Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

I wanted to start a new thread here as a way to move on to the next step.
We are all in agreement in the NJFishing community that the proposed designation of Sandy Hook Bay, The Navesink and Shrewsbury Rivers and their tributaries as a National Marine Sanctuary is a terrible idea. It is a direct threat to our rights. So. What next?

We need a coordinated effort to prevent this happening.

Some things I think we should start looking into such as:

-Is this just Rik Van Hemmen's personal pet project or does he have other people/entities/organizations backing or funding him? We need transparency on this so we know exactly who and what we are dealing with.

-Can we somehow block the application process from happening? I don't know if there is a mechanism in place where if enough opposition is generated the application itself can be tossed before it even gets to the desk of the person/entity who could enact the NMS.

-If we can't block it than who or what agency actually gives the thumbs up or down on whether or not the designation goes through. Once we establish who has final say we can begin the process of making our voice heard through petitions, phone calls etc.

Maybe the RFA or anyone else can weigh in here and answer these questions or post more question in regards to this. This is a serious threat and we can't waste a moment getting on the ball.
I want to keep this all fresh in everyone's mind and the last thread has kind of run it's course.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Capt:
Absolutely agreed we need to go further and Stop this in its tracks.
As a board member of RFA-NJ, I can tell you the following:
RFA National and RFA-NJ are preparing to pursue this further by making a major push with local mayors and councils, Monmouth County freeholders and state legislators. Jim D has already spoken with the Lt. Governor, who lives in Monmouth Beach and fishes. Also hope to have a petition against it at The Somerset Show as well as an online petition. We are working on all of the above.
If anyone on here is not a member now is a good time to sign up for RFA and help make a difference.

Will keep you posted as this develops and there are things to sign on too

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

The link below explains the nomination process

http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

It would seem that you could spend hours upon hours going from one link to the next on the original Web page that was set up for this. I seem to recall that in the beginning there was a page you could go to to see letter both for and against this Sanctuary process. that page now seems to be wiped out? However there has to be a way that we can find an address to send our letters of disapproval to. I will continue to go from link to link until I find it.

On organization I did find, that I think may require close observation of is http://nmsfocean.org/

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Submit your own nomination and plan to NOAA and set up your own board to make decisions on fishing and general use.

Beat them to the punch.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

As far as I can determine, he is running this himself with a few like minded individuals. He is in the "scoping phase" looking for exposure and support.

Unless he can be convinced it will not succeed, anyone can submit a NMS nomination.

Here is the site that explains the process:

http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Here is a link to the Just Say No Petition we will have at the Somerset Show.
Working on the online version

http://www.dneconsulting.com/DraftPetition.pdf

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Thanks Dave !!!!!!

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

I can tell everyone this, I spoke with Phil Sciortino jr. Today of the tackle box (non sponsor I know) but this should transcend sponsor non sponsor I think. He has been in touch with multiple entities inclouding the RFA in terms of what the next step he is as adamant that this a terrible idea as anyone.

We all need to stand together on this but rest assured steps are being taken everyday to prevent this travesty. There will be an online petition from what I understand going up shortly.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Has anyone tried this:

https://www.change.org/

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Great info thanks!

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

One organization and only one will have the money and power.Multiple organizations fighting this will not work! Fishing clubs are great but when it comes to politics we need money.Money is power! This can only be done on a national level.This Sandy Hook thing is just the beginning!

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

This might be a good opportunity to get this excitement pointed the right way and that is to stop draggers from killing off yet another species that used to frequent the rivers and bay. Why let it go to waste?

I think the proposed sanctuary is a great idea because the crabs are gone, the winter flounder are gone, and the fluke that spawn there are on their way out too. But it is not because of regulations inside the sanctuary. It is because of a lack of regulation outside the sanctuary.

Instead of "stopping", how about getting something positive going? We have everyone's attention and its a great opportunity to tell the real story - that the draggers are destroying the rivers and bay too. They are killing off the species that have occupied these waters every winter, spring, and summer when they migrate out to deep water.

I think this is a great opportunity to restore what we used to have - maybe oysters too. It would be a shame to let this opportunity to go to waste.

Bonus Points - Maybe this will stop the slaughter and waste of other species like whiting and ling. There are lots of tree huggers out there that have absolutely no idea that offshore lumps that used to rise off the bottom are getting flattened and that all the plants and animals are gone thanks to draggers. Now is a chance to do something about it by getting the message out past the choir.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Well the RFA National and NJ Chapters are onboard opposing it so that's as good a place as any to support.

I may be naive but I don't think this is a money battle. I think it will be a political one. In order for an application to be even considered by NOAA (and BTW the application has not been submitted yet) they must have the support of local area Mayors and Councilmen etc.

You might remember some time ago someone in the NJDEP floated a trial balloon to socialize and get support for a NJ paid salt water fishing licence. Once the politicians saw the massive grass roots opposition to the proposal, they ran from it like a burning building.

I think/hope the case will be the same here.

If you are reading this and have relationships with Mayors or Council people in the area, you might want to voice your concern if they were to support the application and designation.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Bingo

This is a political battle and you need to get the message past the choir. Having the same captains talking to the same govt people ain't doing it. You have to get the newspapers and teachers and soccer moms and millenials and all the people who never think about fish saying "stop the draggers".

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

February 25, 2016, 4.30 pm, Shrewsbury Boro Hall, Two Rivers Council of Mayors (initial introduction)

He has been there done that already.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Jerry, It would be nice to have local mayors and politicians on our side. The problem is we don't have enough of them and we need the most powerful ones. When Mcgreevy who was the mayor of my town in Woodbridge ran for Governor i approached him on some issues. I asked if he would get on board to stop the devastation of the bunker and he refused.Our current Governor could care less and will never help.The Sandy Hook issue might not need a bunch of money to solve the problem but all the other issues that need ''lobbyists'' do. This is where the money is needed the most. We are out gunned by the commercial fishing community big time.I believe this Sandy Hook thing will be crushed but we still have alot of work to do.Menendez should get on board.Perth Amboy is a port and it got him where he is today. Time for him to step up to the plate and go to bat for us!

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Maybe it's time to try and get corporate help. Look at the NRA. They are so powerful that there isn't a piece of gun legislation in the entire country that isn't vetted by their lawyers or killed outright. They have the backing of citizens concerned about their rights but, more importantly, they are heavily bankrolled by Smith and Wesson, Ruger, Glock etc etc

So, where is Penn, Shimano, Eagle Claw, Mustad, Berkley, Ande? Are the companies that we support getting some skin in the game? I'd like to know if they donate to the RFA.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

EXACTLY. These manufacturers stand much more to loose as fishing opportunities are taken away. Where is the $ from them?

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

There you guys go spewing shit. It money it's politics. You guys are only hurting yourselves with that kind of crap. Do your part and let others do their part. Continuously looking to others to solve your problems is just plain silly. Do it yourself one by one. Talk to your friends, carry the petition. Make people aware. That's how it's done.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Well golly gee Joey! I didn't know it was that simple. I guess when Donald Trump plays up to the NRA he isn't looking for support. I belong and believe in the NRA. No one will take my guns from me. I need the NRA.They protect my rights. I give them money. They use it properly. We as recreational fisherman need support also. We have to pay for it.Silly is thinking that just talking with friends and other fisherman will get the job done. I have been to numerous meetings from bunker to fluke to tuna. Did it help? i hope so but there is a long way to go.I don't think it is ''spewing shit''! That is your opinion .:eek:

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

It is my opinion Sal. You are also entitled to yours. My point is this. The NRA built itself from the ground up person to person. There was no internet no social media. It was people talking to people make others aware. Get themselves involved in a cause they all believed in. That's what needs to be done here. You need to care enough to be directly involved other wise no one will or group will come to your aid. You must show you have a significant following of your cause. So I ask each and everyone of you the truly care to help spread the word. Perhaps print a copy of the petition bring to work, the soccer game, boat you fish on. It requires a movement of people working for people.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Here is a copied and pasted update from the NJ Fisherman magazine.

**UPDATE - MARCH 21, 2016** - Rik van Hemmen AND the Navesink Maritime Heritage Association will be ‘moderating’ a discussion on Wednesday, March 23 beginning at 7 p.m. at Bahrs Landing Restaurant, 1 Bay Avenue in Highlands, NJ. According to the email invitation to “members” of the Navesink Maritime Heritage Association, this ‘round table discussion’ will feature “supporters and questioners from local organizations who have an interest in this subject.”

Given the rich history Bahrs Landing Resturant has with the recreational/commercial fishing industry. I find it very disturbing that this establishment feels it's necessary to keep having meetings from the Navesink Heritage Association. I would suggest that people call Bahrs and voice their displeasure over their lack of better judgement on this matter.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

This is the email for the person spearheading the push to make Sandy Hook Bay and the Two Rivers area a Marine Sanctuary: rhemmen@martinottaway.com.

Please feel free to send him an email explaining why we do not need this.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

This is a quick update to my previous post from The Fisherman magazine.

I called Bahrs Landing and talked to Jay the owner. He said once he got wind of the Navesink Maritime Heritage Society was going to hold a meeting about the National Marine Sanctuary he cancelled the meeting space. I asked him if he knew where they were holding the meeting and he said he didn't know. I don't know of the validity of this but am merely trying to keep everyone in the "loop".

He said there was no way he wanted three hundred fishermen showing up, at his restaurant, in opposition.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Smart move on Jay's part..Bahrs in the Highlands would be like them walking into the belly of the beast. If they think they had a rough time in Red Bank, the Highlands crowd would make that look like a picnic.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Bahrs probably does more business at the bait shop and fuel dock than in the restaurant. You can be sure that they do not want to be any part of any effort to restrict fishing in the rivers or bays.

The problem is, Rik will tell you the same thing. I am not sure that Rik realizes how Fed regs have ruined most of the fisheries.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Also, everyone should email Rik and explain how Fed regs have hurt most of the fisheries in his beloved bay and rivers. I think it is a matter of him not knowing what has happened to juvenile weakfish, winter flounder, fluke. He does not know these regular residents are getting decimated as soon as they go offshore.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Mr. van Hemmen has recanted, the Wednesday meeting is cancelled.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

And he said it was due to fierce opposition

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

I just sent an email to Mr. Van Hemmen requesting full disclosure of meeting times and locations. I hadn't heard about the Bahr's meeting until today and I think we all deserve to know well in advance when the cancelled meeting will be rescheduled.

I suggested a venue that can hold several hundred people so we don't get shut out like the Red Bank meeting.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Here are Riks emails today:
.................................................. ............

Hello All,



At the bottom of this note I indicated that I will be at the bar at Bahrs at 530 tomorrow evening. Since that time, there have been various developments and I will not be at Bahrs in response to requests to be extra cautious at maintaining the general peace and quiet.



At this stage I am between a rock and a hard place to further the discussion on the subject. It appears that, for the time being, I will have to take the discussion of the proposal out of the public sphere. Too many supporting stakeholders feel restrained in speaking out on this matter, and that results in an asymmetric debate. This bums me out because I believe that vigorous but courteous public debate allows faster progress than back room sausage making, but it appears that public debate has been forced off the table by a small group of very vocal opponents of the idea. I suspect that from now on we will need to have smaller working groups, with policy positions for various stake holders, etc.



This is frustrating. The truly discourteous opponents are a very small minority, but they have chosen to destroy their opportunity to be engaged in this effort. For the time being, the discourteous opponents will be exempted from the discussion and I hope the courteous opponents will fairly and ably represent them. At this stage, my personal count indicates that the proponents of the concept outweigh the sum of courteous and discourteous opponents. However, I would certainly note that the opponents appear to have a stronger aversion than the strength of the attraction of the concept shown by the proponents. This, by itself, introduces an interesting dynamic. Do 150,000 moderately positive votes balance against 50,000 strongly negative votes?



Meanwhile, I have also received so much feedback at this stage that I probably need to engage in a swampdrain to develop NMS V2.0 at which time we can run another test.



Updates will follow, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or comments.



Best,



Rik van Hemmen

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Here is a follow up email from Rik

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


If do you not think that I have the best of intentions for your interests also, what do I need to do to convince you otherwise? And how can you state that I am excluding any interest or obviously have a hidden agenda?



I have offered RFA to make presentations to specific fishery interests and have not received an answer yet. The March 23 meeting was supposed to be open to all interests, but was intended to be limited in size. I did not pull the plug on the meeting, the meeting was pulled because there were other people who were unsure about the venue. Part of that was related to behavior at the Library meeting (not yours, which as far as I am concerned was opposed, but courteous and actually funny in a helpful way).



You were there at that meeting and you saw the reactions I got. To say nothing of the stuff on the internet and notes I have received. On the other hand, don’t for a second think that the reactions at that meeting were in any way typical. I had plenty of meetings before that where the reaction was positive and I continue to keep getting positive reactions.



You know it is not just about trash. At the very least, you could have noted below what I said at the meeting probably half a dozen times: It is about yield more than anything else. You have read a copy of the draft nomination and you certainly know you can call me if you need more input.



Anytime you want to discuss more specifics in front of any group of your choosing I am available, as long as the discussion will be courteous and thoughtful. You heard the comments during the library meeting. I would say that they were often less than constructive and to a significant extent total lies. If it is necessary, I will listen to more people telling me that the feds will screw up anything (while today we are hunting and harvesting clams on much cleaner water due to federal actions supported by Ducks Unlimited), that clams harvested in the 1960’s in front of sewer outlets were better than those that are harvested today (even when the comment was made, I was at a loss for a civil answer), that there will be more regulations (even though from a fisheries and hunting point of view it will simply be state regs) and that somehow the NMS will stop hunting, fishing or whatever (even though there is no hint in that regard in anything I have written or said). But I do think I have gotten those messages, and there are still lots of other people who I am sure would like to provide different comments too, and probably would like to make those comments without being abused, or threatened, or questioned about their motives.



I doubt very much that everything fits in a neat category and I never stated so. I find that the issue is complex and that after this thing has been mulled over by everybody, there will be no categories. There will simply be people who have thought about it and decide to be for, or against, without being threatened or shouted down. Hopefully both sides can respect those decisions. There may be people who are personally in favor, but who still do not support the idea, or the other way around. However, the only way we all are going to make up our mind is to look at all sides of the issue and to slowly work to a resolution.



Next, your interpretation of the 50,000 v 150,000 conundrum was the opposite of my intention. I meant to point out that this is not a majority rules issue, and that those who have strong positive connections to the water possibly should have a stronger voice in the decisions. I’ll leave it you to decide whether the stronger voice is the birdwatcher or the waterfowler. I am strongly on the waterfowler side as long as there are sufficient birds for the birdwatcher to see when they make the same effort to see them as the waterfowler makes to shoot them. I have no intend to create a petting zoo. This place has been a man eats duck world forever, to think it should become a petting zoo makes no sense, and it would be a disservice to our culture.



Meanwhile, what makes you think that somehow at some time in the future there will not be people who want to vote water fowling out of the rivers? The vegan count is not going down in this state. A properly designed NMS that locks in hunting will make that less likely.



Was your email a parting shot? Do you want to stay dialed in on these updates, or do you think that I am on a lost cause, and simply want to be left out of the discussion? I do not think you are on a lost cause as a person who loves to hunt on the rivers, but I also do not want to deal with baseless accusations here.



Best,



Rik

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

I think Rik is just afraid. Typical tree hugger says he has 150,000 people in favor of it? I haven't heard of one. Perhaps he can hold a meeting for only them and we can see if anyone actually attends. Of the so called 150,000 are any of them from NJ ?

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Maybe stores can post these in their windows.

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

It is kind of like this. You know the jars they put out with a picture of a homeless puppy dog. Well let me tell you i am all for helping poor animals but the truth is some of that money goes toward the anti hunting campaing.Trust no tree huggers.I can't believe i just agreed with Joey lol

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Wow !!!!!!!!

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Joey and sal. A force to be reconed with for sure!

Next wi be dogs and cats living together:)

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

Miracles do happen. :D

Re: Continued Discussion of the NMS proposal
 

I believe Mr van Hemmen just wants to make "presentations" on his plan and, as others have started, he is afraid of actual debate on the topic. He is obviously afraid of any heated response that might come from those that make their living on & from the water. And that only shows me that he is truly living in a fairy tale world. His tendency to refer to Birdwatchers and waterfowlers lead me to believe he is simply refusing to acknowledge that their are actually people that make their livelihood on or from the water and he will not even take those people into his consideration.

Personally I believe that this whole effort is nothing more that a bid for Mr. van Hemmen to become the Prince of the Two Rivers. As he stated at the Red Bank meeting, he believes the Sanctuary would not be controlled by the federal government but by a commission formed from people chosen by the towns abutting the sanctuary. And who better to lead that commission than the all seeing, all knowing Rik van Hemmen?

Perhaps, one or two of us need to join his group so that we can better track his "Back room sausage making" meetings? Or maybe we all need to join the group and by sheer numbers we could all steer the group away from this effort?