 |
Amendments:"Ban
the Leg Hold Trap" & Striped Bass "Slot limit"
DEP "Slot Limit" Position Statement |
|
Amendments:"Ban
the Leg Hold Trap" & Striped Bass "Slot limit"
DEP "Slot Limit" Position Statement |
While we were working on gun bills, animal rights activists attempted to pull a fast one with a "Ban the Leg Hold Trap" amendment to:.
"Sec. 16. (NEW) No person may use, possess, sell or manufacture a steel jaw or padded steel claw leg hold animal trap in the state."
It died based upon a Point of Order made by Representative Minor (R-Litchfield) on germaneness to the bill. It is extremely unusual for a new (freshman) legislator to make a point of order, much less succeed. Kudos to Minor for his support and courage!
This is probably the poorest amendment drafting I have ever seen in 20 years of lobbying. It references no Section of the Statutes, has poor wording, and provides no exceptions to collectors, transport through the state, and other needed provisions to make it rational or legitimate. Whoever composed it should be professionally ashamed! Note the language "steel CLAW trap" (??). This amendment was presented without the knowledge of the Environment Committee chairman - poor procedure if you're looking for support. Makes US look good, but reaffirms we must be watchful.
"AN ACT CONCERNING RECREATIONAL FISHING IN CONNECTICUT."
Submitted by Rep. Fritz (D-90, Cheshire): After line 30, insert the following and renumber the remaining section accordingly:
"Sec. 5. (NEW) The slot limit for striped bass recreational fishermen shall be the same as the slot limit for striped bass charter and party fishermen until such time as the states of New York and Rhode Island, along with this state, adopt the same slot limit for striped bass as recommended by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission."
This amendment is example of sportsmen working at cross purposes. The advocates of this amendment, regardless of it's arguable merits, do not understand the legislative process and the danger of allowing legislators to set wildlife/fisheries policy concerning seasons/take/standards. That is best accomplished by the Regulatory process where the biologists and users, experts in the field, can determine the best process.
Why the DEP Strongly Opposes Elimination of the Striped Bass Slot Limit
The Slot Limit Regulation
The regulation allows a private recreational angler- to take one fish between 24-32" and another fish 41" or greater in length, per day. Anglers on registered party & charter fishing vessels can take 2 fish per day of 28" or greater in length (see below). All views considered, this represents the interests of the vast majority of the marine recreational fishing public. The concept is opposed by a small, vocal minority of discontented anglers.
Fishery Conservation & Utilization
The proponents of eliminating the slot limit would have us believe that the management strategy is a devastating source of mortality on striped bass. This is a specious argument. The slot limit protects the "prime breeders." Bass of 32" to 41" represent the core of the reproductive potential for this species. While some fish in this size range die due to "hook & release mortality" this concern is insignificant relative to the simple fact that, without the slot limit, ALL bass harvested in this size range will die.
The smaller bass (24-28") are a better fish for consumption. Smaller bass contain lower amounts of environmental toxins (e.g. PCBs). They are also more accessible to shore-based, non-boat anglers who often are the subsistence fishers in our population -- consumers of fish for edible protein value rather than people fishing for sport and occasionally consuming what they catch. It is important to provide frequent consumers of fish the most contaminant-free resource possible.
The proponents of the proposed change argue about consistent regulations. Connecticut is an advocate of consistency, to the extent possible, when based on facts and responsible technical analyses. Amendment 6 to the coastwide striped bass fishery management plan of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission is intended to coordinate management measures as much as possible. Two states (CT and ME) currently have slots and other states have expressed interest in discussing the idea. The data Connecticut collects in this regard based on the experiences of anglers in this state will be instrumental in guiding the Commission to a well-informed decision based on the merits of the approach.
Connecticut's Regulation Process
Connecticut has just completed an exhaustive regulatory process to adopt the slot limit. A proposed emergency regulation was approved by Governor Rowland and the Legislative Regulation Review Committee in 2000. The DEP went through the formal adoption process in 2000, including two widely-publicized public hearings and a formal written comment period. The final regulation was approved by the Attorney General and by the Legislative Regulation Review Committee in February, 2001.
The proposed bill to substitute a different regulation for the one approved by the committee will adversely affect a large segment of the fishing public -- without public hearing or comment -- and will subordinate the work of the committee and the established legislative process for approving regulations.
Public Support for the Slot Limit
The DEP's Citizen Advisory Council unanimously supported the slot limit approach in 2000 and there was only one "no" vote for the final slot limit in 2001.
The DEP's Fishery Advisory Council overwhelmingly endorsed the slot limit in 2000. In 2001, a majority did not support continuation of the slot limit approach.
The proponents of eliminating the slot limit allege that they represent the majority view. This is false. By a 2:1 margin, over 700 marine anglers surveyed on Long Island Sound in the late summer and fall of 2000 strongly favored the slot limit approach.
Connecticut, by maintaining its current regulation, can lead by example towards a more effective management strategy for all states.
Summary of Opposition
Throughout this process, a small group of very vocal opponents has continued to attempt to fan the flames of discontent.
This group went so far as to widely publicize a "rally" at the DEP's Marine Fisheries Office in April, informing the DEP of substantive public opposition to the slot limit and great interest in the issue among the press. Only about 25 people were present and we are not aware of any press coverage of the event (T.V. or print). From this experience, it appears that opposition to the slot limit is not a widely-held view.
Most anglers in contact with the DEP strongly favored the slot limit approach and believed it should be given more time to be considered in a coastwide context. This will be done through the next amendment to the coastwide striped bass fishery management plan.