Scup

I do not think that draggers, for the most part cull anything. The following actually happened several years back. A local dragger captain, now retired, caught 5000 pounds of fluke in his first haul. The pound limit set at the time was 2000 pounds. I knew the dragger's captain, and he is really a hard working good person. He knew that to be legal he would have to toss 3000 pound of dead fluke over the side. When the word "cull" is mentioned, it means to me that one would keep a small legal sized fish until such a time comes that your creel limit is reached and then a bigger legal sized fish comes in over the side. In the case of togs that are kept in a large water filled barrel, or togs that are kept over the side in a meshed net, one could argue that they are not damaging the fisheries. They would lose the argument if caught, but it is almost impossible for someone culling to get caught. You would have to toss the fish over the side right in front of the law enforcement agent and even then who is to say which was the largest fish as the evidence swims away. I think what is troubling many form members is that they believe that draggers are killing small but legal sized fish to keep legal but larger sized fish. Their quotas are based not in the number of fish kept, but rather in the number of pounds kept. While it is true that a five pound fluke might sell for $2.75 per pound, and a two pound fluke will sell for 2.25 per pound, the small difference in the price per pound is not going to be enough of an inducement for a dragger to go through the trouble of doing another drag. He has to hope that his luck is going to hold out by tossing out many small fish (worth money) and praying that he will catch a few larger fish (worth more only if the poundage is nearly the same; he could lose money if the poundage is less) by doing another drag. Each drag costs him money, fuel, and time. Getting back to my friend, it is not culling when you are looking at 5000 pounds of legally caught dead fluke on your deck. Dragging is one the most wasteful and destructive fishing techniques used in our area, but it is unlikely the culling part is happening to any great degree. The law stated 3000 pounds must go over the side. Of course, the captain picked out the biggest of the dead fish to keep. However, it troubled him to toss so many dead fluke over the side, especially since there were many soup kitchens in our area that could use the fresh fish to feed the poor. The captain came up with an on-the-spot idea. He called the DEP, while still on the fishing grounds, and informed them he is coming in with 3000 pounds over his limit. He also added the fish are dead, however, he will not sell them as he will donate them to our local soup kitchens. The DEP was waiting to arrest him as he pulled into the dock. They confiscated the 3000 pounds of fluke which I was told did end up at our local charities. The case went to court and the ruling was, no penalties for the captain this time, but the next time he does it, his license will be pulled. While culling can happen to some degree, by far it is the wasteful fishing technique used that is causing the major depletion of our stocks. I would ask any recreational angler, just how many seasons of fluke fishing would it take you to catch and kill 3000 pounds of fluke? Keep in mind that fish tossed over the side, alive or dead, do not count toward any limit nor are they to be reported.

Bob & Mag

My concern would be that the net is in the water a bit too long to pull in that many pounds. The sound on the winch should let them know they are full, I would think.
It's a shame that the fish would normally go to waste and admirable that he would take the hit rather than waste the catch. I guess my point is, that it shouldn't get to that point in the first place. Even an average say 2 or 3 lb fish(that would be 1000 to 1500 fish) in that net before pulling. Or was he close to his quota and did one last run that brought him over?
I really don't think there is a cure for the problems dragging is causing other than it's demise.

__________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of food, electricity, gas, and oil, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.

Smoke free 4 Months!

Scup

It was the captain's first haul. I am sure he knew he had a load in his net, but he would not have known just how many were legal sized and how many would have to be tossed over the side. His limit was 2000 pounds, why wouldn't he keep his net out while things were running in his favor? One haul, and then back to the barn! If he brought things up too early, then he may have to start thinking about wasting more fuel and doing a second haul. I predict there are going to be some very interesting things happening to the commercial sector in the near future. You will not get an argument from me about the damage the draggers are doing. Leaving thousands of pounds of dead fish in your wake has to be outlawed sooner or later. However, the price of oil just went over $100 per barrel. Anything our regulators due to protect our fisheries environment right now just might push many of them out of business. I truly believe there is no way the regulators will let that happen. Rather than let our commercial fisheries disappear, they will bend over backwards to keep them afloat. The only way they can do this is by putting it to the recreational guys, and giving the commercial guys the ok to wreak further havoc on our fisheries. While it is not funny, one has to wonder just how far they will go to keep the commercial industry going. I would be embarrassed to go into work if I worked in any of the regulatory departments. How can they accept their salaries which is paid for by the public? If I was paid by the public to protect the fisheries environment and my record of failures was as long as theirs, I would resign out of embarrassment and disgrace.

John_Madison CT

With all due respect, I find that story hard to believe. It is a great tale to bring some sympathy to the Commercial Draggers. As in "poor us, we try to do the right thing but the "man" stuck it to me anyway!"

As for your disagreement that fisheries management has or doesn't have their heads up their collective arses, I guess one may have to define specifically what constitutes a head up an arse. You seem to think that they knowingly and willingly stick it to the Rec anglers and thereby support the Commer. guys. I may not totally agree with that, but as to my original point, I really think they believe the Rec angler harvest #'s. (at least to the point as they need to go with "something")

Scup

Do not need your respect! It is not a story, but a fact. The vessel involved was the Quiambog Queen and the name of its captain was Joe Rendiero. His story made all of the local papers. The case was thrown out of court but a warning was issued. Joe has always been a very popular spokesperson for the commercial sector. His name used to appear almost weekly in the local rags. He is retired now, but he is still just as colorful and well liked as ever. Now he has joined the ranks of the recreational fishing community and does quite well at that too. I think you misunderstood me as I explained the plight of the commercial dragger. They have to have a GPS sender on their boats. The DEP enforcement officials know where they are at all times. The enforcement of regulations is not lax as arrests, fines, and warnings happen all the time. Most draggers just consider this as another cost of doing business. With few exceptions, they are at odds with with the ever changing requlations but they are held accountable. What makes anyone think that if the DEP goes after the recreational boats they would not go after the commercial boats. Some guy in a 18 foot boat maybe has one or two shorts in his vessel, a scalloper that goes over his limit, even unintentionally, is heavily fined, and the catch confiscated. The losses can easily approach $75,000. The whole commercial community is being strained with high fuel costs; the only possible exception might be the scallop boats because the consumers are willing to pay more than $12 per pound for them. The smaller commercial guys have to make decisions each time they are going out, what the cost of fuel is, what they allowed to take, and what price is currently being paid. It is very common to see boats tied up on decent fishing days because it is not worth it for them to even go out. I do not know of any renegade commercial fisherman, if they seem to do wasteful things, it is because they have to operate within the framework of the law. Right now, it is my opinion, that a three ring circus is about to evolve right before our eyes. The charter of the DEP requires that they juggle the requirements for being fair to the recreational sector and the commercial sector, while still protecting the fish species. Well, they cannot satisfy all three at the same time. They probably are trying to keep things under control but they are losing ground on all three accounts. The commercial guys are not happy, the recreational guys are not happy, and the ground fisheries are going to hell. I really think they are more concerned about the collapse of the commercial fleet. Recreational anglers are always going to be around so the situation is not that critical for them. Should the commercial fleet go under, then that is that. In trying to appease everyone, the fish stocks are really being hammered. I am retired, love to fish on both the recreational and commercial side of the fence (not both on the same day) and have no bone to pick with either. I am more concerned with what is happening to our fish stocks. The only point I really wish to make once again is when anything is in short supply, you do not want wasteful methods of harvesting it.

Scup

CT DEP
I have been very critical of the CT DEP marine division in this thread. The thought that one should not judge another man until one has to walk a mile in his shoes keeps popping up in my mind. This form has forced me to put on my thinking cap and try to figure out why I am so unhappy with the DEP. Like most of the form members, I think there seems to be much wrong with the current system of regulations. However, I would like to transpose myself into the DEP’s position and look at the situation from their perspective. The first thing that has to be addressed is they are not idiots. This I based on the phone calls and letters I have written to them. They always responded and my last letter was answered by the assistant director of the DEP. The response was to the point, and I did not like what the director had to say, but the response was carefully written. Basically, the response dealt with the subject of having no exceptions to the laws, but throughout the letter there were suggestions on how I can achieve what I wanted to do and still remain within the DEP’s framework. They were definitely trying to be helpful. Let me put it as I currently see the situation.
Our DEP, Marine Division, has three primary goals:
Protect the recreational sector
Protect the commercial sector
Protect the fish
To begin with, the above three are definitely in opposition. I feel it is impossible to fulfill all of these to everyone’s satisfaction simultaneously. Compromises have to be made, and no one is going to be happy with all of them. Let’s look at the three goals from the perspective of which of the above could withstand the hardest shock to its structure and still survive. I maintain by far, the most rugged of the three is the recreational sector. Suppose the hardest blow of all was dealt to the recreational angler in 2008; complete moratorium for all species of fish. You cannot keep anything! In 2009, the recreational angler will be out there still fishing. Why even in 2008 he would be out there doing his catch and release thing. True, there would be ripple effects to the charter boat and head boat industries, and several fishing tackle stores will go under, some never to resurface, but the recreational angler will still be there because of his love for fishing. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but the angler’s love for his sport makes him far more durable to withstand anything that is thrown at him.
Now look at the commercial sector. They are not in it for the love of the sport but the love of money. Take away their profits, and you destroy the industry. Many of the form members will respond to this as “fine, let them go under”. Think about it, can you really imagine that it would be wise to destroy our commercial fishing industry? People, whether they fish or not, like to eat fish. There is a demand for fish and our seas have always been able to fulfill this need. Due to increased populations, and a past unregulated industry, has left the situation in total disarray. This does not mean there is no room for the commercial sector; it just means they have to be carefully regulated in the future. However, they are not as robust as the recreational sector. Since money drives them, anything that affects their operations could easily push them over the edge of no return. If you think I am out of my mind, look at it this way. The next time you are fluking and a dragger goes by, think about who is going to be around decade from now. I would place my money on you surviving, not the dragger. Suppose the draggers were outlawed. Just who do you think is out there right now fishing and supplying the public needs? I am a pin fisherman, and supply a small amount of fish, mostly scup, to the wholesaler. But nine months out of the year I do not supply anything. For the fish wholesaler to stay in business he needs a continuous supply of fresh fish. He would fold tomorrow if he had to depend on pin fishermen. After the collapse of the wholesaler, the Mom and Pop fish stores would soon follow. Again you might say “so what”, but think again. The last time I purchased a fillet of flounder in food store chain, the fillet was in a plastic tray, and sealed with clear plastic wrap over its top. When I got home and opened it, it stunk to high heaven. Walk by the fish section of a food chain store and look at the hard shell clams for sale that are encased in clear plastic. Tap on the opened clams, right through the plastic, with a quarter to see if they close. If not, do you think it would be wise to purchase and eat dead clams? Why Mom and Pop fish stores have their clientele is the customer’s trust that the product they will purchase will be of quality. I would not like to see the small but trusted Mom and Pop fish markets close but many are barely holding their own right now. Once an industry is destroyed, it is likely terminal, never to return. The commercial sector does not have the resilience of the recreational sector.
Since this is a form for charter boat captains just where do they fit in? They are a hybrid, they are not commercial, but they still need to make a profit, and I think most are driven somewhat by the love of the sport. Their industry can be wrecked rather easily too.
Getting back to the DEP’s problem, they have to juggle everything above and come up looking good. Well, it is not about to happen. I think what bothers me the most is when I went to the web page described in this form concerning the current situation of fish stocks and saw what is happening. Somehow, I feel that decisions made by the DEP in trying to accomplish all three of their goals have left the fish coming up short. I also know that they are not idiots and are well aware of the situation. This year just might be the year when everyone is going to have to take a hard hit, and I think the recreational sector is going to be hit the hardest only because they can withstand the shock better. It is not fair, but what other choice does the DEP have?

flukeyou

What can be done, really? Isnt the problem that the new law unintentionaly is effecting our fluke season. I have a hard time understanding the point of new regulations. The fishery is better then it was 5 years ago. I dont get it?

JackC

Fast response. A few years back there was a lawsuit by environmental organizations that resulted in a decision that a fisheries management plan had to be able to have at least a 50% chance of achieving the "goal" for that fishery. The lawsuit was about fluke, but the facts of the matter apply to all our fisheries. Tog and scup also have a fairly dramatic reduction in landings for 2008.

All the fisheries management plans know have aggressive rebuilding goals, some think the goal is unobtainable for fluke.

So, while the fishery is getting better, its not meeting the "targets" established by the Fisheries Management Community. The farther you are from the goal, and the fewer years you have to reach the goal result in the cut backs that your seeing for 2008.

The RFA is trying to change the regulations (via congressional actions) to balance economic facts with management - the question being if it takes 20 years to reach the goal and we have a good fishery, why take such a dramatic cut. Right now everyone's hands are tied with a rigid rebuilding schedule.

Visit the RFA website for a better explanation, hopefully this makes sense.

Jack

flukeyou

Thanks Jack that helps alot. Its frustrating but i guess its not as bad as NY

brudzj

This is a little off topic but I just have to comment that this is one of the most interesting and informative threads I have yet seen on any fishing board- with a minimum of personal attacks and flaming.

Seriously, the web would be a better place if more folks comported themselves the way we see on this thread.