Oppose New Jersey's "Freedom to Fish" Act

Posted: 06-May-2003; Updated: 07-May-2003

Summary of the legislation: If enacted, this legislation would prohibit the State from creating fully protected ocean areas for conservation purposes, despite the fact that marine scientists say that such areas play an important role in protecting and restoring ocean life and fisheries. Specifically, these bills would preclude the State from closing any area to recreational fishing in New Jersey's ocean waters, unless it could be proven that such fishing was the cause of a specific conservation problem and that other "less severe" measures would be inadequate.

This legislation sets a standard that would be impossible to meet. If enacted, this legislation would effectively make it impossible for the State to implement time/area closures for recreational fisheries (a traditional fishery management measure), and to establish fully protected areas in New Jersey's ocean waters for conservation purposes. Under Section 3 of the legislation, closing an area to recreational fishing requires proving that a "specific conservation problem" is caused by recreational fishing. Making such a proof is extremely difficult, given other factors, such as pollution, global warming, commercial fishing, natural predators and invasive species. Compounding the problem is the fact that frequently there is insufficient information with which to determine the specific role of recreational fishing in causing a conservation problem. Recreational fishermen do not need a license to fish in the ocean in New Jersey and do not have reporting requirements so there is not always good information on how many recreational fishermen there are, where they are fishing and how much they are fishing. Proving that recreational fishing is the cause of a specific conservation problem would be nearly impossible for the State to do, thus the legislation sets a bar that is unlikely to be reached.

New Jersey could not close an area to protect ocean ecosystems. In some cases, closing areas to extractive activities is an important conservation strategy. This strategy is practiced on land, where special areas are protected under wilderness or refuge laws. Other states and the federal government have established fully protected ocean areas for conservation purposes. However, the language of this legislation would prevent the State of New Jersey from doing so for at least two reasons. First, it sets an impossible standard of proof for closing the area to recreational fishing, as discussed above. Second, it precludes long-term protection for areas by requiring that closures be time-limited because closures must be re-opened when the problem is solved.

In addition, the legislation would make it difficult to set aside and protect currently healthy areas. Because the legislation requires the clear indication of a "problem" in order to trigger closures, the state?s interest in setting aside and protecting healthy marine habitat types essential to marine life, before they are degraded, would be compromised.

The legislation runs counter to the prevailing scientific advice. Marine protected areas, including fully protected ocean areas, have been recommended by the National Research Council Marine Protected Areas (Tool for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems, National Academy of Sciences Press, 2001) and 160 independent scientists (Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Reserves and Marine Protected Areas, released at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, February 2001) as important for sustaining ocean ecosystems and for responsible management of healthy oceans. Two commissions (The Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy) reviewing the state of ocean management are going to be releasing their findings in the coming months and both will address the use of marine protected areas. It would be unfortunate for the State of New Jersey to preclude use of this tool before it had the benefit of these forthcoming recommendations and the opportunity to draft an overall strategy for marine protected areas.

New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection opposes this legislation. For many of the reasons cited above, among others, NJDEP does not support this legislation. In its statement, NJDEP says that "while the Department strongly supports promoting opportunities for recreational fishing, it must oppose the requirements in 'The Freedom to Fish Act' that will detract from the ability to manage fisheries for the benefit of the recreational industry."

Environmental Defense opposes the Freedom to Fish Act for all the reasons cited above. Click here for more information on Marine Protected Areas.

As of April 24, 2003, the following groups also opposed the legislation:

• New York - New Jersey Baykeeper
• New Jersey Environmental Lobby
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• The Ocean Conservancy