Am I an Idiot? tuna numbers and quality

[Slackwater]

I just read an article in the National Fisherman talking about how tuna numbers are down and prices are down. The local paper had an article awhile back about the same thing. Several times over the last couple years I have read about this and I dont understand how dogfish are never mentioned (at least not what I have read). Up here in maine(at least the ports I fish out of) fishing for giants at anchor is pretty much a done deal because of dogfish. I bet I could name a 100 boats (and there is alot more than that) that have not caught or fished for these fish in 2 years!! Alot of these boats are good fisherman that have caught 5-20 fish a year previuos to the dogs. So you have a whole fleet of boats that cant even fish because of dogs! And if I am not mistaken it was the largest fleet and landed the majority of the quota. Maybe it is just my experience but I believe most of the high grade fish were caught by this type of fishing also. So how can you say numbers and quality are down when the boats that caught the most fish and the most quality fish cannot fish? Am I missing something? It has to be worth at least mentioning. Also has anyone ever thought of the long term issues with dogfish. If nothing keeps them in check it seems they would eat everything in the ocean. I bet when they start to affect the groundfishing and lobstering people will take notice. If you cant even drop a bait in the water without them eating it what chance do young groundfish or any small fish have? Sorry to rant guys but it just kills me that I will never be able to fish for these fish again!! Some of the best and proudest moments of my life came while fishing for these fish and it is gone!!!!!

[assinippi]

Hmm... We screw up the system by overfishing (and continue to do so) so the answer is to play with another part of the system which is out of balance because of our actions, a system where we also don't understand the consequences of further reducing a population. I understand your frustration, but you are trying to adjust the balance in a whole ecosystem by reducing the numbers in one species, a species which we really don't have a good understanding of. You notice I used the phrase "play with" rather than adjust because we don't have a clue what would happen if we adjust the dogfish population. Is there something they predate on that will then take over and further unbalance the ecosystem? Be careful what you ask for. There have been many species which were reduced to or almost to the point of extinction because they are predators, and human beings don't like competition, especially competition that is more efficient than they are. Then we discover the hard way that they were actually important in the balance of nature. Nature has a way of making adjustments, and the increase of inshore dogfish is one of her adjustments to our actions. In order to fix the issue we need to look at the whole system and adjust our actions so that mother nature can readjust.

By the way, I fish, a lot... I ain't no member of Peta. I catch fish, I eat fish , a lot... I'm not trying to pi$$ anyone off and I'm not trying to say that any imbalance is good. I am asking that we look at what is causing the issue, and make adjustments to our actions that affect the whole ecosystem rather than just the symptoms which I believe the inshore influx of dogfish is. There is no silver bullet by killing dogfish. I don't think that rod and reel anglers could kill enough to make a difference anyway. Where were they before they moved inshore in the last few years? If current science is even vaguely accurate, their population can't have exploded to the numbers we are seeing. These fish grow and reproduce relatively slowly. They must have been somewhere else before they came here. What happened that caused so many to suddenly appear in our inshore waters?

Like I said, I feel your frustration. Dogfish chew up a lot of my softbaits and at time make me move around. But then again so do bluefish. Unfortunately the Tuna haven't been doing their share this year.

[soundownsam]

When you can't drop a pice of bait from 1/2 mile off the beach to 10 miles east of the bank without immediatly hooking a dogfish there is a problem.

sam

[anut]

making a dogfish endangered is a joke. if that was lifted would commercial fisherman target them? Cat food, english fish and chips?

They are so dense at times it is nuts. I marked them several times for close to a mile of solid fish of Halibut Point. Are the decimating the fry of game fish? we will find out in a couple yrs.

[Slackwater]

Assippi so are you saying to continue to overfish all others species and continue to protect dogfish? Do you think that is what mother nature intended? If the mosquitos with west nile disease invade your town or the ticks with lyme disease and everyone was being inffected would you still say it is mother natures way? It is my opinion that we have messed with the ecosystem so much that we have no choice but to try and adjust it. Anyway no matter what your opinion is you have to agree it should at least be mentioned in any article that is talking about bluefin numbers and quality. You cant say bluefin numbers and quality are down when the largest fleet that catchs the most fish(use to) and the highest quality fish cannot fish. Shouldnt it at least be part of the disscusion? Can anyone back me up on this? In the middle of writing this I got a phone call from a freind of mine that is a lobsterman he said this summer the dogs were so thick inside that they were getting caught in his lobster traps and chewing up the heads in the trap to get at the bait. He said traps that were right up on the beach were getting them. Assippi you say you loose a few soft baits and have to move. I lost part of my income and I cant pass on what I do best to my son. And I cant fish at all for these fish. But you are welcome to your opinion just please dont attack me for having mine. Thanks!

[assinippi]

Obviously there is an issue. What frustrates me is that all the average fisherman does about it is pi$$ and moan and say we should kill all the dogfish. Why isn't the question being asked why are they here? What happened that we have all these dogfish inshore which we didn't have 10 years ago? What can we do (or stop doing) to restore the balance. I doubt that destroyng a species is going to do it.

anut, they already do fish them commercially.

[twofinbluna]

Dogfish science is a joke, always has been. I would really doubt that anyone who fishes a lot could sit here and say that the dogfish showed up all of a sudden. There has been dogfish in good numbers for decades. The "shift" that the science is using to explain the increase in numbers is a joke, as well. They needed to find an excuse as to why their past work was so wrong, so they say there was a shift...totally bogus.

Take a look at the trawl surveys over the years, dogfish have been here in good numbers throughout. IN the nineties there was a modest fishery on them that helped keep the population in control, and then a bunch of enviros fought to stop that, and now we have a plague. Dogfish regularly account now for over 65% of ALL fish caught in the trawl surveys. Just think about that.

I cannot understand how anyone could say that we should allow this plague to continue. The issue is simple: we are protecting a species that does not need such protection. We are going to continue to allow this plague to occur until the managers open up a modest fishery again on this species. There is no excuse for continuing to disallow fishing on these things.

You can try and say that we should "be careful what we wish for" and stuff like that, but to me that is nonsense. What you should be careful about is saying that we should let this dogfish plague to continue.

There never was a valid reason, and there still is not one, for protecting dogfish like this.

Great article on this issue: http://www.fishnet-usa.com/dogfishfollies.html

Note the trawl survey data, and then keep in mind that the % of dogs has increased since 05.

[twofinbluna]

Obviously there is an issue. What frustrates me is that all the average fisherman does about it is pi$$ and moan and say we should kill all the dogfish. Why isn't the question being asked why are they here? What happened that we have all these dogfish inshore which we didn't have 10 years ago? What can we do (or stop doing) to restore the balance. I doubt that destroyng a species is going to do it.

anut, they already do fish them commercially.

Ok, again, its simple. There was a fishery on dogfish, enviros fought to stop it. There was never a shortage of the things, the fishery kept them in check though, and now with no fishery its just a disaster.

The dogfish did not "appear", the science simply sucked and now is starting to show what we have all been saying for many years. You have too much--way too much--faith in the science. You really believe these things all of a sudden showed up?????

And the issue is that the commercial fishery is so tiny now that have zero impact on the stock. Because of the enviros, the quotas are so small it is not even funny. There is a massive difference between a commercial fishery with almost no quota and a commercial fishery with a meaningful quota.

[twofinbluna]

And its not about 'destroying' the species. Its about having a fishery on them that is able to keep their stocks in check. Whether you like it or not, the only answer to this is to have a bigger fishery like we had years back. This is a problem that will not go away unless we address it.

[assinippi]

Slackwater,

No one was "attacking" you. By posting on this or any other board you express your opinion and solicit responses from others with sometimes differing opinions than your own. If you are so sensitive that you only want to hear from those that totally agree with your opinion, please don't post and ask questions like "Am I missing something?". I whole heartedly agree with your statement "It is my opinion that we have messed with the ecosystem so much that we have no choice but to try and adjust it." I just differ in how to make the adjustment.

I wasn't and am not saying that there isn't a problem. The last thing I want to see happen is for overfishing to continue so that imbalances like this continue to occur and/or we don't have fish to fish for, commercially or recreationally. I in no way doubt that you are having serious issues getting through the dogfish to fish Tuna, and that the situation has affected the Tuna market (However I hear the same complaints from the stick boats and they're not worried about dogfish getting in the way of the harpoon). What I am saying is that humans created the problem of the exploding inshore dogfish population. We created the problem through a complex series of actions and a simplistic approach, ie destroying all the dogfish, isn't going to fix the issues. In fact it is likely to create new unforeseen conditions, possibly with worse consequences than too many dogfish. Be careful what you ask for! What I am trying to do is to get people to think and act in terms of the whole ecosytem, and what adjustments are necessary to get balance back (as much as that is possible) so that whatever caused all these dogfish to appear inshore would reverse itself. Maybe if there were more herring left rather than being trawled and turned into lobster bait and fishmeal, the Tuna, Cod etc., and Dogfish would have more to eat and the Dogfish would wander back off shore. Maybe if there were more Cod they would be eating the dogfish pups (they seem to eat just about anything else). There are lots of things that we have done. There are a lot different actions that need to be taken to help the situation. We have "messed with the ecosystem" so much that it will never be the same. However we could help it to be healthier by mitigating our actions.

As far as you're not being able to "pass on what I do best to my son", I believe that has little to do with dogfish and more to do with human intervention. It certainly has everything to do with overfishing. I also am in a dying industry. I am third generation. Technology has made sure that there won't be a fourth generation, my sons will have to do something else to earn a living. Technology probably did the same to fishing. I do empathize with you.

Please don't take this as a personal attack. It isn't meant that way at all. It is just my simple attempt to get people to think a little more out of the box. Tight lines!

[north coast]

asinippi.
You have posed the question/statment a couple times in your posts that the dogfish just showed up inshore or maybe, if there was more food they would go back to their usual habits etc.. twofin explained it, but you don't seem to be getting it, so I'll back him up . There was a reasonable fishery for dogfish.(I think it was 8000 lbs per day) untill some
enviro zipperheads decided they needed protecting. For whatever misguided reasons, our managers decided this was a good Idea. they shut the fishery down.(what is in place right now is a joke and not a commercial fishery at all) In a few short years the mess we now see developed. As twofin explained, there were always plenty of dogfish,the fishery that was in place just kept them in check. I don't think wiping out dogfish is smart or the answer (nor do I believe anyone else that can think does either) but, lets face it ,there's a huge problem here and if something isn't done, we may very well see catastrophic effects in the very near future. We need to reopen this fishery, with a meaningfull(if closley watched) quota.

[happytuna]

the dogs have been around a long time if talk to some guys who fish in the 70's ana 80's they will tell you the dogs were worse then than now the big thing was there was more bait around then and there were more tuna around to push the dogs around in the 90's the nwc had dogs bad but we still fished it and cought plenty the tuna came in the dogs left
the dogs have eaten so much herring that they have to move inshore to find food there so many of them ive seen small dogs having pups in them at a average of 6 in there bellies

if i remember there was a thread about were they did there surveys is off shore and not inshore were most of the dogs are

[assinippi]

I get it just fine. There are too many dogfish. There weren't always too many dogfish. For tens if not hundreds of millions of years there weren't too many dogfish. They did just fine without human intervention. Until 5-6 years ago no one really complained much about dogfish around the Cape. I fish 30-40 days a year out of my boat, and of that I fish Chatham 20+ days a year and have been for close to 20 years. In that time I rarely caught a dogfish there in spite of the fact that I fished sandeels for bait. Never on artificials. Then in a single year there were acres of dogfish off Monomoy and South Beach, on the bottom, finning on the surface, in the Bearse Shoal rips, everywhere. I used to fish fluke in the rips between Monomoy and Nantucket. Same thing, you can't fish them there now because of the dogfish. One year the fluke fishing was great, the next you couldn't fish even with unbaited jigs beacause of the dogfish. I rehashed this with the guys I fish with and they agree that the dogs appeared pretty quickly off Chatham.

There is a reason that the inshore dogfish population has exploded. It would be nice if there was some investigation and discussion why this happened rather than the knee jerk reaction to just kill all the dogfish. I have never had an issue with commercial fishing for dogfish. I have had issue with anglers who want to destroy all the dogfish (and there are lots of them if you read this and the other discussion groups) and to that end unregulate the fishing for them.

As far as the science being a joke it's amusing that it is useful when it agrees with your opinion and debunked when it's doesn't. And the statement that commercial fishing kept dogfish in check is even more amusing. Although I must admit that we have managed to keep the Tuna and Cod populations in check. And the fishery is "closed"! The massachusetts state water quotas are 5.1 million pounds a year with trip limits to 3000 pounds a day, and federal quotas are 6 million pounds a year with trip limits of 600 pounds a day. Maybe not what the commercials want, but hardly "closed". Could it sustain a larger quota. Absolutely if closely monitored, but who to monitor it. Scientists, fisheries managers? You don't trust them.

I don't disagree that there are issues with too many doggies around here currently. But I don't think we have any understanding why, and should be spending as much time looking at why they are here, as how to eradicate them.

[north coast]

I give up.

[happytuna]

there was dog down chatham back 8 to 10 years ago we had to slow down on the way out there was so many and started affecting the chumming at the bb the dogs were as far as you could see and about 5 mile long going threw them it sucked
yes the need to raise the limits so it would be worth fishing them the procesers stop doing dogs when not enough comming in you need a lot at .20 cents a pound to the boat to make it worth it

[twofinbluna]

I give up.

Me too, north coast.

[fishahn]

they are out of control right now and the current management is not working! plain and simple, like it or not, its the truth! check with the head boats, commercial boats and rereational fisherman bottom fishing or jigging or live baiting for stripers! I'm sure they would all like to give you a few nice words about these lovely creatures!

[Slackwater]

Assippi, maybe you should go back and read my first post. You say you dont agree with me on" how to make the adjustment". Well I never stated my opinion on how to make the adjustment. And I never said to kill all the dogfish. I started this post to get people to talk about the problem and find out why articles about bluefin numbers and quality dont mention the fact that the largest group of fisherman that fish for them cant fish. So if you would stop ****ing people off maybe we could continue with the discussion!! I want to hear your opinion also but you dont have to be so argumentative.

[Mattb]

And its not about 'destroying' the species. Its about having a fishery on them that is able to keep their stocks in check. Whether you like it or not, the only answer to this is to have a bigger fishery like we had years back. This is a problem that will not go away unless we address it.

Ok, first things first- I fish artificials only, and I fish 'em from shore - I've never even seen a dogfish up close and personal. Ok, now that that's out of the way - My question is this -- if these dogfish are such a plague now, what exactly was going on out there before we were available to keep them "in check"? What has changed in our marine environment that has allowed the dogs to become such an overwhelming force? Have they always presented in such numbers, or have we changed some other variable in the larger equation that's caused the dogs to flourish?

I don't necessarily have a problem with a commercial fishery for dogs, what worries me is the idea that humans are needed to keep them (or any species) in check. They seem to have found balance just fine without us, so if all of a sudden they're "out of control", I wonder what has changed. Is it a forage issue? A predator issue?

-Matt

[twofinbluna]

Matt

Hard to say....but regardless of what it is, it is hard to deny that we are needed. Nobody is going to deny the fact that humans have messed things up there, but that is no excuse to allow this problem to continue. We were the ones keeping it check in the nineties, we stopped, and now its a mess. Naturally it would be great if things would sort themselves out without us...but in this case, they wont. They will continue to get worse.

[assinippi]

twofinbluna,

I am curious. Has there ever been an instance where increasing the harvest of a species has fixed an issue where humans have screwed things up? All the success I have heard of or read about has been a result of decreasing harvest. The only successes of increased harvest (attempted eradication) I've read about have involved control of feral or introduced species.

[north coast]

so, let the dogfish continue on at their current rate of expansion ,and take up golf. problem solved.
have you actually tried to put any type of bait in the water,anywhere, the last few years?

[assinippi]

North Coast,

Play nice now. As a matter of fact I tried jigging cod off the B buoy today and caught a bunch of Dogs, all but one male. Fished tube and worm and Pogies in Boston Harbor today as well. I think the sea worms and pogies count as bait.

It was a serious question. I hear a lot of folks touting a simplistic aproach, increase the quota of dogfish. I'm asking if there is an example where, by itself, an increase in harvest has been utilized to control a population, and where this approach has been successful.

[twofinbluna]

twofinbluna,

I am curious. Has there ever been an instance where increasing the harvest of a species has fixed an issue where humans have screwed things up? All the success I have heard of or read about has been a result of decreasing harvest. The only successes of increased harvest (attempted eradication) I've read about have involved control of feral or introduced species.

Yeah, with dogfish ten years ago. I believe that some sort of increased fishery would really help again. I am not saying wipe them out completelty, just increase the fishery to something like we had before and I think it will solve a lot of our current problems.

[assinippi]

Slackwater

I stand corrected. I made an assumption and lumped you together with most of the other posters who advocate a significantly increased quota on dogfish as the only solution. If I was wrong, my apologies. As far as "****ing people off", it doesn't seem to take much. I was trying to get past the simplistic approach, addressing just the symptoms, and try to get fishermen to look at how we created the situation that prompted dogfish to take over, and see what we might try to correct the situation by adjusting our impact on the entire ecosystem.

[assinippi]

And the data for that would be found where?

[twofinbluna]

What data? Were you actually fishing the last 20 years or what? You really need 'data' to show you what it was like then and what it is like now?????? Wow. I thought I could maybe get you to see the light, but apparently thats impossible. I am done with this conversation, going to watch the Sox. Have a good night, Im gone.

[north coast]

I'd love to hear some suggestions.
although even if we figured a way to control the current dogfish explosion good luck trying to get the "powers that be" to listen.
the way I see it, increasing the fishery for them is the only soultion right now.(I don't fish for dogfish, so that's not the motivation) Is there another solution? doubtfull. but again, I'd love to hear it if someone thinks so.

[assinippi]

Twofinbluna,

Very intelligent reply! That's your answer! I don't put too much credence in guys whose evidence is beacause I they said so. Stick with your crusade against midlevel trawlers. I honestly believe that you are probably on the right track there.

By the way I've been fishing a lot longer than 20 years.

Good game so far (4th inning)

[assinippi]

North Coast,

Don't give up so easily on effecting regulation. The "powers that be" can be convinced to do the right thing, if they believe it is indeed right (at least on the federal level). I think the situation is more complex than the population of dogfish exploded for no reason other than we limited our harvest. There were years in the 70s and again in the late 80s when dogfish landings were similar to the past 4 years, without the same increase of inshore dogfish. Twofinbluna may well be on to something with the issue of midlevel trawling for herring. I think that one of the reasons for all the school Tuna being inshore may be the same as why dogfish are inshore, lack of bait off shore. I would hate to see unrestricted harvest of dogfish as before the 90s.

[happytuna]

the midwater boats been around about ten years yes the dogs have been around to but not like this and so constint and are inshore and ofshore they are looking for food since there isnt much herring the last few years for the giant tunas to be here and push the dogs around and the sbt eat the small bait like sand eels the giants dont compete with the small ones to much
we need the dogs tobe kept in check

try to chum at bobs triangle or around the islands in boston you will catch dog to most of the time

[twofinbluna]

Twofinbluna,

Very intelligent reply! That's your answer! I don't put too much credence in guys whose evidence is beacause I they said so. Stick with your crusade against midlevel trawlers. I honestly believe that you are probably on the right track there.

By the way I've been fishing a lot longer than 20 years.

Good game so far (4th inning)

I dont have time to sit here and convince you, it really makes no sense. You seem to want to argue this point until the cows come home, and to be honesy, I do not really care whether you believe what we are saying or not.

My point was that if you need 'data' to show you that there is a dogfish problem and that there was less of a problem when there was a bigger fishery, than we have got problems. It is so obvious.

You are obviously against an increased fishery for dogfish and would rather let this problem continue than try and do something about it. The last thing I am want to do is sit here and try to convince someone of something that they dont want to be convinced of. If I believed you would listen, I would put more effort into this, but I really do not see you changing your mind.

And yes, great game. Go Sox!

[twofinbluna]

And to be honest, I think Nils explained the issue as well as you ever could in Dogfish Follies. I posted it in a thread above, but apparently you did not choose to read it. I suggest reading it, and keeping in mind that in the years since Nils wrote it, the % of dogs in the trawl surveys has gone up, as have overall abundance estimates.

http://www.fishnet-usa.com/dogfishfollies.html

[Mattb]

Matt

... humans have messed things up there, but that is no excuse to allow this problem to continue. We were the ones keeping it check in the nineties, we stopped, and now its a mess.

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm really asking out of curiosity, but does anyone have a handle on what exactly we humans screwed up that led to this plague of dogfish? Have we killed off their predators? It seems unlikely that an overabundance of food has led to the population spike, so the predator angle would seem to be more likely.

Is there any science on this? The Dogfish follies doesn't really address the issue at all - focusing on how these awful predators are out eating and out competing more financially valuable predators.

[fishahn]

twofinbluna,

I am curious. Has there ever been an instance where increasing the harvest of a species has fixed an issue where humans have screwed things up? All the success I have heard of or read about has been a result of decreasing harvest. The only successes of increased harvest (attempted eradication) I've read about have involved control of feral or introduced species.

Deer Management, every state in the country! most wild game for that matter! that is what it is all about, too many of a species and increase the quota, not enough decrease it. it does work if those involved stay on top of matters!

[assinippi]

fishahn,

Excellent point. With strict and careful management many states have managed to maintain healthy deer herds and keep them from overbrowsing through hunting. A few western states have even re-introduced large predators to help cull the weaker animals that hunters don't want. However none have a commercial hunt equivalent to commercial fishing. I was hoping for a salt water management plan as an example, something more of an apple to apple comparison, something with fins swimming out in an ocean. If it doesn't have fins and swim in the ocean, I don't think that a landbased wildlife management plan works as an example. Here in the Northeast, with the exception of deer, and a few bear most upland game birds and many freshwater fish are stocked, and many more are in artificially created habitats or are not native to the area they are in. It is management, but in smaller environments that are easier to control than the ocean. if you screw up you can use rhotenone and start over with fresh fish out of a hatchery.

I like your thinking though.

[assinippi]

Twofinbluna,

I read Nils Stolpe's article "Dogfish Follies" years ago, and have reread it several times since. The article was written for National Fisherman Magazine by an author who's salary is paid by the commercial fishing and processing industry. Forgive me if I am a little skeptical, thinking he and I might have slightly differing views on the issues. Commercial fisherman and the fishing industry as a whole doesn't have a great conservation track record. I think he has some valid points and he supplied a lot of great links on his site which lead me to read his data, and much more. However after I read the same data, I did not come to all the same conclusions that Nils did. Maybe you should try a litle reading and making a decision on your own as to what the data indicates.

By the way, I thought I'd heard the last from you?

[twofinbluna]

Twofinbluna,

I read Nils Stolpe's article "Dogfish Follies" years ago, and have reread it several times since. The article was written for National Fisherman Magazine by an author who's salary is paid by the commercial fishing and processing industry. Forgive me if I am a little skeptical, thinking he and I might have slightly differing views on the issues. Commercial fisherman and the fishing industry as a whole doesn't have a great conservation track record. I think he has some valid points and he supplied a lot of great links on his site which lead me to read his data, and much more. However after I read the same data, I did not come to all the same conclusions that Nils did. Maybe you should try a litle reading and making a decision on your own as to what the data indicates.

By the way, I thought I'd heard the last from you?

I would love to get deeper into this with you Assinippi, but got WAY more pressing stuff to deal with with regards to all the herring stuuff going on. I have read and reread just about everything written on dogs, I was posting Nils article because, as I said before, I do not have the time to try and change your mind. It doesnt matter whether you trust Nils or not, the data is there, its your choice to make.

I completely agree with Nils on almost every point in regards to dogs. You would be making a false assumption if you though I take what Nils says to be the gospel (in fact, I disagree with him very often on one of the other sites that we both are on).

My view is based mostly on what I see every day on the water, from year to year, and partly from looking at surveys and the other somewhat reliable data. (Relatively reliable, that is).

Now you have heard the last from me, at least for now. Hopefully as the herring stuff settles down I will find some time to get into this more with you.