The Fisherman magazine throws some fishermen under the bus
 

Toby wrote the following:

" the biomass of cod which is seen in the GOM on Stellwagen Bank regularly moves to the south to places like Coxes Ledge and Block Island off the coast of Rhode Island where there is a very generous bag limit of 10-fish per angler. It is rather irresponsible to have such different management of the same biomass of fish, especially when the fish to the south are targeted during their winter spawning period yet those to the north are basically closed."

So Toby is basically advocating for a one or no fish cod limit for those of us fishing south of the 42.20 line, but why? Just a beggar thy neighbor move? He knows that NOAA/NMFS manages cod as two stocks, only one of which is located north of 42.20, but still wants us more southern cod fishermen shut down? In fact, the quota for Georges Bank cod, which is what is south of the 42.20 line has been increased for 2018, but jealousy knows no bounds.

Full article at:
http://www.thefisherman.com/index.cf...9&ParentCat=19

It seems to me that he is throwing fisheries management under the bus. Those folks are hardly fishermen. He is not blaming anglers unless I am reading it wrong. Odd that you would interpret that as jealousy in my opinion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it's a good example of just how screwed up fisheries management is.

What is the rationale behind a 1 fish bag limit for MA and a 10 fish for RI? I'm asking because I don't know could be a valid reason for it.

Sea Dangles got what I was getting at in that post.

Mike, I'm not really sure how you're calling me jealous here. I am, as you described it, part of the "more southern cod fisherman" as I have really only targeted them off Block sailing out of RI or CT.

I read it that Toby was suggesting that there are somewhat abundant cod in GOM, so don't close haddock. Better yet allow a minimum harvest of 1 cod in GOM. If 10 can be kept from the same population when in the South, why can't 1 be kept when in the north?

I did not read that he suggested reducing harvest in the South.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Cod are managed as two separate sub-populations. One subgroup is the Gulf of Maine population and the other is the Georges Bank population. Yes there is a fair amount of intermixing, but the science says that they are two distinct and separate groups. The dividing line between the two groups is set at Latitude 42.20. North of that, the State of MA has a one fish per person limit in state waters, the feds have a zero possession limit in federal waters. South of 42.20 the federal limits is 10 fish per person for private boats and unlimited possession for charter/party boats. The States of NY and RI have a 10 fish per person limit as does MA south of 42.20.

O.K. maybe jealousy wasn't the motivation, but you clearly suggested that the limits should be stricter than they are south of 42.20. That does all of the anglers fishing aouth of 42.20 a disservice. One of the things we all agreed on at the RAP meeting, and you can confirm this with Mike Pierdnock, is that recreational fishermen shouldn't be fighting with each other for more stringent regs.

If you really wanted to point out the folly of the haddock closure you should have pointed to the fact that the recreational haddock quota went from about 2 million pounds in 2017 to over 7 million pounds in 2018, and we didn't get a single fish out of that increase.

Leave the cod alone. Let them spawn.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I feel the goofy regulations are what are doing the fishermen a disservice. 10 cod is a generous bag and my guess is most would agree. Bsb are impossible to escape and have a small bag. Same with tautog. I can't imagine who loses if the cod limit were reduced to a less impactful number. I say this as somebody who fishes out there on party boats as well as my own.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't believe they still let boats pound those spawning cod. We have at least accepted the fact you shouldn't (they won't let us) kill huge cod loaded with eggs right off there beds.
We have a spring ccz and also a winter ccz where zero bottom fishing is even allowed over the spawning fish.
I agree with 2 separate stocks but they need to smarten up a little bit.

The short answer to your question is that everybody involved in the fishery looses. From charter/party boats, to bait and tackle dealers, to the guys who go out and might catch more than 10 legal size cod. (its not difficult to do, even outside of spawning season).

You're thinking of State sea bass bag limits, the federal limit is 15 fish, and there are no federal limits on tautog!

IMHO it unconsionable for a magazine that caters to recreational fisherman should suggest more restrictive bag limits for some fishermen, especially when they are avocating for loosening bag limits on other recreational fishermen, and all on the same species.

That's not what we are talking about Eben, I wouldn't have a big problem if NOAA/NMFS suggested closing the cod fishery entirely for the months of Jan. & Feb. But that hasn't even been suggested. What has been suggested at the RAP meeting is to tighten the bag limit south of 42.20 and allow some possession north of 42.20. Given the 2 stock theory, that can't be supported, by NOAA/NMFS.

Mike,I didn't have a question but I do see the point that you are trying to make. Like it or not,a more practical limit benefits all involved in the fishery. Shortsighted folks like yourself do nothing for future generations of anglers and for some reason($) some people fail to recognize this. Hogs get fat,pigs get slaughtered.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You assume that 1) the fish that are not caught due to tighter bag limits will be left in the water and 2) the recreational/commercial shares of the TAL are set in stone. Those assumptions may very well be untrue. There is already some talk about rexamining the shares of the ACL for Georges Bank cod due to the fact that the recreational sector hasn't caught its share of the ACL in years, maybe never. Rexamining allocations is on the priority list for NEFMC 2018 actions.

The commercials haddock guys also have a problem with cod being a choke species and they would love to get more of the cod ACL to enable them to continue to fish for haddock. Add in more restrictive regs on the recreational sector which will insure that the recreational sector can't catch its share of the ACL, and you may as well guarantee that the commercial share of Georges Bank cod will go up and the recreational share will go down. If that happens future anglers will get no benefit and current anglers will loose.

Believe it or not, the rexamination of the repesctive shares of the ACL may benefit recreational anglers in the Gulf of Maine. When the council set the recreational share of the ACL back several years ago they ignored discards. It's only recently that GARFO has begun to count dead discards against our share of the ACL. You can bet that everyone on the RAP, me included, will be pushing to have the council set the recreational share of the ACL at a higher number to take dead discards into account. If that happens we may once again have a recreational cod season in the Gulf of Maine.

But either way, tighening the recreational regs is, at this point, not scientifically justified and is likey, IMHO, to lead to a reduction in the recreational share of George's Bank cod, and thus hurt everyone involved in the recreational fishery.

Toby knew, or should have known all of this before he wrote the words I quoted in my original post. He took the time and trouble to talk to people who are knowledgeable on the subject, yet he still chose to throw us "southern cod fishermen" under the bus.

One final thought; in fishing there is a saying that you should "never leave fish to find fish." In fishery management it would be never give up fish in the hopes that you'll get more fish.