CWitek

BST Users
  • Content count

    5,903
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

About CWitek

  • Rank
    5,000 Post Club!

Converted

  • What I do for a living:
    Attorney

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    West Babylon, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

2,425 profile views
  1. I have no idea of what their current position on bass. However, Johnny Morris, who heads the place, was one of the prime movers behind the 2014 report that led to the Modern Fish Act. And that report used striped bass as an example of GOOD recreational fishery management. That probably says something.
  2. At the same time, we've lost the pollock at the southern end of their range. I used to fish the late May/early June run off Block Island. It used to be spectacular, with the trollers often hooking two or three fish at a time on umbrellas (we needed fewer fish, and did fine jigging). That fishery died a long time ago. There used to be a lot of big pollock on the wrecks south of Long Island that could be caught even during the summer. Some small pollock are still caught, but not many, and the big fish are all gone. Yet for a while, the all-tackle record and some line class records were held by anglers fishing out of New York and New Jersey. Such loss of fish at the southern end of the range suggests that warming waters actually could be a problem with pollock.
  3. I use braid for jigging in deeper water, some deep-water bait fishing, and on the rare occasions that I fish from the beach. Also for freshwater fishing in heavy weeds. For everything else, I prefer mono.
  4. That's not entirely true. From the Canada History website, available at http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/pcsinpower/cod_collapse.htm The Northern Cod were so plentiful that until the late 50's over 250,000 tons was caught on an annual basis. The Canadian fishing industry would traditionally fish just off the coast in smaller vessels using traditional methods such as jigging from a dory or small inshore gill nets. In the late 50's the arrival of large factory ships from other countries hailed the first onslaught to the finely balanced renewable cod fishery. These factory trawlers were huge ships which would use enormous haul nets to capture large number of cod, flatfish, haddock, herring and many other fish. They came from England, the U.S., the Soviet Union, East and West Germany. Spain, Portugal, Poland and some Asia nations such as Japan and Korea. The process would allow them to lay out their nets, from the stern of their ships, haul them in and then process the catch on the ship by gutting, cleaning and freezing the fish. With the arrival of these foreign fleets and the huge increase in their ability to net the fish, the annual catch, in 1968 increased to over 800,000 tons. At this level the cod were not able to renew their numbers and the available cod began to decline so that by 1975 the annual catch had declined to 300,000 tonnes. The U.S. and Canada took action in 1976 by extending their marine jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles which effectively pushed the foreign factory ships off many of the prime fishing and breeding grounds. The catches continued to decline for a few more years and bottomed out at 139,000 tonnes in 1978. If the fishery were maintained at this level then the recovery and health of the cod may have occurred but at this point Canadian factory ships were replacing the banished foreign ones and by 1984 were hauling in 250,000 tonnes which did not allow it to recover. The fishing technology had also taken another destructive leap in catch power by with deployment and use draggers. These ships dropped huge nets that were dragged along the bottom of the ocean which caught everything in its path and destroyed the underlying eco-system in the process. Fish, young fish, other sea life and the food source for the cod were all being destroyed in order to keep the catch rate on the rise. The entire eco-system was upset and destabilized. Much of the cod that was caught were spawning fish and hence the reproductive cycle was also disrupted. The impact of this highly destructive path was pointed out by the local inshore fishermen who were alerted to the drastic drop in the normal patterns of the cod and the shrinkage in their overall numbers. It was only in 1986 that the scientists analysis of the cod caught up with what the local fishing industry had been saying and they recommended in 1988 that the allowable catch be cut in half. The government of the day put off any real action until 1992 when the Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was forced to impose a ban on fishing the Northern cod. The cod fishery had completely collapsed and by 1995 it was estimated that the entire cod bio-mass had declined to around 1,700 tonnes form an annual yearly catch in the mid 50's of 250,000 tonnes.
  5. I pulled that $0.20 price right out of the Mid-Atlantic Council's Market Performance Reports, which are supposedly compiled with the help of fishermen on the Bluefish Advisory Panel. $0.20-0.25/pound prices have been quoted for the past few years. The 2018 report (they come out in August) says, in part, "NY--During the run of larger fish at the end of May, price dipped to $0.20-$0.25 per pound, but with the current run of 3-pound fish the price seems to stay at $0.50-$0.70 per pound." You can find that statement here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/511cdc7fe4b00307a2628ac6/t/5b636f1170a6ad2d9f3ae347/1533243157865/Tab11_Bluefish-2019-Specs_2018-08.pdf Similar statements are made in the materials provided for the August 2016 and August 2017 Mid-Atlantic Council meetings. You know better than I do what you're shipping for, and if you say that you don't get less than $0.60/pound I believe you, but either someone is getting far less, or someone isn't reporting good numbers to the Council. One of the problems that I've heard some gillnetters talk about is that they just don't know what the price will be when they ship. They think the price will be good, then find out that it had crashed after they receive their check.
  6. Apologies for the slow reply--was out of town for a while. I never believed that fishermen intentionally target fish that will be sold at a loss. But what I've heard is what you noted, that "as the market gets flooded the price drops." What I've long wondered is whether there is any way that the price drop--which seems fairly predictable--can be prevented by fishermen setting less gear, setting less often or otherwise limiting their output, so that they can essentially keep prices higher and make the same money by working less, while leaving some quota for the summer months when demand is higher, more fish might be sold to restaurants serving the tourist trade, etc. I know that fishermen tend to be fairly independent, and that getting everyone onto that page would be slightly more difficult than herding a few hundred cats, but if there is a way, it would seem to be a win-win.
  7. It's a distinct regional stock of fish. The coastal migratory stock that winters off North Carolina is not affected.
  8. The quota--more properly the annual commercial and recreational catch limits--are caps on harvest determined to be biologically sustainable by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The overall annual catch limit is allocated between the sectors, with 83% allocated to the recreational side, and 17% allocated to commercials. However, there are provisions in the management plan that allow transfer of up to 10 million pounds (it has never been close to that) of "unused" recreational quota to the commercial sector.
  9. No. For example, there's a big May gill net fishery on the East End of Long Island. Usually ends up with too many fish for the market to handle, and bluefish selling for $0.20 to $0.25 per pound. 60 pounds to a box gets you $12.00. Costs $14.00 to pack the box and ship it to market (these numbers were provided by a pinhooker who I know, and the Mid-Atlantic Council fishery performance reports for the prices, so they should be good). So they lose $2.00 on every box, plus the costs of running the boat, etc., keep landing thousands of pounds, then complain that they don't have enough quota later in the year when demand is higher and prices break $1.00/pound. Never seemed like the best way to maximize the value of the resource.
  10. Thanks again, and keep it coming.
  11. I didn't, not because I thought that they'd object, but because I wanted to stick in a New York-specific forum. I suspect that you're right that I might get some other New York anglers there, but I'd also probably get more non-New York comments, too. That could also happen here, but hopefully to a much lesser extent. This is only one part of the outreach that I'm doing, but I wanted to include SOL because there are a lot of good and dedicated bass fishermen here, many of whom may not belong to clubs, etc. and would be hard to reach by other means.
  12. Again, thanks. And keep the comments coming.
  13. That’s what we’re about to find out. Amendment 6 says that if the stock becomes overfished, the Management Board “must” rebuild it to target in a period not to exceed 10 years. So the question is whether the Management Board will stand by what it has written, or whether it will interpret “must” to mean “may, but only if they feel like it.”