NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
LI article

"Here on Long Island, that means upwards of $350,000 in conversion costs for approximately 30 Long Island-based fishermen, say representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Stating that the price of rope replacement could be a crippling burden to local lobstermen, US Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is asking for federal assistance to help pay for the conversion."
-----------

Relatively old news, but first time I have seen it written about by a Mid-Atlantic paper so figured it was worth posting.

This post edited by twofinbluna 01:30 AM 01/05/2008
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
864 Posts
I'm almost done

Lobstering off the south shore of Long Island almost 20 years. Never encountered a whale.
:rolleyes:Guess I'm ready for the endangered fishermans list:rolleyes:.

Anyone want to buy me out?? :confused::rolleyes::confused: ?? You can deal with sink warp with twice the cost and one fourth the working life.


Sent in the application for the just new, New York buy back program -- a one shot deal for some $$'s for re-embursment of replacement costs -- in two years time when your sink warp falls apart, replacement is up to you and your pocket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
It's a tough rule, BUT

Dick, Are you one of the minority mentioned that must change your gear? There are only about 30 boats required to do this on Long Island.

I read the whole article. This is what it says:

From Suffolk Life wrote:
Here on Long Island, that means upwards of $350,000 in conversion costs for approximately 30 Long Island-based fishermen,

AND

From Suffolk Life wrote:
While about 76% of NEW YORK STATE WATERS are EXEMPT from the plan, including the Long Island Sound, across the South Shore of Long Island approximately 30 LOBSTER OPERATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE NEW RULES.

I agree and SYMPATHIZE that it sucks for the 30 that must comply, but our tax dollars are being kicked in to help minimize the hit.

From Suffolk Life wrote:
In fact a pilot project, funded to the tune of $50,000, is about to be launched for buybacks on Long Island, according to John Maniscalco, a marine biologist with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in East Setauket.

In all fairness, we always hear that the commercial fishermen are willing stewards of the resource. Why resist this conservation measure?

From Suffolk Life wrote:
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, there are about 300 to 350 right whales in the North Atlantic. Whaling from the 1600s through the 1800s decimated the population. Despite international protection since 1935, this species has not shown much recovery, and scientists have identified ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement as two man-induced sources of mortality.
Between 2001 and 2005, there had been 133 entanglement events, 42 ship strikes, and 292 fatalities among large whales along the Eastern seaboard of the US and adjacent Canadian Maritimes, according to statistics provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Entanglements in fishing gear were identified as the cause of 26 of the whale deaths, and ship strikes the cause of 27 deaths.

With a stock of less than 350. 1 death is too many and potentially devastating to what's left of the population.

What is the true cost ?

From Suffolk Life wrote:
Sinking line will have a slightly higher replacement rate - 17% annually, noted Teri Frady, of the NMFS.

AND

From Suffolk Life wrote:
"It'll cost us about $25,000 to change over one vessel.

Operating expenses like gas have gone up more than 17% each year since 2005. This is just another operating expense, just like gas.

I have empathy for those affected, and I hope the conservation effort pays big dividends.

LooneyTunes
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
More math......

"Between 2001 and 2005, there had been 133 entanglement events, 42 ship strikes, and 292 fatalities"

133
42+
292
467

Too bad they were all the "wrong" whales.....then they wouldn't have to switch ropes.........

This post edited by loligo 12:31 PM 01/08/2008
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
864 Posts
Gee I'm 1 of 30 and and the only one with an opinion?
Any other EEZ lobsterman out there?

Between 2001 and 2005, there had been 133 entanglement events, 42 ship strikes, and 292 fatalities" wrote:

133+42=175 interactions, 292 fatalities?? 292 fatalities -175 inereactions =127 unaccounted for fatalities.

=======================
=======

Dick, Are you one of the minority mentioned that must change your gear? There are only about 30 boats required to do this on Long Island.

I read the whole article. This is what it says:


From Suffolk Life wrote:quote:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here on Long Island, that means upwards of $350,000 in conversion costs for approximately 30 Long Island-based fishermen,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AND


From Suffolk Life wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While about 76% of NEW YORK STATE WATERS are EXEMPT from the plan, including the Long Island Sound, across the South Shore of Long Island approximately 30 LOBSTER OPERATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE NEW RULES.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree and SYMPATHIZE that it sucks for the 30 that must comply, but our tax dollars are being kicked in to help minimize the hit.


From Suffolk Life wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact a pilot project, funded to the tune of $50,000, is about to be launched for buybacks on Long Island, according to John Maniscalco, a marine biologist with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in East Setauket.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In all fairness, we always hear that the commercial fishermen are willing stewards of the resource. Why resist this conservation measure?


From Suffolk Life wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, there are about 300 to 350 right whales in the North Atlantic. Whaling from the 1600s through the 1800s decimated the population. Despite international protection since 1935, this species has not shown much recovery, and scientists have identified ship strikes and fishing gear entanglement as two man-induced sources of mortality.
Between 2001 and 2005, there had been 133 entanglement events, 42 ship strikes, and 292 fatalities among large whales along the Eastern seaboard of the US and adjacent Canadian Maritimes, according to statistics provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Entanglements in fishing gear were identified as the cause of 26 of the whale deaths, and ship strikes the cause of 27 deaths.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



With a stock of less than 350. 1 death is too many and potentially devastating to what's left of the population.

What is the true cost ?


From Suffolk Life wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinking line will have a slightly higher replacement rate - 17% annually, noted Teri Frady, of the NMFS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AND


From Suffolk Life wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It'll cost us about $25,000 to change over one vessel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Operating expenses like gas have gone up more than 17% each year since 2005. This is just another operating expense, just like gas.

I have empathy for those affected, and I hope the conservation effort pays big dividends.

LooneyTunes
Dave
====================
-----

Yes Dave, I'm one of the fishers affected AND the Lobster Conservation Management Team leader for area 4. I'm for conservation, not for putting myself out of business.

OK, lets review------
$25,000 per vessel x 30 vessels = $750,000, New York kicks in $50k,so who pays the remaining $700,00? Us 30 lobsterman.


Suffolk Life needs to get the stats right: it's around a 17% loss factor for traps and ground lines per boat that need replacing each year, to replace float with float, with sink it will be considerably more $$s

International protection since 1935 with not much recovery and this line change-out will help a come back?? Maybe a little, but what about the ship hits and non man-induced sources of mortality.

I can handle a continued yearly 17% increase(been doing it already) in doing business as long as I can raise the price of lobsters 17% per year, but tack an additional $25k expense on me?
I doubt that you will buy lobsters at $25+ per pound uncooked at the market in the near future.

I might get $2,000 back towards the $25,000 per boat Suffolk Life says it's going to cost me. Whoopee!!

I guess someone out there not in the fishery needs to stand in a pair of the 30 pairs of shoes to feel what we feel like right now.

Lastly, I'm not resisting anything, it's all going to continue to happen: more mortality, less fisherman, higher pricing, and then, no more Atlantic Ocean Lobsters for the marketplace.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
74,095 Posts
LobsterD wrote:
International protection since 1935 with not much recovery and this line change-out will help a come back?? Maybe a little, but what about the ship hits and non man-induced sources of mortality.



Not that it helps you situtation any, but NMFS/CG has proposed severe speed limits in the same waters to help with the ship strike problem. And those proposals, if adopted, will have severe effects on the party boat industry.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,923 Posts
A few points here. As Loligo has already pointed out, the information is very misleading.

-"Between 2001 and 2005, there had been 133 entanglement events, 42 ship strikes, and 292 fatalities among large whales along the Eastern seaboard of the US and adjacent Canadian Maritimes, according to statistics provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Entanglements in fishing gear were identified as the cause of 26 of the whale deaths, and ship strikes the cause of 27 deaths."

The population of the great whales is in excess of 160,000 animals in this region. The fatalities are for the east Coast, not the South Shore of Long Island. Also, there were six Right whale deaths reported from fishing gear entanglement from 1986 thru 2005 on the East Coast. Not very impressive. And I cannot find one documented within fifty miles of Long Island. Anyways, the great whales as a whole aren't doing so badly, w/ five deaths yearly for a popualtion of 160,000, I think that's far better than Americans do in motor vehicle accidents.

-Has anyone considered the additional loss of gear, which will remain on the bottom, due to the use of sink warp in setting gear on sticky bottom?

-About the Right Whale- There are about 300 North Atlantic Right whales left. The pre-exploitation stock estimate is about 1,200 animals(On the high side). There are currently about 7,000 Southern Right whales. Their pre-exploitation population was about 70,000 animals. They are separate populations, w/o cross-breeding, but at one time obviously were one species. Now, since the separation, and before whaling, why would there be such a disparity in the populations? Many researchers beleive it is because the feed (Planktonic life) in the Northern Hemisphere was reduced to the point to make their survival less viable, since they find feed by simply swimming around at two knots w/ their mouth open. Probably a successful method of grazing several thousand years ago, but as fishes exploited the resource, and the environment became less favorable to it's production in the north, the animals became less successful.

So people know (Not that it matters in this duscussion), they were named Right Whales because they were considered the right whake to kill- their blubber content was always high enough that they would float when killed, unlike most other great whales. That is why they were exploited to such a great extent.

I don't know what their population was in 1935, when the international moratorium was put in place on hunting them. But biopsies on the remaining animals (which has been very thorough), show through mitochondrial DNA (genes from the mother animal) studies that at one time (Most obviously 1935), there were only three female animals that gave birth, leaving the species w/ very little biodiversity. W/ the mDNA of only three females in the gene pool, the species does not have a viable chance of survival, not through the threat of human interaction, but from the threat of not being able to adapt to and resist natural threats through genetic diversity. They are mcuh like the cheetah, I beleive, which is facing extinction, suffering from being hunted down to two females at one time, I beleive.

One other point about the North Atlantic, and all other, Right Whales. The competition for reproductive success of the males is very archaic, to say the least, and does not support the survival of the fittest. The strongest, fittest, or smartest males are not necessarliy the ones that successfully impregnate the females. In fact, the Right Whale breeding ritual is a form of gang rape, firstly. A female will be surrounded by a group of interested males(up to 35), and will lay on her back to keep from getting, umm, too much of a good thing. However, the males simply wait for her to roll over, as she needs to breath occassionally, and then one of them has their way w/ her. Now, that in itself is not a terrible formula for procreation. However, the other interseting fact of their process is the nail in the coffin. Several males from the group will successfully mate w/ the female. Male Right Whales compete for fertilization success by sperm competition. Their testicles are the size of VW bugs, weighing close to two tons. Each successive mating by a male attempts to wash out the preceding male's sperm, often making the slowest, laziest, or to say the least, last successful male, the successful father.

Paul
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,923 Posts
In one aspect, Mike. The other point is that there is virtually no fatal interactions in this area, so the financial burden is dubious, in my opinion. Once again, it is alright for the local guys here to dump twenty-five g's into a questionable, at best, plan, but no one in the major population is willing to submit to severe mandatory financial hardships to effect definte improvements in our environments. it's just too easy to pick a cute, sad story, sell it to the monied masses, and tell them this will be a good thing for the world, as they all drive at excessive speeds in fuel inefficient vehicles. So just make sure your representatives know that you are all for this improvement to our natural resources. Put it on the list of things to do, between calling ChemLawn and buying balloons for the next gala event.

Paul
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
74,095 Posts
From NMFS

Dear ALWTRT Member or Interested Party:

NMFS is sending this e-mail out to fishermen as a reminder. We understand that commercial fishermen are in the midst of converting gillnet and trap/pot gear to meet the sinking and/or neutrally buoyant groundline requirements under the ALWTRP (e.g. broad-based requirement effective October 5, 2008, unless otherwise required before this time in the Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area or Seasonal Area Management Areas). NMFS would like to remind fishermen of the definitions of sinking and/or neutrally buoyant line as specified in the October 5, 2007 , ALWTRP final rule (72 FR 57104) which are included below:

Neutrally buoyant line means, for both groundlines and buoy lines, line that has a specific gravity greater than or equal to 1.030, and, for groundlines only, does not float at any point in the water column (See also Sinking line).
Sinking line means, for both groundlines and buoy lines, line that has a specific gravity greater than or equal to 1.030, and, for groundlines only, does not float at any point in the water column (See also Neutrally buoyant line).
Please make sure that the groundline you purchase meets these definitions. NMFS has created the brochure ?NMFS? Density Standard for Sinking and/or Neutrally Buoyant Line and Procedure for Determining the Specific Gravity of Line? to facilitate outreach on this issue. This brochure is available on the ALWTRP website at the below link:

http://www.nero.noaa.gov/nero/hotne...blishing a Density Standard for Neutrally.pdf

If you have any questions on the above definitions, general ALWTRP gear questions, or would like copies of the above brochure, please contact Glenn Salvador ([email protected]; 757-414-012
or John Higgins ([email protected]; 207-677-2316).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,923 Posts
To be a bit clearer, since I was leaving for work this morning and was in a rush w/ the last post. I'm not saying that they are dying off anyway so who cares, I am saying that the greatest challenge the North Atlantic Right Whale faces is it's gene pool, not pot warp off of Long Island, or probably even anywhere. Also, there are 7,000 animals w/ of a very closely related species (probably only slight genetic differences) just on the other side of the Equator. Sure, it would be nice to see a few go down the beach each year as they move to the northern grounds, but to turn the world upside down to prolong the inevitable, I don't agree.

Paul
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top