Re: Sandy Hook Bay Shutdown to Fishing
 

The Sanctuary Advisory Committees are a sham. The Stellwagen Bank NMS has a recreational rep who happens to be a member of the Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Assoc and on the board of directors along with the MA RFA rep. It does not matter what he says, heavily outnumbered by the tree huggers on th SAC. They only have him there along with the commercial rep is to say, hey we are working with you and your part of our team.

DO NOT BE FOOLED THAT THIS IS GOOD, reach out now to your federal and state representatives, organize a meeting of hundreds of fisherman and get them there to see the unity and how many anglers are against this. This is a great forum to kill the beast.

Re: Sandy Hook Bay Shutdown to Fishing
 

You all know from my posts my stance on this but lets quit the Lefty / Righty crap. This just promotes the on going obstruction rather than a solution. Liberals and Right wingers Fish and Hunt. Neither party has helped our fishing rights. In the "Old Days" Reagan and Clinton knew how to navigate the middle ground. Both parties sanctioned NMS for probably good intentions, now its just a shit show because we the people pit each other against each other by party and they follow suit to get re-elected. So we all stagnate. In the regulations game you have to lobby and cater to both sides, granted its slides back and forth decade to decade but if you honestly believe one point of view helps you more than the other you are sadly part of the problem and why the current state of affairs perpetuates, Solid facts that neither side can refute is the only way out and name calling doesn't work. I have no reason to disrespect Rik, nor do I know his political views and don't care I just don't agree he needs a NMS but his beliefs are his own and his right as an American. Lets stop losing sight of that

Re: Sandy Hook Bay Shutdown to Fishing
 

This is the response received from the Sanctuary group. It is in response to the question if a primary goal of the Sanctuary will be to increase productivity of the waters for fisherman, clammers, and crabbers.
.................................................. .....................

I have no specific answers, but better water quality cannot hurt and will benefit all.

If there are other suggestions, the NMS would be the forum to get all stakeholders to think about it.

The way you pose the question, there may be catch restrictions, but the NMS would not be creating those. The cause of the catch restrictions lays with catching and habitat. We can make habitat improvement, catch restrictions is related to the catchers. The NMS as a whole may think catch restrictions would be of benefit, and some people may think they are not. But the only difference between an NMS and no NMS is that the debate will be clearer more inclusive and focused on the welfare of the NMS. If there is a catch restriction, it focuses on sustainability to allow fishing again in the future. If the whole world lines up two feet outside of the NMS boundary to catch what the NMS produces, the overall yield may have improved but now the world, not the NMS, has turned the NMS in a breeding ground. That would stink, and might prevent us from lifting restrictions, but it would not be related to NMS management, it is related to opportunism outside the NMS. In that case if I were the NMS, I would really put some pressure in the state and feds and say: Hey folks we know what is going on, time to reduce catch outside the NMS.



I don’t know about crabs, but clams (and hopefully some day oysters) don’t move that much so while migratory species may be a problem, less mobile species will still be harvested in the NMS and hopefully more when we improve conditions.

Fuzzy, yes. But it is better than endless debate. We will know what the NMS is doing and can provide guidance to the rest of the world. Today we do not have that level of knowledge and experience.

Those who know more about fish may be able to comment on the effect of species yield within the NMS to allow catch within the NMS. Maybe there are species that will do really well with the NMS design, probably others need more. Still it does not invalidate (rather it validates) the NMS concept. But it is important to note that the NMS goal for fishermen is increased fish yield, maybe within the NMS, maybe two feet outside of it. The goal for all is improved water quality, and sustained enjoyment.

Re: Sandy Hook Bay Shutdown to Fishing
 

No Limit
Do you even read any posts before you comment? Have you not read and understood what Relentless Charters Capt. Dave is telling you from FIRST HAND experience? Do you realize the role of the EPA has been for clean water? Do you realize that NJ has more Superfund Cleanup Sites that leech into the water everyday? Does everyone want clean water....YES. Does everyone want more harvest.....YES. Is a NMS anyway to go about this....NO. Not if you want to fish or clam and find restrictions in place at a moments notice that close areas down or restrict harvest. That's the power a NMS has. Every NMS has had a goal of being better for fishing. Do you actually think they would come out and say it will be more restrictive? No one would want it. I'm getting tired of saying that every NMS that was started now has MORE RESTRICTIONS and LESS ACCESS if not CLOSED ACCESS than before it was made a NMS. Name anything the Federal Government Does Well.
SMH:mad:

Re: Sandy Hook Bay Shutdown to Fishing
 

Scooter,

I did not make any comment.

I just copied and pasted the response to the question if they intended to make it a priority to increase production of fish, clams, etc for clammers and fishers.

Re: Sandy Hook Bay Shutdown to Fishing
 

Any time you let government control your activity you are going to lose access to that activity. Look no farther than your fishing limits. Sea Bass, Blackfish. Season is open for a few weeks then closed. One fish, two fish no fish. Everyone cant wait for blackfish to have a real season in mid November? Are you kidding me.We sit with our hands tied while NY season opens weeks ahead.
Oh yes and you know that cast net full of bunkers you get in the morning for bass, forget that. Planning on potting or seining for bait forget that too!Dont give this group one inch! The rivers and bays were fine before this and will be fine long after we are all gone.

Re: Sandy Hook Bay Shutdown to Fishing
 

Tonight is the last night to make your voice be heard. There should be almost no reason good enough not to show up and make your opposition well known. It's 7:00 pm at the Red Bank library. Newspapers should be attending.

Re: Sandy Hook Bay Shutdown to Fishing
 

What should be demanded tonight is that the area be returned to its normal state of a highly productive fishery for weakfish, winter flounder, fluke, crabs, crabs, etc. That's the way it was for thousands of years and that is the way it should be again. If that means cut backs for the draggers offshore, so be it.

That entire habitat depended on huge amounts of winter flounder, clams, crabs, etc and they are gone. They were a critical link in the food chain and now they are gone.

Re: Sandy Hook Bay Shutdown to Fishing
 

Does anyone remember the social networking commercial?

THIS IS NOT HOW THIS WORKS. THIS ISN'T HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS.

LOL. :eek:

Re: Sandy Hook Bay Shutdown to Fishing
 

National Marine Sanctuary Act

(Snip)

The NMSA provides several tools for protecting designated national marine sanctuaries. For example:

The NMSA provides the program with the authority to issue regulations for each sanctuary and the system as a whole. These regulations can, among other things, specify the types of activities that can and cannot occur within the sanctuary. [See section 308 of the NMSA.]

The NMSA requires the program to prepare and periodically update management plans that guide day-to-day activities at each sanctuary. [See sections 304(a) and 304(e) of the NMSA.]

The NMSA authorizes NOAA and the program to assess civil penalties (up to $130,000 per day per violation) for violations of the NMSA or its implementing regulations and damages against people that injure sanctuary resources. [See sections 306, 307 and 312 of the NMSA.]

The NMSA requires federal agencies whose actions are “likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource,” to consult with the program before taking the action. The program is, in these cases, required to recommend reasonable and prudent alternatives to protect sanctuary resources. [See section 304(d) of the NMSA.]

(Snip)

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/legislation/



The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) regulations are codified at 15 CFR Part 922.

Regulations have the effect and enforceability of law and are written in a specific manner. ONMS regulations prohibit specific kinds of activities, describe and define the boundaries of the designated national marine sanctuaries and set up a system of permits to allow the conduct of certain types of activities (that would otherwise not be allowed).

(Snip)

While each danctuary has its own unique set of regulations, there are some regulatory prohibitions that are typical for many sanctuaries:

Discharging material or other matter into the sanctuary;

Disturbance of, construction on or alteration of the seabed;

Disturbance of cultural resources; and

Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or minerals (with a grandfather clause for preexisting operations).

In addition, some sanctuaries prohibit other activities, such as the disturbance of marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtles, operation of aircraft in certain zones, use of personal watercraft, mineral mining and anchoring of vessels.

(Snip)

http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/protect/regulations/



NOAA: Final Notice Of Fee Calculations For Special Use Permits
POSTED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2015

In accordance with a requirement of Public Law 106-513 (16 U.S.C. 1441(b)), NOAA hereby gives public notice of the methods, formulas and rationale for the calculations it will use in order to assess fees associated with special use permits (SUPs).

(From the Federal Register) — Congress first granted NOAA the authority to issue SUPs for conducting specific activities in national marine sanctuaries in the 1988 Amendments to the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (“NMSA”) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) (Pub. L. 100-627). The NMSA allows NOAA to establish categories of activities that may be subject to an SUP. The list of applicable categories of activities was last updated in 2013 (78 FR 25957). SUPs may be issued for the placement and recovery of objects on the seabed related to public or private events, or commercial filming; the continued presence of commercial submarine cables; the disposal of cremated human remains; recreational diving near the USS Monitor; the deployment of fireworks displays; or the operation of aircraft below the minimum altitude in restricted zones of national marine sanctuaries. Congress also gave NOAA the discretion to assess an SUP fee and laid out the basic components of an SUP fee (16 U.S.C. 1441 (d)).

Read the full article here:

https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...al-use-permits


http://policy.oceanleadership.org/no...l-use-permits/


(Snip)= Irrelevant material deleted.