MA regulation changes for lobsters

[mikswi]

There's no market (either recreationally or commercially) for this critter, as they apparently taste like butt.[/QUOTE]

Do you know this from experience or "hey, guy's talk- word gets around.....?"

 

[archman]

Species fished from Massachusetts MARINE waters that show significant and sometimes dominant declines due to recreational fishing. Not being from New England I had to look them up; it's such a teeny state! The species from the previous post were random ones off the top of my head. It should be noted that regarding recreational fishing, Massachusetts is ranked #2 in the United States (~1.3 billion in annual revenues).

From the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries.
1. Black Sea Bass (Centropristis striatae)

The recreational fishery has added to the decline in population abundance along the Atlantic Coast. In 1965 over half of the total catch of black sea bass was credited to recreational fishing. One survey indicated that, by 1970, the recreational catch was at least several times as great as the commercial harvest. Angling pressure increased markedly in the mid 1980's. In the north Atlantic region, including Cape Cod, recreational harvest increased nearly 500 percent between 1981 and 1986. Over the same time period, recreational harvest increased about 1400 percent in the mid-Atlantic region. From Cape Hatteras to Nova Scotia, harvest increased from 8,100,000 to 31,200,000 fish between 1985 and 1986. Local recreational harvest has averaged 18,500 fish over the past 10 years.

2. Scup (Stenotomus chrysops).

Recreational fishing constitutes a significant proportion of the total harvest of scup. From 1977 to 1985, an average of 24% (ranging from 17% to 33%) of the harvest of scup along the East Coast was taken by anglers. The existing fishery management plan, in effect since 1995, allocates 33% of the allowable harvest to the recreational fishery.

3. Fluke (Paralichthys dentatus).

Recreational fishing has always been a major component of the total fluke harvest, often exceeding commercial catches in the Mid-Atlantic States. The recreational catch ranged from 26 to 60% of the total harvest from 1979 to 1984 on a coast-wide basis.

 

[decapoddiver]

you may not be aware that the MA Division of Marine Fisheries derives it's budget from the sale of COMMERCIAL licenses. I am active in the fight to get Striped Bass listed as game fish and the State has been known to come up with some "fishy" numbers that they themselves can't back up.

I think we are getting off topic anyway. The fact is that limiting recreational divers does NOTHING to help the population of lobsters. Those "extra" lobsters that we leave after we get 15 don't get a "get out of a trap free" pass. They go right in a trap.

 

[Diver294]

The article regarding Black Bass was immediately preceded by this paragraph that you left out...

"Commercial harvests have been based upon otter trawl and wooden pot (similar to a lobster trap) fisheries, although hook and line is an important local gear type. Annual landings from trawlers are typically greatest from September to March, when black sea bass are distributed in more offshore waters. The total annual catch from trawl fisheries peaked in the early 1950's. Yearly landings for the entire mid-Atlantic region peaked at nearly 21,000,000 pounds in 1952, and then plummeted to less than 5% of that level by 1970."

...Commercial harvests... ...plummeted....

Scup.

"Commercial and recreational catches peaked in the 1959s to 1960s, declined markedly by the early 1970s, and recovered to relatively high levels before 1980. Much of the increase in harvest in the 1970s is attributed to an increase in fixed gear and otter trawl activity in the southern New England region."

....increase in fixed gear and otter trawl activity....

Fluke. (again we are not mid-atlantic)

The commercial catch in Massachusetts has been modest compared to catches along the mid-Atlantic states, but the population summering in Massachusetts coastal waters faces an intensive offshore otter trawl fishery in the winter and spring. Commercial catches in the southern part of the fluke's range were stable from the 1950s to the early 1970s, while those in the northern portion of its range persistently declined over the same time period. In 1974 it was estimated that total commercial and recreational harvests exceeded a level that should be sustained for any extended period of time. Despite this caution, total harvest has exceeded the 1974 level in the 1980s.

...intensive offshore otter trawl fishery ....

A for effort! but it's still the commercial guys that have ALWAYS killed the stocks... even as far back as these articles go. Which is where it all began I suppose...

Thanks for the reply, it keeps the brain working doesn't it?!

 

[archman]

Oh come on guys! First I can't use non-Massachusetts species, then I can't use freshwater ones, and now you want species that have to be non-impugned by commercial takes at any point in their history? Talk about stacking the deck! Ha ha, this isn't the anti-commercial fishermen forum is it?

I definitely agree that Maine lobsters aren't significantly dented by recreational interests. They're the #1 commercial fishery in Massachusetts and one of the biggest in the U.S.! Historically speaking, a large commercial fishery is usually so freakin' big that no other "takes" are worth mentioning. They're also so political that few scientists will argue their findings with anybody but other scientists, as they're frequently treated like hostile witnesses and their findings questioned at every turn by folks not qualified to judge (i.e. the public and media). I won't even venture into the world of fishermen... they're preconceived bias is a given. I'm wandering.
To sum up, the Maine lobster fishery is not a typical one among U.S. fished species, and arguments cross-applying it to those that are more typical (i.e. an order of magntiude or two smaller where non-commercial takes are in fact significant) is not a good idea.

So when folks (I name no names!) make broad sweeping statements stating that "commercial fisheries have ALWAYS killed the stocks", be prepared for the fisheries science community (and even general ecologists like me!) to come down on you like a pile of bricks. Confining the argument to fisheries within a small, marine area with a huge commercial industry is not exactly balanced. That's the opposite way fisheries ecology works, by creating a glass bubble (or "microcosm") effect.

And I haven't heard anybody chime in about how much less quantified information is available about recreational landings than commercial ones. There's a big information gap if you've ever seen one! It's very hard to make comparisons about two things when they're measurement standards aren't in synch.

"Always" is simply not a term that ecologists use. Drives us absolutely batty! You won't see it much in the other biological sciences either. AAAAAA!!!!!

To not drive us loony, are more appropriate statement would be "commercial fisheries often are the dominating factor contributing to the decline of stocks". That would be paraphrasing from more than a few fisheries texts, probably all of 'em. Anybody arguing THAT statement would have to be political.

 

[Diver294]

I definitely agree that Maine lobsters aren't significantly dented by recreational interests. They're the #1 commercial fishery in Massachusetts and one of the biggest in the U.S.! Historically speaking, a large commercial fishery is usually so freakin' big that no other "takes" are worth mentioning.

To sum up, the Maine lobster fishery is not a typical one among U.S. fished species, and arguments cross-applying it to those that are more typical (i.e. an order of magntiude or two smaller where non-commercial takes are in fact significant) is not a good idea.

Confining the argument to fisheries within a small, marine area with a huge commercial industry is not exactly balanced. That's the opposite way fisheries ecology works, by creating a glass bubble (or "microcosm") effect.

"commercial fisheries often are the dominating factor contributing to the decline of stocks". [/B] That would be paraphrasing from more than a few fisheries texts, probably all of 'em. Anybody arguing THAT statement would have to be political.

We started this by talking about exactly these points.

The regulations are aimed at a tiny minority in a small area of a fishery that... (can anyone even argue this?) ... would NEVER approach its current state without commercial exploitation. I think that is my point through all of this.

Take ANY species and remove commercial pressure.... it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to threaten the species. Now do the same in reverse... remove only recreational fishing. Would the species rebound while commercial fishing continued? Never happen.

The new Mass Lobster regulations on recreational divers and 10 pot family licenses does NOTHING to conserve the stock and it never will. We all know, everyone reading this, that the ONLY meaningful regulations that will assist the Massachusetts Lobster stock in rebounding (if in fact it even needs it) MUST be aimed sqaurely at the commercial side of the fishery.... recreational divers couldn't scratch the surface of this issue in 1,000 years if the bag limit was 100 a day and everyone caught their fill....

balboa probably had NO idea this thread would get such great results!

Glad to see you come around archman!! Ha...

 

[archman]

Take ANY species and remove commercial pressure.... it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to threaten the species. Now do the same in reverse... remove only recreational fishing. Would the species rebound while commercial fishing continued? Never happen.
Glad to see you come around archman!! Ha...

Unfortunately I have not "come around". When I discuss science, it's almost always in my professional mode. We aren't allowed opinions, just hypotheses and observations. As a professional marine ecologist with a fair background in marine fisheries, your statements regarding the non-impact of recreational fisheries is false. I am not attempting to belittle you in any way, rather correct a factual error being propagated.

Recreational fisheries throughout the Unites States can and do exist where commercial ones do not. Most of these just so happen to be in freshwater, a habitat type which I am not "allowed" by this thread's criteria to permit. A great deal of others exist in subtropical and tropical regions that I work with, which I can't use either. I find that baffling.

To state that ALL recreational fisheries are non-impact is equally baffling. This would necessitate:
A. knowledge of sustainable fisheries yields for all fished species (which does not exist).
B. accurate tabulation of recreational fisheries yields for all fished species (again, does not exist in comparison to commercial fisheries).
A+B. regulation and enforcement of recreational fishing standards to maintain historic population levels.

When animals are fished, it does not matter whether or not a commercial or recreational operation did it. What matters is "take". If take exceeds maximum sustainable yield, you have species decline. Commercial fisheries typically exist where maximum sustainable yields are viable (meaning you have a lot of critters to begin with), and there is a market. Recreational fisheries do not follow these two basic tenets. As such, you can and often do have recreational fishing activity on species outside of the commercial box. If take on these species wasn't a problem, there wouldn't be a need for regulation on them, which isn't the case. We don't have sportfishing bag limits simply for kicks.

For recreational fisheries that exist concurrently with commercial ones, fisheries managers must look at BOTH takes to make regulatory decisions. If the recreational fishery is larger, obviously it will bear the greater regulatory penalites. Dominant recreational fisheries are less common, but they do exist, and their frequency is on the rise. With the case of Maine lobster, recreational take is not considered significant by some folks. I am loth to pass summary judgement on this without the arguments by the relevant fisheries scientists. Generally speaking, recreational fishery regulation historically has been more stringent than commercial ones, as the public usually exceeds allowable take far more often on a per-capita basis than commercial operations. I've seen it again and again, and it's well documented in the literature.

These ecological models are by no means limited to fisheries either. They work identically for terrestrial organisms as well. Better managed though; we can survey the populations more accurately.

So again, please nix the "Take ANY species and remove commercial pressure.... it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to threaten the species" statement. Better yet, email it to your regional recreational fishery management center for a response. If they're "not to be trusted", try Dan Pauly over at the Vancouver Fisheries Center, the world's expert on global fisheries. Here's his email address.
(d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.ca)

 

[MASS-Diver]

Archman, please name any fishery that is exclisvely worked by recreational fisherman. None of those trout rivers out west count, they are stocked, totally artifical.


Here are few bkd that you might like to take a look at:

"The Great Gulf Fisherman, Scientists, and the Struggle to Revive the World's Greatest Fishery " by David Dobbs

"Sea Of Slaughter - A Chronicle of the Destruction of Animal Life in the North Atlantic" Farley Mowat

 

[swampy]

Ok im sorry it appears that the state of mass has found out the truth. Divers are raping the oceans of its resources. The 20 to 30 days i spent on the water last year must of had some impact. I will admit i had some good days last year a few where i got between 12 to 16 lobsters in a day over 4 dives. Most days maybe 3 to 6. So why should i be upset? Because as stated by many on the board a 15 lobster a day limit will effect very few people. if so then why enact it other than to target. Yes i said target a group of people whom have less political clout than the commercial guy's who are fishing every day with 600 to 800 traps. Lets not forget the rest of the state mandate that left commercial intrests ($) untouched. This has nothing to do with conservation, and everything to do with political and financial gain. Next thing you know they will increase the fee's paid by noncommercial license holders. this will cause some people to stop lobstering then the state will say " Due to a decrease in non commercial lobster licensing we are no longer offering that program". Its always the same they take a little then a little more till there is nothing left. Any one who belives that the 1% of lobsters harvested by divers are the downfall of the stock need their heads examined. We are targeted. I am sorry if i offend anyones tender feelings. I hate being harrased

 

[Diver294]

When animals are fished, it does not matter whether or not a commercial or recreational operation did it. What matters is "take".

We don't have sportfishing bag limits simply for kicks.

So again, please nix the "Take ANY species and remove commercial pressure.... it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE to threaten the species" statement.

Arch, AGAIN.... right on point.. mine.

What matters is take. In MASSACHUSETTS, the "officials" have stated time and time again, backed by scientific evidence and data that the recreational Lobster take is INSIGNIFICANT.

So one must conclude that setting a bag limit on sportfishing that does not affect the fishery was done for.....???? kicks?

Because it certainly wasn't done based on empirical evidence or scientific data. And I totaly disagree with your position that with commercial pressure on a species removed, recreational fishing would still damage the stocks. That's simply absurd. It was the wild leaps in commercial fishing technology of the late 50's, 60's, and 70's that RAPED our oceans and drove fish stocks into collapse. I'm still using a rod and reel that hasn't changed much in 150 years.

Show me ONE commercial fishing vessel that uses technology of 150 years ago and I'll show you a father and son fishing from a wooden canoe in West Africa.

I would still like to focus on this thread as it pertains to the Massachusetts regulation issue... because we could then move on to the Striped Bass regulations that were imposed on recreational fisherman, not for kicks, but because the commercial fleets had decimated them on their way to overfish the Cod, Haddock, Menhaden, Halibut, Herring, Fluke, etc., etc, etc.