[twofinbluna]

From New Bedford paper

"In reality, this gear is capable of fishing within inches of bottom (and often is). If it weren't, you would not have massive bycatch incidents like those a few years back where tens of thousands of pounds of baby haddock were landed by midwater trawlers."

---------

Great piece....Richie nailed that one on the head! And thats coming from a respected, longtime commercial groundfish guy (and good tuna fisherman as well) out of Gloucester. He knows his stuff.

 

[MisterX]

Rich Burgess wrote:
Put more observers on these boats, get better shoreside monitoring, and get the data that is needed to manage this fleet effectively

Basically, we need scientists to start getting their hands dirty and do their jobs!

Without accurate data and periodical data assessment we will never truly know if these boats are doing the damage everyone claims. We can see it with our own eyes and in our catch results but until it is proven scientifically, we have not argument!

And that goes for Recs AND Comms alike. Like it or not, were in this together.

 

[loligo]

MisterX wrote:

And that goes for Recs AND Comms alike. Like it or not, were in this together.

 

[shebeen]

I've brought this up before and it gets discounted out of hand....or I get "been there, done that. Doesn't work." sort of replies.

The question is/was, if there's not enough people/money to monitor onboard, why can't black box cameras be mounted in a few locations onboard to record catches and discards? If we can read a car's license plate from space why can't we do this?

It's a lot cheaper to hire some clerks who in the comfort of their warm offices can rapidly scan days worth of video in an hour than it is to pay people to live aboard a boat where they're hated.

Mount a video monitor in the wheelhouse so the captain can see if it's working. Make the BOAT responsible for the equipment and if you break it or it's not working or covered...the BOAT is responsible to either fix it or steam in.

Am I asking a stupid question here?
If so tell me why because I'd really like to know.

Listen, they use these things on schoolbusses to catch the troublemakers with GREAT success.
When the State of Mass DPW put GPS's on contractor's plow trucks they saved million$ by knowing who was plowing and who was at the diner for 5 hours.

Are some afraid that if it meets with success in this fishery it will be extended to others?

That's what I'm beginning to think.

 

[MakoMike]

shebeen wrote:

I've brought this up before and it gets discounted out of hand....or I get "been there, done that. Doesn't work." sort of replies.

The question is/was, if there's not enough people/money to monitor onboard, why can't black box cameras be mounted in a few locations onboard to record catches and discards? If we can read a car's license plate from space why can't we do this?

It's a lot cheaper to hire some clerks who in the comfort of their warm offices can rapidly scan days worth of video in an hour than it is to pay people to live aboard a boat where they're hated.

Mount a video monitor in the wheelhouse so the captain can see if it's working. Make the BOAT responsible for the equipment and if you break it or it's not working or covered...the BOAT is responsible to either fix it or steam in.

Am I asking a stupid question here?
If so tell me why because I'd really like to know.

Listen, they use these things on schoolbusses to catch the troublemakers with GREAT success.
When the State of Mass DPW put GPS's on contractor's plow trucks they saved million$ by knowing who was plowing and who was at the diner for 5 hours.

Are some afraid that if it meets with success in this fishery it will be extended to others?

That's what I'm beginning to think.


John, I think its an excellent idea. I suspect that the reason it hasn't been done is money. The quipment is expensive, the NEFMC doesn't have the money to buy the equipment or hire the clerks, and after the debacle witht he VMS systems they are reluctant to make the boats buy the equipment.

 

[LooneyTunes]

Don't involve recs in a commercial mess

MisterX wrote:
Rich Burgess wrote:
Put more observers on these boats, get better shoreside monitoring, and get the data that is needed to manage this fleet effectively

Basically, we need scientists to start getting their hands dirty and do their jobs!

Without accurate data and periodical data assessment we will never truly know if these boats are doing the damage everyone claims. We can see it with our own eyes and in our catch results but until it is proven scientifically, we have not argument!

And that goes for Recs AND Comms alike. Like it or not, were in this together.

Who is we (rec and comm). Do you guys carry mice in your pockets? I have never seen a recreational trawler!

MisterX wrote:
And that goes for Recs AND Comms alike. Like it or not, were in this together.

This is a commercial issue. The commercial ground fishermen are stating that they see the damage first hand caused by MW boats. OR are the commercial groundfishermen just telling lies?

I don't advocate recreational fishermen taking blame for something that they are not responsible for.

LooneyTunes
Dave

This post edited by LooneyTunes 02:40 PM 02/23/2008

 

[flatts1b]

quote:

why can't black box cameras be mounted in a few locations onboard to record catches and discards? If we can read a car's license plate from space why can't we do this?

Great idea and one that was being tested by one of the more open-minded commercial fishermen out there.

Then the midwater trawlers put a stop to it real quck with a lot of intimidation against him.

More here:
When industry undermines the system, and gets away with it.

The pair trawlers will do anything, literally, to make sure no one knows what is really going on with their bycatch. It's that simple

 

[twofinbluna]

Looney-

You are ridiculious.Nowhere in that article Rich wrote does it say anything about problems being created by recs. So do not go and turn this important thread into another one of your anti-commercial/pro-recreational piles of nonsense.

This post edited by twofinbluna 04:51 PM 02/24/2008

 

[twofinbluna]

shebeen-

As flatts pointed out, they already tried to go down the camera path (for monitroing) and we all saw what happened then!

This post edited by twofinbluna 12:36 AM 02/25/2008

 

[shebeen]

flatts,

Thanks for the link...guess I missed it first time around.

But one fisherman getting pig-piled on due to voluntatily having video monitoring aboard doesn't really constitute a good test.
I was thinking more in terms of mandatory cameras.

From what I've read, VMS equipment (and yes, I understand VMS and video monitoring are apples and oranges) for a West coast boat averaged around $2,000. Camera equipment would most likely be less expensive and the cameras can be downloaded over the internet. No regulator ever need step on deck.

As far as clerks, given that paying an observer to be onboard 24 hrs/day would equal three 8-hr days for somebody to review video in in an office.....and they could fast-forward to only view when a boat was hauling back. So I can't really see how it couldn't save money.

Again, making this mandatory is the key.

Anyway, this debate always seems to boil down to 'no data/bad data'.
This just seems like a simple solution to me.

 

[loligo]

twofinbluna wrote:
Looney-

You are ridiculious.Nowhere in that article Rich wrote does it say anything about problems being created by recs. So do not go and turn this important thread into another one of your anti-commercial/pro-recreational piles of nonsense.

Don't even waste your time talking to him Chris- he's not even a real person.

This Dave fellow doesn't exist, he's make believe, by someone else who is also a frequent poster.

It took some doing but I've figured a few things out about the loonster.

 

[LooneyTunes]

twofinbluna wrote:
Looney-

You are ridiculious.Nowhere in that article Rich wrote does it say anything about problems being created by recs. So do not go and turn this important thread into another one of your anti-commercial/pro-recreational piles of nonsense.
Twofinbluna,

Why would you even associate your name with Loligo?


Learn to read the posts:

I simply responded to someone saying that the recs need to get involved. My response was that the recs have no part of that mess, it's strictly a commercial issue.

As for Loligo,

You don't know jack, and you know even less than jack about me.

I hide nothing. My name is David. Some Noreasters hear know me and will tell you that I hide nothing.

I have never insulted anyone but, ahh forget it, I and I ain't going to start now.

Here is one for you. Do you want my phone number? It's very easy to find. Give me a call when you find it.

LooneyTunes
Dave

 

[twofinbluna]

LooneyTunes wrote:

Learn to read the posts:

I simply responded to someone saying that the recs need to get involved. My response was that the recs have no part of that mess, it's strictly a commercial issue.


I read your posts and my point is that what you said is wrong- this issue impacts recreational fishermen as much as anyone. Thats why you have seen all the major recreational organizations, about a hundred charter businesses (or more) and countless recreational fishermen getting involved in this issue over the MW boats.

 

[flatts1b]

Whoa!

quote:
Loony Tunes wrote:

I simply responded to someone saying that the recs need to get involved. My response was that the recs have no part of that mess, it's strictly a commercial issue.

I was preparing a long-worded response, but I really need to know how you can say this, Looney?

I am a recreational fisherman and I have been very involved in this issue, as have been the Massachusetts Striped Bass Association and the Recreational Fishing Alliance, and countless charter boat operations.

At essence here is that we are trying to avoid "Menhaden II, The Sequel"

At the risk of shamelessly plugging my own comments, for probably more information than you want to read, I highly recommend the following...

My comments on 2005-6 Herring Specs

If you fish recreationally for striped bass, then pay particular attention to Page 8.

Back to the article written by Rich Burgess. One thing that has frustrated some of us working on herring, is the attempt after pitiful attempt by the midwater industry to spin the arguments made against pair trawling as some sort of Enviro led campaign.

Some even went so far as to say those commercial fishermen working on limiting pair trawling were not "real fishermen". I'd like to see them say that Rich isn't a "real fisherman" to his face.

Just like the lies that the midwater lobby spread about their willingness for oberver coverage, it is simply not true.

I am a recreational fisherman and I am proud to work with tons of REAL commercial fishermen on the herring issue. That includes Rich Burgess, Twofin, and many many others.

So please, Loonytunes. Think again before you say that recreationals don't have a dog in the herring issue.

Sincerely
Mike Flaherty

This post edited by flatts1b 11:11 PM 02/24/2008

 

[flatts1b]

quote:

Shebeen wrote:

But one fisherman getting pig-piled on due to voluntatily having video monitoring aboard doesn't really constitute a good test.
I was thinking more in terms of mandatory cameras.

From what I've read, VMS equipment (and yes, I understand VMS and video monitoring are apples and oranges) for a West coast boat averaged around $2,000. Camera equipment would most likely be less expensive and the cameras can be downloaded over the internet. No regulator ever need step on deck.

I get what you are saying, but I think that even VMS had to be tested a bit before it could be mandated.


I think that was the premise behind the voluntary test on videoing.

They actually were able to produce an abridged report with the trips that were conducted. It is some pretty sophsticated stuff.

The cameras turn on when the gear is lowered and there are stats for engine speed and GPS positioning, depth, etc. When you put it all together you can see if everything matches up.


In addition to the video coverage...

- Was the boat fishing in an allowed area?
- Were the cameras on when the boat was at trawl speed for a prolonged time?
- How long were the tows?
- etc...


Again though, in fairness, the quirks, if any, should be reasonably worked out before being mandated.

That can't be done if industry members are being effectively intimidated by other commercial fishermen to not cooperate with scientists on refining the gear.

Scary stuff, huh?

This post edited by flatts1b 11:27 PM 02/24/2008

 

[NilsS]

Just out of curiosity....

has the captain that was supposed to be intimidated come forward with any statements on the particulars. We've got a couple of second-hand reports, but that's hearsay, isn't it? It seems like a bunch of fishermen - making up an entire fleet - are being convicted here on what amounts to "he said, she said," and the prosecutors are guys who are dead set against the people being prosecuted.

If that's the case, that's a bit scary too.

This post edited by NilsS 11:53 PM 02/24/2008

 

[flatts1b]

Would it really make a difference to you?

Nils,

I spoke with the folks who actually worked with the fisherman and compiled what little data there was from the study that was cut short.

It was their account directly from the fisherman.

PM me if you would really like to get in touch with them for all the details.

- Mike F.

 

[twofinbluna]

Nils-

I have talked to the captain in question (I know him well) and from what he said, it happened. I will not say that it was a repsonse that came from the entire MW fleet, as it was in a specific harbor and involved a group of boats in the MW fleet and their offload area, and so there is a chance it did not represent the feelings of all the fleet. But it was sufficient to drive the captain to stop testing the camera technology.

I really do not know enough about the camera monitoring stuff to say for sure, but I would think that it would be an easy way for the MW boats to prove that they dont have bycatch issues if, as they tell us constantly, they dont have those issues.

 

[twofinbluna]

flatts1b wrote:
I'd like to see them say that Rich isn't a "real fisherman" to his face.


Rich is a longtime commercial groundfish fisherman, longtime commercial tuna fisherman, and has ties to a couple other fisheries. And he is a well-known leader within the Gloucester groundfish fleet. He is in every way the definition of a commercial fisherman. To assert otherwise about him or anyone of the commercial fisherman involved in this issue would be laughable.



This post edited by twofinbluna 04:13 AM 02/25/2008

 

[loligo]

Nils, 2fin- all-

The thing that strikes me about all of these conversations we keep having about this issue is all the posturing there seems to be towards what I could only call a double standard.

Fluke- we all know theres more then the fishcrats say and we all want them to let us harvest more than they say is OK, based on the best available science. Why? Because we all know better, right? Right.

Back to the MW fishery. The almost unanimous opinion of the fishing industry and everyone associated with, MW pro's aside, is in favor of banning these boats to beyond fifty miles from shore, there is very little controversy amongst "US" on this, but it flies in the face of the "best available science".

So why is it OK to be against the science on fluke, but not on herring. I have yet to meet a single person who is at all acquainted with saltwater fishing rec or com who is in favor of allowing the MW boats to fish inshore, or on closed GF areas. It would seem to me that the will of the "people" is to get these boats offshore where they belong.

As I stated in my petition, we simply don't care, we just want them gone.