Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating - View Single Post

flatts1 · 05-08-2007, 11:40 AM

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.

05-08-2007, 11:40 AM	#47
flatts1 Registered User iTrader: (0) Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wareham, MA Posts: 303	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.
	"Successful management of striped bass, and all fish for that matter, is 90 percent commonsense guesswork." -- Ted Williams