| |||||||
| Notices |
| Groundfishing Cod, Pollock, Haddock, Cusk, Redfish, Wolfish, and all those southern species. |
What have you got to say about the topic of: "Some contoversial provision in Amendment 14?". Here's how is started: "Some you might have seen ( I didn't) the notice in Yesterday's Federal Register that "
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-07-2006, 10:44 AM
| #1 | ||
 Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 86
|
Some you might have seen ( I didn't) the notice in Yesterday's Federal Register that the NEFMC is starting work on a new amendment to the groundfish management plan. At discussions yesterday two relatively controversial points that we have discussed here in the past came to the surface for possible inclusion in any new amendment. They Are: 1) A proposal to prevent the entry of new Party/charter boats into recreational groundfishing. and 2) To Require a permit or license for all recreational fishermen fishing for groundfish. The period for public comment is open for the next sixty days and there may not be another public comment period before the entire amendment is finalized, so I would suggest that anyone who feels strongly about either of those two issues should submit their comments now! | ||
|  |
|
11-07-2006, 10:53 AM
| #2 | ||
  Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: CT / Summer in RI
Posts: 3,114
| Mike, As always, thanks for the information. Where would we submit the comments to? | ||
|
| |
|
11-08-2006, 08:29 AM
| #3 | ||
| Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 86
| Brad, The address for comments should be in the Federal Register Notice. I haven't had the time to go read the notice yet, otherwise I would just give it to you. | ||
|
| |
|
11-08-2006, 11:42 AM
| #4 | ||
  Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Exeter, Rhode Island
Posts: 3,636
| Great..... More regulation where it is NOT needed! How about first opening season on the damn spiny bastards, then doing something about the damned draggers? Why always go after recs and charter/party boats, that are fishing with friggin' hooks and lines? At least we're giving the fish a "choice"! 
__________________  | ||
|
| |
|
11-09-2006, 12:21 PM
| #5 | |||
| Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 86
| Quote:
| |||
|
| |
|
11-09-2006, 12:35 PM
| #6 | |||
| Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Exeter, Rhode Island
Posts: 3,636
| Quote:
Can't we somehow market them for food for soup kitchens and shelters or something at least? I mean people do eat them.......
__________________ | |||
|
| |
|
11-13-2006, 10:04 AM
| #7 | |||
| Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 86
| The problem with doggies isn't that they don't have a market. They did have a good market in Europe before NMFS shut the fishery down. Maybe it's still there maybe not? The problem is that the processors cannot process doggies like they would other fish, they have to reconfigure their procesing line to handle the doggies and no one is going to do that to process 600 pounds of fish. I've heard that they want a minimum of 4,000 pounds of fish before they will reconfigure the processing line. The recent proposal from MA to open up the fishery in state waters with a 2,000 pound trip limit is a good start. If the feds copy that move we may see some progress. Quote:
| |||
|
| |
| Ads Do NOT Show To Registered Members | |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| amendment, contoversial, provision |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
