Gloucester woes continue - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

nightfighter · 08-01-2013, 10:43 AM

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x3898...t-with-nothing

I don't know what the solution could be.... Is NOAA at fault? Are there just too many commercial inshore fishermen? Seems the fee for permits should be paid back in light of the cut backs. Why is it we import 92%. Are Canadian fishermen suffering the same? Lots of factors I don't know. And we recs often seem to be bashing the draggers and other comms, yet I feel for these people, and their way of life. But if the stocks are depleted, what are the alternatives?

JackK · 08-01-2013, 11:22 AM

Never heard of a federal official advising anyone to buy or sell a permit. I believe that's a fireable offense.

MAKAI · 08-01-2013, 11:38 AM

We are getting better and better at taking something that gets harder and harder to restore. A myriad of factors, of which we have little control over to replace the " harvest ".
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso · 08-01-2013, 11:52 AM

The only ones responsible for the decline in fish are commercial fisherman and their Lobby Not saying theses people don't work hard but the attitude of an endless abundance of fish.. with no real plan for the future ... Not all but most
its like a J.G. Wentworth I want it now..

They catch the fish not sure why they never controlled the market ?

the striper guys shoot themselves in the foot every year. its a mad dash to make a quick buck the 1st week and then they flood the market tank the price . its crazy

buckman · 08-01-2013, 11:58 AM

For the last 10 or so years the commercial guys have followed the rules set forth by the Feds . Their plan was based on poor science and thus we have a failure in the stock. The commercial guys have been taking a hit and following what they're supposed to do. Don't be so quick to blame them.
If the Feds were out of it and it was run by the commercial guys , there would be plenty of fish
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

MakoMike · 08-01-2013, 02:06 PM

Its a total #^&#^&#^&#^& up by NMFS/NOAA, the commercial guys followed the rules, but the rules (and the so called "science" behind it ) was wrong.

numbskull · 08-03-2013, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Its a total #^&#^&#^&#^& up by NMFS/NOAA, the commercial guys followed the rules, but the rules (and the so called "science" behind it ) was wrong.

This is what happens when commercial bias (and political clout) decides what science to believe.

Overfishing occurs because of the relentless commercial pressure on fishery managers to optimize short term financial gain.

Where in the last twenty years have commercial interests called for reduced quotas and restraint in any sort of unified or majority voice?

Now the science will be twisted to blame everything on global warming and absolve the poor commercial fishermen and dedicated fishery managers from any responsibility.

Absolutely warming waters will impact fish populations.
Sadly the fish were long gone before this ever became an issue.

Finaddict · 08-03-2013, 11:18 AM

Wrong Science or Bad Science is definitely a major factor ... but there are also a wide array of factors at play contributing to the bad science ... on the side of the US commercial guys, they are taking it on the chin ... not just because they are being quashed by the Federal govt., but also because the US commercial fisherman are taking far less than foreign commercial fishermen ...

... a little over 10 years ago, the company I was working for had us up for a meeting with the publisher of the National Fishermen magazine up in Portland, ME. The conversation turned to a discussion about the fate of the US commercial fleet ... as it was just after the US Federal Govt. imposed regulations for limiting how much time the US commercial fleet could spend on the fishing grounds before they came back to weigh-in their catch ... meanwhile there were no regulations on the significantly larger, foreign factory ships fishing and freezing far more fish than the US fleet was able to take - ships from Poland, Korea, Japan, etc., were left untouched in international waters and even fishing illegally in US federal waters.

Same goes for the US tuna commercial fleet ... the portion the US fleet takes per global tuna catches is small fraction what the foreign fleets are taking ... so it is not just our US commercial guys ... although their impact is still significant on our local stocks.

Also, a little more than 20 years ago, there was an article in The New York Times about the state of the failing US tuna fishery ... as usual, the media was missing the point, but they interviewed a commercial tuna fisherman and his crew down in NY, who was complaining about the stocks being so low, they were not sure what they were going to do anymore. That same person, who's father started his fleet here in the US ... his father spoke about how he was a commercial fisherman out of Sardinia (or some place in Italy fishing in the Mediterranean Sea) and he stated that the fishing there got so bad they left and came to the US to set up fishing operations here ...and now the fishing here was bad (this was in 1990) ... WHAT?

It's like that children's story book where the creatures land their space ships on a beautiful planet, deplete all the natural resources and pollute the planet and then leave to find another planet to do the same ...

... our US commercial guys are taking it on the chin, and that is too bad ... but at the same time ... there is much more at play and it's a finite resource so there has to be some accountability for actions in not reserving what stocks we have left ... both locally and internationally ...

MakoMike · 08-03-2013, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finaddict

... a little over 10 years ago, the company I was working for had us up for a meeting with the publisher of the National Fishermen magazine up in Portland, ME. The conversation turned to a discussion about the fate of the US commercial fleet ... as it was just after the US Federal Govt. imposed regulations for limiting how much time the US commercial fleet could spend on the fishing grounds before they came back to weigh-in their catch ... meanwhile there were no regulations on the significantly larger, foreign factory ships fishing and freezing far more fish than the US fleet was able to take - ships from Poland, Korea, Japan, etc., were left untouched in international waters and even fishing illegally in US federal waters.

Just to point out the obvious, there have been NO foreign flagged vessels fishing in the U.S. EEZ (from shore to 200 miles out) since 1977.

Slipknot · 08-03-2013, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Just to point out the obvious, there have been NO foreign flagged vessels fishing in the U.S. EEZ (from shore to 200 miles out) since 1977.

don't know where you heard that one, but I don't believe that for one second.
1977? really?

Finaddict · 08-04-2013, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Just to point out the obvious, there have been NO foreign flagged vessels fishing in the U.S. EEZ (from shore to 200 miles out) since 1977.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act is a great law, but doesn't mean illegal fishing from foreign vessels has ended in our coastal zones ... below are a few examples of this not happening since 1977 ...

The United States apprehends and prosecutes foreign flag vessels that engage in IUU fishing within waters under the jurisdiction of the United States and through appropriate international authorities. The cases described below are examples of such sanctions.

In September 1994, the Honduran-flagged, Korean owned, F/V HAENG BOK #309 was determined to have made three incursions into the U.S. EEZ, and it complied promptly with U.S. Coast Guard attempts to conduct a boarding. The case was settled for a civil penalty of $1.12m and the company was required to put Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) on their entire fleet of 19 longliners for a period of five years.

The Polish flag vessel ADMIRAL ARCISZEWSKI was detected fishing 1000 yards within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) on June 14, 1996. This was the vessel’s second offense. The case was settled for $750,000, plus $10,276 for U.S. Coast Guard costs.

The South Korean flag vessel KUM KANG SAN was detected fishing 500 yards within the U.S. EEZ on September 6, 2000, and it complied promptly with U.S. Coast Guard attempts to conduct a boarding. The case was settled for $300,000 plus $16,415.29 in costs.

In July 1997, the unflagged F/V CAO YU #6025 was detected conducting large scale driftnet fishing, and the vessel failed to cooperate with the U.S. Coast Guard boarding attempts, resulting in a forced boarding of the vessel. The vessel was forfeited to the United States along with its entire catch of 120 mt of albacore tuna, for an estimated total loss to the unknown owner of $435,000.

The South Korean flag vessel MAN JOEK was detected fishing 400 yards within the U.S. EEZ on November 10, 2001, and it complied promptly with U.S. Coast Guard attempts to conduct a boarding. The case was settled for $250,000.