Fisheries regulations - What do we do?

[Ttmako]

Everyone is fed up and appalled at the regs and more importantly the science behind the changes.


How do we get more involved and influence the A**hats who are regulating all of us?

In addition to joining the RFA, what else can we do?

[tautog]

Have to form a lobbying group and pay off the politicians. That is how the environmental groups do it.

[Foul Hook]

Have to form a lobbying group and pay off the politicians. That is how the environmental groups do it.

Yup!

[Gerry Zagorski]

Have to form a lobbying group and pay off the politicians. That is how the environmental groups do it.

Sad but true...

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

[tautog]

Except the oldest profession is much more respectable and honest.:D

[Ttmako]

I respect the RFA, but i sort of view them as our paid lobbyist, effective or not.
The issue is (i think) is that they don't have enough $$$ to spread around and influence our representatives. I believe this is because WE do not give enough.

I really wish somebody, anybody would create a game plan that we can follow and have a united voice/opinion. I'd love to do it, I just candidly don't know enough.

[frugalfisherman]

Ignor the stupid regulations and take what you want.

[Foul Hook]

Ignor the stupid regulations and take what you want.

That should be a bumper sticker! I like it!!

[AVA67]

Have to form a lobbying group and pay off the politicians. That is how the environmental groups do it.

This is the simple truth.

The RFA is one of our largest lobbying groups, but we would really have to exponentially increase the amount of money contributed every year to make much difference.

I was on one of the busses for the first Fisherman's Rally down in DC. I personally saw the turnout. Fishing as a hobby and as a profession is dying very quickly…and we are doing very little to stop it.

[Ttmako]

See, now we are making progress. So far most agree WE need more money, to influence the politicians. And if we sell the bumper stickers we can use the proceeds to bribe the douchebags. Crime does pay and everyone is happy. They get more money, we get a cool bumper sticker and more fish.
Seriously what's the downside?

[Angler Paul]

The following are two letters that were approved at a JCAA General Meeting. Please read both letters with care since we are asking for different actions. The letter to the Governor deals with the issue of reallocation of fluke and the role of NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in this decision. The letter to our Congressmen also deals with winter flounder and John Bullard’s outrageous action in the distribution of fisheries disaster funds. When calling or writing the Governor or the Congressmen, please use the specific information included in the letters since the actions requested will be different. Please call me if there are questions.


Letter to the Governor


The Honorable Chris Christie Governor State of New Jersey PO Box 001 The State House, CN-001 Trenton NJ 08625-0001 March 15, 2014 Dear Governor Christie:

As you may be aware, New Jersey was unfairly treated by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in the recent decision on summer flounder. The decision forced New Jersey to regionalize with New York and Connecticut on summer flounder. This will greatly decrease the number of summer flounder (estimated 41,000 fish or more and at least seven fishing days this year) that could have been caught by New Jersey anglers. The economic decrease for the recreational fishing industry of New Jersey could be in the millions of dollars.

This decision was made under the guise that regionalization would be fairer and more equitable to everyone but in reality this was a reallocation of quota from New Jersey to New York and Connecticut. This was unprecedented because the battle for reallocation was led by John Bullard who is the Administrator for the Greater Atlantic Region of NOAA Fisheries. Since he is relatively new to his role as Administrator, New Jersey’s Governor’s Appointee to ASMFC, Tom Fote, reminded him that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had always refrained from lobbying or voting on allocation issues. It was never the role of the services to advocate for a particular state at ASMFC meetings. Not only did the Administrator ignore Mr. Fote’s advice, he made a joke of it. He then proceeded to become an advocate for the state of New York in this allocation battle. In fact, on the motion by Mr. Fote to maintain the status quo for 2014, Mr. Bullard made a speech advocating a “no” vote and both services voted “no”. The final vote was 7 no votes to 4 yes votes. Before Mr. Bullard’s speech, there would have been enough “yes” votes to carry the motion if the services had abstained. It should also be noted that the ASMFC accepted comments and held hearings in various states along the coast in regard to the proposed regionalization plan. An overwhelming majority of groups and individuals favored continuing state-by-state conservation equivalency and were clearly opposed to the regionalization plans. In fact those who attended the hearing in New Jersey were unanimously opposed to the plan. Despite that, Mr. Bullard spoke defiantly against the will of the public.

Dr. David Pierce, Chairman of the Summer Founder, Black Sea Bass and Scup Board, was so greatly concerned about this decision that he wrote a letter to all the members of the ASMFC Board. Dr. Pierce’s letter concluded that this regionalization may well cause the region to go over its quota because New York will be able to reduce its size limit. The New Jersey delegation has made the same prediction before the vote but it was ignored by Mr. Bullard. Even if the anglers in New Jersey do not exceed their target quota, we may need to take a significant cut in 2015. The economic impact could be disastrous. This could also have a negative impact on the summer flounder stock by going over quota.

New Jersey’s Commissioners to ASMFC have always felt that the services should be ex-officio members without the opportunity to vote. They should provide information and funding but should not be voting members. That is how the original compact was written. Given the recent behavior, it is time to renew this call and direct your Commissioners to make a motion at the Policy Committee for ASMFC to take away the voting rights of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition to directing your Commissioners to take this action, we are requesting that you write a letter to Louis Daniels, Chairman of ASMFC, demanding this motion be placed on the agenda for the next Policy Board Meeting.

New Jersey’s bipartisan Congressional Delegation has written letters to the Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA is the agency that directs NMFS. Their letters express their outrage at the actions of Mr. Bullard and call for immediate action to remedy this situation. The letters also ask the Director to require Mr. Bullard to act in a more nonpartisan manner.

Respectfully submitted, Paul Haertel, President
CC: DEP Commissioner Bob Martin

[Angler Paul]

Letter for Senators and Congressmen

Dear Congressmen or Senator,

The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention the recent actions of John Bullard, Administrator of the Greater Atlantic Region of NOAA Fisheries. These actions will have a negative impact on New Jersey, our recreational anglers, our recreational fishing industry and the resource.

As you may be aware, New Jersey was unfairly treated by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) in the recent decision on summer flounder. This decision forced New Jersey to regionalize with New York and Connecticut on summer flounder. This will greatly decrease the number of summer flounder (estimated 41,000 fish or more and at least seven fishing days this year) that could have been caught by New Jersey anglers. The economic decrease for the recreational fishing industry of New Jersey could be in the millions of dollars.

This decision was made under the guise of regionalization but in actuality this was a reallocation of quota from New Jersey to New York and Connecticut. This was unprecedented because the battle for the reallocation was led by John Bullard. Since he is relatively new to his role as Administrator, New Jersey’s Governor’s Appointee to the ASMFC, Tom Fote, reminded him that the services (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) had always refrained from lobbying or voting on allocation issues. It was never the role of the services to advocate for a particular state at ASMFC meetings. Not only did the administrator ignore Mr. Fote’s advice, he made a joke of it. He then proceeded to become an advocate for the state of New York in this allocation battle. In fact, on the motion by Mr. Fote to maintain the status quo for 2014, Mr. Bullard made a speech advocating a “no” vote and both services voted “no”. The final vote was 7 no votes to 4 yes votes. Before Mr. Bullard’s speech, there would have been enough “yes” votes to carry the motion if the services had abstained. It should also be noted that the ASMFC accepted comments and held hearings in various states along the coast in regard to the proposed regionalization plan. An overwhelming majority of groups and individuals favored continuing state-by-state conservation equivalency and were decidedly opposed to the regionalization plans. In fact, at the hearing in New Jersey, the regionalization plan was unanimously opposed. Despite that, Mr. Bullard spoke defiantly against the will of the public.

Dr. David Pierce, Chairman of the Summer Founder, Black Sea Bass and Scup Board, was so greatly concerned about this decision that he wrote a letter to all the members of the ASMFC Board. Dr. Pierce’s letter concluded that this regionalization may well cause the region to go over its quota because New York will be able to reduce its size limit. The New Jersey delegation had made the same prediction before the vote but it was ignored by Mr. Bullard. Even if the anglers in New Jersey do not exceed their target quota, they may be forced to take a significant cut in 2015. The economic impact could be disastrous. This could also have a negative impact on the summer flounder stock by going over quota.

In another decision, John Bullard allowed fishing for winter flounder in the EEZ. The ASMFC had restricted winter flounder catch in state waters to a near moratorium level. Some states do have a moratorium. There was a moratorium put in place in the EEZ which is Federal waters by the former regional director. The reason was that the stocks are at dangerously low levels. The 2014 stock assessment report shows no recovery at all. This did not stop Mr. Bullard from opening the EEZ to 5,000 pound trip limits on a stock that is fully depressed. There is no scientific justification for this action. He did this to support the ground fish fishery located in New Bedford and surrounding areas. He did this without consulting the ASMFC which has the management responsibility for winter flounder in state waters. With this decision, a commercial fisherman can land 50,000 pounds in 10 trips in Federal waters. New Jersey’s recreational anglers landed only 40 pounds of winter flounder in total in 2012. With these figures, it would take New Jersey’s recreational anglers 1,250 years to catch the same amount of winter flounder as the commercial fishermen will catch in 10 trips. All the commercial fyke net fishermen in New Jersey’s state waters collectively landed about 7,000 pounds of winter flounder in 2012. It would take them more than 7 years to equal one commercial fisherman’s 10 trips in federal waters. There is no evidence that he considered the rebuilding of the winter flounder stocks in this decision. He ignored conservation.

In addition, with regard to the allocation of fisheries disaster money, Mr. Bullard was able to determine how that money would be allocated for the Greater Atlantic Region. He ignored the damage done by Sandy to both New York and New Jersey and allocated the 33 million dollars to the ground fish fishery in New Bedford, Massachusetts and surrounding states and allocated only 3 million dollars in total for New York and New Jersey. Mr. Bullard is the former mayor of New Bedford. This is clearly a partisan decision. Mr. Bullard is apparently ignoring the 107 million dollars of damage that the recreational fishing industry in New Jersey lost as a result of Sandy. Remember, the ground fish fishery had no reported damage as a result of Sandy.

New Jersey’s Commissioners to the ASMFC have always felt that the services should be ex-officio members without the opportunity to vote. They should provide information and funding but should not be voting members. That is how the original compact was written. Given the recent bias behavior of Mr. Bullard, the NMFS and the USFWS, it is time to renew this call and write a letter to Dr. Louis Daniels, Chairman of ASMFC, demanding a motion be placed on the agenda for the next Policy Board Meeting that would respect the compact and deny a vote to NMFS and USFWS.

We are also asking New Jersey’s bipartisan Congressional Delegation to write letters to the newly confirmed Director of NOAA and the new Director of NMFS. (NOAA is the agency that directs NMFS.) The letters should express outrage at the actions of Mr. Bullard and ask the Directors to require him to act in a more nonpartisan manner. He should be told to represent all the states in the Greater Atlantic Region and not just do what is best for New Bedford. The NMFS should be told to focus on conservation and not get involved in allocation issues between states or favoring one state over another.

Respectfully submitted,
Paul Haertel, President Jersey Coast Anglers Association

[Ttmako]

Sending them out today.

[CTW]

We should put together a lawsuit against NMFS, NOAA, ASMFC. The formulas used to come to these regs is flawed, that is known. Regs based on poundage, yet rules set on a length and possession limit will undoubtedly work against the end user and in favor of the policy writer who in this case and most, is not in the best interest of the end user.
If Gov Coumo can scare them enough to register a response, then a group of Gov.'s, sportsmen's groups ,etc should get their attention. They don't want us keeping anything, and eventually not even participating.
There should be a limit of possession, lets say 5 for fluke and 15 for seabass as an example. A min. size of 16" for fluke and 12.5 for seabass. Once you catch and retain your limit, you are done. If you want to toss back 16" fluke, go ahead, but once you kill 5 fish, you are done for the day. It's no different than hunting. The law says that once you harvest an animal, you must dispatch of it immediately and it is now part of your possession limit for that day. No livewell, no culling, if you want it, keep it, if not put it back in the water.
The comm. guys are having no problem catching their quota, the stocks are fine, they can show good catch info. We can on charter/party boats, recs not so much. We send in DVTR's but they say they don't have the manpower to review them to collect data, BS ! If I miss a week, they have the manpower to remind me of that !
It will take money, but it will also take the pressure of our politicians. Hell, everyone bitches about bullying, that's all these folks are doing, doing what they want because up until Gov Coumo, no one stood up to them. Time to push back, hard, see what they are really made of.
There has got to be a hole in those regs that can be exploited to our benefit.

[frugalfisherman]

Al Capone and Frank Nitti didn't write letters.



The movement for the prohibition of alcohol began in the early 19th century, when Americans concerned about the adverse effects of drinking began forming temperance societies. By the late 19th century, these groups had become a powerful political force, campaigning on the state level and calling for national liquor abstinence. Several states outlawed the manufacture or sale of alcohol within their own borders. In December 1917, the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes," was passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. On January 29, 1919, the 18th Amendment achieved the necessary three-fourths majority of state ratification. Prohibition essentially began in June of that year, but the amendment did not officially take effect until January 29, 1920.

In the meantime, Congress passed the Volstead Act on October 28, 1919, over President Woodrow Wilson's veto. The Volstead Act provided for the enforcement of Prohibition, including the creation of a special Prohibition unit of the Treasury Department. In its first six months, the unit destroyed thousands of illicit stills run by bootleggers. However, federal agents and police did little more than slow the flow of booze, and organized crime flourished in America. Large-scale bootleggers like Al Capone of Chicago built criminal empires out of illegal distribution efforts, and federal and state governments lost billions in tax revenue. In most urban areas, the individual consumption of alcohol was largely tolerated and drinkers gathered at "speakeasies," the Prohibition-era term for saloons.

Prohibition, failing fully to enforce sobriety and costing billions, rapidly lost popular support in the early 1930s. In 1933, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified, ending national Prohibition. After the repeal of the 18th Amendment, some states continued Prohibition by maintaining statewide temperance laws. Mississippi, the last dry state in the Union, ended Prohibition in 1966.

They couldn't catch all the rule breakers and finally gave up.

[Ttmako]

We should put together a lawsuit against NMFS, NOAA, ASMFC. The formulas used to come to these regs is flawed, that is known. Regs based on poundage, yet rules set on a length and possession limit will undoubtedly work against the end user and in favor of the policy writer who in this case and most, is not in the best interest of the end user.
If Gov Coumo can scare them enough to register a response, then a group of Gov.'s, sportsmen's groups ,etc should get their attention. They don't want us keeping anything, and eventually not even participating.
There should be a limit of possession, lets say 5 for fluke and 15 for seabass as an example. A min. size of 16" for fluke and 12.5 for seabass. Once you catch and retain your limit, you are done. If you want to toss back 16" fluke, go ahead, but once you kill 5 fish, you are done for the day. It's no different than hunting. The law says that once you harvest an animal, you must dispatch of it immediately and it is now part of your possession limit for that day. No livewell, no culling, if you want it, keep it, if not put it back in the water.
The comm. guys are having no problem catching their quota, the stocks are fine, they can show good catch info. We can on charter/party boats, recs not so much. We send in DVTR's but they say they don't have the manpower to review them to collect data, BS ! If I miss a week, they have the manpower to remind me of that !
It will take money, but it will also take the pressure of our politicians. Hell, everyone bitches about bullying, that's all these folks are doing, doing what they want because up until Gov Coumo, no one stood up to them. Time to push back, hard, see what they are really made of.
There has got to be a hole in those regs that can be exploited to our benefit.

I think this a great idea. Not sure why the RFA hasn't done this. Any lawyers on this board that can provide some input?

[Angler Paul]

The simple answer as to why no lawsuit has been filed is because it takes a lot of cash to sue federal agencies.

[frugalfisherman]

Al didn't file any lawsuits

[jmurr711]

The simple answer as to why no lawsuit has been filed is because it takes a lot of cash to sue federal agencies.

when i win powerball i will help :(

[TheMotherFluker02]

It’s very simple, limit or ban commercial fishing for certain species that need help. Great example is WINTER FLOUNDER!! Can't even go out and catch a limit of two sometimes but the draggers slaughter them. I know people have to make a living but sorry I don't care anymore our fishery is getting worse and worse. All the party and charter boats are going out of business because the rules, regulations, and lack of fish. Our regulations are limited enough. There is a better way around on reviving it but plain and simple.... it’s all about the money$$$$$.

[Reel Class]

We should put together a lawsuit against NMFS, NOAA, ASMFC. The formulas used to come to these regs is flawed, that is known. Regs based on poundage, yet rules set on a length and possession limit will undoubtedly work against the end user and in favor of the policy writer who in this case and most, is not in the best interest of the end user.
If Gov Coumo can scare them enough to register a response, then a group of Gov.'s, sportsmen's groups ,etc should get their attention. They don't want us keeping anything, and eventually not even participating.
There should be a limit of possession, lets say 5 for fluke and 15 for seabass as an example. A min. size of 16" for fluke and 12.5 for seabass. Once you catch and retain your limit, you are done. If you want to toss back 16" fluke, go ahead, but once you kill 5 fish, you are done for the day. It's no different than hunting. The law says that once you harvest an animal, you must dispatch of it immediately and it is now part of your possession limit for that day. No livewell, no culling, if you want it, keep it, if not put it back in the water.
The comm. guys are having no problem catching their quota, the stocks are fine, they can show good catch info. We can on charter/party boats, recs not so much. We send in DVTR's but they say they don't have the manpower to review them to collect data, BS ! If I miss a week, they have the manpower to remind me of that !
It will take money, but it will also take the pressure of our politicians. Hell, everyone bitches about bullying, that's all these folks are doing, doing what they want because up until Gov Coumo, no one stood up to them. Time to push back, hard, see what they are really made of.
There has got to be a hole in those regs that can be exploited to our benefit.

I love it. Everybody is suing everybody these days. It takes years to get a resolution, but hey, you never know.

RE: a lawyer -- there are lawyers on here who can go into this.