Not TOO happy about this
 

http://www.njcleanenergy.com/nj-offs...ce=govdelivery

Betting we lose a lot of fishing areas to this we have fished for a lifetime

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

You might be right, but it does NOT have to be that way.. If they mount those towers and all the support infrastructure in areas of dead sand, they will bring abundant life to sterile areas, and open up a lot of new highly productive structure fishing spots that are within reach of small boaters .. the trick is allowing access, thats the key..
ask GOM recreational anglers if they want the oil rigs removed... bob

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

I agree . But imo it will become a security zone. Everything changed after 911
They aren't going to let boats milling around in there with tightened shipping channels bringing fuel and propane in

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

There is that word again "stakeholders"
They just chop up birds these wind mills.

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

They will be a security zone but you can go right up to oil rigs in the gulf. Makes sense to me.

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Wait till they start their Seismic bottom testing to to confirm the bottom structure for tower foundations....any fish in the area will get lock jaw or leave.

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

It should NOT be a problem as long as the leftist radical state government in NJ ""allows"" access...

https://www.thefisherman.com/index.c...04&ParentCat=8


https://www.pressherald.com/2018/02/...-at-wind-farm/



https://www.blockislandtimes.com/art...g-so-far/51751

The wind farms are NOT the problem, but the people that are always voted into office in NJ might be... bob

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Thats for certain, but they come back before long... bob

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Might be a good thing if they take out a lot of cormorants..

Gulls? Plenty of them around too.. Not a great loss.
Pretty good Crab/Lobster feed... the Tog will follow...;)

Don't know if any migratory birds, or "noble" bird species would be impacted, but I am sure a lot depends how far the platforms are from shore.. Personally,I hope the cormorants LOVE them, and try to roost on the blades while they are turning.... bob

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Devil is in the details. Lot more involved in this energy alternative than most of us realize. But one thing is guaranteed, a lot of money is changing hands on a project of this nature and there will be adverse impacts involved. Question is what kind and for how long. Dan asks an interesting question regarding access in this highly populated area. Species reaction depends on whether the species involved is considered mobile or not. If the farms are built in an area inhabited by shell fish, lobsters, scallops, clams etc, a lot of sediment could be moved around during testing and installation that will change the bottom structure. Almost the effect Sandy had on a lot of hard bottom area getting covered up by sand, mud and debris. Depending on how the array is set up will also impact commercial as well as residential fishing. Cables have to be protected so rock structures are deployed on top of those cables in whats called "mattressing". How many commercial nets will be lost to these and what long term impact will that have on aquatic life. One thing is for certain, this is not being done for the benefit of the angling community and if the area chosen is shut down due to location, we're all screwed. Typically these areas are leased long term and like I said the devil is in the details of these contracts. Big business isn't going to invest billions and worry about fisherman. Government, both State and Federal, are getting their pockets lined as well and you can bet fishing access and marine impacts are not at the top of their priorities list, profits and protecting their investment are. We should all be concerned about this development since the people calling the shots don't have our interests at heart or conceivably even in mind. That usually ends up not good for the recreational and commercial community. Lot more details need to be understood before sounding the general alarm but all our antennas should be up. I'm all for clean energy but like anything else we should understand at what cost, impacts and risks.

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Guys need to look at the size of the area they want to fill.
Its not a tiny spot it is a sizable piece of real estate

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Would like to hear more opinions on both sides. So what are your issues for and against and why??

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Simple, as long as there are no "restricted" areas during construction and completion, who cares do it. More bottom more options.:) Gives the plastic urinals more places to go out of our hair. :-)

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/...e92d6b918.html

The wind farm off Block Island is NOT off limits, fishermen are free to use the grounds, and the commercial guys are already out there as well..
[ Big surprise right?].. If the areas off NJ are restricted, its the politicians doing it.make your voices heard, and make certain the areas are not closed to recreational fishing... bob...

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

well said dacota560...every form of government will make a buck on this one,nevermind the money that the blackmailing environmentalist will be making, the Devil is in the details for certain!!!!...and the recreational fishing community will get porked again!!

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

While if allowed to fish this area may seem like a possible goldmine structure wise.
What is the impact going to be to our current fisheries ?

The areas in question are our current migration routes for the great fisheries we already have.

Not so sure its worth losing what we have for a possibilty of a different fishery many years down the road . With also possibility of area closure.
Comparing what goes on in Nj to other states is laughable.
Just look at the current closure to bear hunting on state properties with one pen stroke.
Those lands bought with revenue from hunting and fishing licences and excise tax .
Now closed .

.

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Dakota and Dan make some valid points and I share some of the same concerns. I do however need get more informed before forming my own opinion.

What I've "heard" so far that is concerning:
- The company behind this is a foreign company
- Other areas where the wind mills are located, power cost actually went up
- There are some that believe the power lines on the ocean floor will disrupt fishing
- These structures could obviously pose issues with navigation
- Could fishing be restricted around them? Not sure but a slippery slope if they decided to make them MPAs in the future.

Many of the political power brokers in the state like Murphy and Booker are already for it so don't look for any help from them, the NJDEP or any appointed people representing our state fisheries management. Point here is if you want to oppose this, the fight is likely going to take place in DC not in NJ.

As I learn more I will post here...

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

i think building these will make lots of areas of structure for fish to hold up on. Could create some interesting fishing opportunities.

What we really need to worry about is this proposed seismic blasting - a huge seismic boom going off underwater every 30 seconds for an extended period of time? Its going to destroy the fishing.

Re: Not TOO happy about this- NJFishing.Com clout
 

Since NJ only has control to 3 miles it limits things. Feds jurisdiction starts past 3 miles and will cost more to run the undersea cables. Soo WHY NOT..

Have someone from this board help guide the placement of the windfarm. There's more dry holes than honey holes. Help with the selection process?

There's no shovel in the sea bottom yet. So why not put the NJFishing.Com input into site placement?

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

In situations of this nature, when politicians are making the calls (especially at the Federal level) history will tell you it's usually not in our best interest. What government will want you to believe is what you'll hear, better structure for fishing. What you won't hear is all the adverse effects. Example, what happens if testing / blasting occurs in the Fall during summer flounder migration offshore and what if it takes place right where the masses migrate. What'll be the impact on egg reproduction or the biomass itself. Could kill every egg laid. What happens to the fishery, might never rebound. If scallop beds are killed, I understand young ling require scallops as part of their early life cycle process. What's the impact on those two vital fisheries. The ocean is one big food chain and if one part is thrown off the entire food chain will be impacted. When there's another terrorist attack, will the area be closed to the public permanently for security reasons or as Gerry mentioned made into a Marine Protected Area for conservation reasons. More information is needed including designated area being considered. Everything in life has pros and cons, like I said the devil is always in the details and business / government never disclose the cons for obvious reasons.

If the project is so strategic to the US, as Gerry mentioned why would we not own it ourselves as opposed to a foreign concern? Counter-intuitive to the direction our government has elected in trying to be less dependent on foreign countries for energy resources as opposed to more. That in itself begs the question of why. A foreign country would be even less concerned about the potential environmental impacts, why would they since it's not their resources at risk.

Unless proven otherwise, to me this is potentially another Magnuson Stevens Act waiting to happen because politicians legislated it to for their own personal agenda, not because it's the right thing to do.

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

' Time and time again, it has been proven that increasing habitat in one area does not "steal" fish from another area... Over time, biomass increases,, In my opinion, it might take some of the intense pressure off long established, and all too well known and hard hit fishing areas. I think its a very good thing, as long as the area is open to fishing.. If not, all bets are off..
I also think there might be more pelagics inshore in the farm zone.. Mahi, various tuna species, sharks etc.. that would be great for small boaters that normally have no shot at that sort of gamefish.. Remains to be seen, but i think those structures would be massive fish magnets within a few years... To me, its all about free access, NOT 'habitat destruction"..... bob

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Just saw this https://vimeo.com/296493939

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

??????????????????????????????????

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Hilma of Klint....you didnt know she is in favor of the wind farms.....:p

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Since when is anyone happy ? Just grab your ankles and get used to it.

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Grab your ankles at Hilma's af Klint! Gerry keeps posting links like this he's going to get banned from the site!

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Well I hope they chop up the Cormorants

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

1st see where they are going to locate them, then worry about it ;)

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Here is a pic of their current map

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Here's the link to an article which gives some perspective about the overall plan and locations being considered. https://www.app.com/story/money/busi...ity/878021002/.

Appears a majority of the grid is either 20 miles south of long island or 20 - 50 / 60 miles east of Monmouth county and points south to Atlantic City. In broad terms, appears to start around the Mudhole area out to the Chicken Canyon in terms of distance offshore. It's a sizable area of real estate being considered. One grid alone covers 2,355 square miles as mentioned.

Pay close attention to the paragraph about cost which says:

Anyone who pays an electric bill will absorb some of the cost to produce power from offshore wind, because of both the enormous initial investment and the market set by far cheaper natural gas.

For instance, US Wind, which has the rights to 183,000 acres off of the south Jersey coast, will receive $131.93 for every megawatt-hour produced from 2021 to 2041 for consumers in Maryland.

That's about 2½ times the average wholesale price in the Washington D.C. area, according to PJM, the regional electrical grid supervisor.

Who knows what the environmental issues will be but they should be quantified before anything is executed. Here's another article about the economic boost to NJ associated with the project. https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/20...w_jobs_to.html.

First question would be if there's such an economic boost, why does the first article discuss a substantial increase in electric prices to consumers. If the investor US Wind is getting 2 1/2 times more than the wholesale price, are we looking at a 500% increase in the retail price consumers and businesses pay? Whose discussing that? As I've said previously, you always here about the pros, the cons end up in small print or not at all. Pockets get lined, investors make billions and we absorb the financial burden. Again I'm all for cleaner energy but maybe the states and or investors have to subsidize a larger piece of the funding associated with a project of this nature. So instead of or in addition to the US government pledging $10.6 billion dollars to Central America and Southern Mexico yesterday to support their economies and address migration issues, they can subsidize this project so the funding doesn't fall squarely on homeowners and businesses. Get the US based oil conglomerates involved with the hundreds of billions they make every year, I assume the market share gained by clean energy initiatives will eat into the oil industry's current business if all this works according to plan so let them invest or mandate their investment to subsidize the project. No different than the Federal Reserve forcing seven or eight better capitalized banks to subsidize the financial crisis in 2008 to unlock the capital markets and save AIG, only this time earmark how the money is to be used. That'll make the country more self sufficient from domestic resources and less dependent on foreign resources which I thought along with cleaner energy was the point of all this. Lot of moving parts but curious who exactly is looking out for the interests of the commercial and recreational fishing community and the homeowners and business owners of NY / NJ. It's not Murphy or Cuomo.

In addition to all this, there should be language somewhere along the lines of an easement which guarantees access to these areas for 100 years or more. The oceans belongs to everyone, if these areas were ever legislated to be off limits like Earle, it would be an economic and recreational disaster all so someone can push his own political agenda to obtain office.

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

Sorry about that bad link... I saw a video on some facebook fishing group page that I can no longer find. I was from a Senator in a different state who was initially for wind mills, they had them installed, it ended up costing state tax payers too much money to maintain them and they no longer want them.

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

All part of the equation but after the capital is invested I'd guess it's impossible to change course. These are multi decade deals and I'm sure the investors have the utility companies and states locked up long-term before committing capital to the project. They have to. My guess after reading more on the subject is wind farms both on land and water seem to be gaining a lot of momentum so BOHICA. The best we can hope is the impact on marine resources is minimal and the areas dedicated remain accessible. Otherwise we won't have to worry about salt water fishing regulations any more because there won't be enough areas to fish. And fish prices which are off the charts already will skyrocket. But rest assured, I'm sure all this was factored into the feasibility study and our concerns are ill-founded :eek:!

Re: Not TOO happy about this
 

FYI, there's two good articles in RFA's 2018 winter Making Waves publication which just came out regarding the Wind Farm proposal. First article by RFA's Executive Director Jim Donofrio (pages 5 and 6) is titled "RFA says No to Wind Farms, An Environmental Scam of Epic Proportions". Second article by Michael Shellenberger - reprinted from an article in Forbes (pages 7 - 9) is titled Solar and Wind Really do Increase Electricity Prices. Both address some of the points touched on in this thread and are worth reading.