Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomCat
 I'm still here, Zach. As far as comm. rod & reel efforts are concerned this is absolutely the cleanest fishery out there. There is virtually no waste. High-grading is not a factor as the catch is sorted on a fish by fish basis rather than picking through an already dead or dying deck full of fish. Incidental by-catch is dealt with the same way, before the fish is dead. If the issue is the massive waste incured by draggers and gill netters, then those methods should be addressed. To lump the the most destructive methods of harvesting toward both the fish and the fragility of the ocean's floor together with what is far and away the most selective and conservation minded technique is totally unfair. Why do the R&R fishermen, who have the shortest window of opportunity and who generate the least environmental harm have to suffer the hardships and restrictions created by the most wasteful and destructive approaches? |
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