Gloucester woes continue

[Finaddict]

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]

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]

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?

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

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

Yep, that's when the Magnesson-Stevens act was first passed.

[numbskull]

.......but aren't most of the herring being sucked out of our NE waters (thus removing a huge portion of available forage for cod, bass, and tuna as well as killing significant bycatch) being legally sold to foreign factory ships inside US waters? Buying may not "fishing", but without the buying there would be no fishery so the end result is the same.

No chance the lack of forage is hurting cod recovery I suppose.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by numbskull

.......but aren't most of the herring being sucked out of our NE waters (thus removing a huge portion of available forage for cod, bass, and tuna as well as killing significant bycatch) being legally sold to foreign factory ships inside US waters? Buying may not "fishing", but without the buying there would be no fishery so the end result is the same.

No chance the lack of forage is hurting cod recovery I suppose.

No, actually a very small percentage was sold to foreign factory ships a few years ago (remember the Russian ship anchored off Jamestown?) But recently AFAIK none of the catch has been sold to foreign factory ships.

[numbskull]

I was at the herring planning meeting in NB a year ago and my impression is that almost all of the catch is sold to foreign countries and processed at sea.
Is there a market for sea herring in this country? Where?

Whatever, the rape of these inshore forage species by pair trawling coincides very much with the terminal collapse of both the cod recovery and our fall striped bass fishing.

Coincidence no doubt.

[Finaddict]

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.

[Finaddict]

But our US commercial fishermen aren't always following the laws either ... the penalties often are minor compared to the amount of money from fishing illegally for both US and foreign vessels ...

... here is more activity post 1977 of government efforts to contain IUU (Illegal, unreported, unregulated) fishing ...

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...edspecies.html

http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-r...ng-85899449598

http://www.paulengineering.com/srec1...gin_Fleets.pdf


http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/iuu_overview.html

IUU fishing is a global problem that threatens ocean ecosystems and sustainable fisheries. IUU products often come from fisheries lacking the strong and effective conservation and management measures to which U.S. fishermen are subject. IUU fishing most often violates conservation and management measures, such as quotas or bycatch limits, established under international agreements. By adversely impacting fisheries, marine ecosystems, food security and coastal communities around the world, IUU fishing undermines domestic and international conservation and management efforts. Furthermore, IUU fishing risks the sustainability of a multi-billion-dollar U.S. industry.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by Finaddict

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.

O.K. I should have said legally fishing in the EEZ. Even so, not many boats have been caught illegally fishing, and most of those were probably just due to a navigation error. But there have been a lot more incidents of illegal foreign boats in the U.S. EEZ in the Gulf of Mexico. Most of the stuff quoted above from NOAA and PEW concern IUU fishing outside of the U.S.