I attended a presentation given by Mr. Rik van Hemmen who is proposing to implement a Sandy Hook Bay Natural Marine Sanctuary that would stretch roughly from Sandy Hook to the Earle Naval pier and to parts of the Navesink and the Schrewsbury rivers. This presentation was given at the Red Bank library at 7:00 p.m. on March 16th and it was attended by approximately 200-250 anglers. Only about 60 could fit in the conference room and the rest waited outside the library. This turnout was due to the threat that this sanctuary would have on one of our most productive fishing grounds for both recreational and commercial anglers.
Mr. Hemmen started his presentation by showing us a bunch of pictures of this area with boats and birds, but nothing concrete about WHY it should be a sanctuary. He did not stress any positive results we would expect to receive by having this sanctuary. He seems to love the area in question, but is oblivious to the repercussions that would result by having a sanctuary. In fact, Mr. Dan Ferrigno, a former and retired staff member of our NJ DEP with 30 years of experience, remarked that the sanctuaries we now have around our country (about 5 of them) all end up with tough restrictions on fishing, boating, jet skis and diminish the enjoyment people receive by having them. Others in the audience voiced over and over again that this sanctuary status would lead to more fishing restrictions and that we do not need more regulations! Hemmen responded that he is not trying to impose these regulations, but he seemed oblivious to this major concern voiced by the audience.
When one person asked why he is doing this, he incredulously responded at length that he was a Boy Scout leader and always picked up trash. Audience members volunteered to pick up trash in the rivers and discussion strangely turned to trash pickup! One audience member said, "this juice is not worth the squeeze," and walked out of the room in disgust. Obviously, Hemmen did not expect or did not know how to respond to this question and strangely came up with the trash issue.
One person told him that he lives by the affected area and that the waters are more clean than they have been for a long time and more fish are in it and that he did not see a need for this sanctuary, but Hemmen blew off this remark. Building on this no need for the sanctuary, I remarked that "you obviously love the sanctuary concept to keep things the way they are for you, but YOU HAVE NOT MADE A CASE WHY WE SHOULD HAVE IT!” He responded that, "we will have more fish!” One person yelled out, "do you have the data to prove it,” and he said that he did not. His answer to me like the one he made earlier about a trash problem seem to be made up as he goes along with his presentation since he has no real answers to the important questions raised about his sanctuary proposal.
My take on this sanctuary issue is that Hemmen does not understand the negative implications that a sanctuary has, but worse is that he is not accepting the comments that were made by anglers in the room. If I were him, I would be shook up by the comments made by angry anglers, but it did not seem to faze him that much. The danger I see is that in spite of what was conveyed to him about restrictions, he will still go forward with this sanctuary and, of course, like- minded organizations may back him and this can gain traction to move it further.
For this sanctuary to go to higher levels in our federal government, it has to be first approved by our state government and that is our best hope to stop it. I will track the sanctuary issue and keep you updated. We all need to stay on top of this sanctuary issue and all be united against it!
