|
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.
|