Contents:
The Striped Bass bill has moved through both the NJ Assembly and Senate and at the time of this writing, we are waiting for the Governor’s signature. When the bill is signed by the Governor, the regulations in New Jersey will change from 2 fish at 28 inches to 1 fish between 28 and less than 43 inches and a second fish at 43 inches and over. That two fish bag limit meets the 25% reduction required by ASMFC.
At the Saltwater Expo, I heard many comments about this new legislation both pro and con. There are those who blame me for this legislation. I need to be clear that this was not my recommendation. This legislation was designed by two of our legislators without my input. What they did was take their understanding of the opinion of New Jersey Outdoor Alliance, NJ State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, JCAA and a majority of the clubs belonging to those organizations to make the 25% reduction. What I found interesting was that the most vocal opponents at the show did not write a letter to ASMFC commenting on the change nor attend any of the public hearings in New Jersey. I know that because I was at every public hearing and read every letter from New Jersey that was sent to ASMFC. When I asked these individuals if they had consulted the scientific information that was made available, their answer was no. They told me they did not care about the science but just about how they felt the fishery should be run. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and sometimes personal experience enters into their feelings. That information is anecdotal but is not always confirmed by the science. We all need to be open minded enough to consult all the available data before disagreeing with others decisions. As you know I have frequent questions about the recording of recreational information. I question the weak science on black sea bass, scup and tautog all the time. However, because of the Striped Bass Act of 1982, there was a great deal of money allocated for gathering data about striped bass. The states have continued to gather that data and that is what is used to determine the status of the stocks. Hopefully, the article included below will provide the naysayers with more information to consider. The charts and tables were taken from the stock assessment available on the ASMFC webpage. Again, I will listen to every comment but these must be weighed against the majority opinions and the science available.
The Striped Bass Board voted for a 25% reduction on the coastal fishery and a 20.5% reduction on the Chesapeake Bay. I have been around long enough to know that the proposed reductions would not equitable. As usual, I was proven right. I have included some tables so you have a better understanding. These tables were included in the draft management plans. But they might have been overlooked.
| For Reference | Option B16 | For Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| State | Am6 Quota (lbs) | 25% redux from Am6 Quota(lbs) | 2013 Harvest (lbs) |
| ME | 250* | 188 | 0 |
| NH | 5,750* | 4,313 | 0 |
| MA | 1,159,750 | 869,813 | 1,002,519 |
| RI | 243,625† | 182,719 | 231,280 |
| CT | 23,750** | 17,813 | 1,479 |
| NY | 1,061,060† | 795,795 | 823,801 |
| NJ | 321,750** | 241,313 | 6,096 |
| DE | 193,447 | 145,085 | 191,424 |
| ML | 131,560† | 98,670 | 93,532 |
| VA | 184,853 | 138,640 | 82,427 |
| NC | 480,480 | 360,360 | 0 |
| Coastal Total | 3,806,275 | 2,854,706 | 2,532,558 |
| % diff from 2013 harvest | +50 | +13 | 0 |
Figure 2: Atlantic striped bass female spawning stock biomass and recruitment (age-1) from1982 to 2012.
As you can see, the only anglers who are going to suffer a full 25% reduction are the coastal anglers. Does that mean we will have more recruitment? If you listened to the Board on the webinar, it was clearly stated that this reduction will probably not have any impact on recruitment since the level is high enough to produce the highest young of the year on record. What it shows is there are other reasons that we are having problems with recruitment, not only on striped bass but on bluefish, weakfish, winter flounder, summer flounder and menhaden. These are all species that depend on the bays and estuaries as a nursery. They are the same areas that produce the forage species that are the food source for these stocks. Many of these stocks are at an all- time high level for spawning stock biomass and still had poor recruitment and dwindling stocks. Weakfish is the perfect example. If you really care about striped bass and other species, you need to care about the environment in the bays and estuaries where they live. I have been trying to find anglers to participate in the protection of the bays. This has been a huge challenge. They would need to get off their computers and into their communities to protect the watersheds and estuaries. There is much work to be done. If you want to see the table for the commercial fishery, just email me. The five column chart was just too much for the newspaper. It will be on our webpage when the newspaper is posted. Again, if you would like to get involved in protecting the bays and estuaries, give me a call or send me an email. If you are from another state, contact your local environmental group or estuary program.
At the ASMFC Spring Meeting, we will be continuing the discussion about how the states will take the responsibility for the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) intercept program currently run by outside contractors. This is a first step in the right direction because the state’s marine biologists will either be doing the intercepts or training the people who perform these tasks. Hopefully we will begin to get more of a random sample instead of the questionable sampling that currently exists. One of the failings of the present system is the contractors fail to seek out anglers who have not caught any fish. They are looking for an opportunity to measure a fish. Not including the zero catch has a big impact on the final numbers. The states will not be getting enough money to increase the number of intercepts. We will still be making decisions on a small number of intercepts for a specific species, extrapolating data from those intercepts as a basis for making decisions. Our only hope is the intercepts they are making will better reflect what is actually happening. The only way to increase the confidence levels is to fund a greater number of intercepts. There will be grants to the states from NMFS and ASMFC to hire the necessary staff. The biggest problem will occur in the future when these grants are cut or deleted. We need to be aware that correcting the funding for the Bureau of Marine Fisheries will be a huge concern over the next few years. We all need to work together to guarantee that the necessary funding is available.
I would really like to thank Clean Ocean Action in their hard work in putting together an alternative hearing in Atlantic City on gas and oil drilling off the East coast. The Bureau of Energy and Management had what they called a hearing. I define a hearing as including a presentation, a question and answer period and public comment. The public comment is either taped or recorded in some way. The BOEM had stations that advertised their achievements and promoted the safety of drilling off the East coast. It was not a public friendly opportunity since you could not be recorded on the record. You had to sit at a computer and type in your comments. Many of us are not great writers or did not have the time to work on an appropriate comment. For many of us, it is easier to express yourself orally and have someone record your thoughts. I helped conduct over 7 public hearings in New Jersey for ASMFC in the past year. The ASMFC, like most organizations, includes a presentation to share information with the attendees. This allows for a dialogue with questions and answers. There is always an opportunity for written or oral comments from everyone in attendance. In 2009, prior to the BP oil spill, BOEM had a hearing in Atlantic City. This hearing used the same format as ASMFC and most federal agencies. There were over 500 people in attendance, filling a huge ballroom. We have heard nothing about this proposal for 5 years. Do they think we don’t remember what happened in Louisiana and the entire Gulf? Do they think we don’t know they used millions of gallons of dispersant which is not being ingested by the fish? I asked about the use of dispersants in a one to one conversation and was told that there was no commitment to eliminate this use. But this was not a comment that was relayed or shared with everyone in attendance, lessening the possibility that others would include this in their comments. After BP are they afraid to open themselves to public questions?
In response to this farce, Clean Ocean Action organized an alternative hearing. They had a microphone and allowed the attendees to voice their opinions, ask questions and share information. They will forward those recordings and transcripts to BOEM. We can only hope BOEM actually reads them.
The agenda for the ASMFC spring meeting is below. You will notice the agenda includes only a tentative summer flounder meeting, depending on what the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council decides in their prior meeting. I was hoping to bring up the issue of summer flounder in Delaware Bay at this meeting but don’t know if this will be possible. I am making a plea for information about the economic impacts of the 18 inch/16 inch disparity between New York and New Jersey. If anyone has data about how this had an impact on charter boat, tackle store or marine businesses, please send this information to the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife – Bureau of Marine Fisheries. Any other businesses that depend on recreational anglers, should collect and share the impact of the summer flounder regulations.
The other issue that will be of concern is what New England Fisheries Management Council will do this year on winter flounder.
Monday, May 4, 2015
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Thursday, May 7, 2015
*This meeting is tentative pending a successful Mid‐Atlantic Council SSC meeting the week of March 16th.
Tuesday, April 14th
Wednesday, April 15th
Thursday, April 16, 2015
An interactive panel discussion takes place after the film, with:
Moderator: Tony MacDonald, Director, Urban Coast Institute
Come learn about regional ocean planning efforts underway and how we can protect wildlife habitat, enhance recreational activities and support sustainable commercial uses in our increasingly busy New Jersey waters.
This event is hosted by Monmouth University’s Urban Coast Institute, Surfrider Foundation, New Jersey Sea Grant, American Littoral Society, New Jersey Chapter of The Nature Conservancy and Green Fire Productions. More details at this link.
Despite a major push by lobbyists for pharmaceutical corporations, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously today to hold drug companies financially responsible for a plan to take back and safely dispose of unused medications in the City. Alcohol Justice and the San Rafael Alcohol and Drug Coalition joined other groups and individuals today to thank the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for passing the Safe Drug Disposal Stewardship program. The ordinance goes for a second vote next week and then to Mayor Ed Lee for "likely signature" according to proponents.
"The SF Board of Supervisors made great public health policy today over aggressive lobbying by Big Pharma, building on a model program from Alameda County," stated Bruce Lee Livingston, Executive Director / CEO of Alcohol Justice and a staff of the San Rafael Alcohol and Drug Coalition, which both supported passage of the ordinance. "Every year there are tons of excess prescription drugs posing a threat to public safety, the environment, and our children in particular. This legislation protects kids and seniors from excess drugs and reduces harm to the Bay and Ocean."
The ordinance was authored by Board of Supervisors President London Breed, and co-sponsored by Supervisors Eric Mar, Norman Yee, and Jane Kim. They followed the lead of Alameda County public health officials who passed a similar ordinance last year. That measure prompted a lawsuit by Big Pharma front groups. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, however, upheld the law's constitutionality and rejected the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are still appealing further to the Supreme Court and have vowed to file lawsuits in San Francisco.
"For every one hundred pills that could be disposed of in this program, it costs approximately one penny," stated Hene Kelly, Legislative Director at the California Alliance for Retired Americans (CARA). "Our environment, our children, our elders, three things we have to protect, will be protected by this ordinance."
"We talk to the public every day; people in San Francisco recognize that these pharmaceutical are getting in the Bay, and they are concerned when they flush or throw these chemicals into the trash and they are looking for solutions that are cost effective," said Andria Ventura, Toxics Program Manager for Clean Water Action (CWA). "Most of all we have heard that industry needs to take responsibility both for the physical creation of these programs and for the financial aspects."
"We are grateful that both Alameda and San Francisco have taken the bold step of holding the drug industry accountable for safely disposing the dangerous substances they create," added Livingston. "We look forward now to helping Marin County do the same within months."
For more information: www.alcoholjustice.org
The Administration is seeking an individual to serve as the U.S. Recreational Commissioner for the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
The individual should have knowledge and experience regarding recreational fishing in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico or Caribbean Sea.
Please submit expressions of interest or input concerning prospective candidates by April 17th to Russell Smith (Russell.Smith@noaa.gov) and Rachel O'Malley (rachel.omalley@noaa.gov).
