U.S. tightens fishing policy, setting 2012 catch limits for all managed species

[tawadi]

By Juliet Eilperin, Sunday, January 8, 1:44 PM

U.S. tightens fishing policy, setting 2012 catch limits for all managed species

In an effort to sustain commercial and recreational fishing for the next several decades, this year the United States will become the first country to impose catch limits for every species it manages, from Alaskan pollock to Caribbean queen conch.

Although the policy has attracted scant attention outside the insular community of those who fish in America and the officials who regulate them, it marks a monumental shift in a pursuit that has defined the country since its founding. And unlike most recent environmental policy debates, which have divided neatly along party lines, it is one that was forged under President George W. Bush and finalized with President Obama’s backing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-tightens-fishing-policy-setting-2012-catch-limits-for-all-managed-species/2011/12/30/gIQALLObjP_story.html

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, tawadi.

[Confusious]

2. Finally

Should have done that 20 or more years ago.

When you read about the amount of fish and game in this country up to the 18th and middle 19th, it's sad.

Grand banks is a perfect example. So many fish they would jump into your boat. Now it's dead because of industrial fishing.

[tabasco]

6. 30 years ago, environmentalists were called crazy

for stating that oceans can be over-fished.

Same thing that is happening with climate change.

People are stupid.

[AlecBGreen]

3. I often think of this

A researcher compared fish catch photos from charter operations in Key West from the 50s to present.

1957:



2007:

[JackintheGreen]

4. I'd love to see the whole study/comparison

Do you have a link or name?

[AlecBGreen]

5. The link is to a description of the study, not the research iteself.

Informative nonetheless.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/seeing-is-believing.html?onsite_source=smithsonianmag.com&onsite_medium=internal&onsite_campaign=photogalleries&onsite_content=Our%20Imperiled%20Oceans:%20Seeing%20Is%20Believing

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

15. Those giant groupers are now protected...

... I have watched a couple of documentaries concerning the few giant groupers that are left, divers swimming right along with them. They were overfished just so a picture could be taken at the dock, as a trophy. They were seldom caught for the purpose of dining.

Overfishing is part of the, "dead coral reef", conundrum, too. At least in the Caribbean.

[Pacafishmate]

7. While I don't have any evidence to back this up,

I've spoken to charter boat captains in Florida and the unanimous feeling is that the amount and size of fish caught has gone down dramatically over the past few decades.

On edit: It pisses me off to see a shark in the photo. Keeping sharks should be illegal.

[wordpix]

8. I've got firsthand evidence ----about time feds get some controls on!

When I grew up in the '50's, family members had beach properties in FL and MD coasts. My mother grew up on the NJ coast and was used to buying fish for dinner from the fishermen at the docks. In all these places, we would buy big, beautiful fish of all types straight from the fishermen or at local fish markets. Fast forward 5 decades - most fish we see in fish markets or at grocery stores are tiny in comparison and don't even come from US waters. There are still a few US species, but not many.

I'm sure the repugs will whine about FWS regs and "we don't need no regs!"

[certainot]

13. thanks

[SHRED]

9. It's not just over fishing...

...Habitat destruction is every bit as severe.


---

[freethought]

10. As an angling enthusiast

I actually think this is a good thing. I recall quite vividly the efforts to get size and creel limits for Striped Bass, probably the most esteemed game fish on the eastern seaboard. Eventually it paid off. I also believe if they want to better the health of fisheries the feds have to broaden their gaze. Fishery sanctuaries or reserves, fishing moratoriums, environmental protection and protection of critical habitat should all be part of the plan.

There will still be problems however. Years ago Sen. Kerry and the late Sen. Kennedy were able to procure some federal money for commercial fishing boat buyback program. The feds would buy and scrap the boats and the former owners would, hopefully, move on to other ways of making a living. The hope was to reduce the size of the fishing fleet. What actually happened was that the fisherman sold the boats, then used the federal cash they received to make down payments on even larger and better equipped boats, thus making the problem even worse! Commercial fisherman can be a determined bunch.

Then there is the regional fisheries councils themselves. They are often stacked with commercial interests who make money off of exploiting the fish stocks and are loaded with conflicts of interest. The fisheries scientists DO NOT SET THE POLICY. Their role is advisory. It's the "fox guarding the hen house" argument all over again. If this time around there has been substantive change coming down from Washington, then so be it.

Regulating the recreational fisherman is harder. Data is hard to come by. I am a regular visitor to a few websites that revolve around salt water angling in the Northeast. There have been a number of post about "fishing logs" , where anglers record where they fished, how long they were on the water, and what they caught, kept, and released. As far as I know this practice thus far is voluntary and I am not sure how successful this practice has been. Trust me, there are many a@#%&*e anglers out there.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Yep, doesn't bother me either.

Manage it or lose it. I'd rather participate in the management, than to not have anything at all to fish with my son in the coming decades.

[freethought]

12. My thoughts exactly

but not everyone shares the same view. I know in the state of Massachusetts, not long ago, salt water anglers now have to purchase a license. For years a fishing license was for freshwater only. Some sportsmen were up in arms, not thrilled with the prospect of paying $10 for a license. The majority were more concerned with where their the money from purchasing the license was going. I tend to side with these sportsmen, if their going to pay for a recreational license it stands to reason that the money should go to something related to recreational angling.

[certainot]

14. isn't recreational and commercial totally diff with respect to coastal and interior? or is the scale

comparable?

spent a lot of time catching nothing and loved it anyway

[freethought]

16. I would say it depends

But I definitely think it's a stretch to say that recreational anglers have zero impact. With some species, it could be that the recreational catch may actually exceed the commercial catch. For example, bluefish are a very popular recreational species but don't have much value commercially, so the commercial fisherman tend to leave them be. Or the commercial catch is very limited. Yet I have been witness to recreational anglers who fill up coolers with bluefish but do nothing with them, except for burying them in the garden of something.

Speaking unscientifically, if you have ever seen a video of a well equipped commercial fishing trawler haul up a net with its cod end jacked with cod or haddock. That one net haul would easily exceed what a recreational angler could pull up in a year. I also don't think that a recreational angler is going to head way out to Georges Bank to jig for cod. Some may take an overnight party boat, but those numbers I think would be few. Also the recreational angler may target species that don't recover well. If you look at the picture posted earlier in the thread, one of a group a recreational fisherman and their catch in 1957, they are surrounded by huge trophy fish. Anybody wanna guess how long it took those fish to get that size? Or the importance of those fish's place in the reproductive structure of their population? Those fishermen in 1957 may have removed key components of that particular species ability to sustain itself in a given area of ocean. Then also consider this question: How many sport charter boats are out there that go out every day (or try to) during a given season? Probably more than one thinks, depending on what part of the coast you're at. A big fleet of sport charters could probably take as much as a small commercial fleet. I think it would be important to gather what data you could to find out an create a better management plan.

I had the opportunity to fish off the Florida Keys once. I chartered a small sport fishing boat, but the marina that we left from had zero commercial boats but was loaded of sport charter boats of varying sizes. Small boats under 20 feet to big, and expensive, 40 to 50ft sport cruisers decked out with all sorts of equipment. (Note: Only caught a few Spanish mackerel that day. It was off-season so nearly all the boats were staying in dock.)

[certainot]

18. thanks. and on fishing, i used to spin for tuna from shore

off the rock shelves around sydney. NYT wrote about it as the most dangerous sport back then. but 50lb tuna were not uncommon. occasional marlin were caught from rock shelves like that, saw one take my friend's lure and strip the 400 yds of 20lb line off. used 11-12 foot rods with a 3/0 sized high speed (6:1) retrieve game reel, using 2oz torpedo lures to cast as far as possible. a hoot. the big tuna would run out 300 yds, tire and then arc and then could be pumped in and then they'd take off again as soon as they saw rocks, do it again a few times maybe. 20 and 40 minute fights. big dinner.

went back 30 years later and although the water has been cleaned up considerably there are very few catching tuna off those rocks. i'm guessing it's fewer fish.

[Theobald]

17. Insular?

Tawadi posted"Although the policy has attracted scant attention outside the insular community of those who fish in America", but in the article linked it doesn't say insular. Was this commmentary by insular or was the webpage edited.

I think the regulations are important and long overdue, but I would take issue with calling the community 'insular'.

[tawadi]

19. I only used cut and paste.

If they changed or edited the article after, it's not my problem.

[lonestarnot]

20. Good!