N.J. fishermen make their case to feds as fluke battle rages on

[hartattack]

With New Jersey's summer flounder fishing industry on the line, Garden State officials made their case to NOAA fisheries on Tuesday afternoon.

In a hearing with the federal agency, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection officials argued that the state's regulations for summer flounder (or fluke) fishing reach conservation equivalency with new federal regulations.

NOAA Fisheries is expected to make a final decision by July 11, according to Goebel. President Donald Trump has yet to nominate anyone for the NOAA administrator position, though AccuWeather chief executive Barry Myers is reported to be a frontrunner according to the Washington Post.

The new federal regulations have also garnered attention from state lawmakers. New legislation was introduced in Trenton last week with the intention of extending benefits to fisherman feeling financial strain because of size restrictions placed on both summer flounder and black sea bass.

Assemblymen Bob Andrzejczak (D-Atlantic, Cape May and Cumberland) and Bruce Land (D-Atlantic, Cape May and Cumberland) introduced Assembly Bill 4981, which would extend unemployment benefits to fishermen that are put out of work by the new regulations.

Andrzejczak and Land were joined by Assemblyman Vincent Mazzeo (D-Atlantic) to introduce Assembly Bill 4974, which would appropriate $5 million from New Jersey's General Fund to the New Jersey Department of Agriculture in order to provide financial assistance to fishermen affected by the new regulations.

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/inde...art_river_home

[acabtp]

maybe the assemblymen can introduce an assembly bill that would extend a couple fish into the coolers of recreational fishermen that are put out of a catch by the new regulations.

and then maybe another bill to appropriate some money from the general fund to provide some financial assistance to buy more gulp and bucktails for fishermen affected by the new regulations.

[Gerry Zagorski]

Well isn't that pretty typical of our government... Instead of doing the right thing and fixing the problem, take the easy way out and through Taxpayer money at it. I'm pretty sure most of the people they intend to help would rather be fishing then at the mercy of government hand out anyway.

[bunker dunker]

they would rather pay them off then help,how f-ing sad.they know its putting folks out of work but instead of coming up with a plan to help them stay working they throw some bucks into the kiddie and say fu.

When the Magnuson Stevens Act "MSA" was initially adopted in 1976, these were the key initiatives:

Prevent overfishing
Rebuild overfished stocks
Increase long-term economic and social benefits
Ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood

In 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act "SFA" was adopted which contained the following provisions:

There were several major changes to the purpose of the law:

Prohibiting fisheries managers from using social, economic, or any other justifications to allow catch targets to exceed a calculated "maximum sustainable yield."
Mandating that for each managed species, fisheries managers quantitatively define "over-fishing" (certain specified maximum allowed rates of fishing mortality) and "over-fished" (depletion below a certain population level).
Mandating regular assessment of which fish populations that are overfished, and creating an official list of over-fished species in U.S. waters.
Mandating that for over-fished species, plans must be enacted allowing them to recover to quantitatively specified target population levels (usually about one-third of the estimated pre-fishing population) within ten years (with certain exceptions).
Adding that catches of unintended species or unmarketable fish be reduced, to the extent practicable.
Adding the promotion of protection of "Essential Fish Habitat."
Adding the promotion of catch and release programs to conservation and management principles.

So in other words after 20 years, 1976 thru 1996, of failing to rebuild the fishery, the federal government adopted legislation which essentially eliminated the initial MSA charter of "increasing long-term and economic benefits". Remember in 1989 the SSB hit an all time low of ~7,000 metric tons under the governance of NMFS and based on the principles outlined under MSA. So when as a Committee, NMFS fails to live up to the standards enacted under the original legislation, the easy answer is adopt new legislation and change the charter!

To add to comments already made on this thread, the federal government instead of addressing the causes killing this fishery (their own policy decisions) they elect to throw a few crumbs at the many people whose lives will be destroyed because the governing body continues to fail in it's charter of effectively managing the resource. This is a complete failure by the Secretary of Commerce's office, NOAA, NMFS and the ASMFC.

As I've said too often, what happens to NJ based on the July 11 decision in my opinion is somewhat irrelevant although I realize an industry closure would hurt many people who I'm sympathetic to their plight. We're focused on short term (just this season) and accepting crumbs (3 fish possession and shortened season). The stock is in trouble. It's in trouble primarily due to regulatory changes over the last 20 years, changes intended to bolster the fishery which have instead crippled it. Declining recruitment statistics, spawning stock biomass, continued cuts in catch quotas and continued increases in size limits will continue indefinitely until management ideology is completely overhauled or the industry is closed which in my opinion will happen first based on the current legislative guidelines in place.

BOHICA (bend over here it comes again) is the environment we've lived in over the last twenty or more years and until the arrogance and ineptitude of NMFS is altered this fishery will continue to spiral toward disaster. The facts are there for anyone to see, no reason to believe there will be any other outcome to this madness.

[Rocky]

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is plain lunacy. Our fishery management needs a real change and not just more political BS.

[PeteyHD]

[bunker dunker]

80% of fluke over 16" are female and the legal size is 18" to keep.nope sound
management for sure.

[Gerry Zagorski]

On the RFA trip every fish that was kept which were all over 18 inches were females..

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

On the RFA trip every fish that was kept which were all over 18 inches were females..

Rutgers study supports that fact, my analysis based on NMFS's own data supports it yet NMFS continues down the same path which has us at the door step of a fishery collapse. All because legislatively they have the power. Only one thing will change the path we're on, a law suit initiated by MAFMC against ASMFC and NMFS and that'll never happen because each state has their own separate agendas. We couldn't even get the members of that committee to unite on the '17 regulations. This is a political cluster which will only get worse.