2008 proposed changes

The NJ fishing regulations for 2008 have some new prohibitions such that Banded, Blackbanded, Blue spot and Mud sunfish will not be able to be possessed. They are receiving comments into February. Any ideas?
Also making min. size limit of 15" for redfin pickeral. I just don't see redfins as a big angling species.

Check section 26 of the summary.

http://www.nj.gov/de...es/120307c.html

Click on the pdf for the summary.

The NJ fishing regulations for 2008 have some new prohibitions such that Banded, Blackbanded, Blue spot and Mud sunfish will not be able to be possessed. They are receiving comments into February. Any ideas?
Also making min. size limit of 15" for redfin pickeral. I just don't see redfins as a big angling species.

Check section 26 of the summary.

http://www.nj.gov/de...es/120307c.html

Click on the pdf for the summary.

These regulations do not seem unreasonable..
Banded, Blackbanded, Blue spot and Mud sunfish are not common in NJ and have limited distribution they should have protected status..IMHO it has been far to long that they have not been protected. Redfins look like chains and not easy for some to distinguish. It makes sense to lump them and regulate as a group. Unpopular as it may be to people like us these are actually good calls on their part.

It is also good to see that NJ is taking a tougher stance on stocking. Something you may want to really concern yourself with is the Culture and importation provisions. Still need to read it over again and dissect it but this may seriously cause Native fish hobby type activities a lot of problems down the road. A good comment with alternative provisions for "non-stocking" fish should be considered.

These regulations do not seem unreasonable..
Banded, Blackbanded, Blue spot and Mud sunfish are not common in NJ and have limited distribution they should have protected status..IMHO it has been far to long that they have not been protected. Redfins look like chains and not easy for some to distinguish. It makes sense to lump them and regulate as a group. Unpopular as it may be to people like us these are actually good calls on their part.

It is also good to see that NJ is taking a tougher stance on stocking. Something you may want to really concern yourself with is the Culture and importation provisions. Still need to read it over again and dissect it but this may seriously cause Native fish hobby type activities a lot of problems down the road. A good comment with alternative provisions for "non-stocking" fish should be considered.

I've been collecting in NJ for many years just love the pine barrens area. I've found all the sunfish mentioned quite common in many locations with Muds a bit less then the others but even those are pretty easy to find if you get in the right habitat and there is plenty of that still. Most people just don't know how to find Muds I think they are a lot more common then believed. Blackbanded, Banded and Bluespots are found quite densely in the weediest parts of swamps, bogs, creeks and ponds throughout the barrens and blues beyond that. I wonder what sudy or sampling has been done to support this idea. To point blank outlaw all possession I don't believe is warrented why not put a reasonable limit as to numbers. Again I think its more a matter of not recognising that anglers looking for large trophy fish are not the only ones out there (majority yes). This area of NJ is chock full of little creeks , ponds and rivers most of which support these fish in very healthy numbers. The concern that anglers looking for larger sunfish species will thus be deterred from casting the occassional bycatch of these smaller species aside seems unlikely to be a very important factor.

I wonder how many anglers would bother with a pickeral under 15 inches anyway.

Something you may want to really concern yourself with is the Culture and importation provisions. Still need to read it over again and dissect it but this may seriously cause Native fish hobby type activities a lot of problems down the road. A good comment with alternative provisions for "non-stocking" fish should be considered.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Any ideas what might constitute a well thought out and good comment. I have no experience in this type of matter. Anybody out there have any suggestions. How about some NJ folks. No offense meant here but I've even found most NJ folks are often surprised when they find such and such sunfish is found in the pond just a short hop from there home. I really think us *hobbyists better start responding in these situations as they seem to be coming up more and more combined with habitat loss and disease (VHS for one) I'll be forced back to Tropicals I'd love to see more states start working on the bigger problem of habitat use or abuse. Unfortunately without that most of these type of measures when truly needed merely slow down the inevitable at best.

* I am aware hobbyists are just one faction here.

I wonder what sudy or sampling has been done to support this idea. To point blank outlaw all possession I don't believe is warrented why not put a reasonable limit as to numbers.

Unfortunately, you hit the nail on the head. I doubt any study at all has been conducted. New Jersey did the same with herps. A blanket ban on all collecting is alot easier than actually going out and study little known nongames species. There's little public interest and even less public funds. Unless you can convince the Powers That Be that catching little sunnies would contribute the kind of revenue say, striped bass or whitetail deer contribute, your public comments will probably fall on deaf ears.

I'd say you're quite possibly wrong. There areactive studies up and down the mid-atlantic by states because blackbandeds are disappearing. We (MD) are even in a co-op study with DE (gasp - state's cooperating realizing water and fish don't recognize imaginary lines). States on the east coast get an average of 1 million dollars in federal money to study widlife (includng non-game fish) and that doesn't include state matching contributions. There is money, not enough, but it's there.

High abundance in one small speical ecosystem is still a form of rarity. What keepnatives mentioned about habitat loss could easily pose significatn losses or even extirpation for blackbandeds in New Jersey.

Hobbyists should start responding though; this is a theme coming up daily.

It's clear the the state of New Jersey has proposed a possession ban for all Enneacanthus as well the Mud sunfish regardless of the origin of the fish (either via aquaculture or from a state where the fishes are secure).

I find this sad since we know some here are licensed vendors as well as aquaculturists. I can see within the proposal, the desire is to assure that the fishes are released immediately, unharmed when encountered by anglers within the state of New Jersey. I sure wish the law would simply state that anglers must do exactly that and not ban possession regardless of the origin of the fish.

It's clear the the state of New Jersey has proposed a possession ban for all Enneacanthus as well the Mud sunfish regardless of the origin of the fish (either via aquaculture or from a state where the fishes are secure).

I'm not so sure that what is being said here has anything to do with possession of imported fish from another state. The regulation is under Warmwater take regulations and not Aquaculture or interstate commerce in the said species. It looks like to me they are only regulating take and possession of fish caught in NJ and this does not apply to those obtained elsewhere for aquaculture purpose.

I'd say you're quite possibly wrong.

I'd say you're quite possibly correct about me being wrong.
I really wasn't thinking so much about blackbanded as I was banded. My only personal experience is with banded, and that only in the New England states.
From what I've seen, unless a state has invested the money to do a detailed inventory of state waters, they tend to consider banded sunfish uncommon or rare. In fact, they are quite numerous, just few people see them or recognize them. [I believe they are increasing and spreading in Ma due to a ban on beaver trapping which has turned acres and acres of lowlands into swamps, but that's a topic for another thread ]
I'm all for protecting blackbanded sunfish if they really are threatened. Too bad the other little sunnies get lumped in with them.
I am skeptical about how much impact aquarium collection really has in comparison to habitat loss. My understanding is that NJ is a state that is friendly to development and habitat is disappearing or being compromised at a rapid rate.
Protecting fish from aquarists isn't gonna do 'em a dang bit o' good if they've got no more places to live.

These regulations do not seem unreasonable..
Banded, Blackbanded, Blue spot and Mud sunfish are not common in NJ and have limited distribution they should have protected status.

I'll respectfully disagree. Just because a fish is uncommon in a particular state does not mean that it should be protected in that particular state. Species tend to be uncommon on the edges of their ranges. If a species is abundant throughout its range, there is no need to protect it. If a particular state is on the edge of its range, and the species is therefore uncommon in the state, that does not mean the species is endangered and in need of protection, if it is common throughout its range. However, if a species is uncommon throughout its range, then obviously it should be protected.

A minimum size limit of 15 inches for redfin pickerel? They don't get that big! What are these people thinking? If they want to ban them, then just ban them!

I'll respectfully disagree. Just because a fish is uncommon in a particular state does not mean that it should be protected in that particular state. Species tend to be uncommon on the edges of their ranges. If a species is abundant throughout its range, there is no need to protect it.

Fishes at the tips of their range are those that need the most protection and conservation attention. They are often genetically distinct and very much worth preserving as part of a states unique biodiversity. To toss them out just because they might be somewhere else in numbers would be an ignorant and reckless act.

A minimum size limit of 15 inches for redfin pickerel? They don't get that big! What are these people thinking? If they want to ban them, then just ban them!

Redfin and Chain look similar and they do not expect the average person to correctly ID them. They are not just "banning them to ban them".

The average person cannot distinguish redfin and chain is what they are thinking, and what was already mentioned. Therefore, it is an all encompassing pickerel size limit. No one other than you called it a ban on redfin pickerel that is justwhat is a byproduct of the size limit.

So if a state is mandated to protect fish species within their boundaries they should over look that and not afford it protection when warranted because it has a larger range? I may agree that conservation efforts and active management (i.e. dollars) might not be necessary or best spent that way (e.g. striped shiner in Maryland, no big deal right?), but you're saying managers should ignore their missions within their respecitve states essentially. I'd argue a state on the edge of a species range is on the front line of defense to protecting a species so that it's range isn't pushed further back. Blackbandes are already disjunct. They are nearly extirpated from VA, MD, and DE. Really every state they are in is the edge of it's habitat with the mountains to the west and the ocean to the east.

If the edge of ia species range is vulnerable and it becomes extirpated, then the edge is now further into it's core. So then should the next state not afford it protection and allow range to continue to be whiddled away? Which is why Mikez is exactly correct about protecting habitat.

I'd say you're quite possibly correct about me being wrong.
I really wasn't thinking so much about blackbanded as I was banded. My only personal experience is with banded, and that only in the New England states.
From what I've seen, unless a state has invested the money to do a detailed inventory of state waters, they tend to consider banded sunfish uncommon or rare. In fact, they are quite numerous, just few people see them or recognize them. [I believe they are increasing and spreading in Ma due to a ban on beaver trapping which has turned acres and acres of lowlands into swamps, but that's a topic for another thread ]
I'm all for protecting blackbanded sunfish if they really are threatened. Too bad the other little sunnies get lumped in with them.
I am skeptical about how much impact aquarium collection really has in comparison to habitat loss. My understanding is that NJ is a state that is friendly to development and habitat is disappearing or being compromised at a rapid rate.
Protecting fish from aquarists isn't gonna do 'em a dang bit o' good if they've got no more places to live.

The following comment is from my good friend who is probably the most knowledgeable person on NJ fishes and dealing with the state government.

"No I wasn't aware of the proposed rule. I don't know who possesses these or collects them
(especially in any numbers that could be deleterious to the species) in
NJ. Populations of all four are fine as far as I can tell, and in some
areas the Enneacanthus are really common, and the mud sunfish population
here is probably as strong as anywhere in its range. I think this is
some beauracratic messing-around, to collect more fees and to hire more
people to file papers."