sale of fish
or the illegal landings. If we made striped
bass a gamefish we would dry up the illegal sale of fish because there would be no market
for sale. We would eliminate the high
grading in the net fisheries and eliminate some of the bycatch. These actions would make more fish available for
everyone. Spending so much time beating up
on recreational anglers leaves little time for dealing with the problems created by the
commercial fishery.
Nor do these people make an effort to
look out for all the recreational anglers. They
continue to allow different size limits and bag limits in different parts of the
recreational sector, creating confusion and an enforcement nightmare. This has splintered groups dramatically and this
dissension further damages any impact they have politically. They continue to complain that we have a 24-
28-inch size slot limit, while their size limits range from 18 – 28 depending on
where you are. JCAA has always been
consistent in demanding the same size limits in both producing and coastal areas to
provide for some realistic rules for enforcement.
Under Amendment 6 we will continue to
fight for unified size and bag limits in the producing areas and the coast. One of the things I am proudest of is that JCAA
has always had a broad view. We have always
looked beyond our own state borders to protect the resource and the anglers. And this definitely includes the subsistence
fishermen, the poor and your average guy who just wants to take his kids fishing. This is why, for the last 18 years, I have devoted
tens of thousands of hours without pay and donated money to JCAA. I am not unique in JCAA. We are volunteers who do this for the love of the
sport and the protection of the resource. We
do it not just for ourselves, but so everyone can walk on the beach and have a chance to
catch a fish. Who is anyone else to say who
has right to this public resource?
If other states follow the lead of
JCAA and are successful in getting striped bass gamefish bills, there will be more fish
for everyone. With the growth of national
organizations I was hoping for more success in this area.
When JCAA was alone we tried to help fledgling organizations in other states
in their effort to make striped bass gamefish. Lately,
I don’t hear any serious conversation about gamefish in New York, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina or Virginia. I don’t know of any striped bass gamefish
bill introduced in any of these states in the last five years. Instead of creating dissension we need to work
together for coast wide gamefish status for striped bass.
We need to stop being parochial, fighting amongst ourselves just
to make ourselves or our organizations look better. Here’s
my suggestion: stop fighting and get to work forming coalitions to make striped bass a
gamefish from Maine to North Carolina. JCAA
has supported a federal striped bass bill lets all join in to make happen
As I explained last month, 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 (COA)
and the American Littoral Society (ALS). JCAA
did not believe New Jersey should have given up the opportunity to use the subway cars. This was further reinforced when we read Delaware
response to COA and ALS.
In last month’s newspaper, I
also included the Delaware press release about using the subway cars. I have more information for you.
Clean Ocean Action and the American
Littoral Society continued the attack on the subway cars for artificial reef program by
writing to the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. They do this knowing that it will hurt the
Artificial Reef Program and therefore impact of million of anglers quality of life. This will also have server economic impact on the
recreational fishing industry. They continue to say in the letter that COA’s 180
group insists Delaware reconsider using the cars. This
is particularly distressing since Clean Ocean Action and the American Littoral Society do
not ask for a vote of the fishing and boating groups that belong to their association
before writing this letter. This is
misrepresentation and, whatever their stand on this issue, they need to practice democracy
or honesty. That is why JCAA and some of our
member clubs have notified Clean Ocean Action and the American Littoral Society that they
cannot speak for us or say they represent us on any issue. We will sign on joint letters
when JCAA has voted to do so since there are issues that we agree on. I am recommending that any organization that
belongs to Clean Ocean Action and the American Littoral Society take a similar step. We should not allow them to say they speaking for
180 varied organizations without letting them vote on a position. JCAA will not go forth with a position and
sending of a letter without giving our member clubs a chance to vote on it.
Occasionally, anglers catch a break. When I was the Governor’s appointee to the
ASMFC, I had the pleasure to serve with Delaware’s present Governor Ruth Ann Minner. At that time, she was a Delaware State Senator;
she served as the legislative appointee to the ASMFC.
She attended the ASMFC meetings and got involved in the issues. More than
most governors, she clearly understands the economic impact of the artificial reef program
and she was not about to allow Delaware to be pushed around by the environmental hysteria
that surrounds this issue. In the letter
written to Clean Ocean Action and the American Littoral Society the Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, it is noted that neither group accepted
Delaware’s invitation to attend the public hearing on this matter. I have talked to environmental groups in many
other states and they are not opposed to the artificial reef program or the use of the
subway cars. I look forward to revisiting
this issue after this election. You should
ask the candidates for governor where they stand on this issue.
State of Delaware gave permission to
print their response to the letter they received from COA and the ALS. It truly is educational and shows what a state
should do.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
STATE
OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
89
KINGS Highway, Dover, DELAWARE 19901
July
10, 2001
Ms. Cynthia A
Zipf, Executive Director
Clean Ocean Action
PO Box 505
Sandy Hook, NJ
07732
Mr., D.W. Bennett,
Executive Director
American Littoral Society
Highlands,
Sandy Hook, NJ 07732
Dear
Ms. Zipf and Mr. Bennett:
Thank
you for your letter of June 26,2001 and your interest in our reef program and our decision
making process. It is very unfortunate that
neither clean Ocean Action nor The American Littoral Society chose to accept the
invitation, extended by Jeff Tinsman to Mr. Bennett, to attend our May 7, 2001 public
meeting where all technical issues were fully aired.
The May 7 meeting was an opportunity to question DNREC staff and key
representatives of federal agencies. Peter
Colosi (National Marine Fisheries Service), William Muir (Environmental Protection Agency)
and Edward Bonner (Corps of Engineers) were present to explain and discuss technical
issues and clarify the position of these agencies on the subway car issue. The discussion lasted for more than two hours. A number of local environmental groups sent
representatives who engaged in discussions of durability, asbestos and other issues.
Prior
to making our decision, the Department conducted a site visit to the subway car clean-up
operation in Brooklyn, New York. Several
environmental and fishing groups were extended an invitation to join us. Captain Jerry Blakeslee of the Charter and Head
Boat Association joined our technical delegation on this visit. Providing this type of access for the public and
the press, to state and federal experts, as a part of the process of making rational
public policy decisions is whit Mr. Minus was referring to as a "National
Model". It is a process of which we are
justifiably proud I can see from your letter that your positions on some issues do not
reflect what was discussed at the May 7 meeting. I
will attempt to respond. Based on the
discussions of issues from our public meeting.
1.
Suitability of Materials (stability durability)
We
believe the subway cars are consistent with the Coastal Reef Planning Guide, published by
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (1998).
The intent of the suitability section of this document is to make a
distinction between truly short-lived materials such as automobile bodies and “white
goods", which have a 1-3 year life expectancy and longer-lived materials. No specific material life is mandated in this
document so subway cars are not inconsistent with the guidance offered. Even based on the 10-15 year life expectancy
which you project, subway cars comply with the intent of the Artificial Reef Planning
Guide. We believe the subway car will last
longer and that during their life on the bottom ahoy win is beneficial to both benthic
organisms and fish.
At
the May 7 public meeting, we viewed a number of photos of subway cars, on a New Jersey
reef site, largely intact after eleven years. This
is the only information available on life expectancy in the marine environment. Based on this, we project the end frames will
maintain a three-dimensional structure 20-30 years. Low
profile reef also, valuable fish and invertebrate habitat should persist for several
additional decades (30-50 years).
Whatever
the life of subway turns out to be, it will be measured in decades. What is most important
about the durability issue is whether it affects the function of the reef. A substrate intended to form to base for a
tropical coral reef which may live for thousands of years, may take decades to begin to
function as fish habitat. In contrast, in the
mid-Atlantic region, reef material supports the blue mussel community, which is very
short-lived and is renewed annually. Hard
substrate is immediately productive in supporting invertebrates and fish and remains so
throughout its life on the reef.
In
terms of stability, the New Jersey subway cars have shown good stability for eleven years. The weight of different classes of cars varies
from 17-19 tons when stripped and cleaned according to Coast Guard protocols. All windows and doors will be removed. This will reduce lateral resistance to storm
swell. We anticipate no problem with
stability in 80' of water on reef site #11.
2.
Consideration of the proposal by other jurisdictions
Rejection
of this proposal by the State of New Jenny and the Town of Ocean City, Maryland has
brought increased scrutiny to the issues involved. New
York has not rejected the proposal, but has slowed the consideration process. I can tell you that the fisheries professionals in
all of these jurisdictions are all very positive about the proposal. Events in New York and New Jersey were influenced
by a change of Commissioner in New York and a change of Governor in New Jersey. In New Jersey it became a high profile political
issue and in the final analysis, was not resolved based on the technical merits. In Ocean City, Maryland, the technical aspects
were dismissed based on fears that the non-technical public would not understand the
asbestos issue. Delaware took the opposite
approach in evaluating the proposal, opting to concentrate on the technical aspects and
openly discussing with the public the merits of the proposal. This process was very successful for those who
attended the May 7 public meeting. The vast
majority of attendees were satisfied with what they heard from federal and state
representatives. Despite the complex issues,
several favorable newspaper articles resulted from the meeting. The public and the press were convinced of the
technical merits of the proposal.
3.
Position of Federal Agencies
a.
National Marine Fisheries Services -
Your letter quote Peter Colosi (2/2/01 letter) as having a variety of problems with the
subway car proposal. Peter Colosi attended
the May 7, 2001 public misting to discuss technical issues and to represent NMFS position
on this issue. Between February 2 and May 7,
Mr. Colosi had had the opportunity to discuss this issue extensively with his peers and to
collect information on this proposal. At the
May 7 meeting, Mr. Colosi withdrew his earlier comments indicating that NMFS supports the
proposal and that no negative impacts are anticipated on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for
any species anticipated at reef site #11. Impacts
on EFH for black seabass and hake were expected to be strongly positive, as these are
structure - oriented fish.
b.
Environmental Protection Agency
Your
correspondence characterized William Muir's participation in our May 7 public meeting as
"informally offering an opinion" on asbestos in the marine environment. That characterization is inaccurate and
misrepresents Mr. Muir's role. Mr. Muir
attended the meeting in his capacity as an EPA official with over 30 years of service and
experience serving on national level committees dealing with asbestos in the marine
environment. He discussed the asbestos issue extensively and provided EPA's position for
the subway car proposal. EPA supports the
proposal to use subway cars as artificial reef material.
c.
US Army Corps of Engineers
The
Philadelphia office of the Corps of Engineers is the federal permitting agency for
Delaware's Reef Program. Mr. Edward Bonner
attended the meeting to clarify the Corps' opinion on this proposal. On April 10, 2001, Jeff Tinsman requested the
Corps' opinion on the subway car proposal. Mr.
Bonner, after consultation with other agencies, indicated that subway cars are an
acceptable material for reef deployment under our existing permit and that they comply
with the National Reef Plan and the Coastal Artificial Reef Planning Guide. The Corps
supports the proposal to use subway cars as reef material.
4.
Asbestos Concerns
Mr.
Muir summarized the asbestos issue and fielded many questions which put the asbestos issue
in perspective at the May 7, public meeting. He
indicated that asbestos is a human health hazard only in the friable form. In an aquatic medium, like drinking water,
asbestos is harmless to humans. The EPA
standard for acceptable asbestos levels in municipal water supplies is 7 million particles
per liter, indicating it is not a concern in the digestive system of humans. Likewise, Mr. Muir indicated there is no
compelling information to indicate that asbestos in the marine environment is harmful to
fish or shellfish at concentrations likely to be encountered in the ocean, nor is there an
indication of bioaccumulation in the food chain in nature.
Problems in fish and shellfish have not been noted near any of the vessels
sunk during World War II, which contained huge amounts of friable asbestos. The few studies you note involved studies with
friable asbestos at high densities, unlikely to be duplicated in nature. Remember that the subway cars contain non-friable
asbestos.
Mr.
Lew Morrison of our Division of Air and Waste Management reviewed assay data describing
the percentage and amount of asbestos in the cars and physically inspected the material. He found the amount to be minimal and well bound
in the matrix. He concluded that material
(matrix) breakdown will occur at a “considerably slow rate” and that asbestos
fiber concentrations would be negligible.
Mr.
Tinsman spoke extensively with personnel of the asbestos section at EFA, Region 4, who
expressed much the same opinion. The material
is well bound; there is no reasonable mechanism for it to be released in a rapid fashion
which would increase concentrations beyond background levels. They had no technical problem with the use of
subway cars as reef material. In addition,
EPA, Region 4, inspection criteria for vessels, under P.L. 92-402, is to leave asbestos in
place until more information is available on the impact if any (emphasis-added) of
asbestos in the marine environment.
This
proposal complies with all appropriate state and federal reef plans and guidance
documents. The durability of subway cars will
be measured in decades in the marine environment, and the reef will function as important
fish habitat immediately and throughout its lifespan.
The federal regulatory agencies (EPA, NMFS and the Corps) endorse and
support this project and were willing to send representatives to our May 7 meeting to make
that clear. Despite rejections by other
jurisdictions, Delaware has rationally and independently evaluated the asbestos issue and
has sought expert opinions from the federal agencies.
The result has been an independent decision that this is a technically sound
proposal. We have agreed to participate
because of the tremendous benefits to biodiversity and Essential Fish Habitat which this
project will make possible.
In
summary, I believe the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control conducted
a reasonable, responsible and technically credible evaluation of the use of subway cars in
our artificial reef program.
I
appreciate your interest in this important environmental protection and resource
conservation issue.
Sincerely,
Nicholas
A. DiPasquale
Secretary
This
is an article I sent out when the Marine Fish Conservation changed their name. One of the things I failed to discuss was the
statistics often used. When proponents of
MPA’s say they are only closing 5, 10, 15 or 25% of the ocean, they fail to mention
where that 5 – 25% always seems to be located in prime fishing areas. This could mean closing 50% or more of the areas
most frequently fished. There are no
MPA’s proposed for areas with little or no fishing.
So they really deliberately underestimate the impact on both the recreational and
commercial communities. It seems the goal of
some of the MPA advocates is to simply make fishing obsolete. On August 26 – 29, I will attend an MPA
workshop in Woods Hole and will report back to you.
I
feel I must say something because of the flood of email that I have received from all
sectors of the community regarding Center for Marine Conservation’s Press release. In this release Center for Marine Conservation said
they were changing their name to The Ocean Conservancy
about making at least five percent of United States Oceans an ocean wilderness areas or MPA.
This
type of statement is going to make it more difficult to keep the coalitions of
environmental, recreational and commercial organizations working together for what they
thought was common good. The recreational
anglers and commercial fishermen feel that the major national environmental organizations
are seeking to arbitrarily close areas without just cause.
This issue is scaring the hell out of the recreational and commercial
fishing community. There is talk of forming
strange coalitions to launch a fight against all Maps.
You will see the existing coalitions suffer because of the withdrawal of
recreational community due to a loss of trust among the membership. This is starting to happen already.
There
is a perception by some members of the recreational community that people who do not fish
or even eat fish are controlling some of the major groups.
The perception is that they are more aligned with PETA. If this continues there will be war. When sixty million recreational anglers become
concerned that their business or quality of life is threatened, they will react. At the very least we will have gridlock. You might even see some of the gains lost. I hope this does not happen. I try to put myself in the other person’s
shoes. Recreational anglers can do this
easily when looking at environmental issues. Most
of the recreational anglers and commercial fishermen that meet are all environmentalists
since they depend on the ocean for their livelihood or their recreation. I am worried, however, that the environmentalists
are not seeing the issues from the perspective of the recreational community. This leads to one-sided dialogues. Many staffers in these organizations have never
been fishing and may not eat fish. They
need to make a real effort to understand the economics and quality of life issues that
must be part of this discussion. They never
consider how the regulations they push for impact on the poor and subsistence fishermen.
In
combination, the subway car issue, the summer flounder regulations and the marine
protected areas, it is harder and harder for us to maintain the level of trust and
communication that is necessary for a successful partnership. There was a time when many recreational anglers
thought the commercial fishermen were the enemy. These
days, it is easy to find recreational anglers who identify some environmental
organizations as the enemy.
The Assembly passed the Menhaden Bill
(S2252/A3512). Since the entire legislature
went on recess for the summer and the fall, there will be no action taken in the Senate
before the election. I hope that this
legislation will be moved during the lame duck session in December. If not we need to start all over again with new
hearing and a new legislature. Write your
senators and ask for their firm, written commitment to vote yes on this legislation and to
work for a vote before the election. You
should ask them to cosponsor the bill. If the senate is called into session for any reason
prior to the election, you want this legislation to be voted on. Tell them you will be thinking about this issue
when you vote in November.
The bill is assigned to the Senate
Environment Committee. We are asking that the
Committee Chairman, Senator Henry McNamara, post the bill as soon as possible. This is the same committee that voted this bill
out the last time. You should thank the
members for their previous support and ask for their support for this bill again. The Senate cannot vote till it moves out of
committee.
Senator
Henry McNamara-Chair
P.O. Box
68, Wyckoff,
NJ 07481
201-848-9600
Fax 201-444-9732
senmcnamara@njleg.state.nj.us
Bill
Sponsor Senator Andrew Ciesla-Vice Chair
852 Highway 70 Brick NJ 08724
732-840-9028
Fax 732-840-9757
senciesla@njleg.state.nj.us
Senator
John Adler
231 Route 70
East
856-428-3343
Fax 856-428-1358
senadler@njleg.state.nj.us
Senator
Anthony Bucco
60 Broadway
Denville, NJ 07834
973-627-9700
Fax 973-627-0131
senbucc@@njleg.state.nj.us
Senator
Joseph Vitale
87 Main St., Woodbridge, NJ 07095
732-855-7441
Fax 732-856-7441
SenVitale@njleg.state.nj.us
We are close to get getting the bill
passed but we cannot do this without your letters, faxes emails and phone calls. JCAA can lay the groundwork but you need to put
the finishing touch on it. The reduction boats’ catch of menhaden went from 7.5
million pounds in New Jersey waters in 1999 to over 75 million pounds in 2000. The New Jersey ecosystem cannot take this kind of
pressure. When the menhaden disappear so do
the striped bass, bluefish, weakfish and all the other species that depend on them. We need to pass this bill now. If you want more information or want to receive
immediate alerts, send me an email at <tfote@jcaa.org>.
This is the easiest way to keep you informed.
Below is the letter that the JCAA is sending to the NJ Senate.
Dear Senator:
We need the Senate to act on the
Menhaden Bill S2252/A3512. It was voted out
of the Assembly prior to the recess. This
legislation is designed to protect menhaden from being over-harvested in our state waters
causing serious regional depletions of this important resource. The Senate bill was introduced by Andrew Ciesla
and the Assembly Bill by Steve Corodemus and cosponsored by Nick Asselta and Robert Smith.
This bill is structured to protect menhaden stocks while allowing New Jersey’s
commercial bait fishery to continue at safe and sustainable levels. This bill will not put the bait industry out of
business but rather will allow participants to maintain their already increased harvest by
removing reduction boats from state waters. All
fishing by reduction boats would be prohibited within state waters. Large reduction boats are responsible for the
largest percentage of the menhaden harvested in New Jersey’s territorial waters,
accounting for 60% to 70% of the total annual harvest.
This legislation will not harm New Jersey commercial fishermen and, in fact,
protects their interests in this fishery. Their
catch in New Jersey’s waters jumps from 7.5 million in 1999 to over 75 million in
2000. That was a tenfold increase. Our ecosystem cannot take that pressure.
SS2252/A3512 was introduced as the
result of the work done by the Menhaden Project, the Jersey Coast Anglers Association, the
New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen, the Recreational Fishing Alliance and many individuals
and groups who are concerned about the conservation of menhaden and the problems that
overharvesting has caused. The NJ
Environmental Federation, Sierra Club and PIRG are also supporting the Menhaden Bills.
These environmental organizations recognize insert “that “ this is an
environmental issue insert “and” not a commercial verses recreational fishing
issue. This legislation presents an
opportunity to develop a comprehensive, long-term solution that will offer some protection
to the stocks while allowing the bait industry to not only maintain its historic catch
levels, but also expand significantly, something it could not due do with the added
pressure on the stocks that reduction fishing represents.
The sport fishing industry in New
Jersey has an estimated value of $1.5 billion and key target species like striped bass,
bluefish and weakfish are negatively impacted by regional depletions of menhaden. The
larger fish depend on mature menhaden as forage while the younger fish prey heavily on
small menhaden spawned in our waters. Without
menhaden the commercial fishery, commercial bait industry and recreational fishing
industry will suffer serious negative economic impacts and could result in a loss to the
state in the millions of dollars.
The coast-wide catch of Atlantic
Menhaden for the year 2000 was 368 million pounds or an average of 1 million pounds
harvested for each and every day of the year! In 1995 the reduction fleet striped stripped
118 million pounds of menhaden from New Jersey waters alone! When you consider that the
average menhaden harvested weighs about a pound, a harvest of such an incredible magnitude
can easily have serious repercussions on the balance of the marine ecosystem of the state
of which menhaden are a critically important part.
Along with this letter I have
included a number of articles and additional reference materials for your review and can
provide more if you please. I have also
included some background material concerning the problems associated with using
menhaden-based fishmeal as animal feed for farm-raised salmon and chickens. The major concern is the increased levels of PCB
contamination in these widely distributed food products when menhaden fishmeal is a
component of their diet. As responsible
legislators and members of the public, we should be replacing this contaminated feed
product with New Jersey-raised soybeans.
We need your help in protecting this
important public resource and New Jersey’s commercial and recreational fishing
industry by supporting this bill. Please vote yes in committee hearings and yes on the
Senate floor.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Fote
Legislative Chairman JCAA &
NJSFSC
After three decades of service in the
NJ Legislature, Senator Louis Bassano has retired. He
has always been our staunchest ally and fellow angler in the legislature. He will be sorely missed. Lou has been a member of the Berkeley Striped Club
since the late 60’s and has always spoken our language and been very proactive. Usually JCAA has to approach legislators and ask
them to sponsor legislation. That was never
the case with Lou. Lou came to us and asked
for our support to make striped bass a gamefish. It
was Lou who thought restaurants should post fish advisories. He wrote the bill and again, asked for our
support. If it were up to Lou, ocean dumping
would have stopped a decade earlier. He was
honored by JCAA as our sportsperson of the year. Throughout
his time in the legislature he has been our friend and a protector of the marine resource.
Senator Bassano was also the
legislative appointee to the ASMFC since 1993. When
I was no longer the Governor’s appointee, Lou reached out and asked me to serve as
his proxy. His directions were always clear,
protect the resource first and then protect the commercial and recreational anglers of New
Jersey. With Lou’s departure,
Assemblyman Jack Gibson is the legislative appointee.
He has indicated he will be attending the meetings. I will now attend the ASMFC representing JCAA and
the recreational anglers of New Jersey. I
continue, however, to sit on the habitat committee representing the public. I will also serve as the recreational advisor on
two of the management boards, menhaden and red drum.
JCAA and I are looking forward to a productive relationship with Assemblyman
Gibson as he represents us at the ASMFC. When
you want to share your ideas and concerns with the legislative appointee, contact
Assemblyman Gibson at 14 Route 50, Suite A, Seaville, 08230. He can be reached by phone (609-624-1222), by fax
(609-624-0244) or email (asmgibson@njleg.state.nj.us).