Gulf of Maine cod limits
 

From todays meeting in Portsmouth.

Fisheries council okays drastic cuts in allowable New England cod catch | New Hampshire NEWS

How big of a dent do you think dogfish do to little cod ?

Huge!

Dogfish + draggers = no cod.
Who needs science to explain the obvious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hope this doesn't send boats to south of block in search of cod.......I agree with the restrictions, but wonder how some of the fishermen that are affected are gonna make a living. Find another stock? The budding one we have out by block won't stand a chance
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The dogfish thing staggers the mind. Why are these predators protected???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's time to pay the bill boys. sadly for comm fisherman but we just dont need that many guys fishing. we are far to efficient at catching fish. i wonder if the amount of boats fishing was reduced if it would be any easier to manage species

I really can't shed a tear for these comms who fish a species till the brink then cry they'll be out of a job. I worked in a field that was mostly off-shored. I adapted and changed. Time for them to do the same.

I can shed a tear for them when I know that mismanagement of the ecosystem wasn't their fault. When tons of baby cod are eaten by the millions ofnprotectedmdogfish out there.. It's no wonder there are not many cod around.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess Nebe... two sides to every story. I work with a guy who used to be a comm for a number of years. The "Public Side" and the "Private Side" of their stories are VERY different. I know there is a wide spectrum of people in every camp, but as a group, I believe they would fish the sea for every last nickle.

I do agree on the DF point though...

As an aside.... anyone want to guess what one of the best fishing "booms" as far as landings was? First right guess gets a plug.

2003

1st year of the magnuson stevens fishing act, 1976

Well, the obvious answer is they're not.

I do think the trip limits could stand to be raised from 3k/trip, though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought they were.. My bad :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I remember the 400lb limit per day. the boats would go out every morning and cull till they had 400 lbs of the best dollar value fish. I know this because i helped a freind as his deck ape and after 4 days of dumping thousands of lbs of small cod an other fish over the side till he was satisfied with what he had in the totes.The money from the fish barely paid expenses for the day.He told me he will always protect his right to fish comercialy right up till the last fish was caught.I never went out with him after that and lost any sympathy for the comercial fishing industry as I had heard this many times over the years with the net striper fisherman an many others.You make your bed you sleep in it.They'll all end up with a check an a free ride for the mess they helped create.We'll end up paying the bill.

My understanding is that the were up until a couple years ago.

You are correct.

And the trip limits in federal waters is still very small.

They was virtually no commercial fishery for over 10 years.
It's no coincidence in that time we've seen a decline in cod stocks with the explosion in the dogfish population.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On the eve of regulators making the tough decision to choose long term recovery over short term economics guess what else was going on? Dogfish aren't the only thing gobbling up the juvinile ground fish.

GloucesterTimes.com, Gloucester, MA

January 31, 2013
Coast Guard, NOAA seize local boat's catch

By Times Staff
Gloucester Daily Times

---- — BOSTON — The U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA officials have issued a notice of violation for what they called a “significant fisheries infraction” after a Coast Guard crew boarded a Gloucester-based vessel Tuesday some 100 miles east of Cape Ann.

According to the Coast Guard, the F/V Princess Laura, a 90-foot slime eel and groundfishing dragger owned by Gloucester fisherman Joe DiMaio, was issued the violation for allegedly fishing under a Northeast multispecies permit utilizing a net liner — an illegal fishing gear configuration, Coast Guard officials said.

The report from the Coast Guard indicated that crews from the Gloucester-based cutter Grand Isle noted the violation while conducting a boarding more than 100 nautical miles offshore. After issuing the violation, the Coast Guard escorted the vessel back to port in Gloucester and seized all of the vessel’s catch in collaboration with NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement and office of general counsel.

The catch was sold at what the Coast Guard said was “fair market value” in Gloucester, with the proceeds from that sale to be held in a suspense account pending final adjudication and forfeiture proceedings.

The notice of violation and catch seizure is the second reported by the Coast Guard in the new year, and the Coast Guard Statement noted that crews and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration crews “continue to conduct joint operations targeting vessels fishing illegally throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.”

Those actions have continued despite a series of Department of Commerce investigations that found NOAA agents and law enforcement officials guilty of imposing excessive penalties and wrongly abusing an Asset Forfeiture Fund built with funds and other penalties collected from fishermen under the NOAA enforcement leadership of Dale Jones. Jones was forced aside in 2010, though he still holds a NOAA advisory position.

Capt. Peter DeCola, chief of law enforcement in the 1st Coast Guard District, which carried out the boarding, said the Guard’s enforcement remains vigilant.

“Intentional net liner usage and similar illegal gear configurations allow an individual vessel to gain an unfair competitive advantage over fishermen abiding by regulations,” DeCola said. “These regulations are designed to ensure sustainable fishing for all.

“Catch seizures are an excellent enforcement tool in serious cases like this,” said DeCola. “They minimize the financial incentive for fisherman who intentionally violate the rules. They maintain a level playing field for the industry as a whole.”

Dogfish = Fish and chips in england?

If you recreational fish up in NH or Maine without a license and get caught, you're very likely to lose all of your gear and get a pretty hefty fine - not to mention a likely suspension of your license for a couple years.

That is something that would be an "excellent enforcement tool in serious cases like this." I'm growing rather sick and tired of the little guy getting beaten around, while the large commercial fishing operations receive what amounts to a slap on the wrist when you consider the severity of their violations.

You want to drastically reduce illegal fishing:
1) First infraction results in seizure of your catch and fine equal to double the market value of that catch. (IE: you have $50,000 worth of illegal fish on your boat, you lose your fish and pay a $100k fine.)

2) Second infraction results in a 5x fine and two year suspended license.

3) Third infraction, you lose the boat, the gear and indefinite suspension of your license.

Three Strikes and you're done. Period.

However, the fines and asset seizures *do not* go directly to NOAA's coffers. 90% of proceeds go towards research and habitat rebuilding efforts.

Here's a hint... it's got nothing to do with regulations or any individual species.

The fish south of Block are considered part of the George's Bank stock.