HERE HERE! This is no exaggeration. You forgot lobsters in southern New England and the loss of scallops and shellfish, even the herring, mullet, and sandeels ...the list is long. This has really happened and it has been under the current management that this has occurred. I can not support them, it is time for a total change of policy, one that is not in bed with commercial interests.

Marine fisheries managers have some difficult decisions to make because of their past failures. Yes, failures. One just needs to look at the codfish population over time to see how well their management philosophy has been. They need to stop indiscriminatory fishing methods and not have a by-kill and stop blaming other agencies. They are all in bed together. But they can't, they are addicted to these crude cheap methods and for the last few decades think quotas are the cure-all to their woes. Well, it isn't.
Fishery managers need to go. There is too much history to fix, we need new blood, better ideas.

I never said it wasn't bad so don't quote me on that out of context.
I said I-F they are being managed properly (not that that are/aren't) then why should WE have more right to the fish than THEY do inside of 3mi.

As far as Nat'l Geo. Great pictures and human interest stories, but they aren't a science journal.

The National Geographic Society is chartered in Washington, D.C. as a nonprofit scientific and educational organization. Since 1888 the Society has supported more than 8000 explorations and research projects, adding to knowledge of earth, sea, and sky.

Hmmmmm :confused:

It may not be a scientific journal, but they didn't make any of it up as a "human interest story" it was to raise awareness BASED ON SCIENTIFIC FACT that fisheries management is flawed and what once were massive stocks are screwed.

Thats fine. I was speaking in generalities, not article specific.
They are NOT a Peer reviewed scientific journal. They are geared at educating people. Thats a good cause, but it is not reviewed as scientific literature.

Again, I wasn't implying that fisheries management isn't flawed, just don't believe everything single thing you read, and realize that you need to understand your source. NG has to sell issues too!.

Save the Bay is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization as well, but make sure you know your source and who the data actually came from.

Thats all I was saying..

Cod? You think that someoneelse could do a better job with cod? I'm not fan of the way the NEFMC has managed cod in the past, but when you compare it to everyone else, they look really good. Look at Canada, essentially the same population of of fish. They stopped ALL commercial fishing for cod years ago, and the stock still hasn't rebounded.

But this thread is/was about fluke, and there are more fluke in the coean today than there have been since they started keeping records. That sounds like pretty good mangement to me. Could we do better? Of course we can! But lets not get blinded by our success.

[quote=RIROCKHOUND;490041]I said I-F they are being managed properly (not that that are/aren't) then why should WE have more right to the fish than THEY do inside of 3mi.[quote]

Personally I feel that "we" (recs) do have more of a right for several reasons.

1) Economic: Inshore fisheries provide a very positive economic benefit to thousands local businesses both fishing and boating related as well as hotels, restaurants, fuel benefit FAR BEYOND what commercial interests do This is been computed via cost benefit analysis and I think it is something like $600 per # of fish caught that recs spend on stuff.

2) Social: Inshore fisheries provide very positive social, family bonding and positive sportsmanship development among children. Comm fishing interests do not in fact one might say the perception of comm-fishing and commercial fishermen in general is rude, unsportsmanlike, and greed based.

3) Moral: For commercial interests to work inshore and deplete the resource for us all...in the name of personal wealth building is morally wrong.


In a word, I wish the fisheries depts would stop worrying about saving fisherman's JOBS and start managing the species properly to provide the maximum benefit to the majority of the users and taxpayers.

Before I begin, I just want to give a big THANK YOU to Zach Harvey and The Fisherman magazine for making this issue front and center. Frankly, it is the only rec mag in this area that has the courage to do so with an opinion - and I applaud them for that.


-------------------------------------------------------------
MakoMike wrote:

As far as that soecific incident goes, those fluke were dumped for one of two reasons, either the boat did not have a fluke permit or the state of MA had a very restrictive trip limit. Either way, it's not the fault of the feds or the ASMFC.

...

Bitch to the MA authorities, AFAIK MA is the only state that has high enough trip limits to make it worthwhile for the draggers to target fluke during the summer. All the other states have 50 or 100 pound limits so that most draggers won't untie the dock lines..

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hi MakoMike,

Don't believe everything you read in those emailed commercial industry newsletters. :) Actually Macjoe brings up some good points. So does Mr. Sandman.

I know you don't go to MA hearings, but if you did you would know that the MA regs for fluke (and other species) are what they are at the insistance of commercial fishermen. In fact they downright beg for it at times when the alternative is a shortened season. Anything to just keep them fishing. Although you could make the case that the outcome of regulations still falls on those fishery managers shoulders for rubber stamping status-quo comm proposals instead of providing leadership.

And remember, the reason why Fluke is in such great shape (biomass-wise) is due to Environmental groups holding fishery managers accountable - while the commercial industry and recreational "industry" headquartered in the Mid-Atlantic went kicking and screaming at every turn - even filing lawsuits that they knew had a 75% chance of failure to meet rebuilding goals for Fluke (at least in the first year of the plan). But I digress.

We, the recreational community, get what we deserve for whining about these matters in an internet vacume and not attending the public hearings to voice our concerns.

I was at the last Fluke hearing in Mass a few months ago and I dare say I was the only one there who spoke who did not have a financial conflict of interest in the outcome of that meeting.

No volunteer representatives from any local or national fishing groups got to the mic. Just little Ole me.

I don't say that to toot my own horn. Not at all. I just wish there were more folks who would step away from their keyboards more to get really involved (and informed) on what is so important to everone in this forum.

At that meeting I did make the case to increase the size limit for the commercial fishery to be more in line with what the recreational sector is presently burdened with. But again, it was just me making the case and it fell on deaf ears.

And here is how shortsighted the commercial folks were. If they even increased the comm size limit from 14'' to 15'', then those 14'' Fluke in the spring would be 15'' in the fall. They grow that fast and that would mean more pounds/money to those fishermen. But, predictably, the comms didn't want anything to do with it.

And folks wonder why there is a recruitment problem with Summer flounder (Fluke mature at 14'')

So maybe you don't care about what happens in the commercial fishery? Would it surprise any of you to learn that a certain large Cape Cod charter boat outfut made the case at that meeting that the party/charter fleet should get their own allocation of Fluke - separate from private boaters (he also wants the same for Cod).

Coming soon to a fishery near you: Yes, you too can pay someone else for the priviledge of letting you keep more fish than if you take your kids out in your own boat.

But don't count on the recreational press to be there for you on that one. Because they rely heavily on those party/charter advertising dollars and for fishing reports. And who wants to rock that boat?

Ladies and Gentlemen, if more folks don't get involved then those at these meetings who purport to speak for your interests will do it for you. And I doubt the everyday guy or gal will be thrilled about that outcome.

Regarding IFQs, I don't think I like them any more than MakoMike does, but I do think they would be an improvement over the current system with regard to waste - for all of the reasons that Zach has described here.

Another solution might be "Bycatch Caps". This has been used in the sea herring fishery. Herring boats are not supposed to be capable of catching haddock. But they do. In fact, given recent very strong vear classes the herring boats started catching so much haddock that they were allowed to keep 1,000 pounds of it whereas before they weren't allowed any (zero tolerence).

So where is the upside if the herring boats went from being allowed to keep 0 pounds of haddock to being allowed to keep 1,000 lbs? Because a "bycatch cap" of haddock was instituted and it was indexed to a certain percentage of the overall haddock Total Allowable Catch (TAC). As I recall, it was 1%.

Read this excerpt of an Emergency Rule...

========================================
(emphasis added)

and (7) establishment
of an incidental catch TAC (bycatch cap) on
the total amount of haddock that can be
landed under the haddock incidental catch
possession limit. NMFS will continue to monitor
a 270,000-lb (122,470-kg) haddock bycatch cap
based on actual landings reported by vessels
and dealers/ processors, as well as any other
landings based on observer reports or enforcement
actions. As of November 2005, only an estimated
11.32 percent of the total haddock bycatch cap
have been reported landed from Category 1 herring
vessels. If these actual reported or observed
landings under the incidental possession limit
reach the bycatch cap, the directed herring fishery
in the GB haddock stock area will be closed, and
a prohibition on the possession of haddock would be
reinstated for all Category 1 herring vessels fishing
in all other areas. The current absolute
prohibition on the possession of haddock appears
unrealistic, given the potential for haddock and herring
interactions. The measures being extended through
this rule reflect the intention of maintaining a
haddock possession tolerance as close to
zero as practicable, while allowing the herring
industry to operate.

Source:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-23803.htm
========================================


In other words, The herring boats were allowed to direct their effort on herring and they were allowed to keep up to 1,000 lbs of herring if they came upon them. However, if all of the Category I herring boats collectively caught enough haddock to meet the bycatch cap then their whole herring fishery in the Georges Bank Area would be shutdown and closed for the rest of the year regardless of how much uncaught allowable catch remained of herring.

Now that's some tough medicine to keep folks honest and avoid waste (although the haddock caught by herring trawlers was not allowed to be sold for human consumption but rather for lobster bait). And when you see that they only achieved 11% of the 1% cap, I would have to say it gets results.

If you want more information on Bycatch Caps then I would recommend that you contact Gib Brogan at Oceana, as it was he and his group who championed that issue.

http://www.oceana.org/north-america/...ash=557d28dcae

Now remember, herring is a massive-scale commerical fishery where everything is measured in metric tons. But the principle remains the same if it was applied to Fluke or anything else.

Just a thought.

Sincerely,
Mike F.

Hey Thomcat,

I agree that r-and-r guys should not be lumped in with the more destructive gear types. You're absolutely correct that hook gear represents the cleanest commercial fishery--I have never argued that point. That's why I would suggest a separate chunk of quota, state-by-state, for the hook-and-line sector.

I think there's ample wording within Magnuson and state regs to support the hook-and-line fishery. After writing that inflammatory editorial about pin-hooking back in Feb., I've given that issue a lot of thought.

What I think is important is thinning the herd of draggers and gillnetters involved in the fluke fishery. Naturally, there's no way you're ever going to get rid of those gear types, so I'm not wasting my breath on that one. It is, however, quite possible to minimize their destructive impact. Whether it's IFQs (now called LAPS in regulatory circles, I'm told) or some other mechanism, I want to see sweeping changes in the management philosophy.

ZH

Mike,
Increasing the minimum size for commerial fluke would only exacerbate the regulatory discard problem. I would force them to keep every fish, so none of them went to waste, no matter what size they are.

As far as the haddock bycatch cap in the herring fishery. Did it really work? I doubt it. If I were the owner of one of those boats every single haddock I could identify would get thrown back. I would'nt jeapordize my thousands of tons of herring by keeping any haddock I could discard. That's why we need obervers on those boats.

Maybe we need observers on every dragger, just make sure they play by the rules?

MakoMike,

---
"Maybe we need observers on every dragger, just make sure they play by the rules?"
---

That would be ideal but will never happen. I would settle for some of the video monitoring technology they are now expirimenting with (it automatically turns on when the codend is hauled back).

---
Increasing the minimum size for commerial fluke would only exacerbate the regulatory discard problem. "
---

That sounds pretty hopeless doesn't it? Why not 13''? Why not 12''. In other words, all we end up doing is accomodating the shortcomings of the gear instead of fixing it. We do this in the NE Groundfish fishery too. Remember when rec haddock was 21'' and commercial haddock was 19''. Why? Because the highest size mesh in the world was still too indiscriminate to weed them out. So we accomodated them (ditto haddock/herring above)

---
"I would force them to keep every fish, so none of them went to waste, no matter what size they are."
---

I'm hessitant, but I could go along with that if it was based on the number of fish and not pounds. Again though, enforcement would be an issue.

---
As far as the haddock bycatch cap in the herring fishery. Did it really work? I doubt it. If I were the owner of one of those boats every single haddock I could identify would get thrown back. I would'nt jeapordize my thousands of tons of herring by keeping any haddock I could discard.
---

Yes, it does work. The whole premise behind why the herring boats need to be allowed to land at least some haddock is because it is virtually impossible to separate them as they are vacumed out of the bag. We are talking about 4'' - 14'' haddock here (haddock mature around 19''), and when a herring vessel was busted with some 4,000 lbs illegally, they tried to brush it off as insignificant because it only represented about 4% of its total catch.

But your point remains: that it would be easy for pitchfork FLUKE over the side to avoid hitting the cap. Again, I think that a video monitoring system could help with that.

Best,
Mike F.

Actually that video monitoring sounds like it might have some merit. But then we would have to hire a troop of people to sit around and watch the videos all day! :)