NJFishing.com Your Best Online Source for Fishing Information in New Jersey

Quote:

Originally Posted by dales529 (Post 586938)

https://asafishing.org/advocacy/poli...dern-fish-act/

BB any thoughts on ASA being part of a Federal lawsuit for Summer Flounder, Seabass , scup and Modern Fishing Act?

I'll do my best answering your question. Below are the federal fishing Acts adopted over the years since the Magnuson Stevens Act "MSA" was adopted in 1976. I believe the original intent of MSA was to establish a 200 mile limit and keep foreign factory ships out of our waters to prevent the exploitation of our salt water natural resources.

There's been three significant amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act since 1976:

Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996: Strengthened requirements to prevent
overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks

MSA Reauthorization Act of 2006: Established annual catch limits,
accountability measures, and strengthened the role of science in fishery
management

Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018:
Improved recreational fishing data and management of mixed-use
fisheries

Moving Russia and other European Block countries out of our waters back in the 70's was an enormous win for our ground stocks (cod, whiting, ling, pollock, sea bass etc.) but truthfully all these other reauthorizations if you compare them to what's happened with local stocks, with a few minor exception, have failed to accomplish their intended charter when compared to the condition of fisheries over the same time frame. I think it's a lot of lip service with very little substantive change, government rhetoric in a nutshell. The proof is in the results and the devil in the details. The proof is we have more declining fisheries than growing fisheries today and recreational access has been slashed and catch limits severely limited. Case in point from the ASA link you posted:

One of the key tenants of the Modern Fish Act was allowing for “alternative management” approaches that differ from the traditional system that is based on commercial fishing, while adhering to federal requirements to prevent overfishing. That pretty much sums up what's brought us to this point in time over the last fifty years, decisions focused and based on commercial interests thanks to the Department of Commerce, NMFS, ASMFC and MAFMC.

We'll see how the complaint proceeds and what changes it effectuates, if any, to the recreational community. MSA was adopted to protect domestic salt water resources, manage those stocks prudently and provide a "Fair and Equitable" allocation of those resources between the commercial and recreational sectors. Would you agree that was the primary intent? If so, do you agree those are the results we've seen over the last 30 years? Personally I see just the opposite.

You're familiar with the saying, "Money talks, bullshit walks". I think most of us are done with the BS we've been fed for the better part of three decades. I know I am. Not just in terms of more restrictive regulations, decreased access to fisheries, declining stocks, reduced seasons, different weight values assigned to the same age classes with summer flounder between the recreational and commercial sectors, an enormous problem in the management of summer flounder not on anyone's radar screen, and now the high probability of a closure in arguably the most important recreational fishery to all coastal states striped bass. And lets not even get into what hasn't been done to push Cooke Inc. out of Chesapeake Bay. I think it's a good thing ASA has thrown their hat in the ring with this complaint but their true measure is what are the results of their involvement. From a holistic perspective, I'll ask you a question, what has ASA done over the last ten years locally to improve the rights of the recreational angler or the health of extremely important stocks to shore communities and recreational anglers which seem to be declining at historically alarming rates. If I'm overlooking something here, please enlighten me.

As I said, the entire process from top to bottom is corrupt and driven by economics and political graft. Sorry to be a wet rag but that's what I see based on real life experiences dealing with people more concerned with their personal agendas and status as opposed to the job they were elected or appointed to carry out. We tolerate that process and until something is done to change it there's no plausible reason to believe the immediate or distant future will be any different than the last two decades filled with one disappointment after another to the recreational community and more fisheries being pushed to the brink because they simply are not being managed prudently.

I remember Gerry posting his interview with the Town about I believe working for the zoning board, tax board or some comparable department. He was asked, what is your primary goal if you get this job and I believe he answered to reduce taxes for all residents of the Town and make the Township more affordable and attractive to property owners and potential buyers. The guy stopped him in his tracks and said "No, your job is to make sure the Mayor is re-elected". Something along those lines, Gerry you can add color if I presented it in the wrong light. You said right then and there it was the shortest interview on record and you knew you didn't stand a snow balls chance in hell of getting the job.

Fisheries management is no different. They protect their turf, retain their own, insure the corrupt system prevails and exploit our resources so they can all benefit from the last gold rush on the planet. Until that changes, there will be no "Fair and Equitable" allocation of salt water resources as mandated by MSA and I believe the Modern Fishing Act will be yet again just another attempt to mislead the public that change is on the way when business as usual will prevail. Sorry to be negative as it's not typically my style but corruption has no boundaries or limitations and we'll need a sledge hammer to change it as it pertains to fisheries management.