Most notably items 4 and 5. This is the first that I am aware of any states looking to open their herring runs back up for harvest. The SB one I still don't understand why there is even a difference for shore vs boat based harvest.


http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dfg/dmf/marinefisheriesnotices/pubhearings/public-hearing-notice-011317.pdf

4. Opening Individual River Herring Runs (322 CMR 6.17). This proposed regulation would provide DMF with the authority to open individual rivers to the harvest of river herring if they have an ASMFC approved sustainability management plan and specific permitting, harvest and identification requirements. The Nemasket River may be the first run to potentially open under this authority.

5. Clarification on Commercial Striped Bass Limits (322 CMR 6.07). This proposed amendment would limit all shore-based commercial fishing activity to a 2-fish limit. The 15-fish commercial striped bass limit will apply only to the holders of vessel based permits while fishing from the vessel named on the permit.

Most notably items 4 and 5. This is the first that I am aware of any states looking to open their herring runs back up for harvest. The SB one I still don't understand why there is even a difference for shore vs boat based harvest.


http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dfg/dmf/marinefisheriesnotices/pubhearings/public-hearing-notice-011317.pdf


Interesting. Herring runs were supposed to be reopened if they met restoration goals - so have they met restoration goals

Shore catch @ 2 sounds like it is just a grab for some boat guys

This proposed amendment would limit all shore-based commercial fishing activity to a 2-fish limit. The 15-fish commercial striped bass limit will apply only to the holders of vessel based permits while fishing from the vessel named on the permit

Should be the other way around if you ask me!!

We've had this conversation before.

It is already only 2 comm bass from shore when having a rod and reel license. However the loop hole is if you have a comm boat permit then as of now, you can retain 15 from shore while using your boat permit.

Sounds like they are just making a clarification that it is 2 from shore period.

Not sure why this was ever the case. Rumored to be because of those certain canal days where all the fish are 20+ lbs and it would be a male. But that happens offshore too, who knows.

opening up a few herring runs will lead to poaching at other non-open runs. How can you prove where someone got their herring?

opening up a few herring runs will lead to poaching at other non-open runs. How can you prove where someone got their herring?

I was thinking along those lines. Unless they catch you in the act of harvesting herring from a closed run you could just say you legally got it an open one.

How can they tell if you caught the fish from shore or boat? Buyers could care less. Heck you can sell 3 day old fish and they don't care.

^^^^


'zackly.... depends on how much you wanna invest in ice...

Skating rinks got lots of free ice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice spit, snot and blood ice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How can they tell if you caught the fish from shore or boat? Buyers could care less. Heck you can sell 3 day old fish and they don't care.

My guess is that this just makes it easier to police the shore guys while in the act of fishing. Not being involved in commercial fishing myself, and the debate of it was never my intention of posting this as there are far bigger issues in the SB fishery for everyone to worry about, but I would have to assume that when one goes to sell a fish the buyer would check the seller's license. If you have a shore license then you should only be able to sell 2 fish.

In regards to the boat vs shore issue, it was brought to DMF by commercial fishing boat owners. They see it as a lot of people do, anyone can register anything and never fish from it but still go bang 15 fish out and claim it as "boat fish" even when their boots are on the ground. I've seen people (shore guys with boat permit) actually asking for help on social media to "go kill 15".
Here's the actual letter written to Marine FIsheries by a group of commercial boat owners.

To: Dr. David Pierce, Director; Division of Marine Fisheries
Mark Amorello, Chair; Marine Fisheries Advisory Commission; Marine
Fisheries Advisory Commission Members

"Subject: Following petition proposing changes in commercial striped bass possession
limits
Date: March 8, 2016
I (we) are requesting changes to two sections of the appropriate CMR concerning the boat possession limit and the individual possession limit in the striped bass commercial fishery. Currently, a boat permit holder is allowed to take the assigned boat permit off the boat and fish as an individual from shore and take and possess the boat limit of 15 fish while individual permit holders are limited to 2 fish. This dichotomy has led to significant abuses, particularly in the Cape Cod Canal where the unique availability of large striped bass creates opportunity for significant abuse.
1. Boat permit holders go ashore and acquire bass from a variety of willing "donors".
Once these donated fish are placed in the permit holder's possession, they become part of their 15 fish limit.
2. The bag limit dichotomy between boat and shore fishermen has prompted some shore fishers to purchase boat permits. All a potential boat permit holder needs to substantiate is that they have a registered boat. This practice adds potential effort to the fishery which could prove problematic should future effort have to be curtailed.
3. Donors to the boat permit holders 15 fish limit include both shore permit holders and recreational fishermen hoping to make some extra cash without the expenses of the necessary permits.
We realize in the scheme of things, this illegal practices associated with the current regulation may not seem like a significant problem.. Hopefully, all the illegally procured fish end up on the quota and the boat permit holders catch report.
However, we hope you will consider the climate of illegality this practice promotes and more significantly the reaction of the myriads of recreational users of the Canal's unique opportunities who have reported to us and others of what they have observed. We have also observed and reported to Mass OLE these illegal transactions. While this activity pales in comparison to events that have transpired in New Bedford recently, it further diminishes the public perception of the fishing industry. We feel this is a problem that can quickly corrected by decisive action by the Division and MFAC.
The specific requests are:
1.Eliminate the regulatory provision that allows a boat permit holder to take the
permit and "individually" harvest the boat trip limit from shore. Boat permit holders
who leave their boats should be limited to the shore commercial bag limit..
2. Increase the shore bag limit to 3-4 fish to accommodate the legitimate shore fishers who are more than capable of taking more than 2 fish on a tide. .
Thank you for your consideration of this issue."

Concerned boat R&R comms? What a crock.
Nothing but a fish grab to keep quota for themselves IMO.

But how else am I going to pay for my boat ????
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like I said they should reverse it and see how hard it is to get you daily quota from shore.. Maybe a handful of guys might accomplish it. should not be allowed to harvest anything over 36" anywhere ever for 5 years!!

Yes, this letter seems nothing more than a grab written by some people from the boat sector.

Of course the letter doesn't mention the passing of fish from boat to boat that takes place. Have seen this more than a few times where the fleet is.

Malee days at the canal are no different than the fleet of 300 boats at the hotspot biomass.

This really unfairly penalizes the shore comm angler.

If it was that much of a concern just ban the canal to comm fishing. But why penalizes a shore comm angler that found there own honey hole. This is nothing more than a potential group grab.

This is pure BS and as most of you have already stated is a quota grab from a small minority of boat permit holders with their own agenda. I am a boat permit holder and here are a few reasons why I am totally against this measure.

1. I like others own a small vessel. If the weather does not cooperate I would lose a day of pay in a relatively short commercial season without the opportunity to fish from shore. 2 days a week roughly 8 weeks means only 16 days to earn money.

2. If I suffer any boat / engine issues I am SOL. So now not only do I have to pay for boat / engine repairs, I lose the opportunity to make money on those days from shore to help pay.

3. The fishing can be very good from shore. If I have the opportunity to not take the boat out and still catch fish I consider it a win win. No need to trailer, clean boat, fish in the #^&#^&#^&#^& show where the fish stack up, etc...

Let's be honest here.... A bass is a bass whether it is caught from shore or from a boat. These same canal fish this clown talks about are the CCB fish coming in. It is laughable that he / they would use "donor" fish as an example of what goes on in the canal. Does it happen, sure I guess to some small degree, but not even remotely close to the spectrum it happens to on boats. The culling that takes place during the fleet fishing is disgusting. Guys get their 15 fish and keep fishing to give their buddy boats their smaller keep. And this guy has the audacity to call out the shore guys for donor fish? The fact that there is even a difference between limits for shore fishing and boat fishing is ridiculous but to take this a step further and put people in a position where you are taking money out of their pockets is gross. It is selfish and I hope if it passes karma will catch to the people pushing this and they get dry docked for the season.

opening up a few herring runs will lead to poaching at other non-open runs. How can you prove where someone got their herring?

this is problem #1 for sure...problem #2 is the instant pressure the few open runs will get, especially Middleboro...