[MakoMatt]

There is a lot of talk about NY getting subway cars for reef projects. I am curious as to the thoughts EC, HJ, togmaster, and some of the other better bottom fishermen who frequent this board have. I have gone through all the pages of this board and could not find this subject discussed, at least not in the title line.

I'm not against them myself per se, I think they make very good reef material. At the same time I also think the South Shore is not lacking in bottom structure, it is lacking in fish.

This brings me to some questions/thoughts, and in no particular order they are........

Although I can't quite get my arms around this concept, I understand that additional reefs will not increase the number of fish, but rather just spread them out. I take that to mean, as a very simplistic example, if you had a reef that held 100 fish, and built a reef nearby, what you would end up with are 2 reefs, each with 50 fish.

If that is true, would it not put a big hurting on the fish as these highly publicized numbers, or locations of the subway cars, become very public knowledge made available to fishermen who for lack of a better word at this moment I'll refer to as "tools."

So, do we want any new, inshore reefs???

I think there are some wrecks, particularly inshore wooden ones, that have so decayed and silted over that these cars would be good supplementary material. I also think that some new, deeper water reefs in certain locations may be a good thing, but I'm talking water over 120'.

Are these subway cars ones of those things that the saying,..... "be careful what you wish for it might just come true," apply, or are they a good thing in all the ways they plan on deploying them.

MakoMatt

 

[matt04]

Here we go again!

 

[togmaster]

A suggestion

Matt I was told by Mr. PatA that we will be getting some cars.
A great idea would be to have one of Pats Powerpoint shows held at the FTC. He explains it all and also the up and coming SW registry which can not be avoided due the the new MSA. Many people spoke with PatA on the hands on seminar for Noreast trip and it is truly amazing how many are unaware of the SW registry and why we need to comply before the cutoff date.

If you like I can put you in contact with him for he is always willing to explain NY's current purposals and regs in place today with a excellent powerpoint presentation he has made up

 

[638475]

I POSTED THIS A WHILE BACK

SUBWAY

 

[Lobsterhead]

makomatt wrote:
Although I can't quite get my arms around this concept, I understand that additional reefs will not increase the number of fish, but rather just spread them out. I take that to mean, as a very simplistic example, if you had a reef that held 100 fish, and built a reef nearby, what you would end up with are 2 reefs, each with 50 fish.

"Many scientists believe that new reef construction does not increase the amount of fish but simply changes the species. For example, extensive habitat for long spine porgy and sand perch changed to red snapper reef habitat with the reef construction off coastal Alabama. A second example is the conversion of croaker habitat to tautog habitat with the construction of the 15-mile-long Chesapeake Bay Bridge tunnel."

Matt i agree this is BS. These guys don't have a clue just like doctors they say drink milk - no dont it may cause cancer drink wine its good for your heart - no don't you may have a heart attack. Find a constant food supply and good temps and fish will stay. More reefs - more bait - more fish

 

[619627]

Matt...when I get a moment I will post some pictures and a article on just this topic that many will find interesting. I was saving it for something else, but I will get to it hopefully by tomorrow. Just catching up on a few things.

EC NEWELL MAN><

 

[619627]

Matt...when I get a moment I will post some pictures and a article on just this topic that many will find interesting. I was saving it for something else, but I will get to it hopefully by tomorrow. Just catching up on a few things.

EC NEWELL MAN><

 

[fishon2407]

MakoMatt wrote:

If that is true, would it not put a big hurting on the fish as these highly publicized numbers, or locations of the subway cars, become very public knowledge made available to fishermen who for lack of a better word at this moment I'll refer to as "tools."

MakoMatt

Any of these "tools"you refer to can pick up a chart at any b&t and find highly publicized numbers.All of the reef building projects give up the numbers too.I have my own "secret"spots and I sometimes find people on them.

 

[togtooth01]

EC or anyone, on the same subject, there was talk of aging aircraft carriers being disposed 5-10 miles out, in between shinny and moriches
a few years ago. Any knowledge of this still happening and or time frame? Which s shore area would get the subway cars?

Tog

 

[steamboat1]

I read an article on this just recently. Can't remember where, might have been here. Anyway it was about how NYC is selling their old subway cars out of state. Evidently it costs to much money to remove all the containates from the subway cars & it's cheaper for them to just sell them elsewhere.



This post edited by steamboat1 01:53 PM 05/22/2008

 

[fishon2407]

steamboat1 wrote:
I read an article on this just recently. Can't remember where, might have been here. Anyway it was about how NYC is selling their old subway cars out of state. Evidently it costs to much money to remove all the containates from the subway cars & it's cheaper for them to just sell them elsewhere.


Funny,because I had read that the MTA is the one footing the bill to remove all the contaminating material from the cars.

 

[JC30967]

Shinny/Moriches deepwater reef

togtooth01 wrote:
EC or anyone, on the same subject, there was talk of aging aircraft carriers being disposed 5-10 miles out, in between shinny and moriches
a few years ago. Any knowledge of this still happening and or time frame? Which s shore area would get the subway cars?

Tog

I recall reading an article on that in Newsday, I'd say just about a year ago. IIRC, though, they were proposing building a new reef, as opposed to sinking an old ship(s).

 

[HungryJack]

MakoMatt wrote:
So, do we want any new, inshore reefs???
We don't need them.
Plenty of bottom structure, need more biomass, not more bottom.

Japanese PROVED over 3 decades ago,
reefs DO NOT increase fish populations.

All they do is aggregrate the biomass for easier harvesting.

 

[paulh]

Reefs only serve to congregate the fish, not propogate a species.

But consider what many were thinking just a few years ago when a highly touted, positive attribute, of windfarms was the creation of structure. Many were buying into it.

I'm not looking to single out individuals, you know who you are, and where you stood on this issue just a short time ago.

What matters now is that we know more, and can act/ or not act accordingly.

What we should be learning as we progress is that when dealing with mother earth you must proceed very slowly. Dumping a load of anything on the bottom of the ocean serves the wants and needs of man, not necessarily that of the environment.

The fish were doing just fine until humans intervened, and even for a while thereafter. ......

I'm all for responsible fishing, as long as you don't think you're doing something constructive by creating an area where the fish are easier to harvest.



This post edited by paulh 11:40 PM 05/22/2008

 

[HungryJack]

paulh wrote:
I'm not looking to single out individuals, you know who you are, and where you stood on this issue just a short time ago.
If you are referring to me,
I believe you are taking my comments out of context.

I still stand by my original position about the wind farms.

My comments about structure and fish in relation to this topic
was based on the fact they would attract midwater/pelagic species and hold them in the area.
For the fishermen, they would be giving up some unproductive bottom,
in return for structure that would extend from the bottom to the surface, a FAD if you will, that would attract and hold MID WATER life.
Which is different than an artificial reef in many respects.

----------

We don't need more structure when there is plenty out there with barely any life on it to start with.
Plenty of habitat available right now for fish to propagate,
don't need to add any more inshore in most areas.

----------

Since you mentioned wind farms,
I would like to point out that while they would only produce 5% of our energy needs locally, this was the one of the main reason most fishermen were opposed to it, quote "not worth it"
Yet, drilling for oil in a pristine wilderness ANWAR,
which at best would provide only 4% of our daily oil consumption,
these same individuals beat the drums to drill.
Clear case of NIMO
Not In My Ocean

 

[paulh]

HJ, as I said, I'm not singling out any individual, and I agree with you on the subway car / reef issue.

Something like 75% of Nor'Easters thought the windpark was a good idea, creation of "structure" was touted as a positive attribute. The distribution of who was thinking bottom structure vs "other" structure is fuzzy.

The efficacy of FAD(s) vs. Artificial Reef creation would be a new topic, IMO.

I'm asking if the current thinking is that FADs DO promote the propogation of "pelagic" species or do they act like an "artificial reef" and promote congregation ?

The name FAD = Fish Aggregating/Aggregation Device is damning. Aggregation is to "come together". Good for fishermen, maybe not for the fish ??










This post edited by paulh 03:02 AM 05/23/2008

 

[MakoMatt]

paulh wrote:
I'm not looking to single out individuals, you know who you are, and where you stood on this issue just a short time ago.

LOL, let's try and keep the windmills as a separate topic if we can. I would only say, and not just from the windmills, but last night I filled up my truck @ $4.35 a gallon. I think $200 a barrel oil is looming on the horizon, and in part this is a result of the NIMB campaign, for most all new energy development.

I learned something in the windmill discussion that I didn't know prior, and that is this business of reefs only serve to congregate the fish, not propagate a species.

That being said and understood, I am curious as to the "pros" these cars will have as I understand that they are in part going to be used for new reef development.

MakoMatt

 

[fish4me]

Time to kick this up a notch.

Should pots be allowed on these artificial reefs?

carry on.

 

[baywatch]

OH BOY...here we go..LOL

 

[leftjammer]

All this reef talk is good, but the fact that the enviromentalist have so much political pull that we wont be seeing any reefs,windmills or alternative energy sources unless its OK by them.
A bunch of RR trains were dumped off the coast of Maryland. Cars that came from NY.
Why werent they used up here off the coast of LI or NJ?