New Legislation to remove gear from 99% of New Jersey's reef sites

[Fish The Drop Off]

Recreational Fishing Alliance (NJ)
Contact: Capt. Adam Nowalsky (609-618-0366)
For Immediate Release
March 9, 2012
NEW POTS OFF REEF BILL MOVES IN ASSEMBLY
RFA-NJ Supports New Legislation To Address Fixed Gear Issue

(3/9/2012) The New Jersey Assembly Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee voted this week to move forward Assembly legislation which would remove commercial gear from 99% of deployed reef materials on New Jersey's two inshore artificial reefs.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) and the RFA-NJ board are supportive of the legislation calling it a win for recreational anglers who fish at the Sandy Hook and Axel Carlson reef sites where deployed commercial finfish, lobster and conch pots have created an access problem in recent years.

"When you consider that this bill would limit gear to 1% of the deployed reef materials on our two state reefs, clearing 99% of the state's deployed reef materials at both Axel Carlson and Sandy Hook, I'd say this is a pretty big win for New Jersey saltwater anglers," said RFA-NJ Chairman Capt. Adam Nowalsky.

The RFA also noted that this particular legislation (A2645) is also the first step in a regulatory process which will hopefully remove all fixed gear from New Jersey's remaining artificial reef sites from Shark River and Sea Girt south to the Cape May and Deepwater reef sites.

In the Asbury Park Press today, Nowalsky said RFA-NJ's board is supportive of the concept of the bill, but he also maintained that there are some issues that need to be addressed, such as what specific areas along one of the corners of the reefs will be allowed for commercial usage.

"We support Assembly Albano's efforts to hear a bill in his committee and we look forward to a companion Senate bill and a reconciliation of the two bills. The most important thing is we've got things moving again. The reef program is of utmost importance to the state's anglers."

A-2645 would prohibit fixed gear from approximately 90% of New Jersey's two inshore artificial reefs located off Monmouth County; the other smaller 10% geographic area which would allow fixed gear have historically been used by generations of lobster potters. During the prime fishing season of May 15 to October 1, fish pots would be prohibited from the entire reef areas.

The legislation also directs the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to take action to modify the Artificial Reef Program grants, if necessary, to comply with use of federal funding. The legislation would also initiate a pot management plan in the state to prompt NJDEP to take accounting and accountability measures as to the number of fish pots presently deployed - and by whom - in New Jersey coastal waters

Capt. Nowalsky said the RFA-NJ board of directors discussed the legislation at length on Wednesday night and took a position in support of A-2645. "While RFA-NJ has held the position of no pots on our state reefs, we believe the benefits of this legislation are significant enough to move it forward," he said. Testimony from former state Reef Coordinator Bill Figley in support of the bill, provided it restores funding to the reef program, bolstered the Board's position.

"This bill gives 90% of Axel Carlson and Sandy Hook reefs exclusively to hook and line fishing and it gives the state the ability to pursue special management zone designation for the other 13 artificial reef sites along our coast," Nowalsky added.

RFA-NJ is also confident that the legislation will once again allow the NJDEP to make use of Sport Fish Restoration Funds from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for reef deployment. According to the Asbury Park Press, USFWS chief Dr. John Organ said he was currently reviewing the legislation, but noted that federal funding for New Jersey's restoration programs has not been reduced nor removed, only that federal money designated for the state cannot be used for the state's artificial reef program.

Although attempts to build ocean reefs off New Jersey began in 1935, it wasn't until 1984 that the State of New Jersey initiated a Reef Program administered by the NJDEP to build reefs along the coast. Two of the 15 reef sites - Axel Carlson and Sandy Hook - are located within state waters, the other 13 artificial reef sites designated as being deployed in federal waters.

"This has been a long, drawn-out battle but this legislation will finally open up the process by which the regional fisheries council can implement a special management zone for our other reef sites," said RFA executive director Jim Donofrio. "From the hearing this week, some of the leading activists and organizers in the New Jersey artificial reef program including former reef director Bill Figley are supportive of this concept in Assembly effort, so that alone tells me this is a good deal for anglers, and something to support moving forward."

"Also of major importance in this particular bill is the language concerning an NJDEP pot management plan which would address the proliferation of fish pots and fixed gear on all other snags and lumps in New Jersey coastal waters not designated part of the state's artificial reef complex," Donofrio said.

"Not only will this legislation immediately clear 99% of the material on those two artificial reef sites of fixed gear, it will also address what happens to that gear when it's deployed in other state coastal waters," Donofrio added.

To listen in on the testimony at this week's Assembly Committee hearing including RFA-NJ's full comments, go to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/archive_audio2.asp?KEY=AAN&SESSION=2012 and click on the Listen button from Commitee Room 8.


About Recreational Fishing Alliance
The Recreational Fishing Alliance is a national, grassroots political action organization representing recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation's saltwater fisheries. For more information, call 888-JOIN-RFA or visit www.joinrfa.org.

[hammer4reel]

Since the Sandy hook reef , and Axel carlson probably get as Much or more traffic than most of the other reefs combined I think it is not a great bill by any means.

should be getting gear off ALL the reefs

Amazing how each seperate fishing group is putting their own spin on this issue , as seeing the RFA ia saying its removing all but 1 percent from reef total , when the Northern reefs are going to have all of that gear in total .

and saying the reefs are most utilized in may to October 1 when the reefs are used alot more for Blackfish in November and December seems like the RFA is really starting to pick only what they want to see in the bills , and not what benefits everyone .

Looks like I will be joining the guys to rethink whether the RFA is actually working to benefit everyone here equally or just those that have their own agenda

[Fish The Drop Off]

Since the Sandy hook reef , and Axel carlson probably get as Much or more traffic than most of the other reefs combined I think it is not a great bill by any means.

should be getting gear off ALL the reefs


They are the only two reef in NJ waters. One step at a time.

[Fish The Drop Off]

Since the Sandy hook reef , and Axel carlson probably get as Much or more traffic than most of the other reefs combined I think it is not a great bill by any means.

should be getting gear off ALL the reefs


They are the only two reef in NJ waters. One step at a time.

[CaptTB]

Since the Sandy hook reef , and Axel carlson probably get as Much or more traffic than most of the other reefs combined I think it is not a great bill by any means.

should be getting gear off ALL the reefs Does not work that way. Even the bill that was introduced a few years ago does not remove gear from anything other than the two state reefs. The state has no jurisdiction over reefs in federal waters as to gear management. Once a bill, any bill, passes then you must go to the MAFMC and request SMZ status for the reefs in federal waters.

No matter the bill that fact does not change.

Amazing how each seperate fishing group is putting their own spin on this issue , as seeing the RFA ia saying its removing all but 1 percent from reef total , when the Northern reefs are going to have all of that gear in total .The same would be true with the older bill. Anyone telling you otherwise would be incorrect.

and saying the reefs are most utilized in may to October 1 when the reefs are used alot more for Blackfish in November and December seems like the RFA is really starting to pick only what they want to see in the bills , and not what benefits everyone .The facts would support the RFA stance and not yours. The level of effort and participation in this state and most every other state in the Mid-Atlantic and New England regions is May through September. You would be hard pressed to see more boats on the reefs or anywhere else in Oct. or november.

Boats fluke and sea bass fishing on the reefs in the spring and summer outnumber the total number of boats even in the water in october and november.

Sorry, but your statement flies in the face of what most fishermen already know and what every stat you can think of says.

More people fishing the reefs in the fall and winter??? Nope, not in this state.

Looks like I will be joining the guys to rethink whether the RFA is actually working to benefit everyone here equally or just those that have their own agendaPerhaps now that you have some of the facts you will reconsider that position.

By the way, I have not even read the bill so i cannot say if I support it. I am only commenting on your comments, which have nothing to do with the bill itself and are also not supported by the facts.

[hammer4reel]

Tony , its my understanding that while the other reefs are not considered state waters because of being over three miles fom shore , there is a clause in there allowing NJ jurisdiction over them because of maintaining them ETC .


Fishing on or near both the reefs in question for most of the year I am SURE they are utilized by MANY more boats in November and December for the blackfish season .
They are used some by fluke, sea bass and porgy fisherman , but NOTHING like they are during the open blackfish season where I would expect there may be as many as ten times the boats frequenting those reefs.

Now if you said there was more traffic say pertaining to the Sea Girt reef, by fluke fisherman and sea bass I would agree.

[captadamnj]

[QUOTE=hammer4reel]They are used some by fluke, sea bass and porgy fisherman , but NOTHING like they are during the open blackfish season where I would expect there may be as many as ten times the boats frequenting those reefs.
QUOTE]

If the gear isn't on the structure then it shouldn't be a problem. That's the point of this legislation, keep fixed gear off structure. And then for the areas it is allowed, restrict fish pots from those areas as well during the predominant drifting months.

[hammer4reel]

[QUOTE=hammer4reel]They are used some by fluke, sea bass and porgy fisherman , but NOTHING like they are during the open blackfish season where I would expect there may be as many as ten times the boats frequenting those reefs.
QUOTE]

If the gear isn't on the structure then it shouldn't be a problem. That's the point of this legislation, keep fixed gear off structure. And then for the areas it is allowed, restrict fish pots from those areas as well during the predominant drifting months.


the RFA newsletter as well as yours and Franks writings here says removal of gear by (99%) the bill says 10-25%, so which is it 90 % or 99% as everything the RFA has written here and in Emails has both numbers in the same document, since the whole reef is NOT covered by structure , covering 25% of the structure will probably be equal to over HALF of 50% of the reef site, as they will not be setting gear in the sand.

Allowing that gear to be on the reef site when it is UTILIZED daily by hundreds of boats during the fall blackfish season means it WILL be in our way while anchoring the boats

[CaptTB]

Tony , its my understanding that while the other reefs are not considered state waters because of being over three miles fom shore , there is a clause in there allowing NJ jurisdiction over them because of maintaining them ETC .Which does not alter the fact that the only way legislation can affect the reefs in federal waters is to get them declared SMZ's (Special Management Zones)

The only way to get them designated as SMZ's is through the MAFMC.

There is no piece of NJ STATE legislation that can make this happen to reefs in FEDERAL waters, period.

If you remember when the push last year was on for the prior reef bill in NJ there was much talk about how DE was going to the MAFMC to request SMZ status for their reefs and wouldn't it be nice if NJ could too.

JCAA, NJOA, Reef Rescue and others were the ones making the point.


Again, I am only addressing the points you made, not the bill since I still have not had time to read it (went and ate dinner after my last post)

[captadamnj]

covering 25% of the structure will probably be equal to over HALF of 50% of the reef site, as they will not be setting gear in the sand


No, simply not true. if you read the coordinates and look at the reef charts, you will see that only a couple dozen out of hundreds of patch reefs would be included in areas that would allow fixed gear, and we are working to further reduce that number. The gear would be allowed on parts of the reefs where limited materials have been deployed.

[njdiver]

Here are the URLs for the bill and to listen to the Committee hearing:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A3000/2645_I2.HTM

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A3000/2645_I2.PDF


Here is the URL to get the recording of the meeting:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/archive_audio2.asp?KEY=AAN&SESSION=2012

Click on “Listen” to the right of the date (March 8, 2012).

[hammer4reel]

[B][COLOR="Red"]No commercial fishing of lobster using lobster pots would be permitted in the designated areas from November 1 through December 15, and of other fish using fish pots from May 15 through October 1. The bill prohibits the recreational use of lobster pots in the designated areas.[COLOR="red"]

So in reading this more doesnt the bill ALLOW lobster pots to remain in the designated areas from Decmber 15th through the ENTIRE drifting season until the following November 1rst.

And allows fish pots to be on the selected sites from October 1 through the whole blackfish season until the following MAY

so in essense there still will be one type of pot on the reef ALL YEAR/

so this bill IS NOT getting enough done

[captadamnj]

[B][COLOR="Red"]so this bill IS NOT getting enough done

If

- geting the gear off 99% of the deployed materials on the two reefs the state has control over;
- removing 100% of the fish pots during the drifting season;
- initiating the process to remove pots from the other 13 reefs (though the only process there is);
- restoring funding to the reef program;
- initiating implemention of a plan to manage gear in state waters in areas outside the reefs

is not enough for you, that would be your opinion.

Alternatively, we can fight about this issue for another 6 years as opposed to focusing on the pressing needs of budget for the Bureau of Marine Fisheries, better science and improved management mechanisms.

Your entitled to your opinion, thanks for sharing.

[Fishin Polski]

Let them pot the whole thing, then we can tie right to them for blackfishing!

[hammer4reel]

If

- geting the gear off 99% of the deployed materials on the two reefs the state has control over;
- removing 100% of the fish pots during the drifting season;
- initiating the process to remove pots from the other 13 reefs (though the only process there is);
- restoring funding to the reef program;
- initiating implemention of a plan to manage gear in state waters in areas outside the reefs

is not enough for you, that would be your opinion.

Alternatively, we can fight about this issue for another 6 years as opposed to focusing on the pressing needs of budget for the Bureau of Marine Fisheries, better science and improved management mechanisms.

Your entitled to your opinion, thanks for sharing.


COMMERCIALgear in ANY type being in the way is still not allowing The DRIFT fishing as you put to happen .

allowing LOBSTER pots on the AXEL during the year except between November 1 and December 15th, means they will be there ALL summer in the way of Guys sea bass fishing, its the LOBSTER pots that are interferring with that reef that everyone is getting tangled in while anchoring on them.

And they have those pots on most of the productive pieces

[Fishin Polski]

Cut the pot warp! Use your electricians knife!

[Angler Paul]

I copied and pasted this from NJ Diver, who had posted it on the thread I started. I urge those interested to read the bill and to listen to the testimony that was given at the hearing.

Paul 2nd V.P. JCAA

Here are the URLs for the bill and to listen to the Committee hearing:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bi...00/2645_I2.HTM

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bi...00/2645_I2.PDF


Here is the URL to get the recording of the meeting:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/media/a...N&SESSION=2012

Click on “Listen” to the right of the date (March 8, 2012).

[hammer4reel]

after listening to the entire session it is Quite apparent that the previous upheld bill was in better interest to the recreational fishing interests, than the new bill that was just read .

That supporting this current bill is backwards in that aspect.

was glad to hear the rest of the fishing community minus the RFA felt the same way.

[frugalfisherman]

1%, 20% or 99% what's the difference. It's just going to be held up like the previous bills.

[dfish28]

They are the only two reef in NJ waters. One step at a time.

HUH , how about the Sea Girt and yes the shark river is past 3 but still ...the only two reefs?

[Fish The Drop Off]

HUH , how about the Sea Girt and yes the shark river is past 3 but still ...the only two reefs?


Yes in NJ state waters. We have 15 total but the bill will only effect the two in state waters.

Capt TB posted earlier on what would need to be done next. Please read his post.

[njdiver]

Delaware is leading the way for Special Management Zones on artificial reefs in the Mid-Atlantic Region. They have already applied for them for their reefs, in "Federal waters" with the Mid Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. NJ is the only East Coast State that has had their Sport Fish Restoration Program funding terminated. Delaware heeded last years warning and protected their reefs within their territorial waters, NJ did not.

[dales529]

The RFA also noted that this particular legislation (A2645) is also the first step in a regulatory process which will hopefully remove all fixed gear from New Jersey's remaining artificial reef sites from Shark River and Sea Girt south to the Cape May and Deepwater reef sites.

In the Asbury Park Press today, Nowalsky said RFA-NJ's board is supportive of the concept of the bill, but he also maintained that there are some issues that need to be addressed, such as what specific areas along one of the corners of the reefs will be allowed for commercial usage.

If you really read Capt Adam's quote in the press release (above) you will see that RFA-Nj position of support is in the "concept" of the bill and more so the ability of the bill to START the process which to date has just lanquished for years going nowhere. Is the bill perfect, NO but again RFA-Nj has taken the position that the bill has the potential to get something accomplished where previous attempts have failed miserably.

At least RFA-NJ is willing to put themselves in a controversial position and take the criticism although unwarranted in an effort to work through a bill that at least has a chance of getting something done and in turn benefitting recreational anglers. I would rather be part of that scenario than just saying NO to it and having another bill go nowhere.

Ask yourself a simple question after reading all the information. Did the old bill go anywhere? Does this bill have a better chance of finally getting "Pots off the reefs" moving in a direction that will accomplish something, restore funding and allow for further movement on all reefs ? After doing that my answer was YES in the "concept" of the bill.

[hammer4reel]

The RFA also noted that this particular legislation (A2645) is also the first step in a regulatory process which will hopefully remove all fixed gear from New Jersey's remaining artificial reef sites from Shark River and Sea Girt south to the Cape May and Deepwater reef sites.

In the Asbury Park Press today, Nowalsky said RFA-NJ's board is supportive of the concept of the bill, but he also maintained that there are some issues that need to be addressed, such as what specific areas along one of the corners of the reefs will be allowed for commercial usage.

If you really read Capt Adam's quote in the press release (above) you will see that RFA-Nj position of support is in the "concept" of the bill and more so the ability of the bill to START the process which to date has just lanquished for years going nowhere. Is the bill perfect, NO but again RFA-Nj has taken the position that the bill has the potential to get something accomplished where previous attempts have failed miserably.

At least RFA-NJ is willing to put themselves in a controversial position and take the criticism although unwarranted in an effort to work through a bill that at least has a chance of getting something done and in turn benefitting recreational anglers. I would rather be part of that scenario than just saying NO to it and having another bill go nowhere.

Ask yourself a simple question after reading all the information. Did the old bill go anywhere? Does this bill have a better chance of finally getting "Pots off the reefs" moving in a direction that will accomplish something, restore funding and allow for further movement on all reefs ? After doing that my answer was YES in the "concept" of the bill.


Dale I SUGGEST you listen to the whole tape of the session in Question, you will find that most spoke in FAVOR of the old bill and were NOT in favor of the new one, and there is ALOT more info to be learned about all of this then you read in what the RFA has documented.

And there were ALOT more people there who were sticking their necks out ALOT farther for the recreational fisherman

[dales529]

Dale I SUGGEST you listen to the whole tape of the session in Question, you will find that most spoke in FAVOR of the old bill and were NOT in favor of the new one, and there is ALOT more info to be learned about all of this then you read in what the RFA has documented.

And there were ALOT more people there who were sticking their necks out ALOT farther for the recreational fisherman

Dan,
First I respect you as a fisherman and your involvement on issues that matter to all fishermen. I can listen a thousand times to the tape and my position is the same, where and when did I state anyones position or claim more or less of whom favored it other than that which i supported. Of course there are differing views otherwise there would only be the need for one fishing group.

Of course there is a lot more information to be learned, that is why the position was supportive with caveats on co-ordinates, funding etc etc .

Of course there are ALOT more people sticking their necks out for recreational fishermen and I have worked with many of them and supported the causes I agree with. I respect all the groups opinions but what I dont do is BASH them or accuse them of a singular agenda because I disagree.

I SUGGEST you answer to yourself the simple question: Will the old Bill ever go anywhere and will we ever see Pots off the reefs with the old bill?

What i do know is that if recreational fishermen dont stop in fighting, nothing will ever get done on any issue.

[hammer4reel]

Dan,
First I respect you as a fisherman and your involvement on issues that matter to all fishermen. I can listen a thousand times to the tape and my position is the same, where and when did I state anyones position or claim more or less of whom favored it other than that which i supported. Of course there are differing views otherwise there would only be the need for one fishing group.

Of course there is a lot more information to be learned, that is why the position was supportive with caveats on co-ordinates, funding etc etc .

Of course there are ALOT more people sticking their necks out for recreational fishermen and I have worked with many of them and supported the causes I agree with. I respect all the groups opinions but what I dont do is BASH them or accuse them of a singular agenda because I disagree.

I SUGGEST you answer to yourself the simple question: Will the old Bill ever go anywhere and will we ever see Pots off the reefs with the old bill?

What i do know is that if recreational fishermen dont stop in fighting, nothing will ever get done on any issue.


Dale the way this current bill is written it IS NOT taking the pots off the reef in the areas I currently fish, as well as many other who fish those same areas at the times when we are fishing them .

others have questioned whether this bill will even meet the criteria to bring back the federal Funding as its currently written , nor the repercussions that it will have on the remaining 13 reefs .
after listening to the entire session there is no doubt in my my mind that this bill is being railroaded through , just listen to the end of the session when the speaker first asks for a vote to the bill with allowance for amendment , then changes mid stride and asks for the bill to be voted without amendment.
Typical Political BS.

other states have corrected the issue with a bill like the first one that has been stalled, with no issue.
.

[Gerry Zagorski]

OK guys... I think this back and forth is going in circles now and the circles seem to be getting tighter and more emotional. Nothing good comes from that. Might I suggest you actually pick up the phone and talk about this. Just don't want to see 2 people who are potentially on the same side get lost in the typed words.

[hammer4reel]

OK guys... I think this back and forth is going in circles now and the circles seem to be getting tighter and more emotional. Nothing good comes from that. Might I suggest you actually pick up the phone and talk about this. Just don't want to see 2 people who are potentially on the same side get lost in the typed words.

Gerry as others have posted in this and other threads is listen to the session. ALOT of info is presented , as well as why a compromise bill was written and the ramafications that could happen .

everyone is entitled to their opinion right or wrong , and I know I dont hold opinions against another .
And Knowing Dale im pretty sure he doesnt either.

Best thing anyone can do before making any decisions is LISTEN to all the info .

read all the literature, then decide what they feel is in fishermans best interest.

[dales529]

OK guys... I think this back and forth is going in circles now and the circles seem to be getting tighter and more emotional. Nothing good comes from that. Might I suggest you actually pick up the phone and talk about this. Just don't want to see 2 people who are potentially on the same side get lost in the typed words.


No issue here Gerry, Dan and i have had informative discussions and ocassionally debate before and hope we will continue to do so. There has to my knowledge never been any disrespect or animosity between us but appreciate you checking in.

[njdiver]

For maps of the commercial "designated areas":

http://www.njoutdooralliance.org/assets/pdfs/Reef_Coodinates_Bill_A2645.pdf

[Fish The Drop Off]

Looks like I will be joining the guys to rethink whether the RFA is actually working to benefit everyone here equally or just those that have their own agenda


Hey, Capt. Dan

You claim that you support the RFA but I just found out that you have never been a member of the RFA. Fun how at the bottom of you sig. you say you support the RFA. :confused:

[njdiver]

As per today's 15:20 issue of NJ's Legislative Calendar, A2645 is no longer listed for a vote in the Assembly's session tomorrow. S1177 is still listed for a vote in the Senate.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legisla...dar/031312.htm

[njdiver]

As of this morning's 9:00 AM publication of the Legislative Calendar, A2645 is not listed for the Assembly's session. S1177 is still listed for the Senate.

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/legislativepub/calendar/031512.htm

[hammer4reel]

Hey, Capt. Dan

You claim that you support the RFA but I just found out that you have never been a member of the RFA. Fun how at the bottom of you sig. you say you support the RFA. :confused:

You southern guys must have too much time on yours hands, firsts it guys dont have Licenses, then its they dont have Twic cards, now dont belong to the RFA.
enough already WTF


Just goes to show how SHITTY the RFA paperwork is about keeping track of the paperwork coming in , as I have been a paying member for years.

will give you the benefit of your Doubt as I see my name is misspelled on my memebership card

http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/yy12/reelmusic/docs/002.jpg


But since you want to defend current RFA decisions by asking about a membership , I will base my opinion that AGAIN that the RFA decision was based on the feeling of FEW , who dont even fish the area which is currently in question.
How many Northern captains were asked what effect having those sections of the reefs closed off would hurt anglers currently trying to use those areas, I would be pretty sure few were asked.
when other Groups made their input on this bill except for the RFA it was pretty much unanimous that more time was needed for review.
The SH reef area def is one highly trafficed by ALOT of anglers up here., and certainly is more than the just 1% of the reef the RFA chose in their statements


.

[sternline]

The RFA has also endorsed State Sen. Kyrollis for U.S. Senate even though he was one of the 4 State senators who voted against last year's Pots off the Reefs bill.

[njdiver]

S1177 Prohibits the use of certain fishing gear at artificial reef sites.*
Passed Senate


Bill S1177:

1/23/2012 Introduced And Referred To Senate Environment and Energy Committee
2/9/2012 Reported Senate Committee Substitute 2nd Reading
3/15/2012 Passed Senate (35-3)

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=S1177

[Fish The Drop Off]

Capt. Dan

I stand corrected and I too am upset that the spelling is wrong. I am glad you are still a supporter and that you proved me wrong. I will give the office a call and make sure the spelling is corrected.

Thanks again