the current fisherman mag..

[Nebe]

any one read it this week? Zach harvey's Fluke management piece is awesome. While i am not a fluke guy, its obvious there is a lot of waste in the comercial fishery.. Why do the fisheries managers not get this simple logic of 'smart' fishing???

also, I noticed a new writer who wrote an excellent scouting piece

[Gunpowder]

its not just the fluke industry. read the national geographic article from april on commercial fisheries. its def an eye opener for anyone thats had them closed for the last twenty years...

[Nebe]

havent read that one.. but come on.. why throw good dead fish overboard when the fishery is in trouble?? I want my kid to be abe to catch something he can keep and eat when he's my age

[Gunpowder]

believe me i totally agree. im almost twenty and according to that national geographic article, the fisheries will be functional extinct by the year 2049. granted ill be old and brittle by then (maybe not ) but there def needs to be a change and people cant just put a dollar sign on their catch.

[Bill L]

I think that was the issue with an article about new rubber eel imitations? Missed the boat on that one, Surf Hogs rule

[WoodyCT]

Go back a few issues in The Fisherman and check out the article on bogus fisheries science. The folks who are screaming that all the fish will be extinct in another 50 years are being funded by environmental organizations. Organizations bent on stopping locking up public resources. I am all for conservation, but false science or science with an agenda is wrong. Plan on fighting for the right to fish if these guys persuade the public that the oceans will be empty in 50 years. They just want to lock it up and look at it. It's already happening on the west coast.

[Gunpowder]

u could be absolutely correct woody, but the national geographic is usually not that far off from the truth. they have a huge reputation to uphold. check out the article if u get a chance. pictures dont lie.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by WoodyCT

Go back a few issues in The Fisherman and check out the article on bogus fisheries science. The folks who are screaming that all the fish will be extinct in another 50 years are being funded by environmental organizations. Organizations bent on stopping locking up public resources. I am all for conservation, but false science or science with an agenda is wrong. Plan on fighting for the right to fish if these guys persuade the public that the oceans will be empty in 50 years. They just want to lock it up and look at it. It's already happening on the west coast.

when that happens here ....
the solution will be flaming arrows.

[Mr. Sandman]

I have not always agreed with everything Zach Harvey writes about but that Fluke article was right on. I am a fluke guy and have enjoyed fishing that species in 5 states since the age of 3, in bays and offshore. It is probably one of the most popular species fished for in the east...and it is not just fluke that get abused like this. IMO NOTHING should be wasted or dumped over the side dead...EVER for ANY reason. If you drag just about anything you pull up will be near dead or die soon after. The discard because of regulations is a very significant mortality number that is being ignored. It should come to market and come off the quota...after all they are dead. Same goes for bass and everything else that swims. Remember the herring draggers catching and dumping bass offshore? This should never happen.

He didn't mention this but IMO the reason they don't do this is that there other factions of the comm industry would be pissed off. Ie. the R&R anglers don't want to see the quota lowered (or even reduced to zero) by draggers retained discard and put them out of work. IMO this is the real hidden issue that they don't want to discuss in the open.

As a recreational angler I actually try very hard not to waste any fish or part of fish. If it is not released, it is kept for food. We don't keep more then we can eat. After cleaning, all the fish waste also gets used as bait for lobster traps or ground up for chum. Nothing (OK, very very little) goes into the dumpster.

Its almost like a slap in the rec anglers face to see deckhands shoveling discard overboard when the rec angler is taking the time to revive a fish and see that he swims off strong.

He made some good points about rec regs as well. But the bottom line is that our fisheries management system is just not working and lacks common sense.

As Ted Nugent tell his kids on his hunting show..."If you kill it, the least you can do is Eat it!"

I am glad they made that a cover story...

[Raven]

i watched the history of the Canadian hand liners and their similar battles with the draggers and the story was truly sad as one guy forced into not being able to fish like his last 3 generations before him did drove him to suicide. As a fishing village they lost ...

[MakoMike]

Very complicated issue, but first off realize that the fluke fishery is NOT in trouble. There are more fluke around right now than at any time since they started to keep records.

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.

Every state that I know of uses trip limits to try and control the commercial landings against that state's quota. It is a well known fact in fisheries management that trip limits cause regulatory discards, yet the states continue to use them, becuase they have no other effective way of limiting the landings. Anyone have another suggestion?

[Joe]

It's too bad the scientific community is not beyond reproach....

[ThomCat]

Trip limits or not, these draggers are only interested in big fish. When jumbos are paying $4 a pound and mediums (the smallest that can be kept) are paying $1.75, it seems a lot more jumbos and large hit the dock than mediums. When the daily limit goes down to 100 or 75 or 50 pounds a day, all of a sudden only joes seem to find there way into the net. Hmmmm.........

[BillyBlanks]

Originally Posted by Gunpowder

u could be absolutely correct woody, but the national geographic is usually not that far off from the truth. they have a huge reputation to uphold. check out the article if u get a chance. pictures dont lie.

Yeah that article in NG was very well put together. Especially the section on tuna!

[JohnR]

Great info guys - I liked the article - OK, didn't like it because it is not a warm & fuzzy topic - what I mean is it raised some very good points.. On a side note, this is the first Fisherman I've bought in at least 2 years.

Great article on April Scouting too! Where do we find authors like that

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by ThomCat

Trip limits or not, these draggers are only interested in big fish. When jumbos are paying $4 a pound and mediums (the smallest that can be kept) are paying $1.75, it seems a lot more jumbos and large hit the dock than mediums. When the daily limit goes down to 100 or 75 or 50 pounds a day, all of a sudden only joes seem to find there way into the net. Hmmmm.........

Tom,
what would you do when the trip limit is 50 pounds and you have 150 pounds of fish on the deck? Only keep the 14 inchers? We need to find a better way to limit/monitor the catch, trip limits always produce regulatory discards.

[macojoe]

Very complicated issue, but first off realize that the fluke fishery is NOT in trouble. There are more fluke around right now than at any time since they started to keep records.

Tell that to all us that fish Lucas area!! We have to get 17 1/2 fish and only 5 fish! It gets worse for the recreational fisherman every year!! While the Commercials continue to rape the sea!!

Takes hours to weed thur the small rats, that I release alive!!

Use to go there just a few years ago and get all you want in just a few min. and all good sizes!

Go to the fish house in NB and watch the dragger's unload 300 pounds of Jumbo's!! What the net missed all the 14" fish I have been catching all day right next to them??

Not to start with you, Thats not my intention!

But the Fluke are in trouble and so is any other inshore fishery as long as the system allows dragger's to fish the inshore water ways!!

And again this is why I will never buy a saltwater lic!

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by macojoe

Tell that to all us that fish Lucas area!! We have to get 17 1/2 fish and only 5 fish! It gets worse for the recreational fisherman every year!! While the Commercials continue to rape the sea!!

Takes hours to weed thur the small rats, that I release alive!!

Use to go there just a few years ago and get all you want in just a few min. and all good sizes!

Go to the fish house in NB and watch the dragger's unload 300 pounds of Jumbo's!! What the net missed all the 14" fish I have been catching all day right next to them??

Not to start with you, Thats not my intention!

But the Fluke are in trouble and so is any other inshore fishery as long as the system allows dragger's to fish the inshore water ways!!

And again this is why I will never buy a saltwater lic!

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..

There is no doubt that with relatively low trip limits a lot of high grading goes on. How can we stop it? If you're fishing in an area where the dragger are working, its no wonder you don't see the tremendous increase in the fluke numbers!

[Team Rock On]

This is from another board...
I just received an email from a well respected colleague of mine on the MAFMC who is a commercial fisherman from North Carolina. It clarifies many of the issues we have been discussing here:

" I have just spoken with Capt. Rodney Avila to confirm the fact that Massachussetts trip limit was indeed 100 lbs of Fluke. The tow pictured in the April26, 2007 "Fisherman Article" was landed legally in Virginia where the trip limit was 12, 500 lbs. Please distribute accordingly. Thank You....Jimmy"......Gene

[Nebe]

who cares where the picture came from? This problem has been and will continue to happen unless things change.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Nebe

who cares where the picture came from? This problem has been and will continue to happen unless things change.

So how do you suggest we change it?

[RIROCKHOUND]

MM:
You made a good point re: trip limits. I think it is the easiest way to manage but far from the best. I think changes need to be made to reduce this, but how remains the question. I do think they should have exceptions to let them land more and have it count against the quota, but that will upset a lot of people.

Other Maco:
IF the fisheries is being managed properly (and we can argue it isnt, but if it is) why do you have more right to fish inside of 3 miles than the comm's? I'm asking as rec. angler. If it is being properly, and legally, they have the right too. Thats not to say I get annoyed when I want to fish where someone is working, but the trick is to find fluke spots where they CANT drag

As far as the Nat'l Geo article. they have a reputation, but they are not a peer reviewed unreproachable (to use Joe's word) reference. Their job is to sell issues first, sell topics second. I think the article has a lot of merit of truth, in the way that Inconvenient truth does; it shed light but I think in a alarmist way.

[goosefish]

I think some money needs to be found (never easy) and then put into research for selective otter trawls. We need to reduce bycatch--this is not new. We need to make trawls size selective and species selective. If we can put excluders in the belly sections of the trawls, just before the cod-end then that would help. The problem is--where is the money to do this, and, the fisherman, ain't going to be happy. Two boats down in Point Judith are already trying this out (part of research project) and the results have been encouraging. Encouraging because many smaller species don't make it into the cod end. The fisherman could end up liking them because it means less time on deck for money. Fisherman, however, will always be skeptical about gear modifications when they see half their catch going out a "trap door".
If we cannot make the trawls species selective (and I'm not sure if we can because of money and how slow things move without it), then I think we are going to keep traveling in the same old direction. A little management here, a little management there. In New England the whole fishery thing happens at too slow a pace. If there's a problem people need to get on it, put in restrictions and start upsetting people. It is too pro-fisherman around here and not enough pro-resource. Maybe with us being Yankees and us being steeped in history has made things difficult; but whatever it is, I think it is too slow of a process.
When did Amendment 4--or whatever it was--for ground fish begin, around 1992? Look at the ground fish situation now: is it any better?
Maybe: reduce the fleet size, individual quotas, VERY HIGH fishery fines. Man, who knows?

[RIROCKHOUND]

John:
IFQ's may be the way to go. as much as people don't want to hear it. And I agree whole-heartedly on the fines... when a certain poacher got busted w/ a mess of illegal blackfish bound for the live market he should have had his boat seized, instead of a wrist slap and back at it the next day.

Beutel et al have been doing a lot of that gear work, and I agree results are encouraging.

[numbskull]

In my lifetime (50 years) I have seen swordfish disappear from Nomans, school tuna disappear from the Hooter, codfish disappear from SW shoal and Middleground, pollack disappear from Gay Head, white marlin disappear from the star, big bass disappear from the beach, menhaden disappear from Buzzards Bay, weakfish disappear from the harbors, and winter flounder disappear from the estuaries. ANYONE who defends the system that lead to this is below contempt.

[Gunpowder]

Originally Posted by goosefish

Maybe: reduce the fleet size, individual quotas, VERY HIGH fishery fines. Man, who knows?

giving "limited entry" a try would def not hurt. its somethin that the alaskan halibut fishery has been doing for several years now and i think that the commercial fishery on the east coast should def consider it. unfortunately, it would def put some of the guys that have been in the business out of work and this is nothing that anyone wants to see, but if the fisheries business wants to remain for the next century, we need to do somethin now. a limited entry gives a certain number of fishmen, usually the ones that have been in the business the longest, a percent share. after 100% of the share for a certain fishery is alloted, no new people can enter that fishery unless a portion of the share is given to them or sold to them. the people with the highest shares are allowed to bring in the most, but there is still a quota on just how much they can bring in. this not only reduces the number of fleets out commercially fishing, but also helps reduce the number of reproductive fish caught thus allowing them to rebound yearly. def. somethin that should be thought of if we want to make changes.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

So how do you suggest we change it?

Zach's suggestions are exactly what i would suggest, thus why i mentioned his article.

[Ed B]

Originally Posted by Team Rock On

This is from another board...
I just received an email from a well respected colleague of mine on the MAFMC who is a commercial fisherman from North Carolina. It clarifies many of the issues we have been discussing here:

" I have just spoken with Capt. Rodney Avila to confirm the fact that Massachussetts trip limit was indeed 100 lbs of Fluke. The tow pictured in the April26, 2007 "Fisherman Article" was landed legally in Virginia where the trip limit was 12, 500 lbs. Please distribute accordingly. Thank You....Jimmy"......Gene

This is extremely significant and journalistic integrity is on the line, so these comments must not be thrown out carelessly. The Fisherman is using that cover photo as proof of mismanagement of the resource and the photo is being used as the evidence behind the assumptions and conclusions in the article. If in fact the fish in the photo were legally sold, most were counted against the commercial quota and that is contrary to what was stated in Zach's article.

Zulu Hotel ?? are you out there? and can you provide more information about this photo?

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Gunpowder

giving "limited entry" a try would def not hurt. its somethin that the alaskan halibut fishery has been doing for several years now and i think that the commercial fishery on the east coast should def consider it. unfortunately, it would def put some of the guys that have been in the business out of work and this is nothing that anyone wants to see, but if the fisheries business wants to remain for the next century, we need to do somethin now. a limited entry gives a certain number of fishmen, usually the ones that have been in the business the longest, a percent share. after 100% of the share for a certain fishery is alloted, no new people can enter that fishery unless a portion of the share is given to them or sold to them. the people with the highest shares are allowed to bring in the most, but there is still a quota on just how much they can bring in. this not only reduces the number of fleets out commercially fishing, but also helps reduce the number of reproductive fish caught thus allowing them to rebound yearly. def. somethin that should be thought of if we want to make changes.

What you propose is NOT limited entry, its called IFQs or individual fishing quotas. We laready have limited entry on virtually every fishery on the east coast, where no new permits are issued and only boats or indiviuals who qualified over a certain time period can get permits to fish.

I have a problem with IFQs for several reasons. 1st its giving away a public resource to benefit private users. The fish belong to all of us, and we spend a lot of our tax dollars to manage those fish. Why should we just give the resource away, and gaive the fisherman that qualify an windfall profit when they decide to retire and sell their quotas? 2nd, it been proven in the north pacific fisheries, that have used this system for some time now, that IFQs, over time, concentrate the fishery into large businesses/boats and squeeze out the small fishermen we are trying to protect. Its simple economics, which I'll get into if you like. 3rd it sets a very IMHO bad precedent for recreational fisheries. If it was extended to recreational fisheries, you'll get tags for 4 stripers, 10 fluke, 100 scup etc. when you get your (soon to be) license. Catch those fish and you're done for the season. There is no "history" for recreational fishermen, so the gove't will just divide the quota by the number of licensed anglers and that will be that. The avid fishermen will have severe limits placed on him while the casual fisherman won't use up his tags. Either way not a good scenario.

There has got to be another way, I wish I knew what it is.

[Gunpowder]

i just proposed an idea, not a strategy that i said would work all around. i know what the flaws are. i too wish i had the "perfect" idea that pleased everyone, but lets face it. someones not gonna be happy when new regulations come out. either the commercial guys will be mad that they cant put food on the table or citizens that have to put another cent on every dollar towards fishing will become infuriated. like u said, i wish i knew a way to solve a problem that affects my generation far more than ures.