Quote:
Originally Posted by MakoMike
Zach,
But the same thing could have easily happened even with IFQs, no? You said they were fishing for yellowtail, so it's entirely possible that if they had IFQs fo fluke they would have already filled them, and still had to dump the fish.
I don't know what the cure is for the wasted fish, but I'd love to hear anyone's ideas on how this kind of waste can be avoided.
|
Mike:
I think, logistically, it's unlikely that all boats would rush out in the bleak winter months to fill their entire fluke quota for the year. Point is, an IFQ system would would allow fishermen to plan their fishing effort. Smart fishermen would likely work together to space landings out a bit, keeping the price out of the gutter.
No question there would be some degree of waste even in an IFQ system (as in a dragger, towing for cod/ haddock, hitting a pop of fluke in the fall, after fluke quota was filled). That happens NOW. That happens anyway. At least if guys could fill quota as they put it on deck, you'd cut down on the massive, widespread waste that goes on every spring and summer, where guys take a 1000 pounds while towing up a limit of 200. Because limits are per trip, this goes on two, sometimes five trips per day. That's a lot of dead going back over the sides.
I laid out what I thought was a pretty sensible argument, including a caveat that market price be set to remove the incentive to high-grade. You keep asking--here and on every other message board in the Northeast--"Who has a good idea?"
What are all your compelling arguments against what I proposed? Why--barring the BFT seine quota issue--are IFQs so riddled with problems.
Here are a few more ideas, since all I've made to this point apparently missed the mark:
-Rec slot limit for fluke to distribute pressure across a wider segment of the biomass.
-Thin the commercial herd by any means necessary (I do think an IFQ system would help reduce the number of players). Thomcat, if you're still reading this, I would absolutely ask that there be a quota set-aside for rod-and-reel comms, per the cod quota allotment that goes to MA's hook fleet).
-Set price for ALL FLUKE to discourage highgrading.
-Assign quota on a vessel-by-vessel basis to reduce the astronomical waste.
-Put a dis-incentive (like IFQs) on the winter canyon fishery when massive effort is focused of big, breeding fluke.
-To avoid a massive, destructive effort during inshore/ offshore migration periods, subdivide individual quotas.
-Rolling closures during migratory periods, or in areas (i.e. the Sand Bank Channel east of Block Island) to avoid huge pressure on massive aggregations of fish.
Can't think of much else I haven't already said--at least within the realm of something that could be implemented on this planet in the current climate.
You've yet to offer a suggestion, Mike. As a regulator, what do you think?
Best,
ZH
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?
Hybrid Mode
