Fisheries Management & Legislative Report

I am speaking before you on behalf of Jersey Coast Anglers Association, New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs and New Jersey Outdoor Alliance. I have been testifying before NJ Legislative Budget Committees since the mid-eighties. Things have not changed much in those years. We are still looking for a steady source of funding for the NJ Bureau Of Marine Fisheries.

I just received an updated study by the American Sportfishing Association that looks at the economic impact of recreational anglers in all the states and is broken out by the congressional legislative districts. I am providing you with all this data. Here is a breakdown by congressional districts. If you want a copy all the handouts broken down by district let me know.

• District 2&3 each have 100,000 anglers in the district and spent $86.8 Million on fishing-related purchases in New Jersey.
• District 1, 4, 5, 7 11 and 12 each have 90,000 anglers in the district and spent $78.1 Million on fishing-related purchases in New Jersey.
• District 6 has 80,000 anglers in the district that spent $69.4 Million on fishing-related purchases in New Jersey.
• District 9 has 70,000 anglers in the district and spent $60.7 Million on fishing-related purchases in New Jersey.
• District 8&10, each have 60,000 anglers in the district and spent $52.1 Million on fishing-related purchases in New Jersey.

The 1,000,400 anglers who fished in New Jersey spent $867.6 million and supported at least 7,410 jobs. New Jersey ranks #2 in the country in the number of trips made for recreational saltwater fishing. We rank #2 or #3 in the number of anglers. We rank #3 in the commercial landings. However, we are outspent for a Bureau of Marine Fisheries by almost every state.

With this information as a background, we need to consider the options for funding the Bureau of Marine Fisheries. These options use money already generated by anglers who fish in New Jersey. About 1/3 of the anglers counted in these statistics are from out of state. In addition to the money generated when they fish here, they also spend money in other ways.

1. The first and most obvious solution is to increase the appropriation for the Bureau of Marine Fisheries from the state budget.
2. There could be a dedication of some portion of the sales tax money generated from the sales tax on saltwater fishing supplies that has been estimated to be over $130,000,000 a year. If 10% of the sales tax that is generated by recreational fishing was allocated to the budget of the Bureau of Marine Fisheries, the current budget would quadruple.
3. There could be a dedication of some portion of the fuel tax money generated on recreational boats. (Remember commercial fishing boats and party and charter boats are exempted from this tax.)
4. There could be a dedication of Island Beach State Park (IBSP) four-wheel drive fishing permits to the Division of Parks and Bureau of Marine Fisheries for programs to protect the beach environment and enhance fishing opportunities for surf anglers and more fishing access. This could also fund education of the surf fishing public in marine stewardship. This fee was dramatically increased during the McGreevey administration from $125 to $195. All of this money goes into the general fund. With approximately 6,000 permits sold each year, this generates 1,170,000 dollars.
5. There could be a dedication of a portion of the money from the dramatic increase of boat registration fees during the McGreevey administration. A large portion goes to the General Fund. That fund was also designed to fund dredging as well. Over the years this fund has been raided and not used for the designated purpose.
6. It is also possible to explore the other options that were in a Division of Fish and Wildlife white paper that was distributed in 2003 and a couple more times over the following years.

Why do we need more money? When I was first involved with the Division of Fish and Wildlife and the Bureau of Marine Fisheries in 1984, the only regulations we had in place were a federal regulation on bluefin tuna, a 14-inch size limit on flounder as a state regulation, and a 10 fish bag limit at 18 inches for striped bass. There were no quotas to be implemented on the recreational sector, no fisheries management plans, no technical committees. We were dealing with what was essentially an open fishery. Today we are managing every important recreational fishery in New Jersey. This involves over 20 plans. This requires a huge amount of staff time, gathering information and implementing the plans. It has also put a greater strain on law enforcement. These requirements have limited the amount of money that is available for research and put a big strain on the employees as they struggle to find the time for everything that is required. When I first got involved, it was not unusual for people to work well past the 25 years required for retirement. Now, because of the pressure and the many jobs they are required to juggle, the most common response is 25 years and out. We are losing a great deal of experience and institutional memory.

Most of you know that I have served as the Governor’s appointee to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission for 23 years and 6 years as a Legislative proxy. The state is planning on replacing me. The job has changed dramatically. When I took the job in 1990, I was required to go to 3 days of meetings a year. I have been able to do this because I am medically retired as a Captain from the Army at a young age and am now considered a 100% disabled veteran. The search began last summer and was finished by September 30th of 2022. The only candidate they could come up with is a lobbyist for the largest commercial seafood processor in New Jersey. Because this job requires 8 working weeks at meetings, public hearings and much additional time preparing and communicating, very few people can afford to spend that amount of time without pay. These meetings require travel days in addition to actual meeting days since most of ASMFC meetings are in hotels in Virginia and Joint Meetings with the federal Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council can be in hotels anywhere from North Carolina to New York.

The lack of a stipend eliminates many excellent candidates from both the commercial and recreational communities, people who could be supported by both communities. I gave DEP many names of people both commercially and recreationally who would be acceptable to both communities but none of them responded to the search. This should not be a job for only the rich or only the paid lobbyist from either the commercial or recreational industries. We need to bring younger people into this process and make it financially possible for them to serve. If a person serving in this job is beholden to the business paying their salary, there is no way to guarantee an impartial judgment. The Federal government realized this and when they set up the federal fisheries management councils, they decided to pay council members a GS15 salary for each day they were at a meeting. I would be willing to help any legislator who wants to craft a bill that would address this problem. Understand I have never taken a salary for any of the fisheries jobs I do and if offered I would turn it down. This is an Environmental Justice issue plain and simple.

March 6, 2022 NOAA Fisheries 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Dear NOAA Fisheries,

The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on NOAA Fisheries’ Draft National Seafood Strategy. ASA is the nation’s recreational fishing trade association and represents sportfishing manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, and angler advocacy groups, as well as the interests of America’s 52 million recreational anglers. ASA also safeguards and promotes the social, economic, and conservation values of sportfishing in America, which results in a $128 billion per year impact on the nation’s economy.

NOAA Fisheries’ Draft National Seafood Strategy is an important first step in recognizing the value and national importance of seafood. As a primary ocean user group, the recreational fishing community has a vested interest in fostering seafood production and consumption. In 2020, recreational anglers harvested 353m pounds of fish. Between the poundage harvested and economic impact of our industry, recreational fishing plays an important role in the seafood sector. Including us in future conversations about the seafood strategy will be essential to the success and growth of U.S. seafood.

Seafood is Good for People

Under this heading we recommend acknowledging the benefit of recreational harvest, which helps people’s physical and mental health and wellbeing. The physicality of fishing combined with the nutritional benefits of seafood protein, make recreational fishing an excellent way to harvest essential protein.

Seafood is Good for the Economy

We suggest adding that the recreational sector generates $128 billion per year, feeding countless individuals and families in the process.

Seafood is Good for the Planet

Some seafood is good for the planet. Seafood caught with destructive gear is not. We recommend specifying in this section what “harvested responsibly” means. In our opinion, harvested responsibly means that sportfish and other marine species are not harmed through bycatch. Destructive commercial fishing gear, such as trawls and longlines indiscriminately catch target species, sportfish and other marine life. These gear types should not be part of responsible harvest. We recommend you specific this in the “harvested responsibly” definition.

The phrase “environmentally friendly” is also used in this section. Again, we note that commercial gear types associated with habitat destruction and bycatch should in no way be accepted as environmentally friendly.

Strategy Framework

To successfully implement the strategy, we remind NOAA Fisheries of the importance of collaborating with the recreational fishing community. We are a vital seafood stakeholder and hope to help advance a final strategy that includes appropriate considerations for recreational anglers. Our input is vital for the success of this strategy and growth in U.S. seafood.

GOAL 1: Sustain or increase sustainable U.S. wild capture production

We commend the inclusion of maximizing fishing opportunities under GOAL 1, however, we worry the stated opportunities will go to unsustainable forms of fishing, like commercial fishing that employs destructive gear types. Allowing maximum commercial fishing opportunities is not compatible with sustainability. We were disappointed that in this section support for commercial fishing was mentioned, but not recreational. To correct for that error and truly foster maximum sustainable production, we suggest the following rewording under the “Fisheries Management” bullet:

“Maximize fishing opportunities that foster conservation and sustainable seafood production while ensuring the sustainability of fisheries through effective and efficient management. Support sustainable fishing industries and fishing communities in their efforts to adapt to climate change and thrive in a changing ocean economy.”

GOAL 2: Increase sustainable U.S. aquaculture production

We applaud the acknowledgement that aquaculture is needed to bolster domestic seafood production and meet demand. Below we have enclosed our aquaculture position statement. The recreational fishing community believes that aquaculture can alleviate pressure on fisheries by reducing the need for damaging forms of commercial harvest. We view aquaculture as a critical component for achieving the overall seafood strategy. Benefits considered, commercial aquaculture development needs to ensure that negative environmental impacts, such as effluent discharge, forage base depletion, and introduction of non-native species, are prevented. We recommend including this consideration under the “Marine Aquaculture Management and Regulatory Efficiency” bullet. Done in a responsible way, aquaculture has the potential to foster healthier fisheries and create more recreational fishing opportunities.

GOAL 3: Foster access to domestic and global markets for the U.S. seafood industry

We broadly support this goal and emphasize the importance of fostering a strong domestic market to compete internationally. More support for domestic recreational fishing, particularly on the regulatory front, will achieve this goal.

GOAL 4: Strengthen the entire U.S. seafood sector

Recreational fishing is not mentioned under this goal. We are a key seafood stakeholder and should be included. We strongly recommend editing the “Seafood as a Vital Part of the Blue Economy” bullet to read:

“Support the U.S. recreational fishing, commercial fishing, marine aquaculture, and seafood communities to adapt and thrive in a changing ocean economy and given new competing uses.”

Strengthening the entire U.S. seafood sector also means that future allocation adjustments should not default to the commercial industry. With participation up 15% since 2015, the recreational sector deserves a reasonable distribution of opportunity. Historically, the wants of the commercial industry have been prioritized over fair allocation. We suggest including an additional bullet called “Fair Allocation.” Under the bullet we recommend stating:

“Even distribution of fishery resources is critical for strengthening the entire U.S. seafood sector. Ensuring that allocation is distributed equitably to each sector within the seafood industry will benefit all stakeholders and increase efficiency of seafood production.”

Thank you for considering our input and please contact us if you have any questions or would like to discuss our recommendations further.

Sincerely,

Mike Leonard Vice President, Government Affairs