Jump to content


NJ Tues & Wed Jan 8th & 9th


22 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_keepnatives_*

Guest_keepnatives_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2008 - 06:54 PM

I'm likely going to be in NJ for the public hearing regarding the proposal to make possession of blue spot, banded, black banded and mud sunfish illegal this coming Tues evening. Anyone like to join me for collecting and/or the meeting? Planning to get there Tuesday afternoon, spend the night and leave Wed late afternoon. Collecting Tues afternoon and Wednesday.

Any suggestions welcome as I've never participated in anything like this. It would be nice to have some NJ residents.

A public hearing concerning the proposal is scheduled as follows:
Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 7 pm
Assunpink Wildlife Management Area
Central Regional Office – Conference Room
Robbinsville, New Jersey 08691

#2 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2008 - 07:42 PM

I would guess that this hearing would allow walk-in public comment in two-to-five minute blocks per person. And I would guess that at least one state wildlife biologist would be there to make a statement and answer questions? If true, hopefully someone could/would ask what data such as field surveys they have to support such a possession ban. It is of course better if people who are NJ residents show up to speak as well as (maybe?) Mike from NY.

#3 Guest_fritz_*

Guest_fritz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2008 - 08:21 PM

I would guess that this hearing would allow walk-in public comment in two-to-five minute blocks per person. And I would guess that at least one state wildlife biologist would be there to make a statement and answer questions? If true, hopefully someone could/would ask what data such as field surveys they have to support such a possession ban. It is of course better if people who are NJ residents show up to speak as well as (maybe?) Mike from NY.

I agree with Bruce. NJ folks need to be there. If you cant' attend then, please write. I have attended many public hearings and if no one shows up to oppose an issue or at least write in comments, then it's assumed that no one cares and it gets passed. According to my friend. Rudy Arndt of Richard Stockton College, who is the expert on NJ fishes, these species are common where found and are widespread and in no trouble. The proposed legislation is supposedly aimed to protect them if they are caught by anglers! I also would like to know what data this is based on.

#4 Guest_fritz_*

Guest_fritz_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 January 2008 - 08:32 PM

I'm likely going to be in NJ for the public hearing regarding the proposal to make possession of blue spot, banded, black banded and mud sunfish illegal this coming Tues evening. Anyone like to join me for collecting and/or the meeting? Planning to get there Tuesday afternoon, spend the night and leave Wed late afternoon. Collecting Tues afternoon and Wednesday.

Any suggestions welcome as I've never participated in anything like this. It would be nice to have some NJ residents.

A public hearing concerning the proposal is scheduled as follows:
Tuesday, January 8, 2008 at 7 pm
Assunpink Wildlife Management Area
Central Regional Office – Conference Room
Robbinsville, New Jersey 08691


Mike:

In my experience, the state respects information from the public as long as it is not "It ain't right". Tell them of your experiences collecting these species and why you do so. Also describe the habitat they are found in and their small size and how their being caught by an angler is extremely remote. If this rule is aimed at hobbyists, then they need to be forthright and say so, not try and pass it off as protection from hooks. Down here in NC, we hate it when someone comes in and tries to tell us how they did it up North. But when we pass legislation, it is based on data, not conjecture or annecdotes. Wish I could be there. Love fussing at the government. Yes, I know, that it is what I am also. Best wishes.

Fritz

#5 Guest_keepnatives_*

Guest_keepnatives_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2008 - 12:12 AM

I've found four NJ watershed studies online that indicate these fish to be widespred in central and southern NJ. In fact each of them found the banded sunfish to be among the most frequently encountered native fish and blackbanded one of most common in impoundments. These studies were quite extensive. They certainly don't support the proposal's view that they are found in a narrow range nor in low abundance. And the time sampling each site was often only 10 - 15 minutes for 20-m long stream sites and 30 min for impoundments by siene!

#6 Guest_fritz_*

Guest_fritz_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2008 - 02:00 PM

I've found four NJ watershed studies online that indicate these fish to be widespred in central and southern NJ. In fact each of them found the banded sunfish to be among the most frequently encountered native fish and blackbanded one of most common in impoundments. These studies were quite extensive. They certainly don't support the proposal's view that they are found in a narrow range nor in low abundance. And the time sampling each site was often only 10 - 15 minutes for 20-m long stream sites and 30 min for impoundments by siene!

That would be great information to convey at the public meeting as well as provide in written comments. Was this work done by the DEP?

#7 Guest_edbihary_*

Guest_edbihary_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2008 - 02:15 PM

I'd love to come but I'll be working those days. I hope some NJ members join you. Don't forget to mention redfin pickerel. I agree with fritz's last post. I was going to say the same thing, but I see he chimed in while I was reading :biggrin:
Good luck!

#8 Guest_Scenicrivers_*

Guest_Scenicrivers_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 January 2008 - 07:55 PM

I agree with much of what has been already said.

I have been involved with public hearings. If I were to make a comment I would do so in both publically and in writing. Many times this is alowed.
The state has to consider all comments. Remember to stick to the facts. If you could talk to a professor and get his contact information and any data that he/she may be willing to give and maybe have him send in comment also.

One thing that you want to make sure that you do not do is act like the rule is stupid or make any comments that would put them on the defensive. You need to establish that you are credible and thus the information that you present is credible.

Generally once the public hearing is over you will still have a limited time to submit the written comments. If you feel strongly about this, get others from NJ to at least write in.

#9 Guest_eLeMeNt_*

Guest_eLeMeNt_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 January 2008 - 11:12 AM

The proposed legislation is supposedly aimed to protect them if they are caught by anglers!


Protect them from anglers?!?! These fish only grow to be a few inches (besides the mud sunfish). It seems like it would be incredibly rare for an angler to catch these fish by hook and line. Anglers that fish for largemouth bass or panfish most likely have lures that are the same size or larger than these actual fish. Has anyone by accident ever caught any of these fish by hook and line?

If New Jersey is anything like Maryland, it seems that large piscivores and non-native sunfish that are stocked would be a much greater threat to these fish than anglers catching them by hook and line. Maryland DNR conducted a survey in 2006 to determine the status of the blackbanded sunfish in Maryland. The few ponds where blackbanded sunfish were found in Maryland had pH levels below 5, and very low numbers of largemouth bass and black crappie. Ponds in the same area with higher pH levels also had greater abundances of large non-native piscivores. These ponds historically contained blackbanded sunfish, but during the survey none were found. The ponds that contained very low pH levels seem like safe havens for blackbanded sunfish due to the inability of large piscivores and non-native sunfish to thrive. However, blackbandeds were still found in VERY low numbers in these ponds. I don't think the entire report is online, but here is a link to the report's abstract:

http://www.fisheries...ts/pdf/p358.pdf

Keep us updated on how the public hearing goes keepnatives.

#10 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 January 2008 - 12:26 PM

Please keep us posted on how it turns out!

BTW, I was under the impression that blackbandeds already were protected in NJ.
If not, I'm really kicking myself because last time I passed through on the way to NC on a herp trip, I wanted to stop in NJ to try to collect some. I was told that, like NJ herps, blackbandeds were off limits. I never confirmed it so maybe I missed out.

#11 Guest_viridari_*

Guest_viridari_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 January 2008 - 12:32 PM

BTW, I was under the impression that blackbandeds already were protected in NJ.
If not, I'm really kicking myself because last time I passed through on the way to NC on a herp trip, I wanted to stop in NJ to try to collect some. I was told that, like NJ herps, blackbandeds were off limits. I never confirmed it so maybe I missed out.


So why not collect them in NC?

#12 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 January 2008 - 01:54 PM

So why not collect them in NC?


I tried!
I did bring home some bluespotted sunnies from NC but the blackbandeds didn't show. The reason I wanted to try NJ was I had a list of bodies of water that held BBSF. I was operating blind in NC.
BTW, the list I had of lakes with BBSF I compliled from searching for online photos of BBSF and making notes whenever the photographer included locality data with his pic [which was often].
Compared to sportfishermen and herp collectors, you native fish guys&gals are WAY to free with your locality data.

#13 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 January 2008 - 05:47 PM

Compared to sportfishermen and herp collectors, you native fish guys&gals are WAY to free with your locality data.


I typed that in a hurry. I meant to add a smiley face to show I was kinda kidding. I just reread it and it sounded like harsh criticism.
Actually, I'm impressed with how helpful and generous people here are. Fishermen and herpers would sooner lend you their wives then give away a good spot. ;)

#14 Guest_drewish_*

Guest_drewish_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 January 2008 - 06:00 PM

I'm free with locality information as long as there are no T&E species that may be accidentally collected. Only those that I trust and have personally met get that kind of information.

Most of the information relayed is public knowledge or easily obtainable. NC posts all their reports online. I'm sure they omit some species for the same reason.

All I know of the said NJ species is hear-say. I hope you guys can get the information relayed and get a good response out of it.

#15 Guest_pmk00001_*

Guest_pmk00001_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 January 2008 - 06:19 PM

Protect them from anglers?!?! These fish only grow to be a few inches (besides the mud sunfish). It seems like it would be incredibly rare for an angler to catch these fish by hook and line. Anglers that fish for largemouth bass or panfish most likely have lures that are the same size or larger than these actual fish. Has anyone by accident ever caught any of these fish by hook and line?


I do a lot of light line fishing with small ice fishing jigs, and sometimes bait, in some really shallow weedy areas (overlooked spots for fishing) and have yet to catch one on hook and line.

I've got a few bluespotted sunfish in their own tank, and they aren't what I would call super aggressive. Hard for me to imagine them taking down a 1/2 oz buzzbait LOL

The bigger concern might be anglers using them for bait, but I can't imagine that would be all that common.

#16 Guest_eLeMeNt_*

Guest_eLeMeNt_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 January 2008 - 11:45 AM

Did they reach a decision at the public hearing keepnatives?

#17 Guest_keepnatives_*

Guest_keepnatives_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 January 2008 - 11:31 PM

I did attend the public hearing. There were only 5 people other then the council members. Three were carp anglers there to comment on the proposal to limit bank fishermen to two poles to combat greedy anglers from taking over whole beaches and banks keeping others out by monopolizing the access. Then a gentleman that I think was a park officer brought up what he said seemed to be a growing trend that people often families were showing up with nets and seines catching baitfish. What should they do as his people weren't trained to distinguish young game fish from other young fish and didn't know how to handle it.

Then I shared my experince with the four sunfish species stating they seemed to be frequently found and often common to abundant when I did find them in my 30 yrs of visiting NJ annually to enjoy the Pine Barrens and southern NJ in general. Also shared the results of 4 separate water basin studies (links below) between 2001 & 2006 done in the southern two thirds of NJ where the three Enneacanthus species were frequently found and often abundant with bandeds being often most abundant. Black banded sunfish often the most abundant native in impoundments. Mud sunfish were also frequently found and not uncommon. I shared how these fish are difficult to sample as most people don't want to go where they like to hang out. Abundant weedy areas with soft mucky bottoms or under thick brushy overgrown and undercut banks which make sampling with a seine difficult. I also mentioned that another study done in 2004 on NJ freshwater fishes "Annotated checklist and distribution of New Jersey freshwater fishes, with comments on abundance" by Rudolf G. Arndt (thanks, Fritz) found similar results and also indicated blue spotted sunfish as being widespread even out of the coastal plains and Barrens areas. They did not dispute these points for the most part. (see next paragraph)

I asked what field studies might have been done more currently to warrant banning the possession of these fish. I was told that the non-game specialist had done many more recent studies in the coastal plains where these fish were historically dominant and they were found to be quite uncommon in most of these areas.

Regarding the chances of being caught and destroyed as a by catch of anglers I pointed out that their small size, small mouth, preferred foods and disposition as well as there tendency to be in shallow heavily vegetation made it extremely unlikely that any of the Enneacanthus could or would ever be caught by angling. And even the Mud Sunfish while possible was still unlikely. They agreed with these points.

I pointed out that there are a number of people that appreciate these fish and other non-game fishes, enjoy studing and keeping such fish which leads to further appreciation and concern for our waters and wild areas. I mentioned NANFA and the forum showing a growing interest in these topics. I explained that often when out collecting anglers and passersby are amazed to see what else lives in their waters and develope a bit more appreciation and concern as well. The fact that we might choose to keep them in aquariums rather then fry em up for dinner should be no less a valid form of appreciation and use of our aquatic resources.

Then it was explained that the real concern was that an unscrupulous collector might come into one or more of these coastal plains sites and if they did find them in decent numbers take hundreds to sell out of greed. I suggested that rather then a ban perhaps a limit might be a better alternative. The problem with that I was told was the difficulty of enforcing a limit. The greedy could just make multiple trips to their truck. Then they suggested the scientific and education permits would be a solution for our purposes and that they could be more liberal in their granting of such permits especially to our organization who they would like to work with as they are not trying to make it more difficult for us. They are not concerned about the folks who want to keep several sunfish in an aquarium but want to act before a problem occurs with the few problem people that always seem ready to find a way to get around good conservation methods out of greed. When the meeting ended Lisa Barno, Chief, bureau of Freshwater Fisheries who had done most of the speaking to these issues caught up with me to talk some more. She seemed very understanding about our concerns. I asked about the scientific and education permits and if one needed to be a scientist or have an affiliation with some scientific/educational organization, as I was aware of a couple people who in the past had applied for such a permit but were denied. She said that they could be more liberal in the issuing of the permits. I said I understood the difficulty she had to deal with. She also said she'd like to give my contact info to the non-game specialist as our experience might be a great help to them.

From listening to all the public comments and give and take with the council ther seemed to be a genuine desire to meet all reasonable concerns. However because of the tremendous effort and time it takes to get these proposals in effect adjusting or rewriting proposals at this point was not an option. So it was either take them as is or drop the changes this time around. The problem is that another review will soon be started for a 2010 set of regulations and that would be too long for some of these issues.

My concern is that the permit issuance could well change at the whim of who is in charge (big issue) not to mention the inconvenience (smaller issue but still an issue). I'm also not sold on the real risk of the threat of unscrupulous collectors as I have not seen Blackbanded Sunnies in Pet shops since I was a young child. I asked if they were aware of any such activity and they were not regarding aquarium fish but had a problem with smelt (if my memory is correct) at one time they had no limit on smelt and some greedy folks had been making huge hauls to sell. So they established a limit but that apparently was very difficult to inforce because greedy people were very good at finding loopholes or work arounds such as taking multiple limits one limit at a time. So they felt a limit was not the answer for these sunfish. I'm not so sure and plan on sending a written comment and still think a limit would be a reasonable alternative. As a last resort I'd like to see some work on the permit to make it more objective regarding non-scientists and those without those types of affiliations.

Some things which seem crystal clear: we need to be closely involved with our state fisheries departments, we need to closely monitor rule changes ( we'd be better off had we known about these things sooner when changes may have been easier), there is some empathy for our concerns, and it would be in our own interest for conservation, study and aquarium keeping to purposefully develope liasons with all our state fish and wildlife entities.

For now we could use multiple written comments before Feb 1st.

http://www.state.nj......al Report.pdf

http://www.state.nj......al Report.pdf

http://www.state.nj......in Report.pdf

http://www.state.nj......al Report.pdf

#18 Guest_fritz_*

Guest_fritz_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 January 2008 - 09:27 AM

[quote name='keepnatives' date='Jan 12 2008, 04:31 AM' post='28436']
"For now we could use multiple written comments before Feb 1st."


Great work Mike and a very good summary. As one who often sits on the side of the table in these meetings, we always apppreciate hearing from someone who is knowledgeable and has done a thorough preparation for the meeting. So much more refreshing than "Y'all are a bunch of idiots!"

I urge all who are interested, either pro or con, to send in your comments before the 1st. Part of this issue appears to be a case where many "suffer" because of percieved problems caused by very few.

#19 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 January 2008 - 10:55 AM

Great summary.

I think one of the hidden points is "difficulty in enforcement" which is a theme on many levels across many states. Part of it is being able to definatively say where fish are from if its not spotted on scence, identifying fish by enforcement officers, and lets face it bait ranks low on the totem pole compared to gamefish, deer, and turkey.

Regarding the very first paragraph and the comment about not being able to handle the situation of bait collecting. Get some training then! Seek out some help! They should better equip themselves to properly hand a situation within the law.

Great involvement, great summar (again), and I'll stop before I go on a rant about apathy and downright stubrroness of regulators and enforcers towards bait regulations.

#20 Guest_keepnatives_*

Guest_keepnatives_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 February 2008 - 12:16 AM

I did get a written comment in but was really busy with work, family and other obligations. I was hoping to have time to have forum members review it. Unfortunately my natural tendency is to say what I feel pretty strongly and bluntly which doesn't always get the best results. So I had to overnight it without anyone softening it up a bit. Here it is, comments welcome I have a feeling this activity will be coming up more and more.

Be gentle its my first time. :blush:
Attached File  Final_written_comment_nj.doc   34KB   68 downloads



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users