JERSEY COAST ANGLERS ASSOCIATION (Published On

catch. In fact, according to the tables provided in theASMFC materials, the NJ recreational catch in 2012was 40lbs. Yes, only 40lbs. The actions that aretaken in New England provide the motivation andevidence for some environmental groups to fightagainst any flexibility in the Magnusson/StevensAct. New England’s past practices were the reasonCongress included greater restrictions in the 2006reauthorization of the Magnusson/Stevens Act. JohnBullard, with his leadership on the New EnglandCouncil and as Northeast Regional Director, hasconfirmed the worst expectations of someenvironmental groups.regionalization.After talking to other staterepresentatives before the meeting, I was pretty surewe had enough votes to go for option 1 and 2 whichwould allow for status quo and allow for New York,New Jersey and Connecticut to use the unusedrecreational catch from other states to allow us toavoid a severe reduction. A motion was made whichI amended to accomplish just this. John Bullard wasallowed to be the last speaker before the vote. Hebecame a cheerleader for New York against NewJersey. He tried to dress this up as a regionalizationplan which everyone knows is a joke. SenatorSchumer has been putting pressure on the RegionalDirector to give New York New Jersey’s fish.Governor Cuomo and his Attorney General has alsobeen putting pressure on the Regional Director forthe past year. John Bullard is a politician, not afisheries scientist and he did what he thought waspolitically expedient as he did with winter flounder.On the motion to amend, as you can see in thesummary below, the vote was 7 against and 4 infavor with the 2 services voting against. If you dothe math, a change in vote by the services wouldhave resulted in passage on the amendment. I hadasked them to abstain. If they had abstained not onlyin their vote but in their comments, I am sure wewould have had the votes to stay at status quo. I canunderstand why states like Delaware voted againstthe amendment. It meant that they could fish at 16inches while NJ must fish at 18 inches. Even withJohn Bullard‘s bullying, Massachusetts, RhodeIsland and Virginia voted with New Jersey on theamendment.Why am I so upset? I have been going toCouncil and Commission meetings since the mid80’s. It was interesting that he left the meeting oncehe got the vote he wanted. In 30 years under manyregional directors, I have never seen a regionaldirector promote the reallocation of fish from onestate to another for political reasons. I may havedisagreed with regional directors over the yearsbased on the science but their actions were alwaysequitable to every state.I’m also not sure why the ASMFC went outwith an addendum to get public comment sinceevery state except New York did not support goingto regionalization. The people who actually attendedthe public hearings and submitted comments allsupported the options that I made in a substitutemotion. In his memo of February 12th, Dr. Pierce,chairman of the Summer Flounder, Black Sea BassSummer FlounderSummer flounder management under theNational Marine Fisheries Service always amazesme. The new Marine Recreational InformationProgram (MRIP) is proving to be a greater disasterthan the old Marine Recreational Fisheries StatisticalSurvey (MRFSS). We covered this in last month’sJCAA Newspaper and Paul Haertel is providingmore information in this month’s edition. Accordingto the NMFS, the summer flounder stock issupposedly fully recovered, yet we are fishing onquotas as if it was not. Those are arguments overnumbers and statistics and the concern that NMFS isnot producing reliable information on therecreational fishing sector. But NMFS has nowtaken an action through the Northeast RegionalDirector that is completely out of line.John Bullard showed up at the SummerFlounder, Black Sea Bass and Scup Board Meetingto reallocate fish from New Jersey to New Yorkunder the guise of regionalization. Everyone sittingaround the table knew they weren’t voting onregionalization. John Bullard made a statement thathe was advocating for this change so fisheriesregulations would be similar in adjoining states.This was accomplished by making New Jersey raisethe size limit and reallocate thousands of fish to NewYork. What Mr. Bullard didn’t say was that he hadjust screwed all of New Jersey’s party and charterboats and anglers in South Jersey. The party andcharter boats compete with Delaware for customers.The anglers who fish in Delaware Bay and off thecoast of Delaware are also affected. Because of theregionalization that John Bullard was pushing andmade motions for, Delaware will be fishing next yearon a 16 inch size limit while in New Jersey we willbe fishing on an 18 inch fish. Tell me how that is4

and Scup Board, addresses the same concerns JCAA,NJOA and NJSFSC had about how to deal withoverages in case New York goes over this year. Healso points out that the Regional Director, JohnBullard, “argued at our Board meeting for theregional approach and who with his other federalcounterpart voted in favor.” Mr. Bullard wasn’tclear how he would deal with overages and statesSenator Schumer would take care of it.New Jersey has always had a problem withthe two services having a vote on the ManagementBoard. This is a compact of states, not with federalagencies. Over the years, a few of New Jersey’scommissioners have made motions that would havemade the services ex-officio members, not votingmembers. We have never been successful becauseof the purse strings that NMFS holds for ASMFC.Maybe it is time for the New Jersey commissionersto revisit this issue. Mr. Bullard may have madeSenator Schumer happy but he has outraged NewJersey’s Congressional Delegation. New Jersey’sstate officials are similarly upset with his actions. Iwill keep you posted. I saw a comment from one ofNew Jersey’s recreational anglers saying JohnBullard should have worn an “I love New York” tshirt to this meeting. My thought is his t-shirt shouldhave said, “I love New York – Screw New Jersey.”report - I got the sense that you & the other Boardmembers did too. As I mentioned when we met thismorning, the retrospective bias issue was raised inthe benchmark report, but the specific language thatI was thinking of is in the 2013 update assessmentreport (with data through 2012 - final 2012 data; thebenchmark assessment language is sparse and moregeneral). I have attached the relevant pages (andunderlined the most relevant parts) of the updatereport (see Figure 9, 2nd panel down on the right,for the basis of Des Kahn's comment) which notes,starting on page 9:''.because of error associated with these [pointestimates of F and SSB] estimates, there is aprobability of 0.46 that the 2012 female SSB estimateis below or equal to the SSB threshold. If theestimates are adjusted for the average retrospectivebias in the last five years (fishing mortality 12%overestimate; SSB 14% underestimate), theprobability of the 2012 female SSB estimates beingbelow or equal to the SSB threshold declines to0.12.''''.because of error associated with these [pointestimates of F and SSB] estimates, there is aprobability of 0.46 that the 2012 female SSB estimateis below or equal to the SSB threshold. If theestimates are adjusted for the average retrospectivebias in the last five years (fishing mortality 12%overestimate; SSB 14% underestimate), theprobability of the 2012 female SSB estimates beingbelow or equal to the SSB threshold declines to0.12.''Striped BassBelow is a letter by Desmond M. Kahn, Ph.Dsent to the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board inresponse to Draft Addendum IV on Striped Bass. Dr.Kahn addresses a point made in the recent peerreviewed striped bass stock assessment. Dr. Khanhas been involved with the striped bass technical andstock assessment committees for as long as I canremember representing the state of Delaware. He isnow retired.The information in italics below was done bya New Jersey’s Bureau of Marine Fisheries staffperson after a discussion we had on the status of thestocks. It will help you understand Dr. Khan’scomments. I can also email the stock assessmentpages he references. Those pages will be posted onour web page and our facebook page.Which is to say that if we adjust upwards the 2012SSB estimate to account for an average retrospectivebias, 88% of the Monte Carlo run point estimates ofSSB are at or above the SSB threshold.The other issue in the assessment regardingmanagement uncertainty is in the projections - i.e., ifwe implement management action X, what is theprobability of SSB being at or above/below thethreshold. The benchmark report notes that: ''Bydelaying action [reducing F] until 2014, theprobability of SSB being below the SSB reference is0.59 in 2014 and 0.63 in 2015.'' The retrospectivebias issue would lower those probabilities, but thetrend would likely be the same - increasingprobability of SSB being at or below the thresholduntil 2015 at which point the probability starts toTom,I was able to find the information related to DesKahn's 28 January 2014 letter to the ManagementBoard. I looked over his letter and I think he drawsattention to an important part of the assessment5

decline. If recruitment in 2013 were substantivelyabove or below average the story could change (theprojections are roughly based on an averagerecruitment).were only two years old in 2013. This year, they willbegin to move out onto the coast and abundanceexperienced by the recreational fishery will increase.To increase female spawning stock biomass, theywill have to grow up and mature, however.Letter to ASMFC on Striped Bass by DesmondM. Kahn, Ph.DYours Truly,Desmond M. Kahn, Ph.D.Former member, ASMFC Striped Bass StockAssessment SubcommitteeFormer Chair, ASMFC Striped Bass TagSubcommitteeFormer Chair, ASMFC Striped Bass TechnicalCommitteeBoard letter Jan 2014January 28, 2014916 Rahway DriveNewark DE 19711Striped Bass Management BoardASMFCDear Commissioners,I would like to draw your attention to a pointmade in the recent peer-reviewed striped bass stockassessment. The retrospective analysis in thatdocument examined how stable and reliable theestimates of spawning stock biomass and fishingmortality from the Statistical Catch at Age modelwere as additional years of data were added. Theestimates for 2005 were examined as an example.These estimates were based on data through 2005.What this retrospective analysis showed wasthat, as additional years of data were added, theestimates of these management parameters wereunstable and unreliable in the Statistical Catch atAge model. The estimate of biomass increased aseach additional year of data was added, until by thetime the 2012 data was added, the estimate ofbiomass had increased by 37%.This result is of serious concern. It indicatesthat the terminal year's estimate of spawningbiomass, which is the one that managers such asyourself normally base decisions on, are biased lowand are not reliable estimates of spawning biomass.These estimates for 2012, for example, will increaseas additional years of data are added.By the same token, the retrospective analysisin the assessment showed that the estimate of fishingmortality is overestimated, since the estimate of F for2005 decreased as more years of data were added.Consequently, the retrospective analysisindicates that the model estimates of spawningbiomass and fishing mortality for the most recentyears have become unreliable and unstable.My final point is that a dominant year classwas produced in the Chesapeake Bay in 2011, whichhas already caused some increase in total coastalrecreational catch-per-unit effort, although these fishCommonwealth of MassachusettsDivision of Marine Fisheries251 Causeway Street, Suite 400Boston, Massachusetts 02114Phone (617) 626-1520Fax (617) 626-1509MEMORANDUMTO: Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea BassManagement Board & Technical CommitteeFROM: David E. Pierce, Board ChairmanDATE: February 12, 2014RE: 2014 Summer FlounderRecreational Fishery MeasuresAs Chairman, I begin by thanking the Boardfor agreeing to a regional approach for our flukerecreational fisheries. Difficult choices were madewith most states being willing to “take a chance” onthe approach primarily to accommodate New York’sconcerns.Addendum XXV and our February Boarddiscussions made it clear that it’s critical for states,especially those with the majority of harvest(notably, New York and New Jersey) to be quitecareful with their 2014 management measures. If the2014 RHL is exceeded, I suggest it will be difficultfor the Board to consider and adopt regionalmanagement for 2015, and we likely will return tostate-by-state measures using 1998 as the baseline –an outcome some states will abhor.For example, if the 2014 RHL of 2,421,720fish is exceeded, individual states will be heldaccountable based on their 1998 allocated portion ofthe RHL. Consider that status quo would have given6

New York a 2014 target of 426,223 fish and NewJersey 946,893 fish. The Board selected option (3b)giving New York and New Jersey a 2014 projectedharvest of 1,546,871 fish.Let’s assume we go over the 2014 RHL.Let’s also assume New York achieves its projected2014 harvest of 640,523 fish (option 3b) helped bythe drop in minimum size from 19 to 18 inches, greatabundance of fluke off its shores and continued higheffort by that state’s recreational fishermen and forhire industry. If the RHL is exceeded, New Yorkwill have to cut back from 640,523 fish (or whateveris caught this year) to 426,223 fish. New Jersey isless likely to be as dramatically impacted becausethe 3b projected harvest is 906,348 fish compared tothe status quo (1998-based percentage) of 946,893fish.What’s most concerning is the impact onConnecticut.If the RHL is exceeded andConnecticut reaches its 3b-projected 2014 harvest of227,939 fish (even much less), it appears that state’sfishery likely would be closed in 2015! Its 2014status quo target is 89,604 fish.Clearly, it is critical that the RHL not beexceeded. For this reason, as your Chairman notwanting the Board to deal with 2014 ruins andimplications for 2015, I remind the Board that themajor harvesting states must for 2014 be very carefuland precautionary. I suggest simply selecting theoption 3b size limit, possession limit, and # daysopen likely will put the regional approach at risk for2015.All of our discussions to date have been quiteoptimistic about the RHL. Many of us have said, “Itwon’t be exceeded in 2014 with a regionalapproach.”This might be wishful thinking.Therefore, I suggest consequences of going over theRHL might not have been given enoughconsideration/evaluation.This memo highlightswhat could go terribly wrong for some states, such asNew York and Connecticut. Adopting the regionalapproach to deal with perceived equity issues,especially for New York, would be tragically ironicif New York’s 2014 harvest, in particular, increaseswell beyond the 3b expectation and the RHL isexceeded.This memo also serves to call this issue andconcern to the Technical Committee’s attention andto alert GARFO’s RA John Bullard who argued atour Board meeting for the regional approach andwho with his other federal counterpart voted infavor. At the end of 2014 and beginning of 2015,we all hope John will be able to say, “Job well doneASMFC!” Let’s make him happy and by doing sowe’ll have the satisfaction of having achieved ourAddendum XXV objectives – not to please GARFO(although, why not) – but having successfully solvedthe problems described in the Addendum.ASMFC Summer Flounder, Scup,and Black Sea Bass BoardApproves Regional Management for2014 Recreational Summer Flounderand Black Sea Bass FisheriesASMFC Press ReleaseAlexandria, VA –The Commission’s SummerFlounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass ManagementBoard approved Addendum XXV to the SummerFlounder and Black Sea Bass Fishery ManagementPlan, establishing regional recreational managementfor both species for the 2014 fishing year. Forsummerflounder,theAddendumcreatesmanagement measures by region with the intent ofproviding more equity in recreational harvestopportunities along the coast, especially betweenNew York and New Jersey. The approved summerflounder regions are Massachusetts and RhodeIsland; Connecticut through New Jersey; Delawarethrough Virginia; and North Carolina. For black seabass, the Board also approved the continuation ofmanagement measures by northern (Massachusetts –New Jersey) and southern regions (Delaware – NorthCarolina).Addendum XXV was initiated to address agrowing concern that current summer floundermanagement measures are not providing recreationalfishermen along the coast with equitable harvestopportunities to the resource. Its adaptive regionalmanagement approach is designed to allow themanagement program to adjust to past, current, andfuture changes to the resource and the fishery. Underthis approach, all states within a region will berequired to have the same possession limit, sizelimit, and season length. The Technical Committeewill work with the states to develop, for Boardconsideration and approval, measures for each regionthat will collectively achieve, but not exceed, therecreational harvest limit. The adaptive regionalmanagement approach has been approved for the2014 fishing year only.7

For black sea bass, the Board approved thecontinuation of ad hoc regional managementmeasures by northern (Massachusetts – New Jersey)and southern regions (Delaware – North Carolina).This approach has been used since 2011 and offerssome advantages over coastwide regulations, whichcan disproportionately impact states within themanagement unit. Specifically, regional measuresaddress geographic differences in the stock (size,abundance and seasonality) while maintaining theconsistent application of management measures byneighboring states. States in the northern region willreduce their catch based on the region’s performancein 2013. The Technical Committee will work withthe states to develop regional management measures

Yukon 50qt. Cold Locker Cooler, Value 330 Donated by Igloo/Yukon 7. Shakespeare Ugly Stik SP1166 1MH 6' 6"Rod & Penn Battle BTL 4000 Reel, Value 160 Donated by Penn & Shakespeare 8. Shakespeare Ugly Stik SP1166 1MH 6' 6"Rod & Penn Battle BTL 4000 Reel, Value 160 Donated by Penn & Shakespeare 9. Oliso, Inc. Vacuum Food Sealer, Value 150