President's Editorial

 Spokesmen for the Division of Fish and Wildlife have often stated that they have the necessary funding and manpower to continue the historic bonus program in 2005 only if the striped bass regulation is changed to two fish at 28 inches or greater. DFW favors offering a bonus program because of its value as a management and research tool. Because of this, even if the regulation is not changed, the DFW will strive to continue to offer a bonus program in some, as yet undetermined, form. It is likely not to resemble the previous program in any way. For exampl, there may be limited participation, a limited number of tags, non-replacable tags, etc. because of the perceived difficulties associated with a bonus plan linked to a slot fish and a restricted quota.

It is my perception that, in response to overwhelming dissatisfaction of the 2004 legislation that was expressed by the angling community; anglers, party and charter operators, bait and tackle shops and related businesses during the fall 2004 season, the potential demise of the bonus program and considerable adverse press comment, the RFA, in December 2004, finally conducted a survey to determine conclusively the will of their New Jersey and Pennsylvania membership.

After much delay, the RFA finally read the tea leaves and they announced their position not to change their endorsement of the status quo striped bass regulations in spite of the stated DFW position regarding the Bonus Program. It is their reasoning that it is appropriate to ignore the largest number of responses that favored two fish at 28 inches. They added the number of responses that favored the two plans that had in common a provision for one slot fish (24 to 28 inches or 26 to 30 inches) a gap, and one larger fish (larger than 34 or 33 inches respectively) with no conception of a bonus program, and “anything but agreement with two fish at 28 inches with guaranteed bonus program.” They then conclude that because the total of the two least is greater than the one larger they should choose the larger of the least two. In my opinion, this is irresponsible.

Allow me to express this thinking in political terms. Consider the situation of three candidates; an orange, a lemon, and an apple, vying for office in a legislative district: Of the votes cast, the orange gets 35%, the lemon gets 20%, and the apple gets 45%.  Who  would argue that since 55% preferred citrus, the orange, being the major citrus vote-getter, should win?  In a democracy, wouldn’t, shouldn’t the apple be declared the winner?

One could argue, since it is their survey, that they can interpret it as they please, using their own logic. But, I beg to differ based on their own stated survey objective and results and, more importantly, because their survey questions were misleading.

I give the survey authors credit for anticipating that the third option would siphon votes equally from both the first and second options to the extent that neither the first or the second would obtain a clear majority but that the similar options could be combined and claimed to be a majority.

1) Status quo plan                  45%   -  10%  =   35%

2) Two fish at 28 inches        55%   -  10%  =   45%      

 3) Variation of status quo      N/A   + 20%  =   20%

All of these plans are approved by the ASMFC and are the conservation equivalent of the coast-wide benchmark of two fish at 28 inches or better.  In that regard, to state that one plan is better than another is inaccurate, if not irresponsible. 

COMMENTS ON THE RFA SURVEY

Give me the answer.  I’ll ask you the question.

Q.  How can we placate the uproar against status quo (One @ 24 to 28” and one @ over 34”) and the demise of the bonus program by a majority of our membership while appeasing the membership that wants to harvest smaller slot fish (with or without the bonus program?)

At a mid-December meeting with the RFA, JCAA members tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the RFA not to confuse the issue by introducing a third option or to misstate the bonus program possibilities or probabilities. Unfortunately, they did not accept our advice.

The choice of plans clearly should have been between (1) Status quo, without prospect of a clear bonus plan and (2) two fish at 28 inches or greater with a guaranteed bonus plan. Why introduce a third option, a variation of the first, and imply that all three options would have a bonus plan or, alternatively, that none of the three plans would have a bonus plan?

Isn’t it wishful thinking or misleading, given the current economic climate of New Jersey, to imply that the State might, someway, fund some bonus program to complement a slot-based program or that the DFW could somehow find a way to staff, monitor or enforce such a bonus program even if it were funded? In my opinion, this blurring of the practical bonus plan possibilities compromises the survey results regardless of how one might want to count oranges, lemons or apples.

After the fact, RFA has exerted extreme pressure on the Division of Fish and Wildlife to rethink the bonus plan variations to complement the RFA’s agenda.

The latest statement attributed to the DFW Director, Marty McHugh, on February 4^th is: “I’m going to try to implement the bonus program the best I can.” (Based on current striped bass regulations.)  “I can’t promise what this will be like because of the funding issues and because most of the fish are going to be in the 28 to 34 inch range,” and “There’s not going to be as much pressure on the program if we had two fish at 28 inches.” The Director said, “We’re going to do everything we can to avoid a fee.”

Any slot fish option that would be reliant on a bonus plan that the DFW would find challenging to structure fairly and difficult to manage, monitor or enforce and which would be closed within two months of the season opening would only cause confusion and encourage noncompliance. This situation would impact negatively on bait and tackle sales, boat rentals, party and charter boat patronage, allied trades and tourism.

Our neighboring states of New York, Delaware and Pennsylvania all observe the 28 inch minimum length standard.  New Jersey should do so to simplify matters for all Raritan Bay and Delaware Bay anglers and conservation officers. 

Now is the time to take action!   Individuals and clubs should contact their legislators.