the current fisherman mag..

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.