Blueline Regs Worst Than First Thought

[aduma1107]

Many of you have heard about the proposed Blueline Tilefish regulations of 7 fish per person per trip. We all thought that was a real slap in the face considering there was no limit on Blueline Tilefish at all up to this point. Now the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC) has taken it one step further. Even before the 7 fish rule goes into effect, the SAFMC wants to limit us to one (1) fish per boat! That means we would be allowed to keep more Bluefin Tuna than Blueline Tilefish. In effect, this is a complete closure.

You've asked what you can do about it, so here it is…

It appears that the only way to stop this drastic regulatory change from happening is to contact our politicians. Our own United States Senator from New Jersey, Cory Booker is on the fisheries committee and he can help us stop this. What he needs is input from his constituents, and that's US. And he needs it now! We only have a couple of weeks before this goes into law. We all need to call Senator Booker's office at (973) 639-8700 and ask for his staffer, Zach McCue. Demand that Senator Booker blocks this regulation change until a stock assessment is conducted and a comprehensive catch survey is completed. To date neither has been done, so the proposed closure is not based on substantiated facts or science. Remind him this is a jobs issue and many people's livelihoods are in jeopardy because of these unsubstantiated regulatory changes.

[shrimpman steve]

I don't tile fish, but that does not matter. Once again one again decisions that affect livelihoods being made with little to no real information and being made by people that don't have a clue.

Time for term limits. We need ALL NEW people in office. Notice I didn't say new politicians!

[TBONENJ]

Well then we should call the # and give him some direction. Can we get this labeled as IMPORTANT or sticky as it involves a few peoples livelihoods?

[MDeSi]

called in this afternoon, kind of surprised at the lack of reaction here as i have read many posts from people inquiring or taking part in this fishery over the past year or two.

[Fish Head]

Wtf- really???

[Gerry Zagorski]

Cleaned up this thread. Everyone has opinions here and this is an emotionally charged issue. Lets try and remember at the end of the day we are all fighting on the same team.

No personal attacks please.

[PaBeerGuy]

I called and left my message. Can this be stopped or are we kidding ourselves? Opinions welcomed.:mad:

[Detour66]

The only way to turn the tide of eventual total elimination of recreational fishing is to organize and lobby! The perfect example of this is the NRA. This is what has to be done. Anything else will fall short!

[Dave A]

The only way to turn the tide of eventual total elimination of recreational fishing is to organize and lobby! The perfect example of this is the NRA. This is what has to be done. Anything else will fall short!

Have you never heard of the RFA?

[PaBeerGuy]

What are the regs on blueline currently for NJ? Is it 7 per man per trip right now or is that not in effect yet?

[tautog]

The RFA does not have 1% of the resources of the NRA. You have to pay to play.

[TomKaye]

The RFA does not have 1% of the resources of the NRA. You have to pay to play.

Maybe we all need to put up or............you all know the rest.
Apparently our phone calls and occasional e-mails to legislators need more ooomph.
I'm an NRA member. Thinking about joining RFA as well. Am I wasting my money ??
Maybe our heirs will get some benefit. http://joinrfa.org/

Tight lines all.
Tom K.

[dales529]

The RFA does not have 1% of the resources of the NRA. You have to pay to play.

Kirk, you are an avid angler and I know from reading your posts you respect the sport. I also get your intention. Having said that the NRA has ONE and ONLY one Agenda. Anything that has the word Gun in it gets support whereas with Fishing regulation, some are on board with fighting (donation wise) ONLY Stripers while others favor ONLY Fluke while others favor ONLY Seabass
or some favor 2 out of the 3 While still others believe because the RFA is NOT NRA that nothing can be done so they do NOTHING at all. Then factor in that there are other fishing rights groups that some support rather than support ALL fishing groups which creates more separation and less "pay to play" so comparing NRA to RFA is not really a true comparison. Anyway you get my point. There really is NO reason given the amount of fisherman nation wide that the RFA couldn't compete lobbywise with the NRA except for the fishermen themselves while constantly informed stay on the sidelines

Other tidbits:

NRA spends approx 3 to 3.5 million in lobbying wheras the RFA spends between 70 to 250 thousand lobbying depending on issue and year so its more like RFA has between 2% to 7% of NRA spending not less than 1% but still a significant number. RFA has the lobby capability just NOT the support of its fishing community like NRA has from gun community. Just wish fishermen would realize that and give us a fight we could win

[TomKaye]

Thanks for that input Dale. I will join RFA tonite.

[Detour66]

Have you never heard of the RFA?

Yes I have..... I was one of the first members.

[Detour66]

The RFA does not have 1% of the resources of the NRA. You have to pay to play.

Now this is what I am talking about!

[dales529]

Now this is what I am talking about!

What exactly are you talking about? Is there an idea to make things better?

[dales529]

Thanks for that input Dale. I will join RFA tonite.

Thanks Tom it all helps! starts with one becomes a few then can become a movement

[Detour66]

What exactly are you talking about? Is there an idea to make things better?

So let's see. I have to write a complete game plan? A doctrine.... a manifesto? Isn't that what you pay the organization that you belong too to do? I said what I had to say in my original post on this thread. Let the big minds over at XYZ take it from there if they like. After all they collect a lot of $$ ever year! I personally am concerned about the sport we love and that's way I made a statement on what I think can work. That's it! Good luck !!

[tautog]

Other tidbits:

NRA spends approx 3 to 3.5 million in lobbying wheras the RFA spends between 70 to 250 thousand lobbying depending on issue and year so its more like RFA has between 2% to 7% of NRA spending not less than 1% but still a significant number. RFA has the lobby capability just NOT the support of its fishing community like NRA has from gun community. Just wish fishermen would realize that and give us a fight we could win

NRA has more resources than just lobbying money. Their 501C spends more than $25 million per election cycle supporting 60-80 candidates. They spend $1 million a year in direct campaign contributions. The individual members spend several million per year in campaign contributions. They have a TV show and a magazine. Practically everyone knows them and very few people outside fishing have heard of the RFA. So very conservatively they are spending $19 million per year to push their agenda.

[bunker dunker]

what ever happened to "by the people,for the people".we openly admit that we have to "pay" to have fair laws.is it me or dose something sound wrong here?.we have to pay to have our political leaders go out and get the fisheries
people{who we pay thru taxes}to go out and do there job so that they can come back with data that is 10 years old.we vote,we march,we make phone calls and we send emails and nothing works but money that always works.
very sad,very very sad

[Capt Sal]

If anyone thinks the Recreational Fishing Alliance is in the same league as the National Rifle Association you are sadly mistaken. We have no Charlton Heston's behind us although I wish we did. As far as the money spent in comparison I would strongly suggest you have the facts and figures before posting. The fact is people that do not live in a coastal state could give two cents about recreational salt water fishing. People in every state care about the right to bear arms!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[reason162]

It's not at all analogous, even beyond the money spent. The NRA is about perceived rights vs. perceived safety, as mentioned it's pretty simple and straight forward + the politics line up, ie pro gun-anti government vs. anti gun-pro regulations. On top of that you have a very active gun industry sponsorship. They can frame the debate in a very simplified format: keep guns, take guns away. It's only zero-sum for the gun owners, not the anti-gun people.

What we're dealing with is a public/natural resource problem with various factions (comm, rec, rec-for-profit, conservationists) with the government smack in the middle. Almost all can agree on one thing: the science is lacking. But for more and better science, that means more funding, more oversight, which means more money to the government...that doesn't necessarily line up with any preexisting political allegiances.

[Gerry Zagorski]

NOAA has a $5.5 Billion budget in 2015. You'd think with that sort of money they would be able to invest in some better science.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.... If someone in the government is getting paid to manage the fisheries, what do you thing they are going to do? Say nothing is wrong and leave a fishery alone?? No, they are going to over manage the fishery to justify their jobs and next year's budget.

The wheels of the bus go round and round, we get thrown under it and worse yet, we paid for the bus.

[dales529]

It's not at all analogous, even beyond the money spent. The NRA is about perceived rights vs. perceived safety, as mentioned it's pretty simple and straight forward + the politics line up, ie pro gun-anti government vs. anti gun-pro regulations. On top of that you have a very active gun industry sponsorship. They can frame the debate in a very simplified format: keep guns, take guns away. It's only zero-sum for the gun owners, not the anti-gun people.

What we're dealing with is a public/natural resource problem with various factions (comm, rec, rec-for-profit, conservationists) with the government smack in the middle. Almost all can agree on one thing: the science is lacking. But for more and better science, that means more funding, more oversight, which means more money to the government...that doesn't necessarily line up with any preexisting political allegiances.

Well said and that was my point the fishing fight is on many levels and the NRA fight is one level only. However the reason NRA works is because of its unyielding support and I believe that's what other posters meant by saying that's a model the government listens to. Which again boils down unfortunately to money. To get the money you need the support which is what Fishermen lack over the NRA members, PACS and supporters.

So to say we need to fight like NRA means we need the support of the fishermen. Period.

Capt Sal no one thinks the RFA is "in the same league" as NRA but it sure could be closer if fishermen really wanted to make a difference. Even with the fact we are coastal vs all states for NRA there are still approx. 7 to 14 million fishermen / women. (yeah agreed big approximation but that's the bad science again) NRA contributions to candidates , lobbyist spending and its registered 4 million members is publically available as is RFA spending so not much research required to "get the facts straight"

With respect to the original subject and point of the original post if you want to help fight the Blueline Tile issue then forget about party lines or if you like Booker or not and MAKE the call as its in your best interest to do so.

[reason162]

NOAA has a $5.5 Billion budget in 2015. You'd think with that sort of money they would be able to invest in some better science.

5.5 billion, sure that sounds like a lot of money...but compared to what? Compared to social services? Compared to military spending?

Science funding (which includes the NOAA, and NASA) is 3% of our federal budget. Fisheries is not even among NOAA's top priorities. NOAA funding is shrinking, not growing. Let's try to keep some perspective here because in the scheme of things, 5 billion is a drop in the bucket.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.... If someone in the government is getting paid to manage the fisheries, what do you thing they are going to do? Say nothing is wrong and leave a fishery alone?? No, they are going to over manage the fishery to justify their jobs and next year's budget.

Where do you get this idea that people lose their jobs/budget if they leave regs the same from year to year?

Fluke is the same as last year, how many jobs were lost?

We agree that there's a problem with fisheries management, but we're definitely not agreeing on the actual problems. Simplifying the issue to "big government" is beyond useless as a starting point; it's utterly nonsensical. It does not apply.

[Dave A]

What are the regs on blueline currently for NJ? Is it 7 per man per trip right now or is that not in effect yet?

As of right now...no limit.

[Scotty]

stupid proposition. you can't send them back after coming up from 600'

[Capt Sal]

[QUOTE=reason162;403702]5.5 billion, sure that sounds like a lot of money...but compared to what? Compared to social services? Compared to military spending?

Science funding (which includes the NOAA, and NASA) is 3% of our federal budget. Fisheries is not even among NOAA's top priorities. NOAA funding is shrinking, not growing. Let's try to keep some perspective here because in the scheme of things, 5 billion is a drop in the bucket.



Fisheries is not a top priority but they run it and have the final say. How do you fix that? Suggestion-Compare apple to apples. Military spending is a top priority period. Over the next ten years how much money will NOAA have spent and where will we be better or worse?

[dales529]

5.5 billion, sure that sounds like a lot of money...but compared to what? Compared to social services? Compared to military spending?

Science funding (which includes the NOAA, and NASA) is 3% of our federal budget. Fisheries is not even among NOAA's top priorities. NOAA funding is shrinking, not growing. Let's try to keep some perspective here because in the scheme of things, 5 billion is a drop in the bucket.



Where do you get this idea that people lose their jobs/budget if they leave regs the same from year to year?

Fluke is the same as last year, how many jobs were lost?

We agree that there's a problem with fisheries management, but we're definitely not agreeing on the actual problems. Simplifying the issue to "big government" is beyond useless as a starting point; it's utterly nonsensical. It does not apply.

Reason 162: while I agreed with your last post this one needs a little explanation specifically as follows:
Your quote: "How many jobs were lost" are you talking GOV jobs or Fishing related jobs? Jobs lost at NOAA , prob none but his point is still correct all the same. NOAA jobs appear to stand if their work is true or admitted by NOAA as false/ flawed science. So yes over regulation based on flawed data equals "big government"

More important since you use this forum for opinion please respect and admit the actual job loss to the recreational fishing community as a whole due to admitted false data / flawed science with "drop in the bucket" 5 billion budget is severe and "big government" vs the little guy

Add this proposed Blueline Tile fish arbritary massive over regulation based on again admitted flawed or worse no data and the impact is more severe. JUST look around the fishing community and all that work for fisheries management should respect the fact that the fishery community as well as related business is suffering big time for no reason and disappearing.

None of it is nonsensical and it ALL applies

[Joey Dah Fish]

5.5 billion, sure that sounds like a lot of money...but compared to what? Compared to social services? Compared to military spending?

Science funding (which includes the NOAA, and NASA) is 3% of our federal budget. Fisheries is not even among NOAA's top priorities. NOAA funding is shrinking, not growing. Let's try to keep some perspective here because in the scheme of things, 5 billion is a drop in the bucket.



Where do you get this idea that people lose their jobs/budget if they leave regs the same from year to year?

Fluke is the same as last year, how many jobs were lost?

We agree that there's a problem with fisheries management, but we're definitely not agreeing on the actual problems. Simplifying the issue to "big government" is beyond useless as a starting point; it's utterly nonsensical. It does not apply.
I will gladly respond to this. Every one including me that used to work for the government knows this about there budget. If you don't use you lose it. Every end of fiscal year we would have to go on a rampage of spending. If we had a surplus in our budget. That's the way it is. Also if you didn't log the hours your staff was cut etc etc we had to justify our existence every year.

[reason162]

Reason 162: while I agreed with your last post this one needs a little explanation specifically as follows:
Your quote: "How many jobs were lost" are you talking GOV jobs or Fishing related jobs? Jobs lost at NOAA , prob none but his point is still correct all the same. NOAA jobs appear to stand if their work is true or admitted by NOAA as false/ flawed science. So yes over regulation based on flawed data equals "big government"

More important since you use this forum for opinion please respect and admit the actual job loss to the recreational fishing community as a whole due to admitted false data / flawed science with "drop in the bucket" 5 billion budget is severe and "big government" vs the little guy

Add this proposed Blueline Tile fish arbritary massive over regulation based on again admitted flawed or worse no data and the impact is more severe. JUST look around the fishing community and all that work for fisheries management should respect the fact that the fishery community as well as related business is suffering big time for no reason and disappearing.

None of it is nonsensical and it ALL applies

dales529, I was responding to Greg's post re NOAA staff "justifying" their job/budgets based on over-regulating; in no sense was I referring to fishing industry jobs or implying that there is no injustice being done based on flawed science.

Agree with you that blueline is being over regulated if the 1 fish limit is imposed, but the original suggestion of 7 per person/per day...I find "reasonable." Of course that too is based on flawed science/inadequate data, but (and now I'm repeating myself from earlier thread) no limit is just as arbitrary as #xyz per day etc, and perhaps unreasonable given what we know re blueline reproduction rates. But now everyone is just pulling opinions out of their hat because, bottom line: not enough data.

Frankly, if a magic wand is waved and NOAA has all the money in the world to conduct proper research...I have my doubts as to how well their conclusions would be received by all interested parties. Wouldn't be the first time the public reject sober, scientific findings in favor of short-sighted gains.

[reason162]

I will gladly respond to this. Every one including me that used to work for the government knows this about there budget. If you don't use you lose it. Every end of fiscal year we would have to go on a rampage of spending. If we had a surplus in our budget. That's the way it is. Also if you didn't log the hours your staff was cut etc etc we had to justify our existence every year.

Of course you have to justify your budget, any organization that uses money needs to justify how they spend it to get more.

Are you saying NOAA is not spending the allocated research funds on research? Or that there are huge surpluses at NOAA and they're using it up by..."regulating"? Explain the mechanics of what you suspect is going on, explicitly, then maybe we'll have something to talk about.

[Joey Dah Fish]

Of course you have to justify your budget, any organization that uses money needs to justify how they spend it to get more.

Are you saying NOAA is not spending the allocated research funds on research? Or that there are huge surpluses at NOAA and they're using it up by..."regulating"? Explain the mechanics of what you suspect is going on, explicitly, then maybe we'll have something to talk about.

You don't have to justify your existence by waste. Getting to the point of NOAA it's plain and simple. It's a government run bureaucracy. That doesn't mean the workers are doing there jobs or any like that. It means they are doing what they are told to do by a group of clueless morons. They need jobs and for the most part I'm sure are honorable people that took these jobs because of their desire to help and are passionate about their work. They have to report to people that are deep into politics and have an agenda. Let's not forget every government agency is run by and funded by politicians the have agendas. It's not the government that is the problem it's the politicians. so therefore NOAA by default is a political organization. They are spending the money the way they are told to spend it.

[reason162]

You don't have to justify your existence by waste. Getting to the point of NOAA it's plain and simple. It's a government run bureaucracy. That doesn't mean the workers are doing there jobs or any like that. It means they are doing what they are told to do by a group of clueless morons. They need jobs and for the most part I'm sure are honorable people that took these jobs because of their desire to help and are passionate about their work. They have to report to people that are deep into politics and have an agenda. Let's not forget every government agency is run by and funded by politicians the have agendas. It's not the government that is the problem it's the politicians. so therefore NOAA by default is a political organization. They are spending the money the way they are told to spend it.

Great, let's hear an example. What agenda is being forwarded by the people in charge? How is this being translated into regulation: are the researchers told to skew their numbers, or ignore their findings, or what? What are they told to spend their money on? So far all I'm hearing from you is white noise. Where's your evidence for all this nefarious behavior at the NOAA?

Bluefin regulations just opened up. Who was behind that?

[Joey Dah Fish]

Ok I'm going to end this here on my end. It's obvious we disagree. I can only hope we can agree to disagree.

[reason162]

Ok I'm going to end this here on my end. It's obvious we disagree. I can only hope we can agree to disagree.

Of course, and likewise. It's obvious we all want the same thing: to keep this sport alive for generations to come.

[Joey Dah Fish]

Of course, and likewise. It's obvious we all want the same thing: to keep this sport alive for generations to come.

I totally agree

[PaBeerGuy]

so when will we know if the SAFMC will have their way and we get screwed on blueline?