BASS BARN banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,126 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I am a member of RFA,JCAA, and CCA ,(Coastal Conservation Assc.)
CCA has chapters in every state from Maine to Texas EXCEPT New Jersey.
RFA no longer has a chapter in New Jersey as far as I can tell.
JCAA is limited to NJ and has limited influence in NJ and less in Federal area.
I am a recognized sponsor of JCAA but from my view JCAA uses more popular vote than scientific data when forming positions.
CCA ,on the other hand ,has been able to obtain Grants for numerous colleges and Universities for gathering scientific data on fish stocks as opposed to popular vote or insufficent sampling for statisitcal data.
CCA has been successful in numerous cases they have gone to court with,yes they have lost some but fact is they have won more than they lost as a result of arguing with real scientific data.
Now this raises the question on summer flounder situtation. Summer Flounder situation we are in is the result of Environmetalist taking NOAA to :mad: court and it is time for either RFA or JCAA to counter sue as conditions have changed and there are plenty of summer flounder but small.
Who representing NJ is going to take summer flounder back to court?
Summer flounder is a NEW JERSEY Fish,yes, other States catch them but no where near the numbers in New Jersey
The ecomonic impact on New Jersey is significant and unless regulations are relaxed to reflect the increasing numbers we will see less and less recreational fishing which in turn will see a lot of "Going Out Of Business" signs
Just some thoughts after sitting through 2 meetings last week where I saw members lay down and give up EXCEPT for Bruce Freeman representing NJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,273 Posts
Willie - I feel the same. I live in NJ - What shall we do?

Things others have said about a NJ RFA chapter....

1) Too much division between north & south anglers.
2) JCAA is here already
3)It was tried and failed (not sure why).

Brian

[ 12-12-2005, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: Brian E. Mullaney ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,429 Posts
I think the RFA is the right organization for this fight. I would say they have huge #'s of members here and will not let this go down in their back yard without a fight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,126 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
IF it is $$$$ than RFA should be develop a fund specifically for a Court Battle and see IF New Jersey fisherman , Bait & Tackle shops, charter boats etc are serious about fixing this problem
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52,619 Posts
Originally posted by Brian E. Mullaney:
Willie - I feel the same. I live in NJ - What shall we do?

Things others have said about a NJ RFA chapter....

1) Too much division between north & south anglers.
2) JCAA is here already
3)It was tried and failed (not sure why).

Brian
BRIAN-- EITHER EXCEPT IT OR CLOSE A BRIDGE ON OPENING DAY.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,429 Posts
Originally posted by Bob ECT:
$$$
I would think the power of the barn could solve that problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,150 Posts
You'd be suprised how many people and organizations say yeah, yeah sue, we'll support it, then never come through when the time comes to support it. Just go back to the YFT limits lawsuit, everyone was all for it, but in the end none of them came through with the $$ and the RFA went for it on their own.

I don't think the power of the barn can come up with the money to support a lawsuit against the gov't. On little side issues maybe, but this would be a big one.

The other issue is you can't just sue because you don't like it. What's the basis for the suit? I've heard conflicting veiws on whether or not we are still bound by the previous court decision. In NMFS's mind, we are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,150 Posts
Originally posted by BUCKTAIL WILLIE:
IF it is $$$$ than RFA should be develop a fund specifically for a Court Battle and see IF New Jersey fisherman , Bait & Tackle shops, charter boats etc are serious about fixing this problem
They have done that with other lawsuits. Again it's suprising how little people are actually willing to write checks for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,429 Posts
Originally posted by Bob ECT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BUCKTAIL WILLIE:
IF it is $$$$ than RFA should be develop a fund specifically for a Court Battle and see IF New Jersey fisherman , Bait & Tackle shops, charter boats etc are serious about fixing this problem
They have done that with other lawsuits. Again it's suprising how little people are actually willing to write checks for. </font>[/QUOTE]The rec's have to figure out a way to get serious about this. Just joining isn't enough. We need to put up $$$$ to protect what we love.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,429 Posts
Jack,

I think it is a mistake to wait. We have been getting beaten up for years...fluke, weakies, bluefins, billfish, etc. The longer we wait the less there will be to fight over. We need to take a stand and fight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,342 Posts
I have mixed feelings on this, I did not rejoin the RFA in 2004 because of the lack of any organization in NJ. May not be be the right thing to do but my feelings are that I want my $$ focused on NJ fishing concerns.

I would consider rejoining if there was an active group formed in the South NJ area....

Just one frustrated anglers point of view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,997 Posts
The reason we're being cut on fluke is that the ASMFC tech committe says the fluke biomass is much smaller than originally thought. The only place I heard of great fluking was Raritan Bay. The sad fact is, at least where I fish, the fluking is a mere shadow of what it was just three or four years ago. If one wasn't fishing ocean reefs, Old Grounds etc in south jersey, one was having a mediocre year.

At any rate, I had a chance the other night to sit down and peruse through about a one inch thick stack of material I brought home from the ASMFC fluke meeting last week. I came across the following statement;

The summer flounder assessment model has displayed a retrospective bias that overestimates biomass and under estimates fishing mortality.

The fluke biomass was overestimated in 2002,2003 etc. Think about how the fishery is managed, I think you'll come to realize what has (is) happened in the fluke fishery.

50/50 split? What does that mean in terms of how many more fish we'll have, or what sizes and bag limits or seasons we'll fish under? 50/50 sure sounds better than 60/40 but what does it actually mean? This summer 50/50 wouldn't have meant much in DE bay cause ya' can't catch what's not there. Similarly, the weakfish bag limit could be 30 fish per man, but ya' can't catch what's not there. So it don't matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,273 Posts
Originally posted by Younger:
Jack,

I think it is a mistake to wait. We have been getting beaten up for years...fluke, weakies, bluefins, billfish, etc. The longer we wait the less there will be to fight over. We need to take a stand and fight.
I think Jack wants to act now Brian

- we had this discussion - eventually we are gonna get ***** really good and the recs will react strongly - like a little reveloution of sorts.

Something must happen. We need to align ourselves with the right people with power just like the comms & Omegas do. We havent infiltrated yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,273 Posts
Maybe the fact that the backbays where 80 some degrees played a part???

offshore - as you said - there where plenty of fish. Especially 16"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,126 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
The problem with the lawsuit is the SAMPLING used to determine the bio-mass
Sampling is too small to get accurate data,in addition the ocean netting is being done in same areas as years past and anyone who fished this year and found fluke knows they were found in different places as years past
My tagging data with approx same number of days fishing for fluke had 647 fluke tagged in 2005 as opposed to 447 in 2004 and 287 in 2003
Fish were generally smaller and in different locations
I gave this info to NOAA and got a thank you!!
Biomass is clearly growing but due to insufficent sampling it isn't recognized
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,150 Posts
Don't think you'll win that one. The ocean dragging is always done in the same areas, year after year, to acheive what they feel is a valid sample. Statistically the reasoning is valid, in nature though it doesn't make much sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,126 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
BOB , that is the point,dragging in the same areas does not produce good data year after year
Conditions change, fish react to weather,water temps, and available food and WON"T be in same areas year after to year.
In order to get reliable data,you first have to FIND where the fish are and than take a survey
This is exactly why we see huge swings year to year in reported biomass
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top