Got this of RISAA's website:

http://risaa.org/newsletter/traps73002.html

Fish Traps At Harbor of Refuge Approved By Fisheries Council


The Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council (RIMFC), at its July 30 meeting, once again
faced the issue of two new fish traps at the Point Judith Harbor of Refuge.

The issue surfaced in March, when the Thomas Hoxsie Fish Trap Company requested to place a new 700 foot trap on the west wall, and another 400 foot trap on the center wall. At that meeting, dozens of recreational anglers, charter captains, bait shop owners and citizens testified that that the traps were a hazard to navigation, would hinder public access and would deter anglers from fishing on those locations.

A motion to deny the fish traps, made by recreational Council reps George Allen and Steve
Medeiros, was voted down at the time, but the issue was put on hold while a legal problem
was settled because an old application for the trap site was still in existence.

Last night (June 30), the issue came up for a final vote.

Again, Council members Allen and Medeiros urged the RIMFC to deny the applications, citing the issues of navigational hazards and the fact that hundreds of recreational fisherman use the west wall to gain access to deep water and the center wall for boat fishing. "Your taking an area that is used by hundreds of recreational anglers and giving it to one man," said Medeiros.

But in the end, the motion to approve the traps narrowly passed with Medeiros and Allen voting against the proposal; Boragine, Conroy and Cobb voting to approve, and Preble abstained.

The issue now goes to Jan Reitsma, Director of DEM, to make the final decision.


http://risaa.org/newsletter/images/trap_ptJudith.jpg

That is truly ashame. I have seen one of those traps pulled in at the West Wall. So many little tuna. It caught everything that swims up that wall. :(


Boragine:smash: , Conroy:smash: and Cobb:smash:

Do these people realize how much of east matunucks econonomy lays in the hands of that area. I go down there every april till about mid may and have talked with people from all over the northeast and some people from as far as nevada just to hook up with some schoolies. YOU KNOW WHERE THE GOT ALL THEIR GEAR KENPORT MARINA. I am no politician but I think the city should take some action, I am not sure how much say they have in this but its pretty outrageous to put in new traps I have seen these things lifted and let me tell you there were some huge fish in those dam things. Fish me or any of you could of caught. I mean this is just stupid if this gets passed I am willing to start a petition to get this turned around I am sure I could get enough signatures.

John,

I received this from Steve last week and I believe it more accurately reflects the latest information regarding the trap(s).

Dave


RISAA Members:

In the past week, many of you have sent in postcards to DEM Director, Jan Reitsma,
requesting that he deny the two fish trap applications at Point Judith. Also, several
friendly senators and representatives have written or contacted Rietsma on our behalf.

One trap application, by Carl Grandquist, would place a trap extending from the center
wall of the Harbor of Refuge. We argued that this would present a hazard to navigation.

The other trap application, by Thomas Hoxsie, would place a trap extending from the deep
water portion on the west side of the west wall. We argued that this was a conflict with
recreational shore anglers who used that wall.

It's now official, one trap was denied (center wall) and one trap approved, with added
seasonal restrictions (west wall).

-------
Director Reitsma sent me a copy of his memo to his staff:

*** BEGIN MEMO ***
"I also adopt the final recommendation by the Division to approve, with modifications, the
application by Tom Hoxsie for permits to set additional fish traps near Point Judith.

This matter generated much debate and comment. A large number of recreational fishermen
expressed strong opposition, based on the concern that existing and proposed fish trap
sites are in areas of great interest to them.

An additional concern was impact on navigation and public safety.

On the other hand, commercial fishermen supported the application, in part because fish
traps are perceived as a "clean" fishing method that, for example, generates little
by-catch. I believe the Division and the Department share that perception and in general
support the use of fish traps in state waters.

Circumstances under which we would withhold such support include unacceptable and
irreconcilable user-conflicts, and conflicts with navigational and public safety
priorities."

The Department received several comments regarding navigational impacts. A subsequent
site visit in which I personally participated confirmed that a significant potential for
navigational conflict exists at the proposed site on the ocean side of the middle wall of
the Harbor of Refuge, or site # 470-29, which warrants denial of that permit.

At site # 400-23, on the other hand, there is potential for significant conflict with
recreational fishing; this potential conflict, however, can be minimized through the
seasonal restriction proposed by the Division. Given also the applicant's stipulation
that he will fish no more than three traps at one time, which means no net increase over
the existing permitted activity, the application for this site deserves to be approved as
proposed by the Division.

Finally, the denial for one of the sites renders the MFC recommendation to grant one of
the two permits to another applicant moot. I note that the status of this latter
application was found to be inactive.