The problem with beginning to write a new blog post after Charlie Witek has posted his is that you know from the very start that your post will pale in comparison. If you haven’t read Charlie’s recap you really should. You can find it here: http://oneanglersvoyage.blogspot.com/2014/10/asmfc-almost-gets-it-right-with-striped.html.
I made the drive from Long Island to the meeting and had quite a while to think about the upcoming meeting. I had heard the rumors about the status quo options gaining momentum. I figured this was just being done so that one of the three-year options appeared palatable. I had reached out to my state legislative representative and was told just two days before that the NY reps had not come to a decision. I was assured that he would be taking the drive up in the morning and would listen to the debate and then make his personal decision. With all of the public support leaning heavily in one direction this could not be good news. My mood quickly soured when I learned at the meeting that my state representative would not be attending and in his place as proxy was the president of the party boat fleet from his district. Not a good sign.
Seeing the strong showing of other concerned anglers in the room was heartwarming. While too much of the thanks has been thrown my way I know that it is the support and outpouring of so many that made such a mark on the Board commissioners during the public comment period. Our voice, demanding immediate and definitive action was heard and there is no doubt in my mind that without our efforts the meeting would have gone in a very different direction. The fishery would have continued to become depleted and we would have been faced with another draft addendum process in a few years. Every last one of you that lent your voice and support should take pride in that.
As you have heard, the meeting produced some positive results. The coastal harvest reductions will take place in one year with the Chesapeake Bay states given just a little longer to reach their 25% reduction. When you look at the other alternatives on the table, this was a huge victory. I cannot recall the number of times where the public’s comments were cited by Board commissioners during the debate but it was probably close to twenty times if not more. It was the most prevalent theme throughout the discussions. We caused the one year time frame to be passed and as a result the SSB will begin to be rebuilt faster. We did that.
The final choice for the method for harvest reductions was a two-sided decision. The one fish at 28″ option would have produced an anticipated harvest reduction of 31%. While the Draft Addendum only set a harvest reduction target of 25%, the one fish at 28″ would have provided an important buffer because the options contained in the draft addendum only had a 50% likelihood of actually achieving the desired result. By including language permitting states to present conservation equivalency (CE) proposals that resulted in at least a 25% harvest reduction we lost that buffer.
My expectation is that a large number of states will choose to present CE options close to the 25% and in some cases I expect these options to involve two fish. Listen, a 25% harvest reduction is a good thing and the hope is that it will help in rebuilding the striped bass fishery. But the final wording of the motion that passed means that our work is not done. In essence the ASMFC kicked the can down the road and now the states have to complete the job. So what will our work involve:
- We will need to remind our ASMFC state representatives that originally supported a 1 fish limit, that they should still support that position and enact the 1 fish at 28″ regulation
- We will need to remind trade organizations like the NY Sportfishing Federation, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, and others that their decision to support a 1 fish bag limit should not change
- We will need to remind our ASMFC state representatives that the public has spoken loudly and that our request for real immediate action has not changed, and
- We will need to stay aware because you can count on the party boat industry to try and grab as many fish as they can
Trust me. I know that a lot of you are tired from all the time and energy required supporting this cause. Many are counting on us to move on with our lives thinking that we won the fight. Tom Fote and his NJ cohort knew what they were doing when the made the motion to include the 25% CE language. So did all of the Board commissioners that voted for it (and almost all did). So again, there is still a bit more work to be done.
And with that it is rant time.
Tom Fote, the NJ Board Commissioner who has never seen a striped bass he didn’t want to kill, went out of his way to slam the public at the meeting. Reflecting on public comment meetings from the 1990s when he would have 300-400 people in attendance, Tom Fote noted how there were no more than 50 or so people at each of the NJ hearings this time around. His comment…the public really needs to be more involved in fisheries management and attend public comment hearings. He was prodding those of us in the audience and for what? For caring about the fishery and wanting it to be restored as quickly as possible? It was a cheap shot and one where he knew that no member of the public would have a chance to respond.
What is clear to me is that Tom, who must not have gotten the note on the dress code for the meeting, doesn’t understand that we are not living in the 1990s. People have access to social media, email, and the Internet and that is where a lot of the public commentary occurs.
He is also blind to the fact that he has a well-earned reputation for being a closed-minded commissioner with absolutely no interest in what large segments of the public thinks or wants. What incentive did the public in NJ have to attend a meeting knowing that his decision and opinions were already made? Would a showing of 2,000 people have had any impact on Tom Fote’s decision? 20,000 people? Not a chance in hell.
Tom Fote may think that public participation is part of the problem with the striped bass fishery. What he really needed to do at that meeting was to look squarely into that big mirror on the meeting room wall to see the real problem with our fishery.
Unlike Tom’s cheap shot comment, he is free to post a comment here on the blog.
1@32 
As someone who listened in for the majority of the meeting, I will say that Tom voice consistently rang out as sounding nothing but inept. He whined and moaned at nearly every turn, and sounded only full of vitriol. Understanding that nearly everyone has their views and are ground down at the length of the process, but to contrast Mr. Fote’s histrionics with a voice like Paul Diodati is like comparing a Chevette to a Corvette. I was genuinely disappointed and embarrassed that Tom was the voice for me as a NJ recreational fisherman.
Neither the New York Sportfishing Federation nor the Recreational Fishing Alliance are trade organizations; each is designated a 501C4 organization by their respective states and under the IRS designation (a trade association is designated as a 501C6 actually). I do know that New York Fishing Tackle Trades Association wrote in support of one at 28.
Might be more productive if we all spent less time reminding others how they voted and more unified effort in respectfully pushing for the one fish bag limit at the grassroots level.
One more thing to keep in mind – Tom Fote is the Governor’s Appointee to the ASFMC, which means he is the voice of the Governor and the state of New Jersey on these issues; in other words, he’s really just the messenger. Perhaps start by focusing respectful letter-writing efforts to the respective governors of ASMFC states to remind them that the majority of submitted comments favored a one fish bag limit.
– Jim Hutchinson
Thanks for taking the time to post your comment Jim. I stand corrected regarding the RFA and the Federation. With that said we look forward to working with the RFA and the Federation to push for the one bag limits. Your suggestion to contact the governors is spot on.
RS