Must Read Article - Gone Fishing

[Mark Cahill]

BUToday.com does a stunning job of looking at fisheries management issues, providing a comprehensive overview and narrowing much of the problem to the lack of Big Old Fat Female breeders. They blame that loss on rec and comm fishermen...

This is a must read.. http://www.bu.edu/today/2009/05/20/gone-fishing

[FlyFishFrostie]

Interesting article that raises more questions than it answers.

Something that makes no sense is that even though Stellwagen is categorized as a "marine sanctuary," numerous activities that have a direct, adverse impact on its ecosystem are still permitted. Either it's a "sanctuary" or it isn't. It's as though everyone is hoping that by referring to Stellwagen as a "sanctuary," its ecosystem will somehow preserve itself while destructive activities continue to be allowed. Contrast Stellwagen’s condition to Pennecamp’s (off Key Largo), where fishing generally is not permitted, and the differences are glaring. Simply calling Stellwagen a sanctuary does not make it one.

IMHO, this is not as complicated a problem as it’s made out to be. Either allow destructive activities and suffer the consequences, or don’t permit any of them (or sharply scale them back) and suffer other consequences. We can’t have it both ways, and everyone will have to pay a price. All categories of fishermen/consumers/users are going to have to make big compromises if we’re to have any production/enjoyment from these resources down the road.

Here is one piece from the article that sums it up, "… satisfies almost no one. Fishermen and other commercial users feel unjustly blamed for the degraded state of the sanctuary and fear that the findings may be used to drive them out of business. Meanwhile, although the plan embraces the ecosystem-based management approach that Kaufman’s science supports, it proposes almost no concrete actions, leading Kaufman and many environmentalists to disparage it as toothless..."

At this rate, Stellwagen and our fisheries will continue on a similar path to oblivion as GM simply due to our refusal to face the obvious reality of the situation and to act accordingly.

America, the once beautiful, but now gutless wonder…

[Onshore]

Can't argue with most of your conclusions, Frostie. Unfortunately, the Stellwagen controversey started years ago after Congress allowed oil and gass drilling off the coast of California and in the Gulf of Mexico. The industry and their political allies were eyeing Jeffreys, Stellwagen and Georges Banks for further drilling. Massachusetts and the commercial and recreational fishing industries were opposed.

After all, Stellwagen was a commercial fishing bank as soon as the Pilgrims and their followers landed and need a nearby source of food. Boston, Marblehead, Gloucester fishing industries were founded there and have continued ever since.

In a well-orchestrated effort to get a foot in the door; proponents of drilling offered, in public meetings, to leave Stellwagen off limits as long as exploratory drilling would be allowed in other offshore areas. I remember attending several hearings at that time and both sports and com. fisheries bought that idea. And the state based its' opposition on the need to save the bank for the fishermen. Despite those promises, the powers that be recently succeeded in having the Stellwagen Sanctuary approved on Beacon Hill and in Washington.

It was a lousy deal all around. While there are few restrictions to the users of Stellwagen today; more and more restrictions will be added until it becomes off limits to any activity that remotely adversly affects the flora and fauna of the area. Like in the Florida Keys Sanctuary and others; nothing will be allowed that "leaves a footprint of man" I believe the termnology is. But that is going to take time. You cannot abolish public uses overnight - especially if they have been going on for many years. Two years ago, I asked a Ma. Senator why they were going back on their promises. His answer was, "we were not the ones who promised to keep it for the frishermen".

It's not a simplistic as you state. Many of the current users will fight tooth and nail to maintain their use of Stellwagen. Abolishing those uses will take public hearings and maybe even legislative action - all because the law establishing the sanctuary did not simultaneously prohibet those uses as many sanctuary and MPA's enabling legislation has done. It requires the sanctuary management to "prove" each action they wish to ban is detrimental to the environment. And leaves the door open to litigation.

I can see a protracted battle, especially with the fishing industry and, perhaps even recreational fishermen. Certainly the $14 million Whale/Seal Watch industry is not going to roll over and sell of their boats. But I think it's a battle that can delay full implementation of the sanctuary, but not kill it. I well remember an official of the NE Aquarium stating at a NEFMC meeting 20 or more years ago words to the effect that, "We will get the sanctuary and eventually we will prohibet boats from even crossing it let alone fishing it, unless they are conducting experiments or working for the sanctuary. When asked about commercial shipping, she stated, "We will even make the freighters and tankers change their courses to avoid the bank on their way into and out of Boston and other ports."

Mark my words. Eventually, Stellwagen will be off limits to most user groups now enjoying it. It will become a laboratory of the biologists, archeologists, naturalists and academia - much to the detriment of the general public, IMHO.

[FlyFishFrostie]

We appreciate your perspective, Onshore. You probably have much more experience and knowledge about Stellwagen and other NE fisheries than 99+% of the participants who use and/or regulate them.

Rather than making Stellwagen off-limits altogether, what about placing more restrictions on the most destructive activities, such as those that raze the sea floor and destroy the ecosystem from the bottom up? At this rate, by the time any action is taken, it's likely to be too late to have much of a positive impact.

What changes should we be striving for regarding Stellwagen and other specific areas?

[FlyFishFrostie]

...narrowing much of the problem to the lack of Big Old Fat Female breeders. They blame that loss on rec and comm fishermen...

I keep hearing this conventional wisdom but wonder how it can be true. Perhaps this conventional wisdom is false and is one explanation for why our fisheries management to date has been such a failure. Consider the following:

A smaller, younger female has many more future reproductive cycles and total eggs left to be laid as it continues growing into a "Big Old Fat" one, as compared the the "Big Old Fat" one that already is much closer to the end of her life and might only have a few more years of reproduction remaining. So which is the more valuable fish from a reproductive standpoint? Killing the younger female will prevent many more future egg fertilizations from occurring than killing the older, bigger female simply because the older female will be dead and unable to reproduce in the near future, kind of like humans, right? I'll take two younger females over a big, fat, older one anytime.;)

If fish are immortal or immune to dying from old age, then the "bigger-is-better" argument works, but I don't think "bigger-is-better" works if fish eventually die of old age, which they do, otherwise we'd have lots of 100 lb. stripers. (A nice thought).

[Onshore]

There is plenty of scientific evidence that it would be best to preserve the large breeding female Stripers. They produce many more eggs and more viable eggs. And they carry the strains of large bass.

I agree with your other post that "they" should crack down on those methods of fishing that are ruining the ocean bottoms but, our New England Fishery Management Council has resisted that action these past 20 or more years. Resisted curtailing the scallop dredges and bottom trawlers. Why, you ask? I think it is because those boats are operated by fellow commercial fishermen.

Commercial fishermen dominate the council votes and they have shown by their inaction over the past that they will not take actions that could harm their fellow fishermen. By those inactions they have demonstrated they are incapable of managing the resources their livlihood is dependent upon. Unfortunately, it is the classic example of putting the fox to guard the hen house.

[FlyFishFrostie]

There is plenty of scientific evidence that it would be best to preserve the large breeding female Stripers. They produce many more eggs and more viable eggs...

This may be true for the upcoming spawning year, but there's no way it can be true over the remaining lives of these respectively different sized fish. The smaller, and thus younger, fish will produce many more eggs over their remaining lives as these smaller ones continue growing and spawning while the already big ones have died off.


...And they carry the strains of large bass...

I'm not buying that, either. Bigger fish are simply older fish. And, bigger fish require more food, that is becoming increasingly scarce. A changing environment could favor the smaller individuals, just as it did with wolves and other species whose larger strains died off by natural selection.


There is plenty of scientific evidence...

What scientific evidence?

[Onshore]

. The smaller, and thus younger, fish will produce many more eggs over their remaining lives as these smaller ones continue growing and spawning while the already big ones have died off.

I'm not buying that, either. Bigger fish are simply older fish. And, bigger fish require more food, that is becoming increasingly scarce. A changing environment could favor the smaller individuals, just as it did with wolves and other species whose larger strains died off by natural selection.

What scientific evidence?

You do not have to believe what I wrote, Frostie. But, it is true and you can confirm it from most any research biologist working with Sriped Bass. There are one or two working in every state from Maine to Georgia.

Or, you can challenge what I wrote all while offering no evidence to the contrary.

[FlyFishFrostie]

Onshore, first, thank you for this dialog, which I think can be especially productive since it's off most people's radar screen, with no hard feelings and with a pure exchange of knowledge and rationale.

Now for the nitty gritty. With all due respect, I think the burden of proof is on the bigger-is-better crowd due to the disastrous results of our fisheries management to date. Why can’t they (you, with all of your decades of experience and knowledge) simply point to a study, or prove with logic, to counter the reasoning set forth above and show that the "bigger-is-better" argument is true? It cannot be done because the notion that "bigger is better" is a myth and cannot be substantiated by any scientific analysis or testing or logical reasoning. So, I'm surprised that someone with your experience, knowledge, and intellect would continue holding onto such a premise without being able to quickly discredit challenges such as mine.

The allegorical rhetoric that somebody once thought sounded good cannot refute the logic that younger, smaller females have yet to produce many more eggs than big, old females. Why? Because the younger ones have longer remaining life spans and many more reproductive cycles left during their longer remaining life spans than the big, old, fat ones that are likely to die sooner. The younger, smaller females will reproduce as they become big, old, fat ones and will continue reproducing for a while thereafter, while the original big, old ones will have long since died off.

Thus, the widely advocated “bigger-is-better” premise is false and is one reason that our fisheries management has been a disaster. Managing for MSY is fine, as long as it is based upon a factual foundation, but because it’s not, our yield is neither maximized nor sustainable, and both our fisheries and humanity suffer as a consequence.

[Onshore]

Now for the nitty gritty. With all due respect, I think the burden of proof is on the bigger-is-better crowd due to the disastrous results of our fisheries management to date. Why can’t they (you, with all of your decades of experience and knowledge) simply point to a study, or prove with logic, to counter the reasoning set forth above and show that the "bigger-is-better" argument is true? It cannot be done because the notion that "bigger is better" is a myth and cannot be substantiated by any scientific analysis or testing or logical reasoning. So, I'm surprised that someone with your experience, knowledge, and intellect would continue holding onto such a premise without being able to quickly discredit challenges such as mine.

The allegorical rhetoric that somebody once thought sounded good cannot refute the logic that younger, smaller females have yet to produce many more eggs than big, old females. Why? Because the younger ones have longer remaining life spans and many more reproductive cycles left during their longer remaining life spans than the big, old, fat ones that are likely to die sooner. The younger, smaller females will reproduce as they become big, old, fat ones and will continue reproducing for a while thereafter, while the original big, old ones will have long since died off.

Thus, the widely advocated “bigger-is-better” premise is false and is one reason that our fisheries management has been a disaster. Managing for MSY is fine, as long as it is based upon a factual foundation, but because it’s not, our yield is neither maximized nor sustainable, and both our fisheries and humanity suffer as a consequence.

Sorry, Frostie. Were I still living in NE and active in fisheries, I'd take the time to dig out the stats you claim aren't there. But, I'm retired and living in Florida and no longer have the contacts I had. So, I'll just repeat what I said in my last post and you can do with it what you will.

(You do not have to believe what I wrote, Frostie. But, it is true and you can confirm it from most any research biologist working with Sriped Bass. There are one or two working in every state from Maine to Georgia.

Or, you can challenge what I wrote all while offering no evidence to the contrary. )

[FlyFishFrostie]

Fair enough, Onshore. You’re entitled to some peace in your retirement, but please don’t retire altogether, because your insights from your experience and knowledge will always be important to us. I try to bounce these things off you and evoke your response to see if they might have any merit.

My latest idea is to set up two fishbowls of guppies, one with “big, old, fat" females and the other with the same number of males and females but with the females being much younger, sexier, and wearing skimpy bikinis. My bet is that after one year, the second fishbowl will have a much larger population of guppies, and my point will have been irrefutably proven. And, I expect to win a Nobel Prize for this work.;)

[Trarajaks]

thats what I meant. The budget on the patrol end is crap because its strained away for other things. The issues are much broader but I do think its fair to say that politics is much more complicated than just loading a patrol boat and keeping the fishermen out.
I can give you plenty examples of fisheries errors in the EU and North America. To say that the Thai have no idea of conservation methods is unfairly singling them out for what is a worldwide problem. Yes, tourism is an industry which can have a voice when enough tourists speak out. The upper echelons do pay heed although their actions would be much like what Eric had in response to his shark fin petition to Californias political system, obsfucation and inaction.
Lets not single out any particular country with poor marine park and fisheries management. Youd hope that the Thai would see the issues in the rest of the world and learn from it. Resource management isnt just black and white, but balancing many things. I think Similan National Park is better than many other reefs in the Thai Andaman coast, and thats because they are protected. Could it be much better? Of course. But then the dive industry could also use much more eco-friendly methods to work in the area. Oh and also help educate the thai school system with regular visits to bring up marine biosystems etc.

Mike, I think its an eel although at first glance, I thought it was an elephant trunk