New Legislation to remove gear from 99% of New Jersey's reef sites

[Fish The Drop Off]

Originally Posted by dfish28

HUH , how about the Sea Girt and yes the shark river is past 3 but still ...the only two reefs?

Yes in NJ state waters. We have 15 total but the bill will only effect the two in state waters.

Capt TB posted earlier on what would need to be done next. Please read his post.

[njdiver]

Delaware is leading the way for Special Management Zones on artificial reefs in the Mid-Atlantic Region. They have already applied for them for their reefs, in "Federal waters" with the Mid Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. NJ is the only East Coast State that has had their Sport Fish Restoration Program funding terminated. Delaware heeded last years warning and protected their reefs within their territorial waters, NJ did not.

[dales529]

The RFA also noted that this particular legislation (A2645) is also the first step in a regulatory process which will hopefully remove all fixed gear from New Jersey's remaining artificial reef sites from Shark River and Sea Girt south to the Cape May and Deepwater reef sites.

In the Asbury Park Press today, Nowalsky said RFA-NJ's board is supportive of the concept of the bill, but he also maintained that there are some issues that need to be addressed, such as what specific areas along one of the corners of the reefs will be allowed for commercial usage.

If you really read Capt Adam's quote in the press release (above) you will see that RFA-Nj position of support is in the "concept" of the bill and more so the ability of the bill to START the process which to date has just lanquished for years going nowhere. Is the bill perfect, NO but again RFA-Nj has taken the position that the bill has the potential to get something accomplished where previous attempts have failed miserably.

At least RFA-NJ is willing to put themselves in a controversial position and take the criticism although unwarranted in an effort to work through a bill that at least has a chance of getting something done and in turn benefitting recreational anglers. I would rather be part of that scenario than just saying NO to it and having another bill go nowhere.

Ask yourself a simple question after reading all the information. Did the old bill go anywhere? Does this bill have a better chance of finally getting "Pots off the reefs" moving in a direction that will accomplish something, restore funding and allow for further movement on all reefs ? After doing that my answer was YES in the "concept" of the bill.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by dales529

The RFA also noted that this particular legislation (A2645) is also the first step in a regulatory process which will hopefully remove all fixed gear from New Jersey's remaining artificial reef sites from Shark River and Sea Girt south to the Cape May and Deepwater reef sites.

In the Asbury Park Press today, Nowalsky said RFA-NJ's board is supportive of the concept of the bill, but he also maintained that there are some issues that need to be addressed, such as what specific areas along one of the corners of the reefs will be allowed for commercial usage.

If you really read Capt Adam's quote in the press release (above) you will see that RFA-Nj position of support is in the "concept" of the bill and more so the ability of the bill to START the process which to date has just lanquished for years going nowhere. Is the bill perfect, NO but again RFA-Nj has taken the position that the bill has the potential to get something accomplished where previous attempts have failed miserably.

At least RFA-NJ is willing to put themselves in a controversial position and take the criticism although unwarranted in an effort to work through a bill that at least has a chance of getting something done and in turn benefitting recreational anglers. I would rather be part of that scenario than just saying NO to it and having another bill go nowhere.

Ask yourself a simple question after reading all the information. Did the old bill go anywhere? Does this bill have a better chance of finally getting "Pots off the reefs" moving in a direction that will accomplish something, restore funding and allow for further movement on all reefs ? After doing that my answer was YES in the "concept" of the bill.

Dale I SUGGEST you listen to the whole tape of the session in Question, you will find that most spoke in FAVOR of the old bill and were NOT in favor of the new one, and there is ALOT more info to be learned about all of this then you read in what the RFA has documented.

And there were ALOT more people there who were sticking their necks out ALOT farther for the recreational fisherman

[dales529]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Dale I SUGGEST you listen to the whole tape of the session in Question, you will find that most spoke in FAVOR of the old bill and were NOT in favor of the new one, and there is ALOT more info to be learned about all of this then you read in what the RFA has documented.

And there were ALOT more people there who were sticking their necks out ALOT farther for the recreational fisherman

Dan,
First I respect you as a fisherman and your involvement on issues that matter to all fishermen. I can listen a thousand times to the tape and my position is the same, where and when did I state anyones position or claim more or less of whom favored it other than that which i supported. Of course there are differing views otherwise there would only be the need for one fishing group.

Of course there is a lot more information to be learned, that is why the position was supportive with caveats on co-ordinates, funding etc etc .

Of course there are ALOT more people sticking their necks out for recreational fishermen and I have worked with many of them and supported the causes I agree with. I respect all the groups opinions but what I dont do is BASH them or accuse them of a singular agenda because I disagree.

I SUGGEST you answer to yourself the simple question: Will the old Bill ever go anywhere and will we ever see Pots off the reefs with the old bill?

What i do know is that if recreational fishermen dont stop in fighting, nothing will ever get done on any issue.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by dales529

Dan,
First I respect you as a fisherman and your involvement on issues that matter to all fishermen. I can listen a thousand times to the tape and my position is the same, where and when did I state anyones position or claim more or less of whom favored it other than that which i supported. Of course there are differing views otherwise there would only be the need for one fishing group.

Of course there is a lot more information to be learned, that is why the position was supportive with caveats on co-ordinates, funding etc etc .

Of course there are ALOT more people sticking their necks out for recreational fishermen and I have worked with many of them and supported the causes I agree with. I respect all the groups opinions but what I dont do is BASH them or accuse them of a singular agenda because I disagree.

I SUGGEST you answer to yourself the simple question: Will the old Bill ever go anywhere and will we ever see Pots off the reefs with the old bill?

What i do know is that if recreational fishermen dont stop in fighting, nothing will ever get done on any issue.

Dale the way this current bill is written it IS NOT taking the pots off the reef in the areas I currently fish, as well as many other who fish those same areas at the times when we are fishing them .

others have questioned whether this bill will even meet the criteria to bring back the federal Funding as its currently written , nor the repercussions that it will have on the remaining 13 reefs .
after listening to the entire session there is no doubt in my my mind that this bill is being railroaded through , just listen to the end of the session when the speaker first asks for a vote to the bill with allowance for amendment , then changes mid stride and asks for the bill to be voted without amendment.
Typical Political BS.

other states have corrected the issue with a bill like the first one that has been stalled, with no issue.
.

[Gerry Zagorski]

OK guys... I think this back and forth is going in circles now and the circles seem to be getting tighter and more emotional. Nothing good comes from that. Might I suggest you actually pick up the phone and talk about this. Just don't want to see 2 people who are potentially on the same side get lost in the typed words.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

OK guys... I think this back and forth is going in circles now and the circles seem to be getting tighter and more emotional. Nothing good comes from that. Might I suggest you actually pick up the phone and talk about this. Just don't want to see 2 people who are potentially on the same side get lost in the typed words.

Gerry as others have posted in this and other threads is listen to the session. ALOT of info is presented , as well as why a compromise bill was written and the ramafications that could happen .

everyone is entitled to their opinion right or wrong , and I know I dont hold opinions against another .
And Knowing Dale im pretty sure he doesnt either.

Best thing anyone can do before making any decisions is LISTEN to all the info .

read all the literature, then decide what they feel is in fishermans best interest.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski

OK guys... I think this back and forth is going in circles now and the circles seem to be getting tighter and more emotional. Nothing good comes from that. Might I suggest you actually pick up the phone and talk about this. Just don't want to see 2 people who are potentially on the same side get lost in the typed words.

No issue here Gerry, Dan and i have had informative discussions and ocassionally debate before and hope we will continue to do so. There has to my knowledge never been any disrespect or animosity between us but appreciate you checking in.

[njdiver]

For maps of the commercial "designated areas":

http://www.njoutdooralliance.org/ass...Bill_A2645.pdf