Conference wahoo::fishing-v2

The fishing on Georges's Bank isn't what it used to be.  My experience the past
few years is that there just aren't many keeper size fish out there anymore.  I
think they should keep the bank closed for a few years to allow the stocks of
cod haddock and flounder to recover.  I doubt that a 6 month closure will do
much good at this point in time.

The commercial fisherman is his own worst enemy.  They're fighting for their
livelihood but if the heavy fishing pressure doesn't stop soon, they'll be out
of business anyway.  One way this might work is for the government to pay the
fisherman to not fish much like they pay the farmers to not farm.  Another
alternative is to implement a boat buy back program - what do others think?

<The commercial fisherman is his own worst enemy.  They're fighting for their
<livelihood but if the heavy fishing pressure doesn't stop soon, they'll be out
<of business anyway.  

   If the fishing is as heavy as it appears, then many of them should be doing
something else anyway.  The fish just can't take the pressure.

<One way this might work is for the government to pay the
<fisherman to not fish much like they pay the farmers to not farm.  Another
<alternative is to implement a boat buy back program - what do others think?

   No!!!  The farm subsidy is an international joke in our capitalistic 
economy. You aren't helping the farmer, just making him dependent on the
government.  You aren't helping the taxpayer because what we save at the
supermarket we pay in income tax & increased deficits WHILE the farmer is still
dependent on the gov't.  What problem have you solved?  None. You've just made
it worse. 

   The difficulty is how do you keep some of the fishermen in business while
the fishery recovers while transitioning the rest to other lines of work.
This is not an "easy nut to crack." Perhaps the taxpayer (or more appropriately
the people who depend on the fishery) offer to make some boat payments while he
fends for himself and his family at something else for a max of 2 years.  Some
men will just bail out, others will make do.  The overall effect is that those
who want fishing bad enough will hang in there, those that are out for a fast
buck will move on. When the fishery has recovered let them go back out, but with
stricter limits on the overall catch.

   To help those who have had enough, offer training, limited scholarships to 
either colleges or technical schools. Let these proud people do for themselves
like they've always done. But give them an incentive and a helping hand at 
doing something besides fishing.

Al

Unfortunately, a large # of the ARE TOO PROUD to take the handouts and will
literally fish themselves to death in order to provide for their families.  The
government created this mess and ought to buy back the boats and provide
education/retraining for those who want it, but I expect that not too many of
them will.  It's in their blood now, it's who they are.

You are right when you say they are their own worst enemy.  Don't think they
don't know this.  The balance of nature is so screwed up out in the ocean that
who knows what ceasing fishing will do.  The undesirable species may well
overtake the ocean if we don't drag them down to equivalent levels.  There are
lots of draggers making a living fishing for sea urchins to sell to Japan ---
SEA URCHINS, can you believe it?  They are like the end of the line, when
everything else is dead and gone, sea urchins take over an area.

I'm sick.  I'll roll of my soapbox now and puke.

    I like the idea of a boat buy back program.  Take some of the
    billions of dollars we are sending abroad and buy back every fishing
    boat that someone is willing to part with.  You'd then have to have
    some sort of liscence program so the fisherman just don't go out
    and buy new boats.  Close the fishing grounds for 5 years minumum.
    Lastly, take all the boats out and scuttle them in areas that would
    attract more groundfish.  The fishemen, proud or not, would have
    to go out find other work, just as the folks in high tech have
    had to do.  Sounds too easy!
    
    Gone fishin
    Gaff

    I listend to an NPR broadcast on similar bans put on elsewhere.  They
    stated that one can't put an artificial time limit on the ban.  It's up
    to conditions in nature to replenish the fisheries.  I guess it depends
    on water temp, weather etc.
    
    I don't believe in boat buybacks, subsidies or any of those programs. I
    also don't think the government is the only one to blame either.  I say
    shut the fishery down until it comes back.  When it does come back put
    int realistic sensible limits and let econimics create the fishing
    industry rather than let Gingrich and crew fiquire out how to make sure
    its fished right.  when I say econmics I mean,  if you can only catch X
    amount and you can sell it for X dollars only x fisherman will be
    profitable and those who can't make a profit drop out.
    
    Oats

    	I was reading somewhere, maybe even in here, about the amount of
    commercial licenses that have been sold over the years. Something like
    an 8 fold increase over the past 5 years. 
    
    	These people knew the problems and the risks as early as 5 years
    ago. They are opportunists out to make a buck, not career fishermen. I
    see no reason to buy back boats from these people.
    
    	I do feel sorry for the career guys, but as someone else said, this
    isn't too much different from other industries that fell by the wayside
    for various reasons. Education/training I can agree with, but not buy backs.
    FWIW - I don't agree with paying farmers not to grow crops either.
    
    	RAYJ

When I mentioned boat buybacks, I assumed that only the 'career' commercial
fisherman would be eligible.  Of course it might be interesting defining the
criteria for eligibility.  Something along the lines of 90+% of annual income
over the past 5+ years must have been derived from commercial fish sales, or
something like that...

I've held commercial fishing licenses for a number of years, but I don't
consider myself a true commercial fisherman.  I'm not a fan of more government,
but I don't see many other alternatives.  I don't think it fair that our
government has been subsidizing farmers for years to not grow crops for the
purpose of stabilizing produce prices, yet fisherman can't be subsidized when
their livelihood is being eliminated due to reduced stocks?  Personally I'd
prefer my tax dollars were invested to save our oceans and fish stocks rather
then to artifically regulate the price of farm goods.  Yes the fisherman owns
more then 50% of the responsibility for low stocks, but there are many
factors including pollution and climatic changes that have contributed to the
problem.

I would much prefer that our government do something to stop George's Bank from
becoming an aquatic desert, then to spend my tax dollars so I can pay more for
a loaf of bread !!!

FWIW
Dave

    Aw come on Dave. During the horrible "Striper" season last year,
    you were moaning that you should get some sort of government financial 
    support due to lack of fish landings in the BUBBA. After all if
    you can't find bass they aren't there...........
    
    Still wondering why the state shut the season off due to the quota
    being filled so quickly.............. when there weren't any
    fish according to the great Baitmaster.......
    
    If anyone needs someone to bait their hook, clean their boat, net their
    fish and fill their coffee cup, I'll be available this summer......I
    think Dave's going to fire me after this note........
    
    
    
    

    	With attempts supposedly being made to balance the Federal budget,
    it is unlikely that any money could or would be allocated to such a
    cause. It will likely wind up being fishermen that will pay for it
    through a salt-water fishing license. 
    
    	Speaking for myself, I don't need yet another fee which gets tacked
    on to one of my hobbies and provides little to no benefit to me. Ya, I
    know, there'll be arguemnets both ways as to supposed benefits. I just
    have no faith in governments ability to administer this sort of thing
    without diverting and/or pocketing the lions share of the income
    generated by it.
    
    	Aside from that, anyone that eats fish stands to benefit from
    these sorts of things. It's not fair to hit just the fishermen up for
    the bill. If people, including fishermen, show support for a boat buy
    back program, I'll give you 3 guesses where the money will come from 
    (and the first 2 don't count).
    
    	RAYJ

There are a lot of head boats and party boats complaining that they should be 
allowed to fish in closed areas because they aren't the problem.  I believe that
if an area is closed, it should be closed to all until the stocks come back 5-10-15
years; whatever it takes.

On another note, there was an article in this weeks fisherman based on a study done
by the National Fisherman.  In 1989 it cost 93 million (maybe billion) to catch 73
million dollars worhth of fish.  I'm suprised at that rate that so many commercials
are still in business.  Before long there will be a lot out of the business.

Gordon

    Just heard a newsblurb saying that a couple million dollars has been 
    funded for a pilot project on boat buybacks. said it should happen in
    a couple of months. Stay tuned.
    
     Bob

    	re:-1
    
    	Did it say where the "couple million dollars" came from. I'd be
    really surprised with all of the recent talks on budget cuts to see
    the government coming up with *any* money for this. Granted, it won't
    go far.
    
    	RAYJ

    They had a front page article on this in Last Sat's Worc Telegram. A
    lot of the fisherman were wondering what good $2m would be. They said
    that their boats cost $650K and are pretty much only good for their one
    specific use.
    
     Bob

    At the sound of being coldhearted, why should I a taxpayer have to pay
    anyone hard earned cash because they overfished themselves out of
    business.  I also think that if we give money away it should be at
    something like 50 cents to the dollar or less.  No one made them buy
    fishing boats or become fishermen.  The signs that fishing was dying
    off have been around for years.  This should have been no surprise to
    anyone.  So why should I a taxpayer pay them money for their boats. 
    The rule that states that,  should mean, that Digital should get
    something from the Governement for laying off people, closing factories
    and other such things because we misjudged the market and invested in
    the wrong things.
    
    At some point in time we need to get back to the concept of self
    relience.  If you invest foolishly in a market and loose, your plain
    out of luck.
    
    Brian who is sure to catch hell for this note.

    
     Good point(s) Brian,
    
     I've got mixed feelings about this too. I think the difference between
    this and the DEC scenario is that the govt is stepping in and saying,
    no more fishing here, in effect putting them out of business. You could
    argue that in a couple of more years there would be no more fish
    anyways, but the fishermen argue that it's cyclacle and the stocks will
    replenish on their own.
    
     It's easy to blame the fishermen for the Georges Banks depletion, but
    it's also tough to tell them that they can't fish there now, and then
    expect them to pay the mortgages on their boats. If they all go
    bankrupt, won't it still cost us in the end ?
    
     On a similar measure, the house just voted to compensate landowners if
    their land becomes devalued by more than 20% due to govt restrictions
    put on it. (wetlands, etc)
    
     I think the trade off is, if the govt is going to put restrictions on
    your property (for the good of all of us) then the people who are
    affected should be offered some relief.
    
     All of us (and future generations) will benefit from a productive
    Georges Banks (if it isn't too late already). The least we can do is
    offer compensation (of some sort) to the people that we are placing the
    restrictions on.
    
    
    Bob

re: .16
    
>     All of us (and future generations) will benefit from a productive
>    Georges Banks (if it isn't too late already). The least we can do is
>    offer compensation (of some sort) to the people that we are placing the
>    restrictions on.
    
	All of us are suffering from a nonproductive Georges Banks (not to
	mention most other fishing grounds) decimated by greedy commercial
	fishermen. I think we're being pretty kind for not seeking
	damages from the !*^$@$#s who caused this mess!

	I think any boat buyback should include the surrender of the
	seller's commercial fishing license and the promise never to
	fish commercially again. These guys had their shot to act
	responsibly and they screwed it up for everybody, they should
	never be allowed to fish again.

			Robert.

<	fish commercially again. These guys had their shot to act
<	responsibly and they screwed it up for everybody, they should
<	never be allowed to fish again.

   Generally I am skeptical of any government interference in the marketplace.
Before we start demanding "big brother" fix it, perhaps we should ask what
the economic factors were that brought it about to begin with.  From previous
notes I gather that in the past 10 years the number of commercial fishermen
and the new big expensive boats has exploded.  Why?  What factors made so many
people believe they could "make their fortune" fishing, right now, right here?

   Obviously the banks thought the loan risks were acceptable. Obviously the
fishermen thought they'd make a living and be able to pay off their loans.
Nobody, except the government, mortgages the future with the expectation of
failure. What created the situation? 10 years ago was the money so good and
the future so bright the ALL these people, bankers, fishermen, gov't agencies
saw a bright rosy future and now it's all gone up in smoke?

   Our economy is driven by capitalism (aka profit and greed), let's not knock 
it too hard, the alternative is socialism. Let's explore the factors that lead
up to this collapse. Did all the potential profiteers fail to recognize the
fishery was not boundless? Did they just believe they'd get theirs before the
collapse?

Inquiring minds want to know

Al

    re:18
    
    	To answer your questions you'd have to ask the more recent commercial 
    fishermen. If you just want a guess, I think your last two sentances may 
    simply be the biggest part of it (i.e. "boundless ocean" and "I'll get mine 
    while I still can" mentality.)
    
    	I don't think anyone really knows for sure what sustainable groundfish 
    limits should be. It sounds like there are people today that won't admit 
    that there is even a problem (i.e. cyclical stock level theory).
    
    	RAYJ

     One of the reasons I think the government has some responsibility to
    help commercial fishermen is that the government is in some ways
    responsible for the current situation. In the early 80s, legislation
    and policies caused the number of commercial fishermen to explode. it
    is unquestionable that we were already seeing signs of fishery
    problems, and they weren't subtle either. And yet the government saw
    fit to increase the number of commercial fishermen by something like
    300%? That's stupid. The government has also failed utterly to treat
    fisheries responsibly, with the sole exception of striped bass (which
    had to see a collapse before anything was done.) Now we are again
    seeing too little, too late action by the government now that the
    problem is no longer able to be ignored.
    
     We need to get control of the fisheries and drastically reduce the
    number of commercial fishermen. But in doing so we will be displacing a
    lot of people from their jobs. The government is going to have to find
    ways to ease this transition to a more healthy long term situation. I
    think the government is as culpable for the current situation as the
    fishermen, and in some ways moreso. They provided no incentive to
    behave responsibly, and every incentive to behave irresponsibly. So
    it's no surprise that we've gotten to where we are.
    
     The Doctah

Doc,

    I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand what happened

<    ... And yet the government saw
<    fit to increase the number of commercial fishermen by something like
<    300%? That's stupid. The government has also failed utterly to treat
<    fisheries responsibly, with the sole exception of striped bass (which

    Can you elaborate on what the government did to cause this 300% increase?
    Was it interest free loans?  Was it increased catch allowances? Changes in
    net designs etc.?

<    lot of people from their jobs. The government is going to have to find
<    ways to ease this transition to a more healthy long term situation. I
<    think the government is as culpable for the current situation as the
<    fishermen, and in some ways moreso. They provided no incentive to
<    behave responsibly, and every incentive to behave irresponsibly. So

    How so?

Al

    I agree somewhat with the Doctah in that the government should have way
    back when put more restrictions on haul sizes.  But, we know how
    washington works, I am sure that Kennedy, Kerry and all the congressmen
    from around gloucester and Nahant worked hard to keep the fisheries
    open for as long as they could to get relected.  Its interesting how
    people react to government regulations.  So many people I know get
    extremely hot under the collar when you mention more regulations.  I am
    not talking left wing or extreme right wing folks but normal people who
    hate government regulations.  So the government is constantly
    hamstrung.   Don't forget this is the same governement that cried foul
    when Canada arrested and siezed those two mass boats for violating
    their restrictions.  So the point is, government is useless at creating
    these regulations that are hard enough to work, when they are needed.
    It means that washington caved into the special interest groups that
    wanted the fishing to continue unabated.  Who funded those lobby
    groups?  I suspect that big bucks came out of the fishing industry.  So
    the fishing industry through lobbiest probably got their way and their
    way ended up with todays mess
     
    That means that all of those folks who went out into a market without
    looking at the future and seeing what they were getting into are now in
    trouble.  They went out, bought the boats no one forced them.  they
    funded special interest groups to keep fishing going without
    responsibility  and now they want us the taxpayers to bail them out.  
    
    Nope no way.
    
    Brian

I received this on the internet's marine mammal mailing list a little over
    a week ago and sent it to myself here at Digital so I could post it
    here. Recent posts about commercial fishermen and their
    motivation/culpability reminded me of it. It was written in response to
    official apologies from the Canadian government for reinstating the
    seal slaughter in the northeast maritime region to offset the economic
    difficulties imposed by the groundfishing ban. 
    
    FWIW
    
    John H-C
    ======================================================================
Date:    Tue, 28 Feb 1995 10:11:00 EST
From:    Phil Clapham <[email protected]>
Subject: Fish

  While I appreciate the thoughtful and well-worded response to the seal
hunt issue and the needs of Newfoundland fishermen, I'd like to throw in
five cents from the other side of the coin.  I was born in a small
fishing village and have lived by the sea most of my life.  Consequently
I also know and have known innumerable fishing folk.  I agree that
many of them are proiud, hard working, decent guys.  Many, however -
and I make no claims for Newfoundland since I have never been there -
are anything but.  I have known a huge number of fisghermen who are
far removed from the popular image of men living in harmony with
Nature.  Many show no respect for the environment on which their
lives depend, think nothing of pumping their bilges or emptying trash
into the water, shoot at anything that moves for the sheer sake of
it, and overfish and overfish until there's little left, then blame
anything or anyone else but themselves for the depletion.

  The history of fishery management is frequently characterized by
overexploitation of the resource, accompanied by fervent protests
from fishermen that a) it's not their fault; b) there's plenty
out there; c) if there isn't, scientists weather marine mammals
other fishermen etc etc are to blame; d) they shouldnt be regulated
bnecause the government knows nothing about fish and they are
overregulated to death as it is.

  Recently, the closure of a major fishery in New England came as a
"surprise" to some people, and some fishermen actually had the gall
to say that this was entirely the government's fault for not regulating
them properly ten years ago.  These are the same guys who would have
screamed blue murder at the idea of more regulation last year, let alone
ten years ago.
                                               
  I know many guys who acknowledge that denial and overexploitation are
a major problem in the fishery, and many who recognize that fishermen
have often been their own worst enemies in this issue.  But a substantial
number - perhaps the majority of the ones I have known - continue to
rail and yell that the loss of the resource and the dreadful state
that they are in is in some way due to anything but themselves.

  Given this history - and again, I can't speak about Newfoundland;
perhaps they're different - why should we yet again trust a community
that has historically shown no sense of responsibility or accepted
any degree of blame for its actions, when it says that it wants to
now explopit yet another resource and can do so without trouble?

  I am not opposed to working out reasonable solutions that benefit
people in difficulty, and I am not necessarily opposed to ideas
which put humans above animals in some issues.  But look at the
history here.  Whether its fish or whales or (name a resource) it
has frequently been marked by overexploitation to the point of
commerical extinction, with repeated protestations every time
that this time it will be different.  It rarely is, and it would
be nice to see the people concerned accept the blame before
expecting us to heartily support yet another episode of "harvesting"
of a natural "resource".  Especially when it involves feeding the
disgusting Asian market for "aphrodisiacs" etc that is
  currently responsible for the decline of many endangered species.

  Phil Clapham

    >Can you elaborate on what the government did to cause this 300% increase?
    >Was it interest free loans?
    
     The Reagan administration made a decision to encourage more people to
    become commercial fishermen in the early 80s and set up special
    programs which put this into action. As I recall, there were low
    interest loans and/or loan guarantees as part of this package, along
    with an increasing number of permits issued. (I'd have to look at a
    back issue of the NH F&G highlights for specifics. It was within the
    last 2-3 years, so maybe Don Mac or someone else saw the article.)
    
     How did they provide no incentive to behave responsibly and every
    incentive not to? By allowing massive exploitation of the the fishery
    and an increasing number of commercial fishermen. Consider a commercial
    fisherman who want to behave responsibly by not overexploiting the
    resource. What's his motivation for doing so? To ensure a sustainable
    fishery. But the government allows an open season on the fishery for a
    far greater amount of time/larger quotas of the catch than the fishery
    can withstand. So he has a choice: he can keep his boat in harbor after
    the maximum sustainable yield has been achieved, or he can continue to
    fish. If he keeps the boat in the harbor, lots of other guys will still
    fish. This has two effects. One, the fishery is still overfished and
    two, he gets less money for the fish he does catch (supply and demand.)
    So it's suicide for him to not fish, and irresponsible for him to fish. 
    Rock --> you are here <-- hard place
    
     The government should not have intentionally increased competition for
    a decreasing resource. An analogy would be if the government instituted
    a program to increase logging in old growth forests.
    
     The Doctah 
    

    I believe Sen Kerry was on TV just two nights ago talking about a boat
    buy back. (Half the farmers in my area sold their cows a few
    years ago as a gov't program to reduce milk production. They were able
    to stay in business doing other things at least.) I've been following
    the environmental records of Kerry and Studs for several years now and
    in my opinion, these are guys who really care about the fisheries and
    marine life in general and aren't afraid to take a tough position.
    
    I'm in a terrible position - a life long Republican and environmental
    activist. You cannot imagine the torture I've been through with first
    having James Watt as Sec of the interior - (I hope the find him guilty
    as charged and he is sentenced to forever in jail) - and now
    all the anti-environmental activity in the new House and Senate. What
    agony.
    
    I would comment on a couple of statements above though. First, I can't
    imagine anyoe in commercial fishing for a "fast buck" - work's too hard
    and way too dangerous. Second, retraining always sounds good, but these
    days, retrained as what - computer programmers? tough times and I am
    sympathetic to the plight these people are in. Billy Joel said (sang)
    it best on a cut on his "Stormfront" album.
    
    On the other hand, a word about urchins. I lived on the west coast for
    a number of years and learned how the fishermen hunted the California
    Sea Otter to extinction because of the fish and abalone they ate. What
    these jerks didn't pay attention to however, is that the otter's
    favorite fare was sea urching. With the otters all gone, the sea urchin
    population exploded. Urchins eat kelp! With the urchin explosion, the
    kelp beds started disappearing - and that's where the fish like to
    live. So, the fish started leaving and he fishery business plummeted.
    So, the state began to re-introduce otters - to the hue and cry of the
    remaining fishermen - who began shooting them on sight. It's hard to
    remain sympathetic to a group of jerks who do not understand the
    ecology of the source of their livelihood.
    
    And last, just how bad are the urchins? Well, every year off Palos
    Verdes, there is a Urchin day where scuba divers are invited in to do
    nothing more than kill urchins. They hit the water carrying a mesh bag
    and two hammers. As the swim along the bottom they kill urchins and bag
    them. I remember than in one day around 1974 or so, they killed 60,000
    sea urchins - and this was just off PV. The purpose was to give the
    kelp beds a chance to regenerate. I believe this "Hammer-in" is still
    going on today.
    
    regards     

    Hmmmmmm. Does anyone know what the current coastal limit is in miles
    as to how close in a foreign fishing trawler can come to within U.S.
    limits? It seems that at one point we were allowing "other" boats to
    fish real close to our shores (??12NM??). Didn't they also harm our
    fish resources? Do they still? Me thinks so. This is not an excuse for 
    cleaning up our own act, just that it's not only our own act that I 
    worry about.
    
    	

    I thought some years ago the limit was increased to 200 miles.
    
    Paul

    
    speaking of the commercial fishing career. Last year they had a little
    news nugget question. What's the most dangerous occupation in the state ?
    ( I assume they meant deaths per number of people in that line of work)
    
    commerical fisherman. Caught me off guard, first thought that comes
    to mind is police officers and firefighters.
    
     Bob

    	Hope what I said earlier wasn't taken to imply that these people 
    didn't have to work to make money. The focus is on the money though 
    (i.e. at $X /lb. if I catch Y lbs. I'll make $Z). Why else would you get 
    into a business ? Sure they might like fishing, and the ocean, and being 
    their own boss, but it's still a job.
    
    	I used to do a form of commercial fishing as a kid. The weekly
    expenses ran under $100, the gross was ~$1000 a week, and the amount of
    time put into it was about 12 hours a week for 2 people (24 man hrs.).
    This was small scale stuff. I can imagine what a large scale operation
    could yield.
    
    	How much is too much though ? Take the above operation and put 2-3
    times as much time into it and make 2-3 times as much money catching
    2-3 times as much. Now get people used to living on this income for a 
    while (grossing $100k/yr). Of course other people see this that don't 
    mind a little hard work and, over time, you have the problem we have now.
    
    	How do you *fairly* limit peoples access to what is considered a 
    public resource ? Why should someone be allowed a commercial license
    while others are turned away ? 
    
    	So what do you do ? You apply *realistic* limits the total harvest and 
    not the number of people going after it. Obviously, any groundfish harvest 
    numbers used to date have been too high. Limiting this will limit the # of 
    commercials. If the maximum harvest yield is reached in 6 months, the 
    industry will wind up regulating itself. Unfortunately, it's way too late 
    to *just* do this now, hence the shutdown of GB.
    
    	Personally, I'd like to see a technology limit. Catch as much as you'd 
    like using hook and line only, no mile long trot lines either. Nowadays, 
    the technology is such that a couple fisherman can yield more fish in a
    couple of hours than a flock of fishermen could using hook and line in
    a couple of days/weeks.
    

    re .28   I subscribe to Sports Illustrated and a few years back I read
    that the sport with the most fatalities per year is fishing.  It went
    on to say most were because of beer drinking, wizzing over the side and 
    then falling in and drowning.  Just a little useless info.
    

    
    	I was listening to the radio and it said that by far the most
    deaths caused by drowning were not people boating but drowning in thier
    cars.
    			Strange