Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) has filed an anti-catch shares amendment to H.R. 1 - the Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution which will fund the federal government through the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 (i.e. September 30, 2011).

Amendment #548 was printed in the Congressional Record today. The amendment would prohibit NOAA from spending any money on the development and approval of new catch share programs in fisheries under the jurisdiction of the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management. It does NOT affect anything on the West Coast or Alaska.

This amendment could come up for floor consideration, and potentially a vote, this evening or tomorrow.

Mr. Jones asks industry members who support his amendment to contact their Member of Congress in the House of Representatives and urge them to support the Jones Amendment #548 to block funding for catch shares.

If you would like to support Mr. Jones, but do not know who represents you in Congress, this link from the House of Representatives will assist you:

The U.S. House of Representatives - Determinig Your Representative (http://www.house.gov/zip/ZIP2Rep.html)

I assume the impact of this bill is on comm's and not rec's?

I assume the impact of this bill is on comm's and not rec's?

Not necessarily. Right now the Gulf Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic fishery management council are talking about imposing some sort of catch share system on recreational fishermen as well as commercial fishermen.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh I get it regulation is a bad idea if it costs you money. Why don't weber rid of all the rules and let the Coms take as much as they want. Never mind the fact that nearly every fishery that is fished commercially is in trouble. Look at swordfish commercial long liners such as Linda greenwald celebrate the capture of a hundred or two hundred pound sword don't you get it these fish can grow to be over 1,000 pounds. Look at striped bass we haven't had a good reproduction class in many years an everything is OK just as long as your catching big fish that you can sell. The sea is a vast place but I truly believe the time is near between severe reductions in commercial fishing or the collapse of entire fisheries. Think of the the Atlantic halibut the used to be a fishery that routinely produced halibut bigger than there Alaskan cousins. Wake up before we have no longer have any fish to fish for!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am in favor of the catch share programs in New England Multispecies Groundfish (including the allocation of 30% given to the recreational catch which is under the federal definition a catch share) and Scallops. Overfishing must end and none of the anti catch share rhetoric is proposing anything but raising quotas and returning us to a state of overfishing. Enough is enough.

Georges Bank is a wastelland copmpared to twenty years ago.

If BP approves it, I'm for it. It's a total wasteland. Overfishing by any group needs to stop and be enforced if our natural resources are to flourish for all to enjoy

I am in favor of the catch share programs in New England Multispecies Groundfish (including the allocation of 30% given to the recreational catch which is under the federal definition a catch share) and Scallops. Overfishing must end and none of the anti catch share rhetoric is proposing anything but raising quotas and returning us to a state of overfishing. Enough is enough.

Georges Bank is a wastelland copmpared to twenty years ago.
:claps: :kewl:

Overfishing must end and none of the anti catch share rhetoric is proposing anything but raising quotas and returning us to a state of overfishing. Enough is enough.

I agree with your comments on overfishing, but all catch shares will do is redistribute the overall catch quota to those larger boats with past historical catch data, effectively eliminating smaller draggers, dayboats, that must fish several species (weather, seasonal dependent) in order to make a living....the big boats (single owner of multi-fleet of boats) will corner whatever quota is set. That is the fear with the present pilot fluke sector plan in RI ....the only advantage of sector catch shares is by-catch mortality is reduced, only if the monitors are aboard; if monitors are not on a sector boat there may be "hi-grading" performed....Catch shares is a real hot topic in the commercial fisheries here in RI, MA.....most commercial people I know feel there is a better way to redistribute quota AND hold the line on overfishing if indeed some of these fish are in real trouble (fluke, sea bass, monkfish, scup); as far as cod, don't know...just hearing about a lot of cod being caught in some of the old haunts off the RI shore to Coxes..

Enforcement is required, self-policing just does not work

I agree with your comments on overfishing, but all catch shares will do is redistribute the overall catch quota to those larger boats with past historical catch data, effectively eliminating smaller draggers, dayboats, that must fish several species (weather, seasonal dependent) in order to make a living....the big boats (single owner of multi-fleet of boats) will corner whatever quota is set. That is the fear with the present pilot fluke sector plan in RI ....the only advantage of sector catch shares is by-catch mortality is reduced, only if the monitors are aboard; if monitors are not on a sector boat there may be "hi-grading" performed....Catch shares is a real hot topic in the commercial fisheries here in RI, MA.....most commercial people I know feel there is a better way to redistribute quota AND hold the line on overfishing if indeed some of these fish are in real trouble (fluke, sea bass, monkfish, scup); as far as cod, don't know...just hearing about a lot of cod being caught in some of the old haunts off the RI shore to Coxes..



"all catch shares will do is redistribute the overall catch quota to those larger boats with past historical catch data, effectively eliminating smaller draggers, dayboats, that must fish several species (weather, seasonal dependent) in order to make a living....the big boats (single owner of multi-fleet of boats) will corner whatever quota is set."


This is exactly what catch shares will do !

Should note that catch shares do not necessarily favor the large boats... They favor the best businessmen.

Now, oftentimes the best businessmen own a number of big boats, this is true. But there are a surprising number of small day draggers that are making more money then they ever had before using this system, and are in no danger of being cornered out.

Is it right? I'm not sure. I don't like the idea of the traditional small fishing towns going by the wayside. But it's reducing unnecessary waste, that can't be denied. It's rare for boats to high grade when there's no monitor- they stand to gain little from the practice, as the prices for larger fish do not offset the monetary gain from the larger quantity.

Those who can manage themselves effectively are flourishing in this system. Those that can't, aren't.

as the prices for larger fish do not offset the monetary gain from the larger quantity.

thanks for your response....but what about larger fish AND larger quantity (dependent on status of catch share quota for that sector).....only mentioned that because of feedback from others in the fishing community

But there are a surprising number of small day draggers that are making more money then they ever had before using this system

That's good to know; mostly I have been hearing complaints in RI (relative to fluke ,scup)

Some of you really need to look into what catch shares are all about; who's the driving force behind catch shares; who benefits from catch shares and the impact is has on small commercial AND recreational fisherman.

Some of you really need to look into what catch shares are all about; who's the driving force behind catch shares; who benefits from catch shares and the impact is has on small commercial AND recreational fisherman.
Why don't you help us out on some more info on the above topics then? I'd love to hear more but wouldn't know where to start looking.

O.K., first of all catch shares have nothing to do with the quota or allowable catch. All catch shares do is to say who gets to catch it.

In the commercial sector it will reduce the number of boats in that particular fishery, particularly small boats. The reason is simple economics. Its much cheaper for a big boat with lots of capacity to store fish to make a extra tows to fill that hold than it is for a small boat to go out every day. Every commercial fishery that has gone to catch shares has seen the fleet reduced by 30 to 50%. The big boats buy the shares from the small boats and they can afford to do it because it costs them less to catch each pound of fish.

In the recreational sector there are at least two (maybe more) anticipated detrimental effects. Charter/party boats will get their own shares. This will probably also cause fleet consolidation which will increase fares to recreational fishermen. Secondly, Individual fishermen may have to get tags, which will be limited in number, to fish for a particular species. Want to striper fishing? you better have a striper tag. Once the limited number of tags is distributed they will be bought and sold on the open market. How much are you willing to pay to go on a fishing trip? If you don't have a tag, you'll have to buy one on the open market or charter a boat that still has quota.

All of this is being pushed by the usual anti-fishing suspects, Particularly the Environmental Defense Fund, who gave us Lubchenco. the current head of NOAA. At a recent conference hosted by the Packard foundation in which groups such as EDF, PEW, Oceana participated, they discussed how to make investments so as to control catch shares so that they could decide what to do with the catch shares.

So if you are all for increased costs to go fishing and putting the honest small boat commercial guy out of work, then by all means support catch shares.

Someone mentioned Halibut, try going halibut fishing in Alaska these days, the cost has gone through the roof since they brough catch shares to the halibut fleet. Prices for recreational halibut charters have doubled since the catch shares came in and you can forget about keeping your catch unless you want to pay a premium for doing so.

I will try and put some info. up after work JD. I don't normally like to "cut & paste" so there may be a little editorializing. Hopefully Mako Mike will check back in too; he is better informed on this issue than most. (He beat me to it..must be a fast typer)

Here's an analogy taking fish out of the equation to provoke a little critical thinking.

Imagine if the Environ.Defense Fund (EDF) was fighting air pollution caused by diesel engines and was targetting a reduction in the truck fleet to reduce that pollution...with the added "benefit" of providing a more consistent income for those truckers who survive the purge by joining a cooperative "sector". Now the head of EDF becomes head of Dept. of Commerce and decides to promote that NGO agenda as new goverment policy to reduce air pollution and "help" truckers earn a decent living. Commerce decides that these sectors can "buy" a share of total shipping volume based on their past "history"...so all the big truckers...who may well have been the ones causing the most pollution.... get all the business and the small guy who can't afford to buy into a sector gets put on the unemployment line. It's the same amount of goods being shipped, same # of trips contributing to the pollution...only difference is now the small trucker is out and the wealth is being consolidated into the hands of a chosen few. Now.... A little investigating finds out that EDF had previously been promoting their truck sectors to hedge fund investors as a way to increase their "investment" in sectors by 4X.....and had been telling these same investors that "the way is being paved" for these changes by the government. Low & behold...their (wo)man is now in charge and shoving the new game down everyones throat. So now we have a few conglomerates and some Wall Street investors...who probably drive a Lexus, not a truck, are controlling the industry. Who is making that 4X the investment profit....not the trucker....who will be paying that 4X profit? You.
Could never happen in this country right! Not to the teamsters ...because if it was there would be bodies showing up under bridges....but it's happening to fisherman right now.

Mike...thanks for explaining this in a rational, non-rambling post!

In the recreational sector there are at least two (maybe more) anticipated detrimental effects. Charter/party boats will get their own shares. This will probably also cause fleet consolidation which will increase fares to recreational fishermen. Secondly, Individual fishermen may have to get tags, which will be limited in number, to fish for a particular species. Want to striper fishing? you better have a striper tag. Once the limited number of tags is distributed they will be bought and sold on the open market. How much are you willing to pay to go on a fishing trip? If you don't have a tag, you'll have to buy one on the open market or charter a boat that still has quota.
My understanding of catch shares is very limited but based on the above, this looks like something I would 100% support. You're telling me that strict limits will be put on the number of fish kept as opposed to the idiots that go out and kill their limit every chance they get?

Scientists would be able to have detailed information on how many fish are killed every year. Sure, people are still going to poach, but it's not like they don't do it now.

As someone who only keeps 2-3 fish/year, fishes mostly from land or invites from friends with boats, my cost to fish won't go up at all. It's not going to cost any more to "go on a fishing trip", unless you want meat but then it's not a fishing trip, it' a harvesting trip. On the Recreational side, people that fish because they love it and release most of their fish should support this.

I'd completely support something along the lines of everyone getting 2 tags with their license and then have to buy any extra tags, with limits put on how many you can buy.

My understanding of catch shares is very limited but based on the above, this looks like something I would 100% support. You're telling me that strict limits will be put on the number of fish kept as opposed to the idiots that go out and kill their limit every chance they get?

Scientists would be able to have detailed information on how many fish are killed every year. Sure, people are still going to poach, but it's not like they don't do it now.

As someone who only keeps 2-3 fish/year, fishes mostly from land or invites from friends with boats, my cost to fish won't go up at all. It's not going to cost any more to "go on a fishing trip", unless you want meat but then it's not a fishing trip, it' a harvesting trip. On the Recreational side, people that fish because they love it and release most of their fish should support this.

I'd completely support something along the lines of everyone getting 2 tags with their license and then have to buy any extra tags, with limits put on how many you can buy.

Sorry, but in the EDF world of catch shares you can't fish without a tag, after all if you catch a fish and release it it might die. "everyone" won't even get one tag, the proposal from the SAFMC is for a lottery so if you put in for the lottery and get a tag you'll be able to fish but only keep one fish unless you buy more tags.

In case I'm not getting through to you, you will have to pay extra to go fishing no matter what you catch or keep.

I can cut and paste the arguments for and against catch shares in this thread from items in the press by people on either side of the issue.

First and foremost, the term "catch shares" is so nondescript that depending on who is speaking, the definition changes. This is exactly like the use of the other most mis-used word in fisheries management, the Marine Protected Area.

The term Marine Protected Area can describe anything from the short term closure of the Cod Conservation Zone off the MA North Shore which most recreational fishers supported and to his credit, Raider Ronnie had something to do with. MPA can go all the way to the No Fishing Reserve off California which many, including myself, think is an arbitrary ban and a crime against all fishermen. As is everything in life, the Devil is in the Details.

The same wide variety of details can be found under the term "catch share". HAs anyone of the experts on this thread read the national catch share policy document by NOAA. Can you explain the difference between the terms "allocation", "limited access privilege program (LAPP)", and "individual fishing quota IFQ." I will state that they all are very different management tools that have different pros and cons. The one thing they all have in common is they all are a variation of the term "catch share". Anyone got any opinions on which might be ok to consider in any fishery here in New England.

I agree with many opinions expressed in this thread and disagree with others as well.

I would ask that all those who suggest there is another way to manage ground fish actually type a paragraph or two of their solution. Just because there are too many boats to all make money from a vastly reduced ground fish stock does not mean overfishing should be allowed.

I tell you what. No smoke and mirrors. No promise of adjusted stock asessments. I challenge anyone to give me a proposal for the following situation:

A commercial ground fishermen fifteen years ago took a government buy out and sold his permit and boat. He then bought another boat with a mostly unused permit with very little catch history. Now he wants the years he fished on the permit he sold to the government to count on the newer but smaller permit. He claims he has no quota but he had no quota three years ago either. Is he a victim of "catch shares" or stupidity. I look forward to a ground fish proposal of merit.

Since when is running a more efficient business a bad thing. I'm an American and Capitalism seems to work. IF I am smarter or make a better business than I can do well. Why does the commercial fleet seem to beg for welfare every time the consequenses of being bad businessmen com home.

The NE Groundfish Fleet overfished for twenty years. Time to figure out how to run a better business.

fresh (unfrozen) cod at Anthony' in Middletown was 12.95 a lb. who gets what portion of that?

I want to be clear I am not saying I do not think there should be changes to the current system because there should be.

It's just that some boats are making money and the price of fish is up and some boats are leaving the fishery and all of that was in the plan and is good for the fishery.

Part of this whole story reminds me of many recreational anglers that complained after Congress passed the rec license but ignored the RFA and others that were trying to get them to pay attention when action was possible.

In America it's those who participate in the democratic process who get their issues dealt with.

Consolidation of permits looks like a growing problem for those of us that want a small boat fleet and there is already a management change under consideration to improve this issue.

Just be ware and remember I heard it first...the Industry LAw Suit is coming for Recreational Cod allocation...remember I warned you here...we got a fight on the way.

"HAs anyone of the experts on this thread read the national catch share policy document by NOAA. Can you explain the difference between the terms "allocation", "limited access privilege program (LAPP)", and "individual fishing quota IFQ." I will state that they all are very different management tools that have different pros and cons. The one thing they all have in common is they all are a variation of the term "catch share". Anyone got any opinions on which might be ok to consider in any fishery here in New England."

Not an "expert" (not a sex therapist either ..but I know when I'm getting screwed) but I'll take a crack at this for those who really want an understanding of how some see this issue. BP, it's interesting that you mention american capitalism because I see the current management direction as the exact opposite and I'm not the type that sees the "socialist boogeyman" behind every action taken for the public good.

Limited Access Privilege is strictly defined under Magnus/Stevens and there are a number of conditions and administrative requirements that must be met for a LAP to be granted. Under MS "cooperative groups of fisherman " can APPLY for and pay for this privilege. Generally the groups would be those with a significant catch history. Members of a LAP program would have an IFQ based on their catch history; the major benefit to them is control over their days at sea as well as an allocation of the TAC and some market control. There are a number of anti-trust provisions and protections for the fishing communities and small boat fisherman required under LAP; additionally a percentage (25%?) of the administrative fees collected are supposed to be dedicated to allowing small boats to work towards LAP participation and to assist new entries in the fishery. The current NE groundfish Sector management plan is an LAPP however there seem to be major provisions of MS that are ignored. 1st the Sector plan was imposed by NOAA; many fisherman either did not want to or could not join a sector. Those with the largest catch history "had" to join a sector or be relegated to the common pool. Impact on fishing communities is ignored and the assistance available to small boat fisherman, especially hook fisherman, is a boot out the door.

Here's a few things to consider. The NE groundfishery is almost entirely "closed access"; I believe the only open access permit available being a Handgear B permit. This means no additional effort coming into the fishery. If the TAC remains the same how is consolidation of the fleet a conservation measure rather than just a redistribution of the economic gain to a select few at the expense of others? Doesn't it in fact seem to reward those who currently "take" the most with a bigger share? There is a lot of data available on how sector management has led to "fleet consolidation" (read loss of fishing jobs) and control of quota by "off the water" entities. I personally prefer to support an iconic NE industry over some corporate group who's making their money by selling quota back to fisherman at a profit or paying the guy on the water $10 an hr. to fish out of what used to be "his" boat. Do a search on EDF's David Festa and check out the presentation to the Miliken Institute regarding the economic opportunities for investors....if there were any fisherman at that presentation they were the kind that hold their reels upside down!

Those who support limited government spending might find the GAO's report on administrative costs of LAPP's interesting. We are paying big $$ to administer these programs (NOAA enforcement, CG operations, etc.); your tax dollars at work...putting the local fisherman out of a job. Another interesting point...the current NOAA budget request eliminates funding for fisheries research and data collection and increases funding to implement sector management. Does this make sense?

I know a lot of guys on SB.com are concerned about "the fish" but if you think that people pushing this agenda are concerned about your rights to fish you need to check what their affiliations are. Also check out the RFA's position on catch shares.

BP, Catch shares have NOTHING to do with the health of the fishery or overfishing.

Using the current terms where ABC = the allowable biological catch
ACL = annual catch limits and AM = accountability measures. The way the system works is that the Scientific and statistical committee (SSC) of the fishery management council responsible for that species set the ABC for the year, then the SSC takes various factors into account to come up with the ACL which is the actual amount fishermen are allowed to catch. If either the commercial or recreational sector exceeds their share of the ACL the AMs kick in and subsequent year's ACL for that sector will be reduced. In species subject to a rebuilding plan, like New England groundfish) the ABC and ACLs are well below the overfishing threshold. Notice that so far I haven't mentioned catch shares. As I said before catch shares have nothing to do with species rebuilding or overfishing.

With catch shares, as are currently implemented in the New England commercial groundfish fishery, fishermen can elect to join a sector, or fish in the common pool. However, the NEFMC made it very clear that any vessels fishing in the common pool would have much less of the quota allocated to them than those fishing in sectors. A sector is an association of vessels that are permitted in the fishery and have a history of landing fish in the fishery. Each sector gets an allocation of the ACL based on their combined history of landings. Any boat in that sector can land any or all of the ACL allocated to that sector. What has happened, due to the simple economics of the situtation, is that the big boats in each sector have landed the lions share of the ACL allocated to that sector and the small boats have stayed tied to the dock and been paid by the big boats for their share in the sector.

The boats that opted to fish in the common pool and not join a sector have had their trip limits reduced time and time again, to the point where it is only marginally profitable for them to sail.

Yes, this system makes fishing more economically efficient, but it does it by involuntarily forcing small boats out of the fishery. It's like the government giving Walmart incentives for setting up new stores in every neighborhood and forcing the Mom & Pop stores out of business. Economically it is more efficient, but it puts people on unemployment and takes away the freedom of choice for the small businessman.

Note that the Groundfish fishery has been a limited access fishery for years and there have been no new entries into the fishery except for a few handgear B fishermen who are allowed to catch between 50 and 100 pounds of cod per trip. Effectively an immaterial percentage of the fishery.

Now as for outside influences and other reasons to oppose catch shares. One of the biggest reasons IMHO is that NOAA/NMFS is diverting money that should be going into fishery science into promoting catch shares. The proposed budget takes about 50 million dollars away from scientific research ans uses it to devise and promote catch shares. Is that the way any fisherman wants the money spent? So in that sense catch shares is bad for each and every fishery. Secondly, the folks that have been pushing for these catch shares, in particular the Environmental Defense Fund, PEW, the Packard foundation, et. al.have been getting together to plan how they can buy into corporate fishing entities and control the catch shares either for profit or to achieve their other objectives, in short what can be seen as a plot to control all commercial fishing and perhaps all fishing.

While catch shares are a hot topic in New England right now, mainly because of the damage they are doing to our fishing fleet, other fishery management councils are proposing to take it even further to impose catch shares on the charter/party fleet as well as on individual fishermen. You can read all about it on the websites for the South Atlantic Fishery management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management council.

Having said all of that, I'll just add the fact that WE WONthe Jones amendment passed by an large margin in the House!

Those with the largest catch history "had" to join a sector or be relegated to the common pool. Impact on fishing communities is ignored and the assistance available to small boat fisherman, especially hook fisherman, is a boot out the door.
This is exactly what is happening in RI with summer fluke, i.e., Sector Allocation Pilot Program initiated by RIDEM. The bigger boats that fish all year (offshore for wintering summer flounder,i.e., bigger quota for less boats operating) are the major players in the fluke industry...the day draggers, R&R guys, gillnetters (fluke), are all relegated to that common pool, and the percent of total quota is dwindling every year as the bigger boats are all jockeying to join a sector. The problem is that sector catch is based on historical catch data. In the past (last 25 years or so), a lot of small time commercial guys would fish for different species during the season, dependent on availability...maybe lobster pots, scup/sea bass pots, inshore dragging, etc, in other words, they would not accumulate a lot of specific catch history-it would be spread out over multi-species (and very weather dependent). If fluking was slow, they would concentrate on other species, etc. The last few years, because of the major collapse of the lobster fishery, quite a few have been rod and reeling for fluke...because they don't have a lot of historical catch of fluke, they would be left out, (not) if but when the catch share program becomes more than a pilot program (in fact, word has it that RIDEM has federal money and is advertising for a sector catch coordinator).
Whenever the Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council (or roundtable mtgs with RI Senate people) holds hearing on this topic, the halls are full...it is a very controversial topic that a lot of Industry heavies are dead set against...and not because of greed/overfishing, hot-button emotional innuendo, etc, but because this could cause a major shift of who actually fishes, i.e., corporate stake holders who buy out shares and control the industry and displace the small-time historical day boat guy.
And don't think that each state doesn't have a stake in this...I would think that RI would love to see all the problems/cost associated with Galilee, would go away with a much, much smaller footprint....and that real estate would look very appealing to any developer with big bucks (condo's, seaside mall, etc).

Defeated !

[Standard-Times] By Dan McDonald - February 21, 2011 -
The U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment early Saturday that would prevent NOAA from spending money to promote and institute new limited-access fishing programs such as catch shares on the East Coast, a development that commercial fishing advocates have labeled as 'very significant.'

The move to strip money from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration passed by a 259-159 margin around 1:45 a.m. Saturday, with 51 Democrats and 208 Republicans voting in favor of the measure, which was sponsored by U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, R-North Carolina.

Bob Vanasse, head of the fisheries public relations campaign Saving Seafood, called the vote on the Jones Amendment 'a major salvo' fired at federal fishing regulators.

'Basically, the message was, 'We've had it and we're going to use the power of the purse to have you reconsider your policies,' ' Vanasse said.

Jim Kendall, president of New Bedford Seafood Consulting, said the amendment could prevent NOAA from spending 'another $50 million to advocate and promote catch shares.'

'A lot of the money is used to essentially disseminate propaganda,' Kendall said. 'They've been forcing catch shares down the throats of various fisheries.'

Last May, federal regulators introduced the New England groundfishing industry to a new fishing management system, replacing a days-at-sea model with 'catch shares' and 'sector management.'

The system requires boat owners to join cooperatives and manage their share allocations, or 'catch shares,' as they best see fit within the law.

The new system has been met with opposition and controversy.

Catch shares, said Kendall, 'do nothing to further the conservation of the resource.'

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a proponent of the amendment, said the vote conveyed to NOAA 'that you don't have to shut down the fishing industry to sustain the fish.'

The amendment, said Frank, does not prevent NOAA from using a provision in the Magnuson-Stevens Act that allows for transferable quotas. That provision, however, requires a referendum, Frank said.

The amendment will now go before the U.S. Senate.

Frank said the Senate is expected to make a decision regarding the amendment within the next month, and Kendall said he expects the Senate to pass the amendment.

New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang called the House vote 'extremely significant.'

Lang said he spoke with Rep. Jones last Thursday and the North Carolina Republican told him he was hoping to assemble a sizable coalition in support of the amendment to, if nothing else, attract some attention to the issue of fishing regulations.

'When I saw they had a majority, that made me sit up and take notice,' Lang said. 'The coalition that Jones and Frank have put together is very significant and could lead to reform and transparency.'

Referencing the majority in favor of the amendment, Frank said, 'The rigidity of NOAA has gotten us more support.'

The amendment covers the fisheries under the jurisdiction of South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils, but does not affect Alaska or the West Coast, according to Vanasse's organization.

Attempts to reach NOAA for comment Saturday were not successful.

Copyright © 2011 South Coast Media Group, a subsidiary of Dow Jones Local Media Group. All Rights Reserved.

Sorry for the late reply... been out for the weekend. I should amend my comment... I'm more familiar with the fishing practices up in the GoM, and down in SNE hi-grading definitely can be an issue, especially when it comes to the jumbo fluke fishery. Up here we don't run into it as much when targeting groundfish.

And I know next to nothing about how catch shares would affect rec fishermen- I would definitely defer to MM on that one, he seems to have much more info on the subject.

I suppose I'm glad to hear that the amendment passed, after doing a little more research on the subject. I'm all in favor of the current sector management system, which incorporates many aspects of a catch share system, but like I said it's sad to see so many of the smaller boats hurting right now. Some are doing well, but it's inevitable that our commercial fleet will decrease significantly over the next five years. Hopefully this will provide better observer coverage, a higher standard of scientific data, and allow for management to make more informed decisions on how to best balance protecting our resource with protecting the livelihoods of those that make a living on the water.

I do not disagree with the amendment by any means. NOAA should never push one managment tool over another. In my opinion that is the job of the council system.

I'd much rather that money went to more observers and better data collection so that we have less scientific uncertainty that will open up more quota for fishers of all types.

I also would rather see NOAA put some extra resources in to helping the council develop/fast track a method to ensure fleet diversity and prevent a few companies from buying up all the permits.

My opinion is that recreational advocates have no real stake in the AM 16 fight besides defending our allocation. We should let the commercial reps figure out how to manage their fishery. The recreational fleet got our fair share in AM 16.

BP, this isn't about amendment 16 to the New England Groundfish fishery management plan, its about catch shares being imposed on everyone. Go look at what the SAFMC and GOMFMC are proposing in terms of recreational catch shares.