 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT
by Tom Fote
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT & LEGISLATIVE REPORT
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association (January 2000 Newsletter)
Enclosed is an article from the NY CCA discussing the problems encountered in the Fulton Fish Market. There are many more illegal fish being sold than described in this article. We agree with the NY CCA that the only way to correct this problem is to make striped bass a game fish in New York and along the entire coast. JCAA is willing to work with any group to accomplish this goal. I hope national groups will get on board and help accomplish this along the entire coast. It is amazing how many groups are working on swordfish and I applaud all their efforts. However, I believe that striped bass is far more important to the recreational fishing industry and to individual anglers. We need a concensus among the national groups to accomplish this task. I hope they can put their differences aside and work together. Game fish now!
CCA NY views recent arrest as symptom of deeper problem.By John McMurray
Coastal Conservation Association New York ("CCA NY") views the recent arrests of a number of prominent fish wholesalers for illegal distribution of PCB tainted striped bass as a symptom of a much deeper problem: The illegal harvest and sale of striped bass in amounts for exceeding the established quota.
Although the fish underlying those arrests allegedly came from the New Jersey Side of the Hudson River, the illegal harvest of striped bass is endemic in New York Jamaica Bay and Sheepshead Bay, as well as the Hudson River, supply a thriving black market in New York City, but illegal sale takes place whereever a restaurant or fish market is willing to buy a black market bass. Not to long ago, an entire tractor-trailer truckload with illegally harvested striped bass was discovered in the Shinnecock region of eastern Long Island.
The New York City area is a particular mecca for illegal striped bass activity because its substantial fish population is located so close to a human population center. The massed consumers create a huge market for wild striped bass, and many restaurants and fish markets are willing to break the law to profit from that demand, even if that means selling PCB-laden bass to unsuspecting customers. Such restaurants are fully aware of their actions, since all wild striped bass sold in New York must bear a tag, attached at the moment of capture, as it passes from fisherman to wholesaler to retail outlet. Any restaurant or market that purchases an untagged bass knows that it is dealing in illegal and possibly contaminated fish.
Unscrupulous fishermen and fish dealers, including those at the retail level, now fill their purses and threaten public health with little fear of apprehension. High-profile arrests like the ones in question are newsworthy because they are so rare. More typically, the interstate movement of fish is not involved, and violators are generally accused of breaking state conservation laws, rather than the Federal Lacey Act, and receive relatively minor penalties in state courts. Habitual violators balance the low likelihood of getting caught with the opportunities for substantial profit, and write off any fines they do receive as a cost of doing business.
CCA NY believes that the widespread illegal harvest of striped bass must be brought under control, and suggests a two-pronged approach. The first prong must be a more aggressive law enforcement effort.
According to Charles Witek III, Chairman of CCA NY,
"The current complement of Environmental Conservation Officers is too small, and tasked with too many duties. Fisheries laws can not be enforced if Environmental Conservation Officers are searching pet shops for endangered species or poking around in a solid waste transfer sight. New York must establish a unit specifically tasked to apprehend fisheries violators. In addition, officers must not only go after the people who catch illegal striped bass. They have to go after those who knowingly buy them. Crack down on the restaurants and markets that traffic in untagged bass, really raises the ante for having illegal fish on the premise, and you drive down demand and make illegal sale a lot less profitable."
While stepped up enforcement will go a long way to control the problem, the only realistic way to put an end to it is outlaw all commercial fishing for striped bass. New York must join its neighbors, Connecticut and New Jersey that, along with Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington DC, have already prohibited such commercial harvest. As CCA NY Chairman explains:
"Striped bass can only sustain a limited harvest. Already, New York's commercial fishermen are limited to taking about 100 bass per year. No one can legally make more that two or three thousand dollars from the fishery â€" probably less when expenses are netted out. Thus, there are no full-time striped bass fishermen, just part timers who use the bass to supplement their income from other sources. But allowing their small harvests into the stream of commerce opens the door to widespread violations as fishermen and dealers attempt to disguise illegal and often contaminated fish as legally harvested striped bass. CCA NY looks forward to the time when the presence of wild striped bass in a store or restaurant is conclusive evidence that a law has been broken."
Once again the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) have demonstrated how pathetically unfair and ineffective scup management has become. At its December 8, 1999, meeting in Ocean City, MD, the joint bodies adopted a 50-fish bag limit that doesn't begin to address the problems inherent in this troubled fishery.
Recreational survey data through August showed that the recreational sector had overfished the harvest limit of 1.2 million pounds by 50 percent. Consequently, the MAFMC recommended a minimum size increase to nine inches and a 14-fish bag limit for the year 2000. The Monitoring Committee, which examines such recommendations for scientific validity chose an eight-inch minimum size but supported the 14-fish bag limit.
Unfortunately, no one seemed to notice or care that the run-up in recreational harvest occurred primarily in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, states which already have a 50-fish bag limit in place. Rather than introducing thoughts about managing this fishery more in terms of how it's prosecuted state-by-state in just five coastal states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey), everyone continued thinking in terms of coastwise measures rather than fair application. A 14-fish bag limit would undoubtedly address the overfishing occurring in New England waters, but it would essentially shut down the remnants of the scup fishery that remains in New Jersey. Just two party boats continue in this fishery, with bank and private boat anglers almost a thing of the past.
The significant point is that the overfishing of the harvest limit isn't occurring in New Jersey, yet this state will be eliminated from the fishery should such drastic measures be put into place.
The MAFMC and the ASMFC clearly didn't want to impose a 14-fish bag limit, and instead offered the 50-fish recommendation as a "fair" compromise. All we can say about that recommendation is that it's equitable in the sense that if accepted by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) all states would fish under the same bag limit. But that doesn't make it fair by any means. Imposing any bag limits in states below New England is just window dressing because the problem is localized. Since the two states with a run-up in landings are already at 50 fish, the measure will have no impact whatsoever on their participation. So how does it make any sense?
Moreover, the NMFS Regional Administrator made it quite clear at the December 8th meeting that the 50-fish bag limit didn't come close to the reduction needed to ensure the recreational sector fished within the year 2000 harvest limit of 1.2 million pounds. It's therefore very likely that the 50-fish recommendation will be rejected in favor of the 14-fish measure, which just shifts this fishery to New England, should it remain viable even there.
And to make matters worse, Dave Borden, state representative from Rhode Island, borrowed an idea designed by Massachusetts with striped bass and suggested a "credit" for his state since by imposing a 50-fish bag limit voluntarily they were more restrictive than necessary. If such drivel is permitted, New Jersey would go out of the recreational scup business while Rhode Island would receive something higher than a 14-fish limit and quite likely stay in business. That's quite an economic contribution to that region and devastation to our local fishery, but when has the NMFS been particularly concerned about Mid-Atlantic fishermen?
The travesty of this situation is intensified by some history surrounding scup management. When the plan was voted in place in 1996, the recreational sector was awarded 28 percent of the quota despite evidence that its traditional share was something over 35 percent. In fact, had the allocation between commercial and recreational sectors been more traditional, there would have been no recreational overages this year.
In addition, shortly after the plan went into effect, in 1997, if memory serves, certain members of the MAFMC argued that the minimum mesh size for the directed commercial scup fishery of 4.5 inches was no doubt contributing to a reduction in bycatch. An assumption that at the time was unsupported by any scientific data. Nevertheless, those individuals suggested that the commercial quota, which was determined by subtracting from the commercial allocation the assumed discard amount, should be increased because discards were lower. Over the objection of Gary Caputi and Dusty Rhodes, the MAFMC and the ASMFC voted for that outrageous example of smoke and mirrors and the commercial sector was awarded even more quota from an "overfished" fishery. And the NMFS went along with that outrage, never questioning its absurdity.
It gets worse. Earlier this year some commercial fishermen openly acknowledged that they haven't been directing on scup with 4.5-inch mesh because too many legal size scup escape, which is the purpose of such size mesh in the first place. They indicated that 4-inch mesh was being used, and at one meeting it was mentioned that in reality some were using 3-inch mesh, all in clear violation of the law! Not only has the NMFS made no move concerning such admitted violations, but also no one has made an effort to address the quota increase, which clearly was unjustly awarded. Yet the NMFS representative had no hesitation about chastising the management bodies when they were reluctant to adopt a recreational measure that would put at least two of the five participating states out of the recreational portion of the scup fishery.
Yes, scup management is broken, but more than that, it's become the bastard child of fishery management.
SUMMER FLOUNDER REGULATIONS 2000By Gary Caputi
The Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Summer Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission met in joint session in Ocean City, Maryland on December 8 to set the coastwide recreational fishing measures for 2000.
At the previous meeting of the two groups, the total allowable catch for 2000 was set at 18,518,000 pounds with the commercial quota at 11,110,000 pounds and the recreational harvest target set at 7,410,000 pounds. The purpose of this meeting was to review the latest information from the 1999 MRFSS data and determine what measures would need to be taken to meet the target harvest figure.
Prior to the meeting waves 1 through 4 of MRFSS data (which is broken into 6 bimonthly reporting periods) was available and the last two waves were projected based on prior year’s performance. Every indication was that the recreational harvest would exceed last year’s target by a considerable amount with projections indicating total landings in excess of 9.3 million pounds. However, the morning of the meeting, wave 5 date became available and indicated recreational landings of almost 1 million pounds less than projected for that wave. While this was certainly good news, it once again calls into question the accuracy of the MRFSS data and the projections made on it. This last-minute information left the body to establish recreational measures with the knowledge that the recreational landings for 1999 were very close to the target and not dramatically overharvested as in prior years, so last years measures were relatively effective and stricter measures and deeper reductions might not be necessary.
Remember that 1999 was the first year the group approved "conservation equivalency" in the plan which allows individual states to set their own combination of bag limit, minimum size and seasonal closures to achieve a 41% reduction in that year. This was done with the help of NMFS allowing it to be done under an interim management measure, since the FMP was not amended to allow this to be done. This new measure proved difficult to implement with accuracy from one state to another, with different states coming closer to the 41% target reduction than others. When we measure in numbers of fish landed, New Jersey was pretty much on the money. Massachusetts and Virginia both went well over the 41% with Virginia reducing landings by over 60%. Other states did not fair as well, with New York and Rhode Island falling short of the benchmark.
Due to the mixed results, and recognizing that managers still did not have a formal amendment in place permitting true conservation equivalency flexibility that would allow for recognition of individual states’ reduction shortfalls by deducting them in the next year, a fallback position was established. It was decided, at the recommendation of the council staff, to fall back to the 1998 data as a base (remember we had to reduce 41% from 1998 to 1999) and establish whatever reduction for 2000 was needed based on 1998. This is what was done and it was established that the reduction schedule would remain at the same 41% coastwide. From there, the group established the coastwide measures as follows:
8 fish bag limit
15-1/2 inch minimum size
Open season from May 10 through October 2
Note that this is the coastwide benchmark and from this, individual states will have to develop measures for their fishermen based on achieving the 41% reduction in 2000 under the conservation equivalency provision. Those states that met the 41% reduction in 1999 could retain their management measures, those that exceeded the required reduction could liberalize a little and those that did not meet the reduction would have to establish stricter measures for 2000.
Since New Jersey met its obligation in 2000, we can be pretty sure that the regulations established for our 2000 fish year should at the least not be any more strict than in 1999. With the coastwide measures slight more lenient than last year, we can hope that they might even be liberalized slightly, but that is up to the state directors at this time.
A new legislative session begins in the NJ Senate and Assembly on January 11, 2000. I usually confine my legislative reviews to the previous session (2 years). However, since the same party has been in power and the same leadership has been in control in both the Assembly and the Senate for two sessions, I think it is interesting to take a four year view. Overall, things have gone well in the NJ Senate. They killed the bill that would have allowed the harvest of glass eels in two sessions after the bill to open the fishery was approved in the Assembly. The Senate approved a bill that would have eliminated reduction boats from state waters while the Assembly Committee for Agriculture and Natural Resources defeated the same bill. The Senate passed the Sunday Clamming Bill. In the Assembly the bill never even got a committee hearing. The Senate Health Committee held hearings on a bill to require fish markets and restaurants to post all advisories. There has been no action in the Assembly. After four years, both the Senate and the Assembly finally passed the license increase bill.
It is clear that the Senate is more likely to protect the public resources and respond to the concerns of the recreational fishing industry and the environmental community. We need to work harder to convince our representatives in the Assembly to support our issues. We also need to hold the sponsor of these bills more accountable. We rely on them to work with their colleagues. You need to invite your legislators to your club meetings, visit them at their offices, write letters, send faxes and emails, write letters to the newspaper, and call them regularly. We can only hold them responsible if we have been diligent in our work as well. We have many bills that need approval next year. I will continue to work with the legislature but I need your support.
JCAA needs you to send letters immediately to NJ Assembly Speaker Jack Collins. In the enclosed letter we request that Assemblyman Collins move natural resources to the Environmental Committee. Assemblyman Collins will be making this decision in the next couple of weeks. Many of the bills we supported in the last four years were passed in the Senate only to die in the Assembly. This was because these bills were sent to the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. If this change does not take place we will have this problem for the next two years. Assemblyman Collins needs to hear from you immediately in support of this request.
Speaker Jack Collins R
Suite C
63 East Ave
Woodstown NJ 08098-1499
PHONE (856) 769-3633
FAX (856) 769-0049
AsmCollins@njleg.state.nj.us
Dear Speaker Jack Collins:
JCAA represents over 30,000 of New Jersey's marine anglers. Through our affiliation with other environmental and sportsmen organizations, we reach out to several hundred thousand New Jersey citizens who are concerned with our valuable environmental and marine resources.
I am enclosing two articles and a letter from the RFA about the Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. In addition to the enclosed material, I have received hundreds of calls and emails on this subject. There have also been other articles in the Asbury Park Press, Star Ledger, Trentonian and the Bergen Record. The overwhelming concensus is that this committee does not take an unbiased view when considering legislation about the protection of New Jersey's natural resources.
Traditionally, this committee's main focus has been agriculture. Because of this focus, committee members are prone to protect the rights of private property owners in agriculture. When natural resources, which contains hunting, fresh and saltwater fishing and other marine issues, was placed in this committee, the focus and the membership never changed. The committee relies strongly on the agriculture board for information and positions. This may have been appropriate when the committee was responsible for only agricultural issues. Our concern is that they never made the philosophical switch to fresh water, hunting other than deer, marine issues and the natural resources protection issues. In the four years that this committee has had responsibility for natural resources I have never seen them take a stand different from the agricultural board. In my opinion, this demonstrates the undue influence the agricultural board has in this committee. They should be considering the opinions and needs of all users of the public resource, not just agriculture.
JCAA finds this influence often results in a negative atmosphere for considering environmental and natural resources issues. This committee consistently overlooks the rights of all citizens to have equal access to public resources. For four years the committee has been focused on the deer issue because of farmers' concerns about deer. While we appreciate that this is an important issue, there are many other issues that require the attention and consideration of this committee. The committee members have failed to investigate and become knowledgeable about the marine, freshwater and environmental issues on which they vote. The committee members admitted as much at a recent hearing.
This requires your immediate attention as you establish committees for the next session. JCAA strongly urge you to move natural resources back to the environmental committee. It is our opinion that this is the appropriate committee. The committee members on the environmental committee are accustomed to weighing testimony of divergent groups and interests. They have a stronger knowledge base about marine issues and are more likely to seek appropriate compromises. Our biggest concern about the agriculture committee is our perception that the committee would like to privatize all the public resources. New Jersey has a strong history of seeing deer, clams, game, fish and other resources as belonging to all the citizens, not just specific user groups. It is important that we continue that tradition and not let it be overridden by the single-minded needs of the agriculture board. In addition, the current committee does not appear to recognize that the Division of Fish and Game has the responsibility for research and protection of the public resource. Because of the strong historic relationship Rutgers has with the agricultural community, they are always the first choice for any research. We have many research options within the Division of Fish and Game and other institutions that could play an important, less biased role if given the opportunity.
In closing, we are asking for your leadership on this issue. We know you respect the needs of all the citizens of New Jersey and have a far broader view of this problem that the current committee assignments would suggest. We are calling on you to take direct action on this issue by moving natural resources back to the environmental committee. This would certainly resolve many of our concerns and would allow all user groups to approach the process with a positive attitude. If you look at our work with the Senate Environmental Committee, it becomes clear that we are not looking for arubber stamp but just a fair and open hearing. The anglers, hunters and environmental groups are constantly asking why the Senate is able to pass important legislation that is rejected at the committee level in the Assembly. JCAA would like to meet with you to discuss this issue further. Please let us know the earliest possible date that you are available.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Thomas P. Fote
Legislative Chairman JCAA & NJSFSC
22 Cruiser Court, Toms River NJ, 08753
732-270-9102 Fax 732-506-6409
Email tfote@jcaa.org
FINALLY- Fish & Game License fee Increase bill approved by the New Jersey Assembly and is on the governor’s desk for signature.
The Fish & Game license increase bill A2549/S1378 cleared the Assembly Budget & Appropriations committee and was passed by the full Assembly on Monday Dec. 13th. The vote in the Assembly was 59 in favor and 16 opposed with 3 abstentions and 2 not voting. The bill will become law and the new fees for the 2000 licenses will be in place as soon as the governor signs the bill.
Thanks are due to all who helped over the past 5 years in this effort to secure adequate funding for Division of Fish & Game operations and New Jersey’s wildlife resources. The list of people and organizations involved is far too long to be mentioned here, but I would like to take note of assistance we received during the past few weeks from the environmental community in the effort to get A2549 out of committee and on the board for a vote in the Assembly. Included are The Nature Conservancy, New Jersey Audubon, New Jersey Conservation Foundation, and especially Jeff Tittel of N.J.Sierra who worked the caucuses for us the day of the Assembly vote. Since the bill moved as an "emergency measure" bi-partison support was essential in order to get it approved.
Assemblypersons who voted "no" on Monday were Republicans Asselta, Connors, Moran, O’Toole, Weingarten, and Wolfe. Democrats voting "no" were Caraballo, Charles, Cohen, Gill, Impreveduto, Jones, Quigley, Stanley, and Watson-Coleman.
The Senate vote for approval of S1378 back on June 24, l999 was 29 supporting with 6 opposed and 5 not voting. Senators voting "no’ were Republicans Cardinale, and Connors. Democrats voting against the bill were Codey, Funari, Girgenti, and Sacco.
It has been a long hard fight, and certainly much harder than it should have been, to secure necessary research and management funding for New Jersey’s wildlife resources. Particularly since the wildlife resource provides such tremendous environmental, economic and recreational benefits for New Jersey Citizens.
One last effort needed regarding S1378/A2549 is to contact our legislators one more time. Thank those, both Republicans and Democrats who supported us , and particularly the bill’s sponsors, Bob Littell in the Senate and Michael Carrol in the Assembly, who "walked the extra yard" for New Jersey sportsmen in this endeavor. Tell those who voted against us how disappointed we are in their vote and our hope that they will make the effort to obtain the facts when wildlife related issues are debated in the future, and may then be in a position to support New Jersey’s wildlife resource which is so important to the quality of life of our citizens.
Thanks again for all your assistance and compliments on a job well done - Now on to the next battle for wildlife conservation and the environment.
Executive Director of NJSFSC George P. Howard
219 Sidney Rd. Pittstwon,NJ 08867
Ph. 908 735-5046 fax 908 735-8743
Menhaden Bill Shot DownBy JB Kasper
The Times December 10,1999
As reported in this paper on Sunday, two very important pieces of legislation were heard by the Agriculture Committee of the New Jersey State Assembly on Monday. One, the license increase bill, passed unanimously, and the other, the Menhaden bill, failed, also unanimously. I sat in on the committee meeting when both bills were heard, and as usual the proceedings were a wonderment. It would be really enlightening for the general public who vote in each fall’s elections to sit in on one of these meetings. I would be willing to bet hard earned money that at least half of the politicians now in office would not be reelected. I can’t cover both bills in the same story, so I’ll give you the run down on the Menhaden bill today and the license increase bill on Sunday.
To begin with, as I have said many times before, dollars and cents will win out over common sense every time when it comes to the politicians. It is beyond me why, when a legislative body or a government agency has a chance to protect a fishery while we still have it, they fail to show the courage or responsibility to do so. They would rather wait until the fishery is over-harvested out of existence and then slam drastic regulations on the users, spend thousands and even millions of dollars, and countless man hours to rebuild it. Countless fisheries have been squandered in this manner since the end of World War II and it doesn’t seem that the Powers-That-Be will ever learn from past mistakes. Stop to think about it: if you have a leak in your roof, do you wait until the roof collapses to fix the leak? If your car has a hole in the radiator and is overheating, do you drive the car until the engine blows up and then fix the leak? The answer to both questions, of course, is no. You take the proper steps to remedy the situation and safe guard your valuable investment. This is exactly what the organizations who helped write the legislation and the legislators who sponsored the bill were trying to do. Protect a fishery for the future before out of state commercial fishermen can devastate it.
By forcing the reduction boats (who catch 80% of the bunker) out of Garden State waters, it would allow the local commercial bait fishermen to increase their catch. It would also protect the fishery by cutting down on the numbers of fish that are taken out of state waters. In the long run, it would allow more of the fish that spawned this year (and this year was a very good spawn) to survive and thus these fish would spawn and the fishery would grow. It’s a shame that when a bill like this comes along, one that shows some insight and smart thinking, that common sense seems to evaporate in the people who oppose it.
The bill in it’s original form would have not only kicked the out of state reduction boats out of Jersey waters, it would have pushed local boats farther out as well. I personally believe that the bill in it’s original form was a much better piece of legislation. The bill was compromised in the senate to allow regulations on the local commercial bait fishermen to stay at status-quo. Most who supported the bill did not like the compromise, however, they felt that they could live with it, since the revamped bill would deal with the real problem the reduction boats. Enter the champion of the commercial fishing industry New Jersey industry-assemblyman Gibson, representatives of the commercial fishing industry from as far away as Washington, DC and the Agricultural Committee. Anyone who attended the committee hearing on Monday and thought the bill had a chance got a real lesson in politics. Here’s now it went. To begin with, outside of Assemblyman Gibson, who has never voted against the commercial fishing industry, the entire committee is composed of legislators who deal strictly with agricultural legislation. And here in lies the problem. What business does the agricultural committee have making judgments on legislation that effects the environment, outdoors, hunting or fishing. Do farmers grow corn in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? Do farmers grow potatoes in Barnegat Bay? Of course not. So why does the agricultural committee rule on fisheries legislation? Assemblyman Gibson stated that he believed the venue for fisheries regulations belongs with the New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council and not with his committee. Although, on this point I agree with him, the council has failed to do anything about the bunker issue for the past six years or more and this why legislation was introduced in the first place. The real reason sportsmen (hunters, fishermen, trappers, etc.) don’t get a fair shake in the legislature, (one example is how the agricultural committee has held up the license increase bill because Hunterdon County farmers opposed it) is that bills having to do with Fish & Game and marine fisheries are funneled through the Agricultural Committee by Speaker Jack Collins. Such bills should come under the venue of the Environmental Committee as they do in the senate. As a matter of fact, Senator Corodemus, who chairs the Environmental committee in the senate, sent the Menhaden bill to the Assembly with his recommendation. In order for sportsmen to get a fair shake in the Assembly, this ridiculous process has to be stopped and the bills should be heard by the Environmental Committee where they belong. To further show you how flawed the whole process is, the Agricultural Committee transformed the Menhaden Protection Bill from a bill that would protect the menhaden from over harvesting by commercial fishermen into a appropriations bill that would take $95,000 of the tax payers money to study the menhaden. Now you can see what I mean by dollars and cents and not common sense.
A couple of other interesting observations I made at the meeting were: Most of the people who supported the menhaden bill also spoke up for the license increase bill. Why didn’t the Division of Fish & Game support the bill? If they did support the bill why didn’t they send someone to speak up for the sportsmen and organizations who supported the Menhaden Bill? Why didn’t the New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council send a representative to state their view of the bill, pro or con? If the venue for menhaden regulations belongs with the Council, why were they absent from the hearing? If they indeed had an alternative plan, why were they not there to make the committee aware of the option? One last thought in the Committee meeting. I thought it absolutely comical when a representative of the commercial fishing industry from Belford stated that his people were leaders in fisheries conservation long before sportsmen every considered conservation fashionable. Excuse me, but let’ set the facts straight. Theodore Roosevelt, one of the best known sportsmen of all time, proposed and had enacted more conservation legislation when he was president than anyone with a commercial fishing background, and sportsmen and conservation have been partners ever since; that was almost 100 years ago. I’m not saying all, because there are plenty of hard working commercial fishermen who are very conservation minded, however, many commercial fishermen only favor conservation when it benefits them, and that’s usually after a fishery is devastated, such as in New England and countless other places through out the world.
You can reach us with your fishing or hunting reports, comments or questions by fax at (215) 295-0902; by E-Mail at J.B.Kasper@worldnet.att.net; or by mail at J.B. Kasper c/o The Times, 500 Perry St., Trenton, NJ 08605
If you would like to receive JCAA Email alerts email your Name, Club, if you belong to one, and your interest to <tfote@jcaa.org> and you will be added to the list.
By JB Kasper
Times of Trenton December 12, 1999
As we mentioned in Friday’s Times, two important pieces of legislation were heard by the Assembly Agriculture Committee on Monday. We covered the Menhaden bill on Friday and now we will take a look at the License Increase bill that was passed by the committee and now must go before the Assembly Appropriations Committee. It took four years to make it’s way through the Agriculture Committee and we can only hope that the Appropriations Committee will not play the political games the bill saw in the previous committee.
The problems the Menhaden bill faced were just the tip of the iceberg compared to the tribulations the license increase bill faced. As we mentioned on Friday, the Agriculture Committee is made of legislators who deal mainly with agriculture issues and have very little, if any, knowledge of conservation or sportsmen’s issues. All one had to do was sit and watch the committee hearings on these bills and it became quite obvious. For four years the bill was held back in the Agriculture Committee because it was opposed by farmers who said that the Division of Fish & Game did not do enough to control the deer population and the damage the deer did to their crops. In all fairness to the farmers, they are 100 percent right about the damage done to their crops and no one can dispute this fact. They can’t, however, blame the Division of Fish & Game. New Jersey has one of the most liberal deer hunts in the country and despite the fact that the regulations and seasons are so complicated that most hunters have a hard time getting them straight, better than 60,000 plus deer are taken down by hunters each year. This year the hunting regulations and season were made even more liberal. According to recently released figures on the Fall Bow Season, the 1999 total was 14,080, which is the third highest in the state’s history. Over 47,000 bow hunters took part in the Fall Bow Season. The state’s other five deer seasons are expected to be just as or even more successful and it’s a good bet that over 70,000 deer will be taken by hunters.
As I sat and listened to the hearing, every sportsmen’s and conservation organization in the state testified in favor of the license increase. The only opposition heard at the hearing came from four farmers from Hunterdon County, who said the Division should not get the increase in license fees until they dealt with the deer population to their satisfaction.
If you ever take a ride through Hunterdon County, and I do a lot of fishing there, all you’ll see is no hunting signs. And herein lies the problem. As developers develop the land, more and more habitat is lost and the deer migrate into areas were there is plenty of food. I would be willing to bet that the very people that testified against the license increase post all their land "No Hunting". When I was growing up and hunting in Grovers Mills, Plainsboro and other areas, I had several letters that gave me permission to hunt and fish on posted land. It was a common practice then to ask a farmer to hunt his land for small game and deer, or fish an irrigation pond, and very seldom were you refused. A stop at the farmers house with a couple pheasant, rabbits or fish, a return trip with a side of deer and everyone was happy.
In today’s world most farmers don’t even own the land they farm. Over the years most of the smaller farms were bought up by bigger land owners and they lease the land to farmers who work the land. In many cases either the land owner or the farmer who farms the land will not let hunters on the land. In other cases, only a handful of chosen friends are allowed to hunt the land. This all adds up to not enough deer being shot. The farmers have only themselves to blame for not allowing hunters to hunt their land. A simple answer to the problem would be to open up more of the farm land to recreational hunting. Some farms are leased to clubs and this works to a certain extent. In some states farmers map their land, post it and then let hunters hunt their land for a small fee. This gives farmers a few extra bucks and gives the hunters who can’t afford to belong to a club a chance at some good concentrations of deer.
Farmers are also given liberal permits by the Division to shoot deer and many hunters have a big problem with this. Hunters spend plenty of money for deer permits and licenses, and have a legitimate gripe. It would be better to allow hunters to shoot the deer so they would be put to better use, instead of the three S’s (shoot, shovel and shut up) which has been known to take place with all to much regularity.
Another thing I found interesting about the hearing on the License Increase is the fact that for four years no one considered how the fishermen felt about the license increase. As I mentioned, almost every sportsmen’s organization supported the increase and that includes fishing clubs. Because the license increase bill was heard in the Agriculture Committee instead of the Environmental Committee, the farmers, who’s only interest had to do with the deer hunting, simply had too much power. The fishermen were made to take stocking cut backs and cut backs in other programs because of the budget problems, however, they had little or no voice in the matter. This is totally unfair and one of the main reasons this type of bill belongs in the Environmental Committee.
Fishing and hunting are not agriculture, they are part of the outdoors. Hunting and fishing impact on the environment and as such they come under the venue of the Environmental Committee. If farmers start growing fish in their fields or open up their lands to the public for hunting and fishing, instead of having their own private game preserves, then and only then should the Agriculture Committee hear bills pertaining to hunting and fishing.
The License Increase bill finally was released by the Committee on Monday. One of the committee members said she had gotten an unbelievable amount of mail, E-Mail and phone calls from sportsmen who supported the bill, as did everyone else on the committee. The bill now goes to the Appropriations Committee for a vote and if passed there it will go to the floor of the Assembly for a vote. It then has to be signed by the governor. Sportsmen need to put the same pressure on the Appropriations Committee, as well as the entire Assembly and the governor, to get this bill passed into law as soon as possible. The sooner the license increase is passed into law, the sooner sportsmen will get back the programs that they are used to. Oh yeah, in case anyone doesn’t know, sportsmen pay for those programs through their license fees and since they pay for them they have a right to them.
December 9, 1999
The Honorable Jack Gibson, Chairman
Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee
New Jersey State Assembly
State House Annex, Third Floor Trenton, NJ 08625
Dear Chairman Gibson:
The Recreational Fishing Alliance represents thousands of New Jersey’s salt water anglers and in-state businesses dependent on a healthy and sustainable marine ecosystem for their survival. As such, RFA members thank you for finally acting on A. 1827, a bill to regulate the harvest of menhaden in New Jersey waters. While we appreciate your action, even at such a late date, we do not appreciate the manner in which the bill was handled.
RFA understands that the committee had a full agenda for the day, but a bill that could have such serious consequences for the marine ecosystem should have been afforded a full and equitable hearing. At the outset of the day’s proceedings, you personally stated that those bills that were slated for approval would only have need for the opponents to share their views, so they could be taken into consideration by the governing agency while implementing the legislation. Therefore, when the Fish and Game licensing bill came up for discussion, those of us in favor remained silent as our names and organizations were read for the record. The licensing bill passed easily and without committee dissent.
The same procedure was set up for the menhaden bill. The majority who approved of it were asked to keep silent, while the minority against the bill were encouraged to speak. A few from the majority did get up and speak, but were obviously as brief as possible, at your urging. So, imagine our surprise when the committee, claiming ignorance about such a complex subject, stripped the bill completely, substituted a short study and a request for appropriations that will never see the light of day, and essentially killed the bill.
If given the chance during Monday’s hearing to provide important historical and scientific facts regarding menhaden, RFA would have no quarrel with the committee’s actions. But the fact that those of us with real and informed views on the subject were silenced while others were encouraged to talk themselves silly is inherently unfair and counter to the democratic process. RFA’s disappointment in your actions is real and we are extremely concerned that these procedural maneuvers show a disdain for the vocal and politically active recreational fishing sector in our state. We certainly hope this is not the case, but sadly, your actions seem to indicate otherwise.
In light of the committee’s actions, we strongly urge you to schedule a hearing on New Jersey’s menhaden resource as soon as the legislature again convenes. The purpose of this hearing would be two-fold: (1) to level the playing field among opponents and proponents of legislation to limit the reduction industry’s entry into the fishery, as we have already limited entry to our own bait boats, and (2) to educate the committee members, who very publicly and shamelessly acknowledged their lack of understanding about this very important issue. We have the facts at our disposal, but only you can provide the forum and the leadership to get the facts to committee members. What we are requesting, essentially, is a fair fight.
Sincerely,
Sharon McKenna
Legislative Director
Federal Agencies grant permit to Port Authority to dump muck from Brooklyn Marine Terminals into our ocean. Muck with high levels of contaminants now being dumped off our shore
On December 7, 1999, the US Environmental Protection Agency informed Clean Ocean Action that a permit for dredging and dumping at the Historic Area Remediation Site (known locally as the "toxic stain") off the Jersey Shore was approved. This permit, however, wasn’t for Castle Astoria Terminals, Inc. Instead, the Port Authority was granted a permit to dredge nearly 300,000 tons of mud from their Brooklyn Marine Terminals (piers 6-12) and dump it at the Historic Area Remediation Site as so-called "remediation material". Contaminant levels in the mud are extremely high and are a great cause for concern.
Clean Ocean Action was aware of this potential project and has been concerned that if Castle Astoria Terminals, Inc. goes forward, other projects like Brooklyn Marine Terminals could move forward. COA did not receive and was never informed that a public notice had been issued for public comment. Representatives from federal agencies neglected to mention the public notice issuance during numerous discussions with Clean Ocean Action. Congressman Pallone and Senator Torricelli were also kept in the dark about the status of the Brooklyn Marine Terminal’s application to ocean-dump.
According to information supplied by EPA, the public notice was issued on September 22, 1999 and expired October 22, 1999—only two days after the public hearing on Castle Astoria Terminals, Inc. While the public was expressing their outrage about New York mud from Castle Astoria Terminals, Inc. being dumped off the Jersey Shore and the lack of standards for ocean remediation, the Port Authority was proceeding with an ocean-dumping proposal behind the scenes.
Actions are now underway to demand an immediate halt of the permit to allow for public comment. However, the Port Authority has reduced the quantity of muck to be dredged for now and has dumped nearly all the muck for this round -- 120,000 tons.
Dumping began the Monday after Thanksgiving and the EPA was kept in the dark until December 3rd.
So what’s wrong with this mud?The mud is 99% silt/clay, the finest particles to which contaminants attach. The sediments are contaminated with PCBs, DDT, metals, and hydrocarbons and are no less contaminated than sediments already at the Historic Area Remediation Site (known locally as the "toxic stain"). In addition, the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) reviewed the Port Authority Brooklyn Marine Terminals application for dredging and ocean disposal. They determined the following:
1. The sediments "showed levels of contaminants that necessitate dredging restrictions to prevent widespread impacts on marine biota due to the resuspension of sediment during the dredging operation."
2. Further, the tests on marine life showed "significant toxicity" of the mud before the federal agencies factored in the ocean dilution factors.
Due to these concerns, and to protect striped bass and winter flounder, the NYSDEC placed restrictions on the Port Authority’s Brooklyn Marine Terminals dredging project including:
However, the Port Authority appealed to the New York State DEC to waive the window and allow some dredging, citing a navigational need. The Port Authority said they would reduce the dredging volume from 280,000 tons to 117,000 tons for this year.
The NY State Department determined that the Port did justify the need to dredge some material and agreed to allow some initial dredging of material up to December 15, 1999.
All of the other restrictions listed above applied.
It is important to note that Brooklyn Marine Terminal’s permit was issued for three years until the year 2002 and allows dumping of 280,000 tons per year.
What can we do?This action is further proof that the US Army Corps and the US EPA do not have standards that will reduce contamination at the remediation site. Call or Write Vice President Al Gore and Governor Christie Whitman ask for their immediate intervention to stop the dumping of contaminated sediments off our coast.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania, NW
Washington D.C. 20500
(202) 456-2326
Governor Christie Whitman
State House CN 001
Trenton, NJ 0825
(609)292-6000