"Pots Off the Reefs" bill passed NJ Senate...

S221 Prohibits the use of certain fishing gear on artificial reefs.
Passed Senate


3/21/2011 Passed by the Senate (31-4)


Bill A1152 has yet to be heard in the NJ Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. Assemblyman Albano, Chairman of the Committee, has yet to post it for discussion and vote.

His contact information:

Assemblyman Nelson Albano
21 North Main Street Cape
May Court House, NJ 08210

Phone: 609-465-0700
Fax: 609-465-4578
Email: AsmAlbano@njleg.org


Also the Assembly Speaker needs to hear as well:

Assemblywoman Sheila Y. Oliver
15-33 Halsted Street Suite 202
East Orange, NJ 07018

Phone: 973-395-1166
Fax: 973-395-1724
Email: AswOliver@njleg.org

thats good to hear

They need to regulate the pots as well. There's no accounting for what belongs to who out there. I don't think there are any limits to the pots you can have if you have a license. And if there is, who checks up on you?

Let us get them off the reefs first. Then we need to get the vacant seats on the NJ Marine Fisheries Council filled and the rest reappointed as the numbers at the moment are commercials 5, recreationals 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by njdiver

as the numbers at the moment are commercials 5, recreationals 4.

---

And you are optimistic that we will get to a point where the recreationals outnumber the recs on the council? Good for you, I don't seem to have that optimism. Thanks for posting the legislation, though.

Composition
The council consists of eleven members appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the Senate. The makeup of the council is set by statute and is composed of four sports fishermen, two active commercial fin fishermen, one active fish processor, two members of the general public, and the chairman of the two sections of the Shellfisheries Council.

http://www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/councils.htm#marine

N.J.S.A. 23:2B-4

23:2B-4. Creation of council; membership; term; removal from office; compensation and expenses; chairman; quorum

There is hereby created in the department a Marine Fisheries Council, which shall consist of 11 members, nine of whom shall be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, of whom four shall represent and be knowledgeable of the interests of sports fishermen, two shall be active commercial fin fishermen, one shall be an active fish processor, and two shall represent the general public; the other two members shall be the chairmen of the two sections of the Shell Fisheries Council.



The "public at large" seats are designed to be neutral parties representing the "public".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by njdiver

and the rest reappointed as the numbers at the moment are commercials 5, recreationals 4.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by njdiver

Composition
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]The council consists of eleven members appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the Senate. The makeup of the council is set by statute and is composed of four sports fishermen, two active commercial fin fishermen, one active fish processor, two members of the general public, The "public at large" seats are designed to be neutral parties representing the "public".

---

This is so confusing to me, njdiver. At first I read you said there were 5 commercials and 4 recreationals. The sentences you posted afterwards doesn't say anything to me about that exact number. I really don't understand it, how did the numbers get out of whack like that? And btw, thank you for posting all of this and trying to explain it. It all looks like greek to me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baitstealer

This is so confusing to me, njdiver. At first I read you said there were 5 commercials and 4 recreationals. The sentences you posted afterwards doesn't say anything to me about that exact number. I really don't understand it, how did the numbers get out of whack like that? And btw, thank you for posting all of this and trying to explain it. It all looks like greek to me!

---

The recent history of the NJMFC includes a vacancy for one "public at large" position for at least the last six years. Presently both "public at large" positions are vacant due to the resignation of the only individual holding one. Most of the remaining members are holding their positions beyond their defined terms and need to be reappointed. Politics and bureaucracy are the roadblocks.

I'm all for this,but also aware this is on reefs that lay in State waters only as most reefs are in federal water. Rumor has it if this bill passes the commercial potters will put so many pots around the reef they will catch everything coming and going as there are no laws as to the number of pots a person can set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finchaser

I'm all for this,but also aware this is on reefs that lay in State waters only as most reefs are in federal water. Rumor has it if this bill passes the commercial potters will put so many pots around the reef they will catch everything coming and going as there are no laws as to the number of pots a person can set.

---

That argument is being used to sideline our efforts. Where were the pots placed before there was a State run reef program? In the last five years we have been fighting this fight no one has introduced either regulation nor legislation to remedy that situation. One step at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finchaser

Rumor has it if this bill passes the commercial potters will put so many pots around the reef they will catch everything coming and going as there are no laws as to the number of pots a person can set.

---

That's incredible if actually true. If they have a seasonal limit or yearly limit, wouldn't it make sense for someone, in their infinite wisdom, to actually calculate the numbers of fish you could catch per pot and then limit them to somewhere around that #? If not, they could catch double or triple their limit and no one would be the wiser. I assume we're talking about mostly blackfish and seabass, right? If no one is regulating that, what's to stop them from getting twice their limits and selling the rest on the black market. This whole business seems shady to me, jmo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lostatsea

That's incredible if actually true. If they have a seasonal limit or yearly limit, wouldn't it make sense for someone, in their infinite wisdom, to actually calculate the numbers of fish you could catch per pot and then limit them to somewhere around that #? If not, they could catch double or triple their limit and no one would be the wiser. I assume we're talking about mostly blackfish and seabass, right? If no one is regulating that, what's to stop them from getting twice their limits and selling the rest on the black market. This whole business seems shady to me, jmo.

---

Nothing that's already not being done

Fin, I know that both you and NJ Diver oppose pots on the reefs, inshore and offshore. I understand the skepticism and see your point about the big picture. However, as NJ diver points out, even a small victory is a victory. :thumbsup:

Back when you guys were pushing to eliminate the inshore bunker netters, I understand you weren't able to get great victories. You had to do it one battle at a time. That may seem stupid or tedious to some, but that's how the system works.

I want to thank NJ Diver for his persistence, and responsibility he has taken, in raising awareness of these issues. :clapping: :thumbsup: As I get older, the more anglers I meet, the more I realize that the majority of them have no interest in conservation issues.

I got involved the other day where a preponderance of guys with commercial interests were arguing with someone who was just trying to raise awareness of current striped bass statistics. These guys claimed there are now more bass than ever, and ALL the data we see here and on other sites was inaccurate. :kooky: Striped bass stocks are stronger than they have ever been, they insisted vehemently. :huh:

I realized one thing from watching this angry discourse back and forth...we are our own worst enemies. :learn:

Fin and NJ diver have the same passion for conservation but it appears they see things differently. If we don't learn to reconcile our differences and measure the effect of our words when discussing these issues with each other, gov't orgs like NOAA and NMFS will crush fishing as we know it, and take away our freedoms. http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/...cons/icon8.png (And they have already done this to some extent,,,,just ask anyone who fishes for red snapper in the South)

This will be done with only muffled protests from the fishing community, because most of us are too busy, or too concerned about getting a 50lb striped bass or trophy fish, than getting involved. And when people like NJ diver do get involved and try to present things to us, we're so quick to criticize. :don't know why:

We're all in this together, folks, whether we want to participate in the process or not.

One thing you can say about Fin and NJ Diver, they both know that changes or limitations in one area will certainly affect another area or type of activity/fishing. :learn:That's the big picture I'm talking about and feel others need to be made aware of.

Why concern yourself about reefs if you're a surf fisherman?
Why bother fighting for sea bass if you only fish for tuna?
Why bother caring about fluke if you only fish for striped bass?
Why concern yourself about public trust access issues if you only fish from a boat?

People need to see how all of the 4 questions above are inter-related. Until they have an understanding, we will continue to have this infighting and criticism.

In the meantime, your opinions are important.

Don't stifle them, express them.

But when you do, please think of the person who posted before you, and if they did try to raise awareness in some respect, ask yourself if you would be willing to put in the legwork and hours they are....If not, please try to understand the message they are bringing to you before you critcize them. http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/...cons/icon3.png

Thanks, guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkSkies

I want to thank NJ Diver for his persistence, and responsibility he has taken, in raising awareness of these issues. :clapping: :thumbsup: As I get older, the more anglers I meet, the more I realize that the majority of them have no interest in conservation issues.

---

Let's face it lads, conservation is boring to most of us, at least it is to me. I do thank you for your postings njd, I definitely wouldn't have the energy do do that.

Recreational Fishing Alliance (NJ) Contact: Jim Hutchinson, Jr. / 888-564-6732
For Immediate Release March 27, 2011

RFA SUPPORTS "POTS OFF REEF" BILLS


Removing Fixed Gear From Artificial Reefs Is Part Of Larger Problem

March 27, 2011 - New Jersey legislation which would prohibit the use of fixed gear within 100 feet of artificial reefs created by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and their Division of Fish and Wildlife (Division) has successfully moved out of the Senate in a vote of 31-4. The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) has supported "Pots Off Reef" legislation since originally introduced back in 2007, and continues to support those legislative efforts to protect the access rights of recreational anglers along New Jersey's artificial reef complex.

"We support getting the pots off the artificial reefs, we've never wavered in that view," said RFA executive director, Jim Donofrio, who explained that submerged trap lines and high fliers have adversely impacted access for all users. "This is definitely an access issue, and on that point the RFA supports both the senate bill (S221) and the assembly companion (A1152), as we always have," he said.

While RFA says the legislation would effectively eliminate gear conflicts on the state's artificial reefs and help improve recreational access, the organization has also warned of a bigger conservation issue that needs to be addressed. Since 2006, RFA has been bringing attention to the unmanaged commercial pot/trap fishery that has existed in New Jersey for many years, an issue they claim impacts not only the fishermen but the fish themselves.

"What we really want to know is just how many traps are out there to begin with, and that's an answer we're not getting," Donofrio said. "Other groups now starting to get involved in state fisheries are unaware of the history as it relates to species like blackfish and sea bass, and they've been quick to blame legislators when the state has had the power for many years to pass regulations consistent with the New Jersey Reef Plan that would prohibit all pots and traps from the reefs."

RFA believes that in addition to angler access, unaccounted fish traps present a serious conservation issue that must be also addressed, something Donofrio says "we've been requesting since long before these reef bills were introduced." In March of 2006, he sent an official welcome letter to then-incoming Division Director Dave Chanda, in which RFA brought attention to problems with the tautog (blackfish) stock along the coast.

"Discussions with NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife have indicated that the state does not have the adequate information to separate the percentage of blackfish directed fishing effort from all fish pot license holders," Donofrio wrote in 2006. "We encourage the state to determine the current number of legitimate pot fishermen targeting blackfish and the number of pots being fished. From this information, pot tags can be issued to ensure that all gear is removed during closures."

"Furthermore, we urge the state to require removal of all pots and enforce a no-sale/no-possession provision from June 1 through November 14. This will allow law enforcement to determine illegal points of sale such as restaurants and markets," he added.

RFA says the illegal and unreported landings and sale of tautog have been a persistent problem and perhaps the biggest driver of that stock's decline over the years, and the group has encouraged coastal states to address the seriousness of the issue with increased enforcement to address poaching issues and a stronger management state-by-state management plan to address fish pots and traps.

RFA's 2006 letter to division director Chanda also set a June 1, 2006 cutoff date for the state to initiate response or action, at which time Donofrio said "we will pursue stronger measures through the legislature." RFA is continuing to work with key coastal legislators on drafting language which will address both access and conservation issues related to coastal fisheries management in New Jersey, and they're hoping that more tie-in from the coastal community can help put

"Every angler in New Jersey realizes that the current legislation does not have the support of New Jersey's commercial fishing community, which is why this pots bill has become such a political football in Trenton," said RFA-NJ chapter chairman, Adam Nowalsky. "Obviously, the commercial and recreational sector is not in agreement on getting pots off the reef, but the point we do all agree on is that the accountability issue with undocumented fish traps soaking in our coastal waters 365 days a year." An Atlantic County resident and charter boat captain, Nowalsky is also legislative proxy for New Jersey at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC).

According to Capt. Tony Bogan of the United Boatmen, the access and conservation issues surrounding New Jersey's pot management problem have been debated for years. "We've been pushing this issue at the state level for over a decade and have made countless recommendations on how to address the seriousness of the live market problem," he said. Bogan, who also represented the state of New Jersey as representative at the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council from 2003-2006, said the simple act of removing pots from the state reefs is part of a much bigger state issue.

"We have no idea how many pots are out there, but instead of addressing the serious management problem, individuals are allowing state legislators to battle over a bill that will essentially just spread illegal pots out over a bigger area," Bogan said. "Moving conflict from one place to another will not address the most serious fisheries issue we have on our reef fish."

RFA continues to support efforts to get all fixed gear off New Jersey's artificial reef complex, both along inshore state waters and outside the 3-mile limit in federal waters, but without a true management plan to follow, RFA believes the current legislation is mostly symbolic. "A simple executive order from the Governor can get those pots off the reef next week, and when you look at the final reef program, the DEP has the legal means to comply," Donofrio said.

"We've done our due diligence on this legislation, and RFA is going to have to ask our legislators for more help in dealing with both access and conservation issues along the coast," Donofrio said.

Thank you DarkSkies and jigfreak, we do what we can. Just today in a booth at the Beneath the Sea SCUBA show in Secaucus, we got over 100 postcards signed and will be there again tomorrow looking to do the same. These post cards are addressed to Assemblyman Albano, Chairman of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee where A1152 has been held for over a year, as well as postcards to Assembly Speaker Oliver asking her to move the bill forward through the Committee for a vote in the Assembly. These postcards have been signed by divers, many of whom do not spearfish, but truly understand the need to maintain and protect our artificial reef system and the species that make use of the materials their money and yours which has been used to create habitat where there was once only sand.