[MakoMike]

ASMFC Finds New Jersey Out of Compliance with the Tautog FMP
Noncompliance Finding to be Forwarded to the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior


The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has found the State of New Jersey out of compliance with the mandatory management measures contained in Addenda IV and V of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Tautog. The Commission will be notifying the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior of its finding. This action is taken pursuant to the provisions of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act of 1993.

The State of New Jersey has not implemented Addenda IV and V's mandatory harvest reductions, which require the state to implement a management program that will achieve a 25.6 percent reduction in exploitation by January 1, 2008. This reduction is necessary to initiate rebuilding of the overfished tautog stock and to maintain effective cooperative management of the tautog resource. According to the 2006 peer-reviewed stock assessment, the tautog resource continues to be at low biomass levels. Since the mid-1980s tautog has undergone a substantial decrease in total and spawning stock biomass, with both currently at levels about one-third of their historical averages.

To come back into compliance, New Jersey must implement management measures that reduce fishing exploitation by 25.6 percent. Upon notification by the Commission, the Secretary of Commerce has 30 days to review the recommendation and determine appropriate action, which may include a federal moratorium on fishing for tautog.

For more information, please contact Robert Beal, Director, Interstate Fisheries Management Program, at (202) 289-6400.

 

[WaterAye]

Oh No!!! They are going to get a letter. Ouch.

 

[guest]

out of compliance is a bit more then just a letter from what I've read

 

[Scott1280]

guest wrote:
out of compliance is a bit more then just a letter from what I've read
A certified letter?

 

[guest]

How about no possession of tog outside the three mile limit for those boats registered in NJ, including charter boats and private boats. And no landing of tog in NJ for any PB or com vessel with any fed permit

This post edited by guest 06:32 PM 02/07/2008

 

[MakoMike]

The secretary of the commerce has 30 days to take that action. I think but not sure he can suspend tog fishing everywhere in the state. Anyone know for sure?

 

[guest]

http://www.asmfc.org/legislation/ACFCMA.pdf wrote:
(c) Moratorium
(1)
Upon making a finding under subsection (a) of this section that a State has failed to carry out its
responsibility under section 5104 of this title and that the measures it failed to implement and enforce
are necessary for conservation, the Secretary shall declare a moratorium on fishing in the fishery in
question within the waters of the noncomplying State. The Secretary shall specify the moratorium's
effective date, which shall be any date within 6 months after declaration of the moratorium.
(2)
If after a moratorium is declared under paragraph (1) the Secretary is notified by the Commission
that the Commission is withdrawing under section 5105(c) of this title the determination of
noncompliance, the Secretary shall immediately determine whether the State is in compliance with
the applicable plan. If so, the moratorium shall be terminated.
(d) Implementing regulations
The Secretary may issue regulations necessary to implement this section. Such regulations -
(1)
may provide for the possession and use of fish which have been produced in an aquaculture
operation, subject to applicable State regulations; and
(2)
shall allow for retention of fish that are subject to a moratorium declared under this section and
unavoidably taken as incidental catch in fisheries directed toward menhaden if -
(A)
discarding the retained fish is impracticable;
(B)
the retained fish do not constitute a significant portion of the catch of the vessel; and
(C)
retention of the fish will not, in the judgment of the Secretary, adversely affect the
conservation of the species of fish retained.
7
(e) Prohibited acts during moratorium
During the time in which a moratorium under this section is in effect, it is unlawful for any person to -
(1)
violate the terms of the moratorium or of any implementing regulation issued under subsection (d)
of this section;
(2)
engage in fishing for any species of fish to which the moratorium applies within the waters of the
State subject to the moratorium;
(3)
land, attempt to land, or possess fish that are caught, taken, or harvested in violation of the
moratorium or of any implementing regulation issued under subsection (d) of this section;
(4)
fail to return to the water immediately, with a minimum of injury, any fish to which the moratorium
applies that are taken incidental to fishing for species other than those to which the moratorium
applies, except as provided by regulations issued under subsection (d) of this section;
(5)
refuse to permit any officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter to board a fishing
vessel subject to such person's control for purposes of conducting any search or inspection in
connection with the enforcement of this chapter;
(6)
forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any such authorized officer in
the conduct of any search or inspection under this chapter;
(7)
resist a lawful arrest for any act prohibited by this section;
(8 )
ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, purchase, import, or have custody, control, or possession of,
any fish taken or retained in violation of this chapter; or
(9)
interfere with, delay, or prevent, by any means, the apprehension or arrest of another person,
knowing that such other person has committed any act prohibited by this section.
(f) Civil and criminal penalties
(1)
Any person who commits any act that is unlawful under subsection (e) of this section shall be
liable to the United States for a civil penalty as provided by section 308 of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1858 ).
(2)
Any person who commits an act prohibited by paragraph (5), (6), (7), or (9) of subsection (e) of
this section is guilty of an offense punishable as provided by section 309(a)(1) and (b) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1859(a)(1) and (b)).
8
(g) Civil forfeitures
(1)
Any vessel (including its gear, equipment, appurtenances, stores, and cargo) used, and any fish
(or the fair market value thereof) taken or retained, in any manner, in connection with, or as the result
of, the commission of any act that is unlawful under subsection (e) of this section, shall be subject to
forfeiture to the United States as provided in section 310 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1860 ).
(2)
Any fish seized pursuant to this chapter may be disposed of pursuant to the order of a court of
competent jurisdiction or, if perishable, in a manner prescribed in regulation.
(h) Enforcement
A person authorized by the Secretary or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating may take any action to enforce a moratorium declared under subsection (c) of this
section that an officer authorized by the Secretary under section 311(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861(b)) may take to enforce that Act (16
U.S.C. 1801 et seq.). The Secretary may, by agreement, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise, utilize
the personnel, services, equipment (including aircraft and vessels), and facilities of any other Federal
department or agency and of any agency of a State in carrying out that enforcement

This post edited by guest 07:34 PM 02/07/2008

 

[CaptPaul]

Battery is dying...

SO I didn't read Guest's cut-and-paste, but he got it right in the first thread- No possession by Federally permitted vessels at all, and closed in Federal waters.

Paul

 

[guest]

Apparently the Coast Guard can enforce the fed laws inside NJ waters as well.

wrote:
(c) Moratorium
(1)
Upon making a finding under subsection (a) of this section that a State has failed to carry out its
responsibility under section 5104 of this title and that the measures it failed to implement and enforce
are necessary for conservation, the Secretary shall declare a moratorium on fishing in the fishery in
question within the waters of the noncomplying State. The Secretary shall specify the moratorium's
effective date, which shall be any date within 6 months after declaration of the moratorium.
(2)
If after a moratorium is declared under paragraph (1) the Secretary is notified by the Commission
that the Commission is withdrawing under section 5105(c) of this title the determination of
noncompliance, the Secretary shall immediately determine whether the State is in compliance with
the applicable plan. If so, the moratorium shall be terminated.

And....

wrote:
(1)
Any vessel (including its gear, equipment, appurtenances, stores, and cargo) used, and any fish
(or the fair market value thereof) taken or retained, in any manner, in connection with, or as the result
of, the commission of any act that is unlawful under subsection (e) of this section, shall be subject to
forfeiture to the United States as provided in section 310 o

So if you are stopped by the CG in state waters with tog you will get a fine, or they could take your boat and/or fishing gear

 

[MakoMike]

Guest, Thanks for looking it up. I was pretty sure that it would be a complete closure both in the EEZ and state waters, but I wasn't positive.

 

[flatts1b]

Sort of makes you wonder what the point of having an ASMFC is, if the feds can trump the states in state waters.

 

[guest]

I think they are only enforcing ASMFC directives. Not much point of having ASMFC if a state can do what it wants in state waters.

 

[loligo]

flatts1b wrote:
Sort of makes you wonder what the point of having an ASMFC is, if the feds can trump the states in state waters.


Wake up folks.... This is nothing new. Just ask anyone from Hatteras to Mexico, that's how it's been there for at least a decade.

 

[LobsterD]

It's called the most restrictive rule: state or fed you go by the most restraint

 

[MakoMike]

flatts1b wrote:
Sort of makes you wonder what the point of having an ASMFC is, if the feds can trump the states in state waters.

Not at all, this is the club that gives the ASMFC its clout. If there was no penalty for a state to flaunt the ASMFC findings the whole organization would quickly fall apart. The states agreed to this when they formed the ASMFC.

 

[MakoMike]

LobsterD wrote:
It's called the most restrictive rule: state or fed you go by the most restraint

No, this is something different and it applies to all fishermen, federally licensed or not, recreational and commercial, fishing in the eez or state water. If the secretary of commerce finds a state out of compliance he can ban all fishing for that species by any boat that lands the fish in that state and within all state waters. IIRC its never been done, but the power is there if the secretary wished to exercise it.

So if the secreatory wants to, once he finds NJ out of complaince he can ban all tog fishing in NJ and ban all boats fishing in the eez from landing fish in NJ.

 

[WaterAye]

How can the feds enforce something for which they don't manage or even permit?

I think there is too much government and not enough common sense in fisheries management. Town, State, ASMFC, ACCSP, MAFMC, NEFMC, NMFS... somewhere along the line common sense went out with the bath water.

Don't states come out of compliance w/ ASMFC all the time?

 

[MakoMike]

WaterAye wrote:
Don't states come out of compliance w/ ASMFC all the time?


I wouldn't say that its common but it has happened several times in the not too distant past. NY was out of compliance on fluke a couple of years ago and MA was out of compliance on scup a year or so before that. But both states changed their regs before the secretary of commerce could act, so AFAIK no state has ever been hit with a complete halt to fishing for any species under that provision.