NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey - Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island

- NJFishing.com Fisheries Management/Regulations (https://www.njfishing.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island (https://www.njfishing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80082)

Re: Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island

Quote:

Originally Posted by njdiver (Post 406219)

R/V Marcus G. Langseth. She is on the move! Presently in the East River going under the Manhattan Bridge heading South.

Correct I saw her moving out from Brooklyn bridge towards the harbor. I'm working in the building behind South Street Seaport.

Re: Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island

"This is what I took as most important from the Rutgers report:

... concluded that seismic surveys could cause temporary, localized reduced fish catch to some species, but that effects on commercial and recreation fisheries were not significant. Most commercial fish catches by weight (almost all menhaden) and most recreational fishing trips off the coast of New Jersey (87% in 2013) occurred in waters within 5.6 km from shore, although the highest-value fish (e.g., flounder and tuna) were caught farther offshore. The closest distance between the proposed survey and shore is >30 km, so interactions between the proposed survey and recreational and some commercial fisheries would be relatively limited.

(a) Location of the Activity
The proposed 3-D box/survey area is located in the Atlantic Ocean, ~33–92 km off the coast of New Jersey and 27–87 km from New Jersey state waters
(Fig. 1). This area is defined by the coordinates at the four corners (including turns and run-in and run-out of each line) in degrees and decimal minutes:
39°38.00’N, 73°44.36’W; 39°43.12’N, 73°41.00’W; 39°25.30’N, 73°06.12’W; and 39°20.06’N, 73°10.06’W.

Re: Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island

Quote:

Originally Posted by shresearchdude (Post 406291)

So I guess the science is finally admitting that catch quotas will be off. But the science will still say we overfished which makes sense in science terms. All the regulators will agree with the science & will reduce our catch quotas for next year it makes perfect sense.

Re: Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island

They limit our catch, hurt our fishing fleets and now them themselves want to damage our environment and fish population. Then of course blame us fisherman for the problem by diminishing the resource. Ok I'm done its pirate time for sure. Arrrrrrrr buck up me bucko's

Re: Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island

Perhaps a protest as Rutgers might be a good idea? Any thoughts?

Re: Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island

Will this have any impact on people swimming (especially underwater) on the beaches?

Re: Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island

ALOT of whales in that area last wknd. Cant be good for them!!!

Seismic Survey has commenced...

The Marcus G. Langseth is now listed for "Restricted Maneuverability" which indicates she is towing an array. Her track shows the wide turn of a vessel in tow.

Re: Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island

Quote:

Originally Posted by njdiver (Post 406187)

Decibel level in water has a different measurement than in air! “The decibel is a relative unit of measure, not an absolute one. Confusion arises because relative intensities in water are referenced to 1 microPascal (µPa) whereas sound waves in air are referenced to 20 microPascals (µPa). The intensity of a sound wave depends not only on the pressure of the wave, but also on the density and sound speed of the medium through which the sound is traveling. Therefore, relative sound intensities given in dB in water are not the same as relative sound intensities given in dB in air.”

http://www.dosits.org/factsandmyths/ (#11)

For more detail:

http://www.dosits.org/science/soundsinthesea/airwater/

Sounds like you are very informed. I would like to ask a question. Does sound travel further in water? Does water magnify sound waves?

Re: Rutgers Blasting off of Long Beach Island

Quote:

Originally Posted by shresearchdude (Post 406291)

So, the proposed seismic airgun testing would occur from 18-50 nautical miles offshore of a large section of the NJ coast. This is a large area frequented by marine mammals and many species of fish during the summer months. Previous research has already concluded that these activities could be damaging to marine mammals (which is why they needed an IHA from NOAA) and can disrupt fisheries. In fact, seismic airgun testing caused a dramatic drop in tuna catches off Namibia. I think it is entirely possible it will affect the behavior of pelagics and other species of fish.

From the Rutgers report:

"Most commercial fish catches by weight (almost all menhaden) and most recreational fishing trips off the coast of New Jersey (87% in 2013) occurred in waters within 5.6 km from shore, although the highest-value fish (e.g., flounder and tuna) were caught farther offshore. The closest distance between the proposed survey and shore is >30 km, so interactions between the proposed survey and recreational and some commercial fisheries would be relatively limited."

To claim that operating from 17-50 miles off the coast would result in limited interactions with recreational and commercial fisheries is so inaccurate it is ludicrous. Pelagic, bottom fishing and even bluefishing regularly occurs within this area throughout the summer. This is a further indicator of the inaccuracies in the data on recreational fishing activity, not to mention they claim flounder were more frequently caught further offshore than 3 miles.

There is no justification to allow a seismic study that has the potential to harm marine mammals and disrupt fisheries during the height of the season. This is completely ridiculous.