BOHICA

[Dan Tinman]

Here comes more regulation we don't need.  NOAA will hold hearings and is taking public comments online about a proposal to make the Hudson Canyon a National Marine Sanctuary.  We have to fight like hell to get our legitimate beach access rights and now our offshore fishing is under attack.  

The in person hearings are to be held at Monmouth University's Urban Coast Institute on July 21 and the on line comments can be made thru this NOAA website.  Here's a link.

https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/hudson-canyon/?fbclid=IwAR3xNYX8D-WJEsVTqDnWoVEctQfnmc5aLLszztHcs5Hkla_vT-t8Iso6ml0

Like a lot of us I'm not an offshore fisherman but I do believe we have to stick together.  If you can't make the public meeting at least go online and comment.

Edited July 1 by Dan Tinman

[Mr. Bigdeal]

......maybe more sonic blasting......that was great too.

[pressphotog]

This topic is more deserving of a more noticeable headline in my opinion.  

 

A few years back when they tried this on the Navesink River. A collective community voice shined and it quickly fell a part.  As mentioned even if you don't fish offshore take notice and comment as this can be attempting in all of our "back yards".    

 

Personally I am in favor of a more conservation mind set especially knowing various different species of fish populations are struggling in our waters.  However with other NMS throughout the US being so inconsistently adopted, maintained or managed.  In some place fishing access was not guaranteed or later removed.  

 

When review by independent organizations. "protection offered by sanctuaries may not be sufficient to protect the resources and habitats for which they were designated." and "analysis found that throughout the sanctuary system, conditions are getting worse, with 41 percent of condition report trends classified as “declining.” 

 

I think the only place where this has succeeded has been the Florida Keys. 

[Dan Tinman]

1 hour ago, pressphotog said:

This topic is more deserving of a more noticeable headline in my opinion.  

 

A few years back when they tried this on the Navesink River. A collective community voice shined and it quickly fell a part.  As mentioned even if you don't fish offshore take notice and comment as this can be attempting in all of our "back yards".    

 

Personally I am in favor of a more conservation mind set especially knowing various different species of fish populations are struggling in our waters.  However with other NMS throughout the US being so inconsistently adopted, maintained or managed.  In some place fishing access was not guaranteed or later removed.  

 

When review by independent organizations. "protection offered by sanctuaries may not be sufficient to protect the resources and habitats for which they were designated." and "analysis found that throughout the sanctuary system, conditions are getting worse, with 41 percent of condition report trends classified as “declining.” 

 

I think the only place where this has succeeded has been the Florida Keys. 

I intentionally picked the heading "BOHICA" hoping it would draw attention.  Anyone that knows what it means would be curious and one who doesn't would also be curious to find out.

  I remember the Navesink River sanctuary deal.  It was somewhat larger than just the Navesink River. Glad it got shot down.

As for the proposed Hudson Canyon sanctuary I hope there's a large enough public outcry that it doesn't get traction.  That area is well regulated as it is and is too important economically to go thru.

We fishermen, both recreational and commercial, have enough battles to fight.

[Dan Tinman]

Quote

This topic is more deserving of a more noticeable headline in my opinion.

I added tags in consideration of pressphotog's comment.

[Goldy]

11 hours ago, Dan Tinman said:

I intentionally picked the heading "BOHICA" hoping it would draw attention.  Anyone that knows what it means would be curious and one who doesn't would also be curious to find out.

  I remember the Navesink River sanctuary deal.  It was somewhat larger than just the Navesink River. Glad it got shot down.

As for the proposed Hudson Canyon sanctuary I hope there's a large enough public outcry that it doesn't get traction.  That area is well regulated as it is and is too important economically to go thru.

We fishermen, both recreational and commercial, have enough battles to fight.

I find it hilarious the Biden admin is pushing Hudson canyon as sanctuary.  All those tuna guys ain’t gonna be happy. 
 

why stop there. Make raritan bay a fishing sanctuary?

[bdowning]

2 hours ago, Goldy said:

I find it hilarious the Biden admin is pushing Hudson canyon as sanctuary.  All those tuna guys ain’t gonna be happy. 
 

why stop there. Make raritan bay a fishing sanctuary?

Please dont give them any more ideas. 

[Dan Tinman]

 

Quote

why stop there. Make raritan bay a fishing sanctuary?

That was the idea with the Navesink River sanctuary.  It was supposed to extend from the Navesink River all the way out to part of the Raritan Bay.
 

[Shipwreck]

Anyone know ASA's stance on the issue?  Their members have A LOT to lose.

[Tom T]

I put in a comment.  For what that's worth.

[Dan Tinman]

30 mins ago, Tom T said:

I put in a comment.  For what that's worth.

Good!  It can't hurt.  Everything helps.

[Dan Tinman]

Just a thought.  Cwitek is very knowlageble on these subjects.  I wonder what his thoughts are. 

[bbfish]

21 hours ago, Dan Tinman said:

 

That was the idea with the Navesink River sanctuary.  It was supposed to extend from the Navesink River all the way out to part of the Raritan Bay.
 

If I remember correctly that agenda was being pushed by the guy who does sunset cruising tours of the river.  Wasn't so much of wanting a sanctuary and more wanting having the whole river to himself.