the current fisherman mag..

[ZuluHotel]

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

[ThomCat]

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?

[MakoMike]

Zach,
1st of all let me point out that I am NOT a regulator. what I am is an interface between the fishermen (all fishermen both commercial and recreational) and the regulators. I represent you before the councils and the commision. That's the reason I'm looking for imput from folks who have solutions to offer but may not have the time to appear at meetings.

As far as my opinions go, I don't like IFQs. They concentrate the fishery into the hands of big player with bog boats and squeeze the little guys out. That's been demonstrated time and again in the Pacific Northwest fisheries that have adopted IFQs.

I would prefer to keep the dragger portion of the commercial fluke fleet on the offshore grounds during the winter and keep the inhores fish during the summer for the hook and line commercials and the recreational fishermen. Draggers create havoc with all of the inshore species and the other fishermen that target them when they are dragging inshore during the warm weather. But I have to keep in mind that the vast majority of the fluke draggers are state licensed boats that can't fish in federal waters. IIRC there are only about 1,500 federally permitted boats in the fluke fishery. So the states are going to have to allow some dragging inshore when the fish are available or put those state licensed boats out of the fluke business.

A slot limit for recreational fluke fishermen is unnecessary and unwaranted. It would dramatically increase the numbers of fish killed by the recreational sector, since there would be a lot more keepers. This would have to translate into draconian bag limits to keep the catch within the quota. A bag limit of one fish a day would be equally unpalatable to private boaters and party/charter operators. Plus it would do nothing for the fish. Fluke begin to breed at about 14-15 inches so cacthing 19 or 20 inch fish does not materially affect the breeding biomass. If an when we reach the target biomass under the rebuilding plan we should see size limits start coming back down as well as possible increases in the bag limits, but until we get there we have to live within the quotas dictated by the rebuilding plan.

There is no way on God's green earth that the government should or will get involved in setting a price for the fish. If they did try to, it would IMHO be an unmitigated disaster. Let the market set the price. Of course that means that jumbos will always pay more than smalls but I don't think hi-grading is all that big a problem. No fisherman in his right mind is going to shovel money over the side in the hopes that the next tow will produce more money. I suspect that the only hi-grading that takes place is at the end of the trip, when they might be over the trip limit and they throw back the smalls and keep the jumbos. Cetainly not so big a problem that we should have the government step into the marketplace with all kinds of unintended consequences should they not get the price right, like huge increases in imported product.


Thinning the "commercial herd" isn't really necessary, as long as we can fish within the quota and reduce the regulatory discards. It really doesn't make a difference if one hundred or one thousand boats fill the quota. But the key is reducing regulatory discards, which are spurred by lots of (state licensed) boats and the resulting low trip limits. But I would note here that there is a fine line in setting trip limits. MA has relatively high trip limits during the summer, high enough to make it worthwhile for a dragger to target fluke. Most of the other states have much lower trip limits, like 50 or 100 pounds, not enough to make it worthwhile for a dragger to untie from the dock. This allows the bycatch from the boats targeting other species. like squid, to be sold and avoids wasting it. Maybe part of the solution to reduce regulatory discards is for states like MA to reduce their trip limts to 50 or 100 pounds. That's not a solution that the MA draggers are going to like and as I write this the RI draggers are doing everything they can to increase their trip limits.

I could go on and on, but I don't have the time right now. If I see you at the RIMFAC meeting next Monday, I'll buy you a beer afterward and we can kick it around some more.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

As far as my opinions go, I don't like IFQs. They concentrate the fishery into the hands of big player with bog boats and squeeze the little guys out. That's been demonstrated time and again in the Pacific Northwest fisheries that have adopted IFQs.

I'm sure Mike has read it, but some of you others should read Doryman's Reflection before jumping on the IFQ bandwagon. They used them years ago and they did a good job helping destroy the industry.

[ZuluHotel]

Originally Posted by ThomCat

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?

Hey Thomcat,

I agree that r-and-r guys should not be lumped in with the more destructive gear types. You're absolutely correct that hook gear represents the cleanest commercial fishery--I have never argued that point. That's why I would suggest a separate chunk of quota, state-by-state, for the hook-and-line sector.

I think there's ample wording within Magnuson and state regs to support the hook-and-line fishery. After writing that inflammatory editorial about pin-hooking back in Feb., I've given that issue a lot of thought.

What I think is important is thinning the herd of draggers and gillnetters involved in the fluke fishery. Naturally, there's no way you're ever going to get rid of those gear types, so I'm not wasting my breath on that one. It is, however, quite possible to minimize their destructive impact. Whether it's IFQs (now called LAPS in regulatory circles, I'm told) or some other mechanism, I want to see sweeping changes in the management philosophy.

ZH

[MakoMike]

Mike,
Increasing the minimum size for commerial fluke would only exacerbate the regulatory discard problem. I would force them to keep every fish, so none of them went to waste, no matter what size they are.

As far as the haddock bycatch cap in the herring fishery. Did it really work? I doubt it. If I were the owner of one of those boats every single haddock I could identify would get thrown back. I would'nt jeapordize my thousands of tons of herring by keeping any haddock I could discard. That's why we need obervers on those boats.

Maybe we need observers on every dragger, just make sure they play by the rules?

[flatts1]

MakoMike,

---
"Maybe we need observers on every dragger, just make sure they play by the rules?"
---

That would be ideal but will never happen. I would settle for some of the video monitoring technology they are now expirimenting with (it automatically turns on when the codend is hauled back).

---
Increasing the minimum size for commerial fluke would only exacerbate the regulatory discard problem. "
---

That sounds pretty hopeless doesn't it? Why not 13''? Why not 12''. In other words, all we end up doing is accomodating the shortcomings of the gear instead of fixing it. We do this in the NE Groundfish fishery too. Remember when rec haddock was 21'' and commercial haddock was 19''. Why? Because the highest size mesh in the world was still too indiscriminate to weed them out. So we accomodated them (ditto haddock/herring above)

---
"I would force them to keep every fish, so none of them went to waste, no matter what size they are."
---

I'm hessitant, but I could go along with that if it was based on the number of fish and not pounds. Again though, enforcement would be an issue.

---
As far as the haddock bycatch cap in the herring fishery. Did it really work? I doubt it. If I were the owner of one of those boats every single haddock I could identify would get thrown back. I would'nt jeapordize my thousands of tons of herring by keeping any haddock I could discard.
---

Yes, it does work. The whole premise behind why the herring boats need to be allowed to land at least some haddock is because it is virtually impossible to separate them as they are vacumed out of the bag. We are talking about 4'' - 14'' haddock here (haddock mature around 19''), and when a herring vessel was busted with some 4,000 lbs illegally, they tried to brush it off as insignificant because it only represented about 4% of its total catch.

But your point remains: that it would be easy for pitchfork FLUKE over the side to avoid hitting the cap. Again, I think that a video monitoring system could help with that.

Best,
Mike F.