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

[CaptTB]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Tony , its my understanding that while the other reefs are not considered state waters because of being over three miles fom shore , there is a clause in there allowing NJ jurisdiction over them because of maintaining them ETC .

Which does not alter the fact that the only way legislation can affect the reefs in federal waters is to get them declared SMZ's (Special Management Zones)

The only way to get them designated as SMZ's is through the MAFMC.

There is no piece of NJ STATE legislation that can make this happen to reefs in FEDERAL waters, period.

If you remember when the push last year was on for the prior reef bill in NJ there was much talk about how DE was going to the MAFMC to request SMZ status for their reefs and wouldn't it be nice if NJ could too.

JCAA, NJOA, Reef Rescue and others were the ones making the point.


Again, I am only addressing the points you made, not the bill since I still have not had time to read it (went and ate dinner after my last post)

[Fish The Drop Off]

Originally Posted by hammer4reel

Looks like I will be joining the guys to rethink whether the RFA is actually working to benefit everyone here equally or just those that have their own agenda

Hey, Capt. Dan

You claim that you support the RFA but I just found out that you have never been a member of the RFA. Fun how at the bottom of you sig. you say you support the RFA.

[hammer4reel]

Originally Posted by Fish The Drop Off

Hey, Capt. Dan

You claim that you support the RFA but I just found out that you have never been a member of the RFA. Fun how at the bottom of you sig. you say you support the RFA.

You southern guys must have too much time on yours hands, firsts it guys dont have Licenses, then its they dont have Twic cards, now dont belong to the RFA.
enough already WTF


Just goes to show how SHITTY the RFA paperwork is about keeping track of the paperwork coming in , as I have been a paying member for years.

will give you the benefit of your Doubt as I see my name is misspelled on my memebership card




But since you want to defend current RFA decisions by asking about a membership , I will base my opinion that AGAIN that the RFA decision was based on the feeling of FEW , who dont even fish the area which is currently in question.
How many Northern captains were asked what effect having those sections of the reefs closed off would hurt anglers currently trying to use those areas, I would be pretty sure few were asked.
when other Groups made their input on this bill except for the RFA it was pretty much unanimous that more time was needed for review.
The SH reef area def is one highly trafficed by ALOT of anglers up here., and certainly is more than the just 1% of the reef the RFA chose in their statements


.

[sternline]

The RFA has also endorsed State Sen. Kyrollis for U.S. Senate even though he was one of the 4 State senators who voted against last year's Pots off the Reefs bill.

[njdiver]

S1177 Prohibits the use of certain fishing gear at artificial reef sites.*
Passed Senate


Bill S1177:

1/23/2012 Introduced And Referred To Senate Environment and Energy Committee
2/9/2012 Reported Senate Committee Substitute 2nd Reading
3/15/2012 Passed Senate (35-3)

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/B...llNumber=S1177

[frugalfisherman]

1%, 20% or 99% what's the difference. It's just going to be held up like the previous bills.