Conference wahoo::fishing-v2

    Bruce,
    
    	What do you think the problem is? Every year it seems the fishing
    is going down hill faster than the year before.. R u still going for
    Cod
    ?

    Can you spell D R A G G E R S ? ?   I knew you could.
    
    Tim
    

    
    	Is there a limit of what draggers can or cant not do or is it
    pretty
    much do what you want to do? That leads to another question..
    
    	I was told that gill nets and draggers can only go to a depth of
    about 250 feet or so. Is this true? This sort of leads to another
    question as to if it is true they can only go to about 250 feet would
    it be a good guess to find bottom of over 300 feet for Cod/haddock
    fishing. Seems all 7 trips I took this year out of glouster was fishing
    between 100 to 230 feet of water and the fishing was the worst this
    year than ever before.. Can you tell I'm frustrated?
    
    	Any info would be helpful as maybe I need to start finding depths
    of 300+ to find some fish..

    I for one certaily wish we could get all the draggers and put them out
    of commision. Sounds stong but I beleive they are messing up the
    envirenment and killing too many fish.
    
    On a different note what is the consensus (sp) on fishing spring or
    fall I have always seemed to have a better catch in the spring. Is it
    because there isnn't alot of fishing through the winter? The fish move
    offshore to migrate etc etc etc.........
    
    I brought home in one catch during spring as much as I brought home
    this fall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and I beleive we fished further offshore.
    
    Frank

    Could someone give me a quick definition of a "dragger"? I've heard the
    term before, and know that it is a type of commercial fishing
    boat/method. from the name, am I to assume the obvious and conclude
    that the bottom of the ocean is "dragged" indescriminately to obtain
    salable fish?
    
    Thanks,
    
    John D. 

 A dragger uses a type of net dragged behind the boat that has heavy weights
on it in order to get it onto the bottom and doors on either side to spread
the net open. This type of net is frequently referred to as a trawl. The
net has relatively small mesh (often on the order of 2") and pretty much 
scoops up everything in its path. Unfortunately for the ocean, such an
indiscriminate method of taking fish (and shrimp) results in a significant
bycatch (living things other than what your target species is). The bycatch
is tossed over the side, dead. In some industries like the gulf of mexico
shrimp industry, it is estimated that 10 lbs of juvenile finfish, crustaceans
and other bycatch are caught for every pound of marketable shrimp. Given
the enormous size of the shrimp industry, it is estimated that the bycatch
is approximately 1.5 billion pounds of juvenile finfish alone, per year.
Commercial fishing the world over is estimated to waste approximately 12-20
billion pounds of bycatch yearly.

 May I refer you to Saltwater Sportsman July, 1991 issue for a detailed 
discussion on bycatch.

 The Doctah

    A dragger, which I believe can also be called an otter trawl, uses
    a net pulled behind a boat. The net is spread between two doors
    which keep the net close to the bottom and the opening wide at
    the head end of the net. They have different types of nets for the
    varying bottom they chose to drag. The worse being roller gear for
    dragging the hard bottom. Thats the bottom the gilneters and hook
    fishermen need to be on to catch fish. A dragger can fish just
    about any depth from 150ft to over 600ft.
    
    And now a fishing report:
    
    I've been out twice in the last week. Not many cod around but a
    lot of nice pollack in the high teens. For numbers, I caught 165lbs
    one day and 202 lbs yesterday. I had two fish at noon, I found a
    small piece of bottom  that a gilnetter missed when he set his net.
    
    Steve

    
    I understand that draggers also flatten out the bottom structure by
    constantly dragging the same pieces of bottom.  In addition to
    taking/killing small fish they also screw up the fish holding
    structure.
    
    With the lack of fish out there the commercial guys have to fish longer
    and a greater area to scrape out a living.  It is a lose-lose situation
    for them, rape the bottom in order to make a buck and screw it up so
    the next year there are less keeper sized fish are caught.  It looks
    like it's only going to get better after they cannot catch enough fish
    to make a living and go out of business.
    
    I am not trying to bash the commercial guys for they have a tough life
    and a real hard way to make a living.  They have to fish longer and
    harder to feed their families than they had to do a few years ago.  The
    government has to get off the dime and do something to perserve the
    future of this sport/livelyhood.
    
    Sorry for the soapbox
    Gordon

    As I said -.n ago, fisheries missmanagment. There was/could be enough
    fish to go around if size limits were enforced (no liners in the nets)
    and the destructive and indescriminent methods limited.
    
    Spring fishing is better than the fall, the fish migrate
    back to the shallow water over the winter and combined with
    less fishing pressure makes for more fish. Also as they come
    up onto the ledges to spawn in the spring and then head out to
    the deep water to spend the summer.
    
    Hi Steve, glad things are ok after the storm. I pulled out 2 weeks
    ago after some limited success inside and at tillies.
    
    
    
    Bruce

    	Along the lines of this topic enter the economics of the whole
    thing. If demand for fish stays the same and the supply is reduced
    (either by overfishing or legislation), it will drive the price of
    fish right up there.
    
    	The bottom line is people are going to pay for this one way or 
    another. 
    
    	RAYJ

    If I remember correctly in the SWS July 1991 issue there was also a
    report on the draggers and some means of corrective action they were
    looking into.
    
    One thing was to change the size of the holes in the nets and another
    was a totaly new net design that would allow the bycatch to escape.
    
    I hope they dont waste too much time discussing the new ideas and do
    something about it real soon, or it will be too late if it already
    isn't.
    
    Frank
    

>    If I remember correctly in the SWS July 1991 issue there was also a
>    report on the draggers and some means of corrective action they were
>    looking into.

 Those were the TEDs, turtle extruder devices, which are used to allow
endangered turtles to escape the clutches of shrimp draggers primarily
in the gulf of Mexico. Congress passed a bill which delayed those devices
frombeing implemented until 1994 while they "study the extent of the
problem." Of course, for those of us who pay even a little attention,
this is just another in a series of procrastinations and stall tactics
designed to allow the pillaging to continue unmolested. These devices
were originally supposed to be implemented in the 80s. As the article
says "In the end, politics wins."

    re: 18.43  Yes I remember that now Doctah,
    
    	Dont you think that this type of corrective action would also be
    good for the fish bycatch. Lord knows we need somthing to happen or
    sonner than later their wont be anything left out there for the rod &
    reel fishierman.
    
    	Its up to all of us to make ourselves heard and send in our
    comments whenever possible to help the effort of preserving the fishing
    industry.
    
    Frank

>    	Dont you think that this type of corrective action would also be
>    good for the fish bycatch. 

 I think extruders would be insufficient for the trawlers we have up here.
We need to get away from allowing dragging. We need to eliminate drift nets.
We need to find ways to be more selective about the harvest. it's all well
and good for commercial fishermen to find efficient ways to catch fish,
but when they put the fishery at risk, they have to find other ways to fish
(or find another vocation.)

    I agree "we need to get away from allowing dragging" but it seens like
    a helpless battle that we cant seem to win. Too much politcs
    involved...................
    
    As a regular fisherman I have definatly seen a difference and I still see
    way too many draggers out there. I wonder if they realize that they are
    jeperdizing their own livelyhood as well or are they just too caught up in
    the industry and cant seem to look for diiferent ways to fish. I would
    be looking to preserve the one thing that is keeing me alive and working,
    as we often do here at DEC (look for more efficient and economical ways
    of doing things and of course for longevity).
     

I heard (second hand) that Japan announced (in the news this morning)
that it will cease all drift-net fishing by the end of 1992, and will
co-sponsor a UN resolution for a moratorium on drift netting worldwide.

Anyone else hear this?

Art

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 2459              Tuesday 26-Nov-1991            Circulation :  8221 
  .
  .
  .
    World News
    ----------
    Japan has agreed to stop using the type of driftnets to catch squid that
    also kill dolphins and other large sea creatures. This comes after
    intense pressure from the USA including the threat of sanctions.
  .
  .
  .

    Read it in the BOston Globe myself.  Yeah!  Now, if they can only
    convince the rest of Asia...
    
    Tim
    

 I think we have a good opportunity to strongarm other members of the Pac-rim.;
Japan appears to have been the headstone. Taiwan is the next target IMO, due to
their near-legendary salmon poaching.

    Another article stating that Japan will phase out 1/2 drift net fishing
    operations by July, 1992 and all by Dec 1992, was on the front page of
    the Boston Globe today.
    
    
    Tim
    

	That's *great* news!!  A definite start.   Maybe there will be
	some fish left for my kids to catch in the future (not to mention
	the old man ;-)


	   Ken

    Two bills have been introduced into the House of Representatives
    which change the definition of "wetlands," and consequently, the
    areas which qualify for federal protection.  The result of this
    change according to studies conducted by the Environmental
    Protection Agency, U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service,
    Department of Agriculture, and the Army Corps of Engineers, is
    that 50-70% of our country's wetlands will no longer qualify for
    protection.  This puts these crucial areas at risk from
    development, mining and drilling, and drainage for agriculture.
    
    Outside my office (MLO8-3/A17) are a few articles with more details 
    around this very controversial legislation.  There is also a 
    petition you can sign if you are inclined to express your opposition 
    to these bills.  I am circulating this petition in association with 
    Trout Unlimited.   
    
    The protection of our watersheds, and the fisheries they support is at
    stake.  Please take a minute to learn more about these bills.  If you
    can stop by to sign my petition please do.  If not, please seek out
    other opportunities to influence the passage of these bills.
    
    Happy Trails...
    
    Al

    	I am all for protecting the environment but some of the existing
    legislation does seem a little bogus. 
    
    	As an example, a friend of mine sold some land to a developer that 
    consequently skimmed off some top soil for another site. This created a 
    low spot where water accumulated someplace it never did before. 
    
    	It was left in this condition for 18 months and when the owner tried 
    to survey the lot for developement purposes, he was told that the low area 
    was considered wet land and no longer buildable. 
    
    	My friend is a landscaper by trade and tells me that the criteria
    used to determine what is and isn't wet lands can be created in less 
    than a year. In other words, land not previously considered wet lands 
    can be "created" in less than a year.
    
    	This was in N.J. BTW, but I have no reason to believe this isn't the
    case in many other states. I am not knowledgable as to what criteria
    can be adjusted to prevent this sort of thing from happening. My point
    is that there are two sides to this coin that really need to be looked
    at and I suspect the above scenerio is one of the reasons for it.
    
    	RAYJ

    I like to keep people updated on all the new regulations and laws
    that the Feds keep coming up with. But the new safety regs. will
    cost us a bunch. Now if the CG decides to enforce the regs, they
    will require anyone that is fishing and intends to sell their catch
    to have safety gear. 
    The list is long and expensive:
    New 406 EPIRB
    Survival suits
    New class of flares
    VHF radio, also a SSB-AM or celular phone. VHF must be on its own
    battery, loran, charts, radar?
    24in life ring
    at some future date fall 1992 an offshore life raft.
    Safety drill must be held
    There are more, but what makes this confusing is the regs are different
    depending on the time of year, boat size and distance from shore. 
    I think that most fishing on the north shore out to Jeffries is
    considered offshore and cold water all year long. 
    
    The coast guard has informations booklet available, its depressing
    reading.
                             
    
    Steve

    RE: .LAST
    
    	I'm not sure this is such a bad thing. It may stop some of the
    greedy part time tuna fishermen who are in it for a quick buck. I
    	wonder if anyone has ever released a giant? Naaah.
    
    				Robert.

 Robert-

 This isn't going to hurt real commercial fishermen. This is going to hurt
recreational fishermen who sell their catch to defray the costs of going out on
weekends. I agree with Steve, it is pretty depressing reading. They are
making fishing even more of an elitist thing than it already is.

 The EPIRB alone costs over $2 grand. That's pretty steep, for someone who
fishes for giants a dozen times a year and _maybe_ gets lucky once. I know
guys who have fished for 3-4 seasons and haven't gotten one yet. This prices
them out of the market, cuz they can't really afford it until they catch a
fish. I think we are being regulated to death.

    This is getting ridiculus. A commercial fisherman knows the risk
    of his lively hood. When I run offshore I know me (and my boat) might
    not come back. Therefore I have the most/best safety gear I can
    afford and stow on my boat. But requiring me to have an SSB (big bucks)
    versus a VHF (or two) to fish 30 miles offshore is way overkill.
    
    Most folks that run boats (except for the overly rich) look for
    ways to defray their costs. I guess black market fish will be
    much more readily available if this law goes through. Hey Mr.
    Restaurant ower wnat to buy some fresh caught fish for half of the
    price off the dock?
    
    Makes my day &$%&%^$%
    
    Bruce

    Oh Robert, I am one of those folks who has fished for giants 4-5
    years and not landed one yet. My sunk cost not including my boat,
    slip, insurance....is easily 2-3K for bait, gas, rods, reels....
    
    If I catch a fish, sure I'm going to sell him. If they make it
    so I can't sell him, I'll catch him anyway and my family will
    have sushi for a decade.
    
    Bruce

    	I have to agree with Bruce. The obvious point he is making (which
    is there is no more/less danger involved if you sell fish vs. keeping
    them for yourself) is a valid one.

    	This ploy seems not for the sake of safety as much as it is to try and
    push the little guy out of the picture. In fact, this helps the commercial 
    guy because this will tend to decrease the supply of fish which in turn 
    increases the price of fish (boy I'm getting a lot of mileage out of my
    economics courses ;-). 

    	I suspect the small fishermen's friend in this case may be the boat
    manufacturers that make off-shore fishing boats (if there are any left 
    after all this.) For me to be able to afford the type of boat that I'd 
    need to go off-shore, never mind all the safety gear, I'd have to try to 
    defray my costs when/if possible by selling my catches once in a while.
    I can see making some amount of safety equipment mandatory, but the list 
    given seems way out of line.

    	The alternative is to go out on the party boats, but this will become
    less cost effective as rates go up beyond the price/lb. of the catches.
    It also means you have all the restrictions of party boat fishing vs.
    having your own boat.

    	As Bruce said, this will drive many boat owners already in this
    predicament into looking for black market sources to sell their fish,
    and I can't say I'd blame them for trying and/or doing it. 
    
    	It sounds like it's time to create a national boat owners association 
    (if one doesn't already exist.) As I already mentioned, some of the off-
    shore boat manufacturers may be interested in helping get something like 
    this off the ground. Large numbers of voters, lobbyists and PAC money 
    definitely equates to political power, which is what is needed here. 
    
    	Excuse me while I step down from my soapbox now ;-)

    	RAYJ

    Amen to Bruce's comments.  I'm not looking to make a living at catching
    giants (as those who have seen my catches can testify), but I'll sell
    one to offset the expenses.  Most of the gear in these regs are really
    necessary for those fishing offshore, i.e. > 20 miles.  Why do I need a
    ssb or epirb or liferaft when I'm sitting within sight of the coast in
    a fleet of 200 boats?  This will only hurt the little guys.  People
    like us, and more importantly the full time commercials that are
    already financially strapped to the wall.  If they don't catch, they
    can't make payments on their boats or feed their families.  Yet another
    case of big brother knowing what's best for us I guess...

Mr. Mod:
	Since this applies to the previous few replies and not directly to
"Tuna" please move appropriately (rat hole, politics and issues) if you wish.

	I can sympathize with most of the thoughts expressed so far on
this issue.  Being somewhat naive I can only hope the new regs are really
aimed at solving a real problem (crew safety of some of the "scows" which
comprise our "commercial fishing fleet") and not a slap at an already over
taxed (recreational vehicle tax) rest of us.  I have a son-in-law in the CG
who did "Fisheries Boardings" and can tell you horror stories of the conditions
aboard some vessels.  I boat out of New Bedford, and am familiar with the
sinking of the "Sol E Mar" last year with the loss of a father and son
where the previously mentioned safety equipment would probably saved their
lives.  I can see how these type of reg's could be well applied to the big
guys with the foot high numbers on the house.
	On the other hand if indiscriminately applied across the board, this
would put a lot of small lobster men out of business,  and cause others to
only break out the commercial license to sell the catch from the back of the
pick up truck.  I think action is applied across the board it would force
some (most) rod and reel and stick boats out of fishing while encouraging
draggers and longliners which IMHO do more harm than good.
	Oh well, politics wins over reality every time.
	Rick

    re: .last few
    
    I guess I'm a little discouraged with the state of the fishery - I
    mean if people fish for years without getting a single fish, doesn't
    it seem as if something is wrong here? While I know the problem isn't
    caused solely by the little guy, when there are hundreds of 'little
    guys' out trying to catch that megabucks fish, they do contribute to
    the lack of fish out there (not to mention the circus like atmosphere
    whenever the giants appear). I don't agree with defraying
    the cost of fishing by selling fish - To me, this IS commercial
    fishing and anyone doing it should be subject to the rules of
    commercial fishing. I sympathize with the small boat owners, I'd like
    to be one myself someday, but if to do it I have to jeopardize a
    fishery, it will probably never happen.
    This whole thing seems like a unfair way to control a bad situation -
    I wish that the NMFS (or whoever) would do something to control the seiners
    and the other big money commercial guys out there too.
    
    <FLAME ON>
    	As far as sympathy for people selling fish on the blackmarket
    	There is a name for these folks - they are called POACHERS and
    	are the scum of the earth. In some game parks in Africa, people
    	just like them are shot on sight - not a bad idea at all.
    <flame off>
    
    I hope I'm not making enemies here, I just have strong feelings about
    what is happening out there (things aren't getting better, thats for
    certain!). I've already vowed that I will never keep a keeper sized
    striper - too many people keep them and sell them for the fishery to
    remain good for much longer.
    
    			Robert. 

    Oh yes, a question - I've often heard that giants cant be released
    (they die from the fight) - is there any truth to this, or is it that
    no one has ever tried?
    
    			Robert.
    
    P.S. - I just got back from a Cape Hatteras windsurfing and fishing
    	vacation - spotted seatrout and puppy drum by the Hatteras light,
    	big red drum off the Avon fishing pier (40-50 inch fish), snapper
    	blues at Diamond Shoals, and BIG blues off the beach north of
    	Avon. The wind sucked but the fishing was great - I'd love to live
    	there but the only jobs are for commercial fishermen :*)

    Giant Bluefin can be released. If you check around there are quite
    a few videos, Tuna Mania for one that show this being done.
    
    Steve

    Robert,
    
       I believe poaching is the taking (catching, killing) of something
    that is protected and not to be taken in the first place. Selling of
    fish (that are legal to be caught and kept) without a state 
    commercial license is not poaching. 
    
    Bruce 

    re: .36
    
    	OK. So let's just say that these people are pure scum and leave
    it at that.
    
    			Robert.

    The New England Aquarium, as part of its Massachusetts Bay Monitoring 
    Program, is setting up a "survey" of certain parts of Boston Harbor.
    
    They want to capture Winter Flounder for analysis. They have picked
    four sites.
    
    The fish will be taken by angling, and they're looking for volunteers.
    (That's why I'm posting this here.) 
    
    They ask that the fishermen keep the fish alive if at all possible.
    
    This will happen on May 16, 1992.
    
    If you're interested, please let me know.
    
    BTW, the parts of Boston Harbor where they want to take the fish from
    are places where the pollution is --- or has been in the past ---
    severe. You wouldn't want to keep anything you caught there anyway.
    Deer Island flats is one of the places.
    
    Could be a lot of fun. May even be Tourney material, huh? <g>
    
    John H-C

 Those of you who objected to the proposed $50 additional fee for VHF radio
licenses as passed by the House of Representatives can thank Senators
Warren Rudman (R-NH) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC) for leading the opposition
to the bill which failed in the senate. The good guys win one for a change!

 The Doctah

    How would you all feel about having artificial reefs in New England
    waters?
    
    How would you all feel about those artifical reefs if they were off
    limit to fishing, both commercial and recreational, for a period of
    five years? 
    
    If the Army Corps of Engineers, the Division of Marine Fisheries, the
    Division of Coastal Zone Management, the Massachusetts Lobsterman's
    Association, and the Massachusetts Dragger's Association all supported
    the protected-artificial-reef idea, would that make a difference in
    your attitude toward it?
    
    Thanks in advance for responding.
    
    
    John H-C

    Yes to the reef
    
    yes to the 5 year nofishing
    
    would have no problem if the commercial interests liked the idea too.
    
    It should raise fish stocks which we badly need.  There is plenty of
    structure along the coast line and out to the ledges, however everyone
    is fishing them.  With the loran, fishfinder, auto pilot the fish don't
    stand much of a chance.  A dragger could systematically drag every inch
    of the bottom in his/her area.  A gillnetter can set their nets around
    the structure.  Anything we can do to save this resource is ok with me.
    
    Gordon
    

    I'm 100% in favor of it.  Artificial reefs have been very successful in
    Florida, although there is more catch & release sportfishing down
    there.  Up here, most people would not say that a codfish is a
    sportfish nor would most people release one.
    
    I would further propose there be restrictions as follows:
    
    no reefs may be fished for 5 years
    selected reefs may be fished with a limit on qty, or slot limits.
    selected reefs may NOT be fished at all.  This would give some
    populations room to grow.  Granted, the fish on the "protected" reef
    will move on and off it.
    Every few years, switch the fishable/not fishable reefs around.
    
    This, of course, would require enforcement (read: $$$)
    
    Oh well.
    Tim
    

    RE: .38
    
    According to the latest BOAT/US newsletter, Warren Rudman unfortunately
    is also one of those (along with both Mass. senators) who remains in
    FAVOR of the Coast Guard user fee/tax.  I use the term "tax" because
    not one cent of the money is earmarked for the Coast Guard.
    
    Rick

 re: Rudman's support for the CG "fee"

 The solution to that particular problem is for those of us whom he represents
to take the initiative to notify him that such a position is not viewed 
favorably by his consitutuents (assuming that is how you feel.)

 re: artificial reefs

 I support the creation of artificial reefs.

 I question the utility of a 5 year fishing ban on these reefs. What do you
think that will accomplish? There are so many ways around such a rule. What
is the proposed penalty for a violation?

 The Doctah

    re: .44
    
    I wouldn't rely too heavily on the official police (other than the
    EPOs) for enforcing the fishing ban. We will instead rely on the
    commercial interests (lobstermen, draggers, netters) to do the
    policing. They have their own very effective means of policing such
    things. I would expect to see more than a few violations.
    
    Our main reasons for wanting to put fishing off limit are:
    
    1. Give the reef a chance to develop as "naturally" as possible with
    minimal human interference.
    
    2. The first two reefs will be quite small (20' x 10' x 15') in 100'
    of water. This is small enough that an otter trawl could lift it right
    off the bottom and destroy it just as they have destroyed the surface
    of Stellwagen Bank. It is also small enough that a team of divers with
    a mere 13-23 minutes of non-decompression bottom time can study and
    photograph the reef's progress in a single dive.
    
    3. What this will accomplish, if left alone and monitored methodically
    enough, is the determination of whether artificial reefs are feasible
    in New England. Believe it or not, common wisdom among local "experts"
    maintains that such reefs can't work here because of the severity of
    the storms. My own observations of artificial killing reefs --- huge
    clumps of lost lobster gear --- tell me that artificial reefs will fare
    quite well in local waters. Marine biologists from other parts of the
    country seem to agree with me.
    
    John H-C

 Given the fact that it is likely that a number of people will be violating the
"no fishing" order, why bother having it at all? Doesn't that just provide for
an otherwise off limits private fishing haven for a few scofflaws?

    Well, it's only going to be a "private fishing haven" for a few
    scofflaws until a lobsterman, dragger, gillnetter, or EPO sees the
    "scofflaws" at work. I don't know how many of these people you know,
    but I'm glad the ones I do know don't consider me an enemy. Their
    casual protection of the area is all I really think it will need.
    
    The reason for having the "no fishing" order (official or unofficial)
    is, as I think I said in an earlier reply, to limit the
    human-interference factor in our analysis.
    
    We don't know yet, for sure, what kind of habitat the reefs will end up
    providing. To no small degree, it would be a successful experiment if 
    the reefs simply stayed in the same place for a whole two years. That
    in itself would serve to debunk some of the negative myths surrounding
    artificial reefs in Massachusetts.
    
    John H-C

>    Well, it's only going to be a "private fishing haven" for a few
>    scofflaws until a lobsterman, dragger, gillnetter, or EPO sees the
>    "scofflaws" at work.

 Unless it's a lobsterman, dragger or gillnetter that's doing the unlawful
fishing...

    > Unless it's a lobsterman, dragger or gillnetter that's doing the
    > unlawful fishing...
    
    Au contraire! *Especially* if it's a lobsterman, dragger, or gillnetter
    doing it. It's a much smaller community than most folks realize.
    
    John H-C

    Just a curiousity factor, but what are these reefs constructed of?  Old
    cars chained together and dropped off or something more elequent?
    
    Brian

    The reefs we are planning will be constructed of old tires (pulled from
    river bottoms). All tires will be of the "un-belted" variety. The
    structure of the reef, although under negotiation now, will consist of
    at least two "tunnels," at least two "chimneys," and many nearly
    inaccessible nooks and crannies.
    
    I don't know whether I stated this in an earlier reply, but the reefs
    will be small enough that they can be easily monitored by a small dive
    team. They will also be small enough to easily remove three years hence
    should the experiment prove a failure.
    
    Right now, it looks very promising for official approval. We already
    have verbal approval from the agencies whose permission we need.
    
    John H-C

Although the same questions came up for me as the Doctah asked, I think it 
would be a good idea. It's worth a shot.. I mean it isn't going to cost me 
anything, or any pain, and it might be of some help, assuming that a larger 
one would be built after proving that the little ones work. But then, that 
is an assumption and this is Massachussetts...

leo

    re: last few
    
    If the commercial guys agree it's the thing to do, then they will
    police it along with the EPO.
    
    I heard from good sources of a lobsterman taking shorts, well one day
    about 100 traps were missing.  He later got caught with shorts again
    and one day his found his boat sunk on the mooring.  He doesn't fish
    anymore and never goes out on the water and has the nickname "shorty"
    forever.
    
    This was one of their own, imagine what would happen to a regular
    violator in the sport fishing group.
    
    It will be self policeing.
    
    Gordon
    

    	Very little, if anything was mentioned about the cost of doing the
    artificial reefs. If this is the sort of thing that's going to lead to 
    a salt water fishing license then I'm not in favor of it. I would rather 
    see it financed by one time individual contributions. If this is the
    case, then I'm in favor of it.
    
    	Once a salt water fishing license is implemented it is never going
    to go away. It will also never go down in price and there is the
    likelihood that the money collected for the licenses will filter it's
    way into places it was never intended (i.e. non-fishing related uses.)
    
    	RAYJ

    The DES will cover the costs of this as best it can, using money
    generated by membership fees, the donations received in gratitude for
    services rendered, and whatever grant money it can drum up after
    gaining tax-exempt status.
    
    The artificial reefs will be a private endeavor, as are all DES
    efforts.
    
    John H-C

    Could anyone give me the 800 number for the boat user fee/tax,
    or point me in the direction the note that contains this info.
    
    Thanks
    Gaff

    
    	stolen from the boat notes
    
    	1-800  368-5647 for inforamtion
    
    	1-800 848-2100 to order / pay
    
    	ordered mine 3/22 via check and mail rcvd sticker 4/16
    
    	pretty red sticker to go with my red trimmed boat .. nicer than
    	
    	those ugly green ones from last year (yes ... I was stupid last
    	
    	year )
    
    						- Ed

    MASSACHUSETTS does it again,
    
    I was reading their Fishing Abstracts on MA Regulation,
    I wanted to know how many poles I can use, and if it was
    different from land and from sea...
    
    Ok I found the following  under PROHIBITED
     
    'More than two hooks for fishing or more than five hooks when ice
     fishing'
    
    OK does this mean that any lures that have more the two set of hooks
    are Prohibited....   I think they ment to say no more the two poles,
    or did they...
    
    What do they mean... 

<    Ok I found the following  under PROHIBITED
<     
<    'More than two hooks for fishing or more than five hooks when ice
<     fishing'
<    
<    OK does this mean that any lures that have more the two set of hooks
<    are Prohibited....   I think they ment to say no more the two poles,
<    or did they...
<    

   I believe what they mean is that you can have 2 poles with 1 bait each OR
1 pole with 2 baits on it.

   When bottom fishing it is not uncommon to have 2 (or more) bait rigs on
one line 18" to 36" apart, sort of like a monitored trot line in miniature.
In Taxachusetts you can do 2 baits, but not 3...

   Similarly I know folks who've been known to have a crankbait with a trailer
hanging off 2-3 feet with a dry fly or popper arrangement.  The noise of the 
crank bait gets the fish's interest, and the delectable fly bringing up the
rear is just too much....  It's a way of fly fishing with a baitcaster... You
can do this with one rod, but not with 2... 

   Seems reasonable to me....

Al

    thanks, that is what I thought they wanted to say but the print
    indicated that they were talking about the number of hooks not
    bait...   I guess they need to define what a hook is.
    
    Ok how about fishing with frog...
    Fishing rules say bait frogs (except lepard frogs) 2 -1/2 or less
    snout to vent may be useas as bait...  goes on to say you have to
    catch your own as they are not allowed to be sold.
    However Hunting rules say..  Frogs, no license requred but 
    minimum size for frogs is 3" snout to vent...
    
    ie I guess that means you can not fish with frogs in Massachusetts,
    also frog season is open only from jul 16 to sep 30
    hunting rules allow a daily bag limit of 12 and a possession limit 
    of 24 but the fishing rules are 10 and 10.  So which rule applies
    if you are fishing, or is it just impossible to use frogs
    
    thanks jb
    

    	I'm just guessing but I think the 3" rule in the Hunting rules is
    if YOU are going to eat the frog (i.e. frog legs.) It does sound like a
    potential gotcha though.
    
    	RAYJ 

    re: .60
    
    Just so you know:
    
    Frogs are disappearing all over the world, and nobody knows why.
    Several species have gone extinct in the last five years, most of them
    in the tropics both in S. America and Indochina. Here in New England,
    bullfrogs have disappeared from most, if not all, of Lake Winnipesaukee
    as of 10 years ago. The Concord River no longer supports bullfrogs in
    numbers large enough for them to sustain their population. The same is
    true on the Shawsheen River, which is the other river that I am
    intimately familiar with.
    
    Please think a few more times than twice about using frogs for bait.
    
    Thanks.
    
    John H-C

    Ok, that is what I had expected, but why don't they just say don't use
    them instead of making a law that the only ones you can catch are not
    the ones you can use for fishing.  It must have been one of those
    congressional compromises, so they can go home and say from one side of
    their mouths they saved the frogs and other say the protected the
    fishermans right.   The only frogs I use are the ones that get stuck in
    the swimming pool and die from the chlorine.   I was surprise to hear
    about the fogs going extinct as I still think of them as a kid where
    you could not got to a swamp without seeing 100 of them...
    
    jb
    
    
    

    It's not that simple, John. The folks who make the F&W rules  are
    completely different from those whose job it is to protect vanishing
    species and their habitats.
    
    That's all I'll write on *that* subject. 
    
    John H-C

    RE:.64
    
     CR*P

    If only John H-C could make all the rules....the world would be a much
    better place. Just ask him, he'll tell you! H-C knows all!

    To add a little more substance to my .65 reply.  While I often have
    agreed with Mr. H-C, I find his statement in .64 to be wrong.  I know
    several folks on the committe that formulates the F&G laws for MA.  
    Believe me, they do care about the enviroment and threatened or endangered
    species.  They also adjust regulations accordingly.  Thats why they 
    sometimes reduce bag limits!  To imply otherwise is unfair and
    incorrect.
    
    Jeff  

    	It doesn't surprise me a bit!  Anywhere you look in our lives
    lately there are groups of self appointed experts who think they know
    more, or care more than the people who have dedicated their whole lives
    to the business of fish and game management.  They can't even see the
    fact that the folks who -do- work in the business are there because
    they care!  They sure as hell aren't there for the money or the working
    conditions.
    	Getting back to the question about F&G laws...  Read the -biggest-
    print on your law booklet...  It says "Abstracts"...  If you're that
    concerned about the wording in the $.0598 booklet (that's about 6 cents
    right?) then call the F&G and ask for clarification!  You'll find their
    phone numbers on the pamphlet also.
    	If you need more information about the F&G but are too bashful to
    call you could always spend the $6 for Massachusetts Wildlife and maybe
    get a little info on why they do some of the things they do.  If you
    look at your fishing or hunting license when you get it the application
    is attached to it.  The abstracts also mention the fact that you can
    contribute to The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Fund through a
    voluntary state income tax checkoff or by direct donations.
    	The information is there, the phone numbers are there.  If you have
    questions, -call them- instead of just badmouthing them!  You might get
    a pleasant surprise!
    					B.C. 

    I have called the NH G&F and was very very pleased with them, 
    I started looking at the booklet as I wanted to use two poles and
    in NH you can only do that from a boat. I though I knew what they
    meant but was not sure from the abstracts.  I will give them an call
    and see if I can get a full copy, but I thougt I would ask here first
    as I know they are understaff.  As for the frog, I thought it was
    funny but that one I will check on as it sounds like even if you 
    could tyou can't...   jb
    

    	I saw bits and pieces of news segments recently on the shutdown of
    commercial fishing on Georges Banks and now, a proposed (?) 180 day
    fishing season for commercial fishing. Does anyone have any more info 
    on this ?
    
    	Specifically, do charters and party boats fall under the category
    of commercial fishing ? How about privately owned boats where the owner
    occasionally sells some of their catch ? In order to do that you have
    to have a commercial licence. Would this also be affected ?
    
    	I know a lot of career fishermen are pretty upset saying that this
    is going to drive most of them out of business as they can't afford to
    be limited to a 180 day season.
    
    	Some people may say that it's too little too late. I can't help but
    feel for the career guys though. Anytime that you mess with someones
    livelihood it's bad news.
    
    	RAYJ

    RE: .70
    
    	I probably should have listened a -little- better...  I attended
    the SWS fishing seminar in Wilmington on Saturday and they talked about
    it a little.  It is solely to control the amount of groundfish netted.
    It doesn't have an effect the charter or party boats.  Recreational 
    fishermen are not effected either.
    						B.C.

>    	I know a lot of career fishermen are pretty upset saying that this
>    is going to drive most of them out of business as they can't afford to
>    be limited to a 180 day season.

 Well, the fact is that the number of commercial fishermen jumped fourfold
in the early 1980s to a level that simply couldn't be supported by the
number of fish out there. The writing's been on the wall for years; they've
just been awful stubborn. I do think that the federal government ought to
institute a retraining program for displaced fishermen, since they allowed
the problem to occur and in fact fostered the explosion of licensees.

    	It's going to get a lot tougher on them too.  At the SWS seminar
    Capt. Barry Gibson, who has served on the groundfish commission (I
    think that's what it's called) said that the goal is to cut the number
    of commercial fishermen in half over the next 12 years.
    	There were comments by Barry, Mark Sosin, etc. about the fact that
    Haddock have been declared commercially extinct (Not enough left to
    bother fishing for) and the hope is that they can keep them from
    becoming biologically extinct.
    	Yes, I feel bad for them too, but they've been raping the resource
    for years and now we're all paying the price.
                                  			B.C.

    	If a comeback can be pulled off, the likes of what we saw with
    Stripers, than it would definitely be a good thing in the long run.
    Perhaps all of the displaced fishermen can be relocated into the new
    jobs created as a result of NAFTA passing ...
    
    	NOT !!!!

The govt. should pay them not to fish, the way they pay farmers
not to plant.  Or better still, pay them to perform cleanup work.
All those fishing boats helping clean up boston harbor paid for by
the govt. means the harbor makes out and the fish get a break.

I will *gladly* approve of my tax $ going to this activity--every
body wins.

Tim

    re:18.300
    
    	I thought Jeffries and Cashes Ledges were targeted as shutdown to
    commercials, or was it just Georges Banks ?
    
    	On a different vein, did anyone catch some fisherman whinning about
    how some proposition/s was going to cost him more in taxes and that 
    everyone should vote it down. My understanding is that you have to be 
    making more than $100k a year to be negatively impacted, otherwise
    you'll come out ahead ?!? He made an analogy to a lobster trap, or some
    such nonsense.
    
    	RAYJ
    
    

    I just had a conversation with my friend Pat Riley, a charter skipper 
    down in Scituate who I have known for years. He just alerted me to 
    something I hadn't heard before and was wondering if anyone here has 
    heard of it.
    
    Seems that there's a proposal in front of the Massachusetts Marine
    Fishery regulators to limit recreational codfishing to 3 days per week:
    Friday, Saturday, Sunday.
    
    Tim Coleman, the editor of The Fisherman magazine, is urging everyone
    to write to Governor Weld and someone named Phil Coates who is the
    Mass. Marine Fishery representative to the National group, urging them
    to reject the proposal.
    
    It appears that the proposal comes from commercial interests and claims
    that recreational codfishermen take 10-30% of the total codfish in
    Massachusetts waters. And since that's a significant catch,
    recreational codfishermen should be regulated in a manner similar to
    the commercials.
    
    Pat didn't have any more details, but as I find out more, I will post
    it here. 
    
    Of course I think the idea is absurd, but I have no facts and figures
    to back up those feelings. If anyone has any facts to share, it might
    just get me off my dead butt and at least write a letter.
    
    Art
    

    
    Did anybody see in yesteray's Worcester telegram & Gazzette, an
    article stating that MA may lower it's striper length limit to
    18-20 inches? Did I read that right? If the wife hasn't tossed the
    paper I'll check on it again tonight.
    
    Walt
    
    ps if the last reply is  true it's going to hurt alot of charter
    boats who rely on customers during the week. I don't usually fish
    for cod but would be PO'd if they told me I could only go on weekends.
    I'd also like to know how they can say rec. fisherman take X amount of
    fish. Sounds like the fishing fleet is PO's cause they are under rules
    that limit them so they want to make it hard on folks like us.

    	I know of no mechanism that allows for determining the % of cod taken 
    by recreation anglers and/or charter boats other than SWAG. I think -1 is
    probably right in that it's a case of sour grapes. Course it's much
    easier for me to say that since my livelihood doesn't depend on it.
    
    	This also brings up a question as to how they will handle small
    boats with commercial licenses that may be pleasure fishing, or to
    replenish their own personal supply of fish.
    
    	RAYJ

Okay, so I'll only go cod fishing three days a week.  But it won't be
Fri/Sat/Sun cuz those days have all the other folks.  I like Wed/Thu 'cause the
fish get a break for a day or two (since they've last seen a jig)

re:  back a couple.

The minimum size for stripers set by the federal fisheries comm is 28" 2 fish
per day, except in Cheaseapake bay where I believe it's 20".  The states can
raise the minimum but not lower it.  The discission is about what Mass will/
should set the limit at.

I vote for 34-36" 2 fish per day.

Gordon

    
    I looked for the article last night but the paper was gone. A friend
    of mine says he may still have his copy so I'll try to get it today
    or tommorow and see if I misread it.
    
    Walt

Note 288.371 outlines the options being explored by the Mass DMF for stripers.
As Gordon indicated the lowest length being considered is 28".  However I
believe each state is free to go below the restrictions put forth by the feds,
but only with penalties on season and daily bag limits etc.  My guess is that
you may have misread the article.

Dave

    Okay here's the article taken from the 3/28/95 sports section of
    the Worc T&G

    Many saltwater anglers are requesting the new dual min. size limits
    proposed for striped bass this year, 20 inches for producer area's
    and 18 inches for coastal area's such as MA. On the surface the 20 inch
    limit seems counter productive to replenishment of the stock.

    The MA Div of marine Fisheries explains that striped bass remain on
    their natal grounds for a period of years before joining the coastal
    migratory stock. When they do migrate, members of a particular year's
    class do not leave all at once. 50% leave at age 3, more at age 4 and
    so on.

    The migration pattern causes the age composition of those fish that
    remain in producer area's, the resident stocks, to heavily favor
    younger fish. For example, in Chesapeake Bay, about 80% of the resident
    population is between the ages of 2 and 4.

    end of article

    also Frank Daignault of Milville, author of "Striper surf" and "Striper
    hotspots" will give a lecture on finding and fishing surf stripers at 
    the Sheraton Inn in Milford at 7pm April 13. $10 adult/$5 kids
    
         
     Walt

	   Anyone out there who is trying to learn more about Stripers,
	(aren't we all???) should make a point of seeing Frank Daigneault.

	   He has 3 -excellent- books on the sport of surfcasting, all types
	of surfcasting, from flyrod to whole live bait and everything in
	between.

	   He's a real down to earth guy who was a high school machine shop
	teacher who just happened to make more money surf fishing Stripers
	in the summer than he made teaching the rest of the year.

	   I have all 3 of his books and I've seen his show twice.  I'm sure
	I'll see him again too.  I've even been tossing around the idea of
	getting a few folks, 10 or so, together for a small show.  He's not
	real expensive, and I just happen to have his phone number...

	   Now that I've done this, it's probably in the wrong place.
	Moderators please move if appropriate.

						B.C.

The article must be a misprint...The minimum size should be 28" not 18" for the
coastal areas....

       	I was talking to a fisherman the other day about the lake and
    campground across the street from me. He was saying that there are 
    a number of things not kosher going on, and could mean trouble for the
    campground and/or campers if caught. Some of these things were -

    	o Boats must be completely removed from the water when not in use
    	o Land within 150' of the waters edge must remain untouched
    	 	- no cutting grass, trees, or bushes
    		- no adding sand to make/maintain a beach
    	o Private operation of a dam is not allowed on public bodies of
    	  water (greater than 8 acres considered public)
    	o Access to public waterways cannot be blocked by any means (such
    	  as fences or boulders)
    	o If of age, fishing licenses are required for all public fresh
    	  water waterways, even if fishing from private property
    	o Signs indicating no fishing/swimming within X' of a shoreline
    	  are illegal

    	Generally speaking, I leave them alone and they leave me alone. I'm
    content to leave it that way. Just recently though, someone rearranged 
    some of the boulders at the edge of the road so as to make it that much 
    more difficult to put a canoe or car-topper in across the street (where
    I put mine in). I suspect it wasn't the town that did this.

    	I can still get in, but if approached, I'd like to know if any of
    the above is true. I suspect that the owners telling the campers that 
    they don't need a fishing license because they "own" the lake are bogus. 

    	I had also heard of a place (Silver Sands) that, created a sandy
    beach 25 years ago, was told *recently* to restore the lake front to 
    it's former condition (as much as possible), because what they did was
    illegal.
    
    	 The swimming beach is the one big attraction across the street. I had 
    asked the owner if he'd allow my family access to the beach for say, $100 
    a season. He said no, because I wasn't covered by his insurance unless I 
    was a registered camper, and the cost was $300+ for a seasonal tent site if 
    I wanted access. I suppose I could just jump out of my canoe if I
    wanted to take a dip, so I didn't pursue it further.

    	As I said, I'd like to basically continue the "let's not bother
    each other" policy we've had so far. However, I suspect the boulder moving 
    may mean that a run-in with the owner could be in the near future, and 
    would basically like to be able to provide some impetus to retain our 
    current relationship ;-) Any thoughts/comments on any of this ?

    	Ray

    	John,
    
    	Is this a federal or state thing ? Is it something a library would
    typically have on file someplace, or do I have to call/write somewhere to
    get a copy of it ?
    
    	Ray

    It's a New Hampshire thing. It was passed a year ago last Spring, I
    believe, after many years of politicial wrangling quite similar to the
    fight over the Rivers Protection Act currently underway in
    Massachusetts.
    
    You can get a copy of the synopsis from the New Hampshire Department of
    Environmental Services. Or you can probably find it in all its tedious
    glory in your local library.
    
    I see violations of the Shoreland Protection Act all over Lake
    Winnipesaukee. I believe this is because the local conservation
    commission is responsible for enforcement, and some of the local
    conservation people have monetary interests in some of the tourist
    dollars that flow in during the summer months.
    
    John H-C

    	I found the bill # (RSA 483-B), but Altavista wasn't able to find
    the bill itself using that in a search :-( I also found the NH home
    page and a link to th New Hampshire Department of Environmental
    Services, but alas, no pointer to the bill there either.
    
    	Ray

    If you go to this URL: http://www.state.nh.us/des/desfmisc.htm
    
    you'll find this entry: 
    FS-CO-1994-2 The N.H. Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act
    
    You can't access it by clicking on it yet, but you at least have the
    document number to ask for when you call the DES.
    
    I hope that helps.
    
    John H-C