Contents:
I want to personally thank all the JCAA Board members who worked so hard to make the move a reality. I was not available to help but I know the move was in good hands. A special thanks to Don Marantz for finding this new site.
If you want to learn history about JCAA from 2000 to the present, visit the JCAA webpage and go to the newspaper archives. There is a wealth of information about the history of striped bass, summer flounder, offshore drilling and many environmental issues. In the future we will work to make this treasure trove easier to search. For now, everything is there. In my own files I have newspapers that go back to 1995.
Last month John Toth wrote an article encouraging former members of the RFA to join JCAA in many upcoming battles. The article stated that we were sorry to see the RFA go out of business and complimented the organization on the areas where we worked together. I thought it was a good article and I found it difficult to understand what Jimmy Donofrio posted on his webpage. He accused JCAA of working with Cindy Zipf to stop New Jersey from using subway cars to build an artificial reef. That is absolutely not true. It is the exact opposite of what happened. After many years of working with Cindy, Derry Bennett and Clean Ocean Action on many issues including burning of wood pilings off the New Jersey coast, ocean dumping of Agent Orange and other chemicals at the mud dump and the impact of offshore drilling, we went to war in 2005 over Clean Ocean Actions opposition to the subway cars and their use of misleading information in their opposition. I don’t know what motivated his post but clearly he knows what he wrote is not true. I have included Al Ristori’s article from 2005 if you need a refresher on what actually happened. This issue was not resolved until Governor Corzine had Lisa Jackson, head of DEP at the time, meet with JCAA and Clean Ocean Action and move to approve the subway cars. She approved the original Red Birds because there were studies that showed they would last for at least 17 years. JCAA committed to only using cars that would last a minimum of 10 years. That was why New Jersey did not take any of the cars included in the second release. When other states used these cars, they literally collapsed on one another when they were put in the water. I have also included Lisa Jackson’s letter and this link to a 2007 JCAA article on this topic. The link will provide you with multiple articles from different reporters about this issue. In general, I find it is not a good idea to engage in the back and forth that goes on about some issues. However, when lies are told about actions JCAA has taken, it is time to step up and tell the truth.
Below you will find my testimony to the Striped Bass Board which is different from my testimony on the addendum. That testimony was about reaffirming the need to include Delaware and Hudson Rivers as producing areas. I also included the history of how the Chesapeake Bay was able to use the 25% of the coastal migratory stock as though they produced the entire amount. See the testimony for an in-depth discussion. I have also included the Board meeting summary from ASMFC. Unlike most months, I included the motions and the individual votes taken. You should look through the motions for a bit of a surprise.
What the summary says is we will probably be status quo for the bonus tag program and the regular fishery. I fear with the new stock assessment next year, things will get even worse. After listening to discussions about errors that are showing up in the recreational surveys, we will not have any relief until possibly 2025.
Arlington, VA – The Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board approved Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic Striped Bass. The Addendum modifies recreational and commercial measures to reduce fishing mortality in 2024, establishes an expedited response process to upcoming stock assessments, and addresses requirements for recreational filleting. Addendum II builds upon the 2023 emergency action by changing the measures in the FMP to reduce fishing mortality and support stock rebuilding. Addendum II measures will replace the emergency action measures upon its implementation by the states by May 1, 2024.
“First and foremost, thank you to the 2,000 members of the public who submitted public comments. The Board had difficult issues to discuss, and public comments were a crucial part of the deliberations,” said Board Chair Megan Ware from Maine. “The Board remains focused on rebuilding the stock by 2029. The upcoming 2024 stock assessment will be an important checkpoint on progress toward rebuilding.”
For the ocean recreational fishery, the Addendum implements a 28” to 31” slot limit, 1-fish bag limit, and maintains 2022 season dates for all fishery participants; this maintains the same ocean recreational measures adopted under the recent emergency action. For the Chesapeake Bay recreational fishery, the Addendum implements a 19” to 24” slot limit, 1-fish bag limit, and maintains 2022 season dates for all fishery participants. For the commercial fishery, the Addendum reduces commercial quotas by 7% in both the ocean and Chesapeake Bay.
To address concerns about recreational filleting allowances and compliance with recreational size limits, the Addendum establishes two requirements for states that authorize at-sea/shore-side filleting of striped bass: racks must be retained and possession limited to no more than two fillets per legal fish.
To enable an expedited management response to upcoming stock assessments prior to the 2029 rebuilding deadline, the Addendum establishes a mechanism allowing the Board to respond to a stock assessment via Board action if the stock is not projected to rebuild by 2029.
States must submit implementation plans by March 1, 2024 for Board review and approval, which will take place at a special Board meeting to be scheduled for later in March. All Addendum II measures must be implemented by May 1, 2024. volunteer.
Addendum II will be available in February on the Commission website at this link under Management Plans and FMP Reviews. For more information, please contact Emilie Franke, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at efranke@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740.
In addition to approving Addendum II, the Board met to consider a conservation equivalency (CE) proposal submitted by New Jersey under Addendum II, and to approve nominations to the Atlantic Striped Bass Advisory Panel.
New Jersey submitted a CE proposal to continue the state’s recreational Striped Bass Bonus Program (SBBP) under Addendum II. New Jersey has reallocated its commercial quota to the recreational SBBP through CE for the past several years. The SBBP is based on New Jersey’s existing commercial quota and is managed using that quota. Participants must apply to the SBBP and a tag system is used to ensure quota is not exceeded. New Jersey proposed to continue the quota reallocation, and outlined SBBP size limits and quota levels dependent on the measures selected under Addendum II. Based on the final Addendum II measures selected by the Board, New Jersey specified the SBBP would maintain the status quo SBBP size limit (24” to <28”) with=with a=a 7%=7% quota=quota reduction=reduction to=to 200,798=200,798 pounds.=pounds. This=This proposal=proposal was=was unanimously=unanimously approved=approved by=by the=the Board.=Board.
Lastly, the Board approved Toby Lapinski representing Connecticut and Julie Evans representing New York to the Atlantic Striped Bass Advisory Panel.
For more information, please contact Emilie Franke, Fishery Management Plan Coordinator, at efranke@asmfc.org. Click here for ASMFC 2024 Winter Meeting page. For comprehensive list of motions and votes on Addendum II, visit this link.
JCAA received this memo from Commissioner Lisa Jackson to the Division of Fish and Wildlife directing their staff to amend the artificial reef permit to allow New Jersey to accept 600 subway cars from New York. Her memo is below. Commissioner Jackson chaired a meeting at the JCAA office to discuss this issue. In attendance were Deputy Commissioner Jay Watson, Director of Fish and Wildlife Dave Chandra and representatives from JCAA, RFA, COA, ALS, NJ Dive Council, and Reef Rescue. Commissioner Jackson promised an unbiased look at the science. She contended that these were different subway cars and a new review was required. This memo is a result of that review. It is refreshing to work with a Commissioner who puts science first and is not tied to previous decisions that were politically motivated. We will keep a watchful eye to make sure this process does not stall. The anglers of New Jersey are grateful to Commissioner Jackson for her foresight and her willingness to put science first.
The Jersey Coast Anglers Association is upset about a Jan. 17 letter from Clean Ocean Action to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The letter asks the engineers to reject the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection application for a permit for artificial reef materials at 14 artificial reef sites and a proposed site along the coast of New Jersey.
Tom Fote, JCAA legislative director, is dismayed by COA executive director Cindy Zipf. She had reached out to that organization about patching up bad feelings relating to Zipf's success in denying the state's anglers and divers 250 subway cars for the reefs at no cost. In addition, the Division of Fish and Wildlife had to place 250 approved cars on deepwater reefs rather than on reefs accessible to small boat fishermen and most divers.
The Jan. 17 letter calls into question the use of approved materials such as concrete debris and ships for reefs because they "open the potential for introducing chemical compounds into the marine environment." Zipf also seeks elimination of ocean communication cables. Though a preliminary review of the application already determined that it would not affect species protected by the Endangered Species Act, the COA letter says "It has been reported that sea turtles become entangled in monofilament line that collects on some of the artificial reef material approved for New Jersey's program."
No evidence is cited, but that objection under the Endangered Species Act could lead to a prohibition of sportfishing on artificial reefs by the same anglers who have provided funds and volunteer manpower to build them with the Division of Fish and Wildlife.
The JCAA withdrew its longtime membership in COA after the effort to deny the state the benefits of 500 subway cars at no cost was started without consultation with the organization's members.
Their Jan. 17 letter went out with letterhead including such organizations as the United Boatmen, Asbury Park Fishing Club, Belmar Fishing Club, Central Jersey Anglers, Hi-Mar Striper Club, Hudson River Fishermen's Association, Jersey Coast Shark Anglers, Jersey Shore Captains Association, Marine Trades Association of New Jersey, N.J. Beach Buggy Association, N.J. Council of Dive Clubs, Raritan Bay Anglers, Saltwater Anglers of Bergen County, Shark River Surf Anglers, Sheepshead Bay Fishing Fleet Association and Shore Surf Club. It would be interesting to know how many of these organizations actually approved of Zipf's latest effort to cripple the artificial reef program in their names.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), on the other hand, sent a letter to the Corps on Jan. 21 seeking approval of that permit and citing the "tremendous success" that program has been for the state's anglers and the $1.5 billion industry they support. Pallone wrote, "Unfortunately, beach replenishment, sand and gravel mining, and commercial dredging have robbed New Jersey's natural seafloor of many of the firm substrate features that attract certain types of fish. The reef program has been restored and created critical habitat for these fish species, replenishing stocks and providing additional fishing opportunities."
Pallone added: "Please recognize the value of the artificial reef program to New Jerseyans and to the continued viability of fish stocks off our coast. I respectfully request that you approve the permit application submitted by the Division of Fish and Wildlife."
The last Striped Bass Board meeting that I attended as a commissioner was the spring of 2023. We were putting together addendum II for public hearings. I requested that the commission recognize the other two producing areas and begin working with their contribution to the coastal migratory stocks. I could not get support to include that in the addendum. I’m here now representing JCAA and the NJ State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs requesting that the next addendum or amendment on striped bass deals with this issue and it should have been done now.
Most of the current board was not serving in the mid 90’s, when we did all the preliminary work on striped bass and setting up quotas and who got what. There are a few members who may have been on the technical committee back then but no one was on the board. Why is this so important? I think it is important to review the history of how we determined the Chesapeake Bay’s ability to use the coastal migratory fish for their spring and winter fisheries. After consulting with some current members, I understand the way this is calculated may have changed under amendment 6. I used to attend all the striped bass technical committee meetings but I have not done so recently because of all the other commitments and time the ASMFC required of its commissioners. I did a check with two of the past members of the technical committee and they confirmed that this was the process but they were not sure of the percentage. As I have stated, I remember this as 25% of the coastal migratory stock.
When the commission was presenting the striped bass plan in the 90’s, the Chesapeake Bay delegation made the case as to how to allocate the ocean striped bass fisheries based on 1990s information. The Bay delegation made the argument that the states that fish in ocean waters should get 75% of the quota of the migratory stock since the Striped Bass Technical Committee estimates mature striped bass spend 25% of their time in the producing areas, and the rest in the ocean. When the addendum was passed, it eliminated the Delaware and Hudson Rivers as producing areas, and the Chesapeake Bay producing areas were given the entire 25% for their use. This was based on the assumption that the Chesapeake Bay created most of the migratory striped bass. The Technical Committee agreed at that time and they allocated 25% of the coastal migratory quota be harvested by the producing areas. The Technical people for the Chesapeake Bay did the statistics and developed a model that allowed the Chesapeake region to recreationally harvest larger amounts of striped bass in the fall then were permitted under the harvest control model, based on the 25% of the coastal migratory stock. This was in addition to the quota they already had on harvesting pre-migratory striped bass for both commercial and recreational fishermen.
New York, New Jersey, and Delaware did not express their interest in using any of that 25% for their producing areas since they did not have the data needed to do that. It then became a moot point since over New Jersey’s and Delaware’s objections, the Delaware and Hudson Rivers were eliminated as producing areas and could not even tap into that 25%. Remember, that was many years ago when we were estimating that at least 75% of the coastal migratory stocks were coming from the Chesapeake and only 25% from the other producing areas.
The Delaware River had just started recovering from the oxygen block from Camden and Philadelphia sewer systems. The stocks in the Delaware River have risen significantly. The Hudson River has always been a good producing area and has not seen the recruitment problems Chesapeake Bay is currently experiencing. Tagging studies in the last 10 years have shown that at least 40% of the coastal migratory stock during certain years is coming from areas other than the Chesapeake Bay. We can use DNA from the Hudson River stock to prove where certain fish come from. Because of the canal between Delaware and Maryland, there is a greater mixing of stocks in the two producing areas. If you contribute less, you should get less. Back then, we were allowing the Chesapeake Bay to get credit for 25% of the coastal migratory stock as if they were producing 100% of the coastal migratory stock.
Now that I understand that this may have changed under amendment 6, my first question becomes, how is this being determined now? What is the process by which they are allowed to harvest larger fish during certain times of the year? In their commercial fishery and the recreational fishery that targets smaller fish, it appears that there is double-dipping going on. Because they are harvesting a great number of small fish because they are considered a producing area, their total impact on the number of fish taken is greater than the entire coast. As you know, there is a great difference between harvesting an 18 – 28 inch fish and harvesting a fish along the coast in the commercial fishery that is a 28 inch or larger fish. In Massachusetts they are harvesting a 34 inch or larger fish. A million of fish in Massachusetts is a lot fewer fish than a million pounds of fish in Chesapeake Bay. As I pointed out in this document, in the past 10 – 12 years, the other producing areas are contributing 40% of the migratory stock. The quota for the Chesapeake Bay now leads to overharvesting the Chesapeake Bay spawning stock.
There is a lack of research to confirm what is actually happening in the three major producing areas. Because of global warming, there may be other areas that should be considered as producing areas. For example, there might be other rivers along the coast that have become spawning areas. I want to reiterate again; it is the spawning stock in the Chesapeake that is in trouble. We have dramatically reduced what the ocean states can harvest recreationally and commercially. We need to establish what the contribution is of each producing area and where the status of the young of the year is. I understand that all three of the producing areas had some of the lowest numbers in 2023 but unlike Chesapeake Bay, the Delaware and the Hudson Rivers have good years and bad years. There is no consistent downward trend in the Delaware and Hudson. It seems that the Chesapeake is experiencing more environmental issues. We need to do the cutbacks where they will mean the most and where the biggest problems are. The old way of operating by just restricting catch will not work with the pressures of global warming and other environmental issues. Instead of just blaming the coastal states, we need to take a close look at what is happening in all the producing areas and cut back on the harvest in the Chesapeake Bay.