Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - Not trying to be the bearer of all bad news but...

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- StriperTalk! (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - Not trying to be the bearer of all bad news but... (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=2367)

Not trying to be the bearer of all bad news but...

I got this in an e-mail a little while ago and it's also been listed in The Fisherman and OTW:

Quote:

The New England Fisheries Management council is endeavoring to radically alter if not ostensibly shut-down recreational rod and reel ground fishing for cod, haddock, pollock, etc. for private, charter and party-boat fisherman in New England coastal waters. As reported by NE Fisherman`s Field Editor, Ed Nowak, who regularly attends the Council meetings, "A motion to achieve a 67 percent reduction in recreational, party and charter boat landings was carried at the November 9th meeting of the NEFMC. If recreational fishing goes over the proposed reduction in landings, the council plans to install further size and bag limit restrictions" Currently new size and bag limitations are part of the proposal. The new bag limits, if imposed, will virtually shut-down charter and party ground fishing. Many of you and your readers make annual trips to New England to fish for cod. They have experienced cod fishing like "the good old days" as a result of the years conservation measures restricting commercial and recreational fishing. Now that the fish are back in size and numbers as well as expanded back into their historical ranges in New England, the "17 member Council; thirteen of them favor,or are representatives of the Commercial fishing industry" wishes no one to have access to the resource. To say the least, the Council is bias. Further, the meeting in early December where the motion will be voted will be "full of Commercial fisherman".

The restoration efforts for ground fish, like the striped bass, are one of the few fisheries management success stories. This resource belongs to all of us.

Recreational anglers are now getting more of their fair share. Evidently the Council doesn't think that is right. Please endeavor to get the word out to your readership and have interested individuals send letters to:

New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA. 01950; to the attention of Thomas Hill, Chairman.

Meeting Agenda

Quote:

Wednesday, December 19, 2001

9:00 a.m. -- Introductions (Thomas Hill)

9:05 a.m. -- Skate Committee Report (William Brennan) Approve the skate species overfishing definition alternatives for inclusion in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and public hearing document to be developed for the Northeast Skate Complex Fishery Management Plan (FMP)

9:30 a.m. -- Groundfish Committee Report (Frank Blount) Approve the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for Framework Adjustment 36 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP; the draft document will include a range of alternatives for meeting the goals of Amendment 7 to the Multispecies FMP; the Council will select alternatives and possibly identify a preferred alternative to be included in the Framework 36 DSEIS.

Actions proposed are intended to reduce Gulf of Maine cod fishing mortality and discards as well as reduce fishing mortality on Georges Bank cod. Some alternatives may also reduce fishing mortality on other stocks and may affect the recreational sector. Measures include, but are not limited to: gear modifications, mesh size changes, closed area modifications, adjustments to the days-at-sea clock, days-at-sea reductions, alternative trip limits, limits on the number of gillnets allowed, night closures, a cod minimum size increase and changes to blocks of time out of the fishery. Other issues that may be included in the framework are:

an extension or change to the Western Gulf of Maine Closed Area
tuna purse seine vessel access to groundfish closed areas
a controlled access program for Closed Area II to harvest yellowtail flounder
an increase in the Cultivator Shoal whiting fishery trip limit
a change in the area authorized for the northern shrimp fishery
Public comments will be accepted at this meeting. Additionally, a 45-day comment period on the Framework 36 DSEIS document will be announced following clearance by agencies charged with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) oversight. Final decisions on the Framework 36 action and the Final DSEIS will be made at the March 2002 Council meeting.

Looks like back to the bad old days of the Recs paying when someone else effs something up :mad:

If you can't catch Cod legally, you must buy them. Can you say MONOPOLY!

If you can't fish for them legally, no reason to be in the area. NO EYEWITNESSES to by-catch slaughter!

These people(COMMERCIALS ) never quit!

I don't think that they should close it, however I don't think people be able to go out and get coolers full a couple of times a week either. If I owned a boat , and was fishing for cod , I would'nt take a cooler full.

If all the fish are going to be consumed (human consumption, not fed to the cat or dog) then I'm not too upset even at a cooler full. I just don't like to see waste.

This is what cracks me up. You've got to admit that the comm groundfish guys probably did a boatload more damage to the cod & haddock stocks then any cod boat ever could or with all of the pressure possible from the rec sector. Yet these guys are saying that we are just as responsible for the crash of those fisheries? Yeh, right. Or worse, that recs should be held accountable for damage they never did. Same, same old story...

It's taking away the ball and going home on a grand scale, that's all. "I can't play there so now neither can you" That's all. Want to see the decline? This is NOAA's data for commercial landings by pounds in Mass.

1986 Commercial Cod Landings: 46 Million Pounds - 46 Million in one year in Massachucettes alone. How much could the rec sector possibly contribute to that? (Well I couldn't find out because the data wasn't on that DB)

1988: 61 Million Pounds
1990: 72 Million Pounds
1991: 62 Million Pounds
1992: 42 Million Pounds
1993: 36 Million Pounds
1994: 27 Million Pounds (Starting to see an alarming trend here - it must be that the 18 foot skiffs out of Plymouth are hammering the fish again)
1995: 21 Million Pounds
1996: 23 Million Pounds
1997: 22 Million Pounds
1998: 20 Million Pounds
1999: 18 Million Pounds
2000: 19 Million Pounds

Yeh, now I understand why the rec should pay for decimating the groundfish stocks...

At last nights MSBA meeting, Fisherwoman's buddy ;) - The President FlymanPat - told me before the meeting and announced in the meeting that, in an interesting turn of events, The New England Fisheries Management Council has decided not to implement or recommend any of the 8 management plans that they had to choose from in order to acheive the mandated reduction in the groundfish fisheries.

He attended yesterday's and Monday's meetings where several options in the commercial/recreational groundfish management plan could require a reduction of 6.66666% of the allowable daily bag limit. So, instead of 10 per day, you could keep A Whole Three Fish!!!. So after years of running down that fishery, the recreational sector would also need to take a big hit - not that that was the cause for the decline.

Well, The New England Fisheries Management Council, in refusing to put any plan on the table, chose not to make a decision and the government will now probably be required to make the changes for the Gulf of Maine/George's Bank regions.

Basically, the Council felt that it could not recommend a plan that would essentially cut the throat of the commercial groundfish fishermen even though there have been far more than warning signs of this for well over a decade now. It appears that the Council feels the government should take the necessary steps instead of the council (at least that's my take from what I'm hearing).

So now the government will need to make the recommendations for 2002 and then present those to public hearing (or just implement them).

I'll post more when I find more...

Quote:

If you can't catch Cod legally, you must buy them. Can you say MONOPOLY!

- Great Line OX (BTW - you should add your name to the Plug Grab thread)

This was in today's Herald

This was in today's Herald about the government getting closer to recommending it's plan for the New England Groundfishing. Just a quick reminder, at the December meeting, the local council was to recommend a plan that would reach the goals required by law to restore the groundfish stocks. Essentially, instead of recommending a plan that would basically hurt their interests, they chose to allow the government to make that choice - it's about to happen...

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/lo...sh03012002.htm

Quote:

New limits could swamp fishermen

by Kay Lazar and Marie Szaniszlo
Friday, March 1, 2002

Sweeping cuts for New England's already battered fishing industry are expected to be unveiled today that at least one fisherman says could put thousands out of business.

Lawyers for the federal government will file their plan for meeting court-ordered goals to rebuild a dozen species of endangered fish, including cod, haddock and flounder. It will likely include a call for as much as a 30 percent reduction in the amount of cod fishermen will be allowed to catch in the Gulf of Maine begining May 1, a top government regulator told the Boston Herald yesterday.

The Gulf of Maine is the region's prime fishing grounds, and Gulf of Maine cod have been among the hardest hit by overfishing. The latest government figures show the species is not rebounding as fast as experts would like.

``We are taking this very seriously,'' said William Hogarth, assistant administrator for Fisheries for the National Marine Fisheries Service. ``Most New England groundfish stocks are improving, but there are still some very difficult issues that must be dealt with.''

Fishermen are bracing for the worst.

``If this is what they really plan to do, I'm out of business,'' said Richard Burgess, chairman of the Gulf of Maine Fishermen's Alliance. ``It will put 3,000 inshore fishermen out of work, and make 300 offshore fishermen extremely wealthy. This is going to create a maritime war.''

Dave Marciano, a Gloucester fisherman, is also worried.

``I'm not saying we shouldn't protect the fish,'' Marciano said. ``But to say these fish are going to be extinct in 10 years is completely preposterous. The concept is to punish the fishermen.''

Environmental groups sued federal fishing regulators in 2000, accusing the federal government of failing to put adequate measures in place to protect endangered fish.

Citing the Fisheries Service's ``record of inaction and delay,'' U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler on Dec. 28 agreed with the environmentalists and ordered the agency to come up with a remedy.

Hogarth said the government's plan to be revealed today likely will resemble a blueprint, known as Framework 36, that was rejected by local fishing groups in December - largely because it called for sweeping reductions in the industry.

The New England Fishery Management Council, comprised of fishing industry members and government officials, voted 9-to-8 in December to reject Framework 36.

Framework 36 spelled out eight alternative plans to protect the endangered fish and rebuild their stocks. The plans included a combination of fishing ground closures, cutbacks in the numbers of days fishermen are allowed to fish, and larger fishing meshes to allow immature fish to swim free.

Sources say the plan the government will reveal today will likely include a proposal to prohibit fishing in an additional 1,200 square miles of ocean off Massachusetts and New Hampshire from May to June, and open a formerly closed fishing area between January and March.

Currently, New England ground fishermen are restricted to 88 days at sea during the year. Sources say the government's plan will likely call for a dramatic cut, requiring that fisherman be allowed to fish just 11 of those 88 days between May and July - the time when many fish species are grouped tightly together after spawning.

``Unfortunately, I don't think there's an easy way to do this,'' said Priscilla Brooks, director of the marine resources project at the Conservation Law Foundation. ``All of this is the result of two decades of mismanagement by the federal government, and fishermen are the ones being forced to pay the sorry price.''

Hogarth said he is committed to spending an additional $1 million this fishing season, beginning May 1, to place neutral observers on fishing boats to monitor the amount of bycatch, or others species of fish that are inadvertently caught and killed. He was unable to say what percentage of the region's 1,700 boats would be staffed by observers with those additional funds. Environmentalists are asking in their lawsuit that 10 percent of the boats have these observers.

Environmental groups, fishermen and others have until March 15 to reply to the government's plan.

John,

Thanks for the up to date info on the mismanagement of OUR resource. Once again the recreational sector is being asked to shoulder too much of the burden of rebuilding stocks destroyed by commercial overfishing.

The continued reluctance of the council to do anything to improrve the situation (short of go after the private sector and charter boat industry) is what led to the problem in the first place. :af: :af: :af:

Mike

Everything in moderation...including moderation!

i must say, this is crap. especially since the groudfish have slightly recovered from several years ago. for an industry to allow an overwhelming bias on its governing board is just plain wrong. now, i understand commercial fishermen need a life too, but there needs to be limit. they have too many boats, fishing too many days, much better technology from years past, and are more effecient.

i do not see why the recreational fishermen need to suffer due to these possible restrictions. i won't say recs don't catch a lot of fish, because they do, more than most would believe. there are a lot of charter fishermen out there now and they are going out on everyday they can. but, i see no way of shutting the recs completely off. especially if it costs as many jobs as expected. plus, with the economy as weak as it is now, this is not the time to put more people on unemployment.

you definitely can tell who runs the show on those boards. i don't trust the gorton's fishermen...

Exactly. Too many boats & too many nets in the water. The government buys back a boat and someone else buys it from the government with a different federal loan, gets better gear, and is even more efficient than the guy he replaced... Just too much pressure and it's not like you need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out...

MikeF was mentioning how his neighbor, the commercial HOOK fisherman will probably get screwed in this but he wasn't the guy that helped cause this problem in the first place. It really was more government and guys like Kennedy, Frank, & Kerry (and a republican or too on the north shore) that kept pressuring the government to make things easier for the netters to get a bigger and bigger piece of the pie all the while understanding that the pie was getting smaller.

I don't think recs should pay the penalty as that is not the cause for fishery tanking like it did. Some additional restrictions might be tolerable, but a 63% reduction in what recs get is very unfair. While I'll agree that the recs probably catch more fish then they are currently believed too, it's a tiny percentage of the overall take, oh yeh - and there's limited mortality and no bycatch. Even in this year - supposedly the best in a decade, very few boats have half their people limiting out. I've only done it once back in 96 and seen it happen once since then in the half dozen trips I've been on.