RISAA Newsletter/Rep. Gallison

[RIROCKHOUND]

Skunk:
This has been heavily rehashed on this site. so a search for me under menhaden/pogies it should come up.

My opinion is that a lot of the 'science' and claims by risaa et al are unfounded. IF Ark is doing so much damage, and they have been fishing at the same levels, WHY do we have more pogies now than 5 years ago? Doesnt make any logical sense to me. I think there is a compromise, and I think the July cap limit set my DEM is a great start.

The other problem is Franklin's book gets taken as science... Sebastian Junger is a great writer, but I wouldnt take his word as gold if we were fighting about Swordfish!

[Pete_G]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Skunk:
This has been heavily rehashed on this site. so a search for me under menhaden/pogies it should come up.

My opinion is that a lot of the 'science' and claims by risaa et al are unfounded. IF Ark is doing so much damage, and they have been fishing at the same levels, WHY do we have more pogies now than 5 years ago? Doesnt make any logical sense to me. I think there is a compromise, and I think the July cap limit set my DEM is a great start.

The other problem is Franklin's book gets taken as science... Sebastian Junger is a great writer, but I wouldnt take his word as gold if we were fighting about Swordfish!

The real issue right now is the fact that boats that otherwise would be chasing squid or herring have taken a big interest in the pogies which is why the DEM regulation suddenly came to life.

Very efficient and thorough boats, capable of doing things on a scale much more dramatic then anything Ark does.

To be honest I don't trust science from anyone at this point. I do trust, that when a friend of mine in the dead fish biz who knows the owners of said boats tells me they can wipe the Bay clean, I have little reason to doubt it. He told me about a month before the additional boats came that they would come, who was coming, and that DEM would probably have to take action. It all came to pass.

Sure, pogies swim coast wide. Why they go, where they go, and when they go is surely open to debate but once they're in the Bay I just assume we keep them there as best we can.

Some regulation was/is needed. The science (who ever's science), hopefully, won't slow it down. To me the local regulation should be to protect the local fishery, and it shouldn't necessarily be related to the overall menhaden fishery which is supposedly fine.

[nightprowler]

Originally Posted by Pete_G

To me the local regulation should be to protect the local fishery, and it shouldn't necessarily be related to the overall menhaden fishery which is supposedly fine.

Pete,
If this is the case, how do you feel about eels?? the findings were that the overall fishery is substantial, yet, as many people have stated, the numbers of eels are way down in the north east.
Should we have strict regulation on the use of eels as bait in the northeast? Or there commercial viability??
I do not know all of the facts related to the pogies in the bay, I have read very little pertaining to them, I should read more but haven't had the time. Many of my friends work for the fisheries in woods hole and I know they do their best to keep fisheries open or propose regulations when they should be implemented.
They are all fishermen and care about the work they do, as it is not only their professional life, but it is their hobby as well.
I agree with rockhound; I tend to favor the folks who work full time at a profession whether it is a scientist or a carpenter. Thats their job and livelihood and almost every one of the scientist I know are very passionate about their work.
(as an aside, I think anything that can be done to preserve any fishery or form of wildlife is a step in the right direction, from endangered birds to menhaden.)

[BasicPatrick]

I like the RFA position on this issue.

It goes somehting like this.

An outright Ban on commercial or recreational menhaden harvest is clearly in opposition to the Freedom to Fish Act (passe in RI so that junk science could not be used against Recreational fishermen) which sets up strict scientific parameters that must be met before a science based closure may occur.

Tha being said, The RFA recognizes that there is a vaild concern about members of any fishery wiping out or reducing the number of menhaden to a limit that would effect the quality of fishing in the bay.

A simple compromise would be to not ban commercial Menhaden Fishing but rather to "slow" it down by passing a bill akin to the very successful bill passed in NJ where gear type restrictions (requires the seine to be emptied via scoop or basket rather than by pump)were placed on the commercial fleet that allowed them to continue to make a living but slows them down enough to ensure any nsever depletion would be recognized and probably never happen).

Compromise is usually the best solution.

Just my 2cents but I am from MA and it is really none of my business.

[Pete_G]

Originally Posted by nightprowler

Pete,
If this is the case, how do you feel about eels?? the findings were that the overall fishery is substantial, yet, as many people have stated, the numbers of eels are way down in the north east.
Should we have strict regulation on the use of eels as bait in the northeast? Or there commercial viability??
I do not know all of the facts related to the pogies in the bay, I have read very little pertaining to them, I should read more but haven't had the time. Many of my friends work for the fisheries in woods hole and I know they do their best to keep fisheries open or propose regulations when they should be implemented.
They are all fishermen and care about the work they do, as it is not only their professional life, but it is their hobby as well.
I agree with rockhound; I tend to favor the folks who work full time at a profession whether it is a scientist or a carpenter. Thats their job and livelihood and almost every one of the scientist I know are very passionate about their work.
(as an aside, I think anything that can be done to preserve any fishery or form of wildlife is a step in the right direction, from endangered birds to menhaden.)

I'd kind of consider eels and pogies to be apples and oranges. Eels just don't drive a fishery like menhaden do. Each species "value" is very different.

To me it's an RI inclusive issue and not fishery wide issue, the Skunk is right on in that this is a matter of protecting the home turf so it's very hard to compare to eels. RI obviously has/had a bumper crop of bunker and the goal should be to keep it that way with proper regulation. The menhaden population was probably healthy 5 years ago too and how was the bunker population in Narragansett Bay then? It was pretty pathetic, to be honest. Interestingly enough no one really seemed to care. Another big question is would regulation even do anything? The bunker may just decide to skip our little proposed safe haven next year.

Keeping (encouraging?) pogies in the Bay is about fueling a world class striped bass fishery. Call me greedy, but I love it. Tackle business is good, our charter trips are even easier and better, and I caught a lot of quality fish in the Bay this year. It was simply incredible out there and I'd like to see it continue for many reasons.

I think a serious issue is a lack of science, other then that the menhaden population overall is healthy. Why are there so many bunker this year in Narragansett Bay? Natural cycle? Water conditions? What will keep it this way? Who knows...

Basic Patrick is right on though. A pretty basic principle called compromise is probably the right answer.

[Skunkmaster]

Originally Posted by Pete_G

Sure, pogies swim coast wide. Why they go, where they go, and when they go is surely open to debate but once they're in the Bay I just assume we keep them there as best we can.

That is what I am saying and I'm sure most of the other RI fisherman.It's not about the health of the menhaden population it's when they are in RI they can't be touched by these bait boats.Thats what I wish could happen.Like safe seas for them in RI.Personally I would not care that if they were migrating out of the bay there was a ship that netted them all in Mass waters.That would in turn be Mass fisherman problems.Thats what I thought the whole bill was about.Keeping our waters clear of the nets not the health of the menhaden population which I read that low numbers like 1-2% is taken by commercial fisherman.It's all about our turf.

[Pete_G]

Originally Posted by Skunkmaster

That is what I am saying and I'm sure most of the other RI fisherman.It's not about the health of the menhaden population it's when they are in RI they can't be touched by these bait boats.Thats what I wish could happen.Like safe seas for them in RI.Personally I would not care that if they were migrating out of the bay there was a ship that netted them all in Mass waters.That would in turn be Mass fisherman problems.Thats what I thought the whole bill was about.Keeping our waters clear of the nets not the health of the menhaden population which I read that low numbers like 1-2% is taken by commercial fisherman.It's all about our turf.

Agreed. Of course I have to take a look at all this from a tackle shop's perspective, and I can tell you, nothing spurs business like a Bay full of bunker.

You can put the SWE solidly in the list of businesses enjoying a Bay full of bunker. There was a simply amazing number of happy anglers out there this year. Happy people, catching fish, equals good business.