jason colby

PETITION BY CLF FOR MORATORIUM ON ATLANTIC COD

Rate this topic

39 posts in this topic

 

 

Mike, to answer your suggestion and put this topic back on track (because you obviously do not understand the concept of an analogy) : "In regard to GOM cod", I spoke to a NOAA Biologist yesterday about this and several state (Ma.) biologists today. They think the petition is focused on the likelihood that dragger dead discards in The GOM are severely under-reported because of the incentive to fish in areas with "larger, more valuable haddock" that swim in areas where cod congregate. The lack of observers, as noted by both the state and federal guys, is not helping the issue.

 

In 2013 I used the analogy of a pie in reference to the amount of flounder available to rec fishermen in Boston Harbor and my concern was that, at the time, draggers were taking only one slice of an 8 slice pie because they were "working on" (AKA: "working over") the cod. With the proposed quota increases the state and feds were proposing for winter flounder I was afraid that the draggers would simply take too many slices.

Both you and your buddy Paul came back by saying that what I was saying was "idiodic" , "moronic", "stupid", etc. and that I obviously did not know what I was talking about. Well now that pie is being cut into 11 slices and the draggers are taking 10 and leaving the rec fishermen with the smallest slice and what we do not take of that is left for breeding stock. Is that sound management that you were supporting?

In speaking out against the things I am saying here, are you speaking "sound management"?

I was trying to prevent what happened to cod from happening to flounder but you would not hear any anything to do with what I was saying if it denied the draggers a pound of ill gotten flesh..

What part of all this do you not understand? 

 

You also stated above that you are "for yourself" ("I have never represented anyone but me in all this fishery management B.S.") so, like me and most people, in all honestly we are looking out for our own interests WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION: "Why are you seemingly so PRO DRAGGER?"

I do not hide it that I am a recreational fisherman and a charter boat captain taking other rec fishermen out and I want them to catch fish, have a good time and bring home fish to eat. If the draggers take 90% of the fish that would otherwise be available for my customers I'm sure you understand why I'm so upset. Do you have family members who own draggers or who are involved in "the industry"?

I know you don't go to meetings out of the goodness of your heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bob_G said:

I woke up early this AM, checked SOL. Read this thread, saw it was getting contentious. You guys began double and triple quoting each other, and I simply got the authors mixed up.  I explained it to Tim 

Plus I was unfamiliar with the POS abbreviation.

Hope I didn't offend you, I didn't mean to imply anything sinister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jason colby said:

You also stated above that you are "for yourself" ("I have never represented anyone but me in all this fishery management B.S.") so, like me and most people, in all honestly we are looking out for our own interests WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION: "Why are you seemingly so PRO DRAGGER?"

I do not hide it that I am a recreational fisherman and a charter boat captain taking other rec fishermen out and I want them to catch fish, have a good time and bring home fish to eat. If the draggers take 90% of the fish that would otherwise be available for my customers I'm sure you understand why I'm so upset. Do you have family members who own draggers or who are involved in "the industry"?

I know you don't go to meetings out of the goodness of your heart.

1st, this is the last time I will respond to you regarding any fishery management issues.

2nd I'm not "PRO DRAGGER" I'm simply not anti dragger, I'm also not pro gill net I'm just not knee jerk against gill nets. I get that's a concept you don't understand, 

3rd, I do got to meetings, engage in correspondence, etc. etc. with no compensation other than to try to payback the resource that has been so good to me. If that equates to "the goodness of your heart," so be it. I get that you can't unstained someone doing something just because thy think they should. It's the antithesis of your actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 1:14 PM, MakoMike said:

I think our best bet for the short term ...

Right there, the hallmark of all his thinking; short term.

Never a more clear absolute self-admission of the circus-mirror lens through which the master of the myopic's every perspective is conveniently twisted, opinions seemingly bolstered by reams of irrelevance, ushering us on... onward 

 

On 2/14/2020 at 1:14 PM, MakoMike said:

....to continue on the path we are on....

Because this path has not brought us here and ours is not the hand on the wheel. 
Far be it that we should examine.... the means by which we fish.

Certainly not.

Not when we can remove culpability from draggers and gillnetters...

Not when we can point the finger elsewhere, something the gullible will swallow;

On 2/14/2020 at 1:14 PM, MakoMike said:

... increased depredation on juvenile fluke by dogfish...

because, although on the planet for 100's of millions of years,

it's in the last 25 that Super-Squalidae has emerged and is decimating the young. 

But Cap'n Mike, mouthpiece for all draggermen, is quite correct about one thing; one piece of his advice is dead on balls ....

On 2/14/2020 at 3:03 PM, MakoMike said:

.... never buy a dragger... 

If not because from a distance of 50 feet that a tote of soft, crushed, washed-out dragger cod can be discerned from a tote of hard dark hooked fish, 
...... that IS why there are two prices, right, Cap'n Mike ??

It's not that hooked fish commands a premium, but that dragged and gillnet fish is an inferior product,  right?

 

Well, If not for that reason, then just never buy a dragger, ... simply because...

On 2/14/2020 at 2:16 PM, jason colby said:

There are also far too many draggers and gill netters working inshore waters

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 mins ago, Shhh....Now said:

Right there, the hallmark of all his thinking; short term.

Never a more clear absolute self-admission of the circus-mirror lens through which the master of the myopic's every perspective is conveniently twisted, opinions seemingly bolstered by reams of irrelevance, ushering us on... onward 

FYI, the entire system is geared to the short term, by law. You want that changed go talk to your congress critters. I'd gladly change my perspective if I wasn't prevented from doing so by the Magnesson-Stevens act, as interpreted by NMFS. The law requires that once the SSC sets the tac for the year, the everyone do whatever they can to ensure that the TAC is caught but not exceeded. 

 

I agree that there are far too may inshore draggers and gill netters, but that's a state problem that I have no influence over. OTOH I can see it from the perspective of a state official. You want to tell some old guy that he can't put food on his table anymore? Lot easier to just wait till the old guy croaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason,
 
XXXX sent me the post and link Mike Plaia made on SOL.  I'm not a member there and was hoping you could post the below on my behalf as a rebuttal to Mike's post since it's full of misrepresentations and outright lies.    
 
Posted on behalf of Tom Smith as rebuttal to post by Mike Plaia regarding the management of the summer flounder fishery.  Mike if you insist on making posts referencing my work over the last three years regarding the management of the summer flounder fishery, I'd ask that you either present the facts as I've presented them or refrain from misrepresenting comments I've made.
 
For the record, your statement that I've made several false assertions is an outright lie.  I never said the commercial fleet starting targeting older age classes a few years ago, every document I've written on the subject has been consistent is saying the commercial sector started harvesting older age classes in 1997, 23 years ago, when commercial landings dropped from 12.9 million lbs in 1996 to 8.8 million lbs in 1997.  The data shows, if you care to look, how the commercial harvest composition changed from 1997 forward to target older age classes with higher market values to protect ex-vessel values as a means of compensating for reduced landings.  That decision was an elective decision by the commercial sector, not mandated by regulations as is the case the recreational sector is handicapped with.  To add color, the following are percentages from annual commercial landings representing age classes 2 yrs and younger (1st percentage) versus age classes 3 yrs. and older (second percentage) for the following years.  1996 80% / 20%, 1997 64% / 36%, 1998 53% / 47%, 1999 42% / 58% and scroll forward to 2017, the last year included in the 66th SAW, commercial catch consisted of 13% age classes 2 and younger and 87% age classes 3 and older.  For comparison sake, between 1991 and 1996 when the fishery started recovering from the 1988 crash, the percentages averaged 88% for age classes 2 years and younger and 12% for age classes 3 years and older.  Don't know what your definition is of targeting older age classes but those statistics, based on marine fisheries own data, certainly meet my definition.  Harvest composition has completely changed causing a material change in the female gender composition of the biomass, sending discard rates to record high levels, destroying recruitment and killing the fishery.  Recruitment numbers alone are down 200 million this past decade alone versus the decade 2000 through 2009.  200 million less recruits because the female population of every relevant age category has been impaired due to recreational regulations mandating the harvest of almost exclusively female breeders and the elective harvest of the same by the commercial sector.  I submitted a 12 page document to the ASMFC, MAFMC, SSC, MC, AP and NEFSC Members outlining a detailed recovery plan, both recreational and commercial, on 2/11/20.  Mike you were included on that email so your statement saying I offered no solutions is also an outright lie.  
 
I never said commercial concerns are targeting older age classes during the spawn, I have said repeatedly until we understand the consequences the commercial harvest has on the efficacy of the primary spawn between September and mid-November for the northern biomass, we should close those months to commercial harvest especially since recruitment levels have hit historically low levels.  My exact words in the email you were copied on said the following:
 
 
image.png
The relationship between R to SSB or survival rates fell off the cliff in 1997, continued to decline and never recovered.  I personally don't believe all of the above possibilities happened in 1997 or do I believe they're the primary problem requiring correction.  What did happen in 1997 are two major changes to the fishery:
  • Commission and Council started using increased size minimums to manage recreational catch
  • Commercial sector started targeting older age classes, a majority during the fall spawn and while staged offshore between January and March.  In other words, a build up in the commercial harvest of older age classes offshore which follows the same pattern causing the crash of the stock in 1988.
Based on statistics from ACCSP , "Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program", 58% of the commercial harvest occurs between September and November (15%) and January through March (43%).  The spawn and when the biomass is mostly highly concentrated while wintering offshore.  In 2017, the biomass was reflected at 121 million fish, approximately 80 million part of the spawning stock biomass "SSB".  We're risking the efficacy of 80 million fish spawning to commercially harvest 15% of the annual harvest during the prime spawning months.  All this while recruitment has fallen to record low levels.  Someone needs to help me understand the logic in that decision. 
 
Size minimums were at 13" and 14" both recreational and commercial for the better part of 1989 to 2003 when SSB grew by 900%, the biomass population almost tripled and annual recruitment increased 400% from the 1988 crash.  While I agree with your statement that reduced size minimums increase catch levels which result in shortened seasons, the problem we should all have with that statement is that's only due to how models have been built.  NJ, NY, RI an Ct. make up a high percentage of the RHL.  NJ has a 3 possession limit @ 18", NY and RI have 4 @ 19" and Ct has 6 @19".  Recreational directed angler trips in 2018 resulted in 1 fish harvested on 67% of those trips and 2 fish harvested on 24% of those trips.  In total, an average of 1.3 fish were harvested on 91% of directed recreational trips per angler.  That statistic is insane.  If we reduce minimum sizes, the impacts alone on discards and discard mortality will be enormous.  From 2009 to 2011, 166 million fish were caught recreationally in the process of harvesting 11.5 million fish.  That alone might be the new definition of insanity.  If we reduce size minimums back to the period which spawned tremendous growth in the fishery, the impact on less females being harvested will be enormous.  The impact on recruitment and the gender imbalance created to SSB will be enormous as will egg capacity and higher recruitment levels.  And since smaller fish weigh less and ACL is a weight measurement, why should we have to substantially shorten the season when on average based on 2018 statistics we're not close to harvesting the current daily possession limits of today so harvesting 2 or 3 smaller fish with half the weight shouldn't really change much in terms of weight.  Either way, reduced discard percentages alone and in the absolute should more than compensate for increased catch.  The models are either wrong or the data is being misinterpreted.  If we don't start harvesting younger age classes, protecting the spawn and older age classes, this fishery will crash again as it did in 1988.  And it will happen by 2024 based on my calculations if regulations aren't changed to address the issued I've outlined.  
 
As far as your dogfish theory, dogfish population if you took the time to check was as high for a significant portion of the nineties as today when the summer flounder stock experienced exponential growth.  So that theory along with a half dozen others I've been told doesn't hold water.  
 
Two last questions, if 91% of directed recreational angler trips in 2018 resulted in an average harvest of 1.3 fish at the size minimums the recreational sector is handicapped with today, how will an increase in RHL benefit the recreational sector.  Be interested in your perspective on that.  Second, "let the boys in Woods Hole" study poor recruitment and see what they come up with.  If they haven't figured it out over two decades, what makes you think they will in the short term.  Mark Terceiro, lead scientist for NEFSC, special comments in 66th SAW:
image.png
 
"Most recent years", it's been declining as a percentage of SSB for over two decades and in the absolute since 2011 resulting in the lowest levels in the last 50 years and 200 million fish less as mentioned earlier this past decade.  The impacts of that alone will be felt for at least ten years, if the fishery makes it that long without remedial measures being adopted to address the issues outlined in the analysis I've provided.  The boys as you put it should have been all over this 20 years ago as the relationships were changing.
 
Mike either way I'd ask that you refrain from referencing my analysis going forward if you insist of distorting the points I've made or posting outright lies.  And on a personal note, I offered to meet for lunch, have a phone conversation and provide any information you needed to understand my analysis and you chose instead to turn down each of those offers and instead post lies about the work I've painstakingly performed and shared with you trying to save this fishery.  
 
Jason not sure you can post all that and or graphs but if you can please do.  I've also included for your reference a copy of the recovery plan I submitted to fisheries management earlier this week.
Much appreciated,
 
Tom

sfrp.png

Summer Flounder Recovery Plan to Commission_Council.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just sent an email to The Conservation Law Foundation:

 

Hello!
 
 
Please pass my contact info on to someone I can speak to about the issue of The State of Massachusetts DMF ignoring it's citizens and knowingly allowing a few commercial boats (six I was told) to destroy the angling opportunity for tens of thousands of recreational anglers as well as the livelihood of hundreds of charter businesses, tackle shops and other related small companies that they also have a responsibility to, yet have been ignoring pleas for help for the last 7 years.
Over those seven years we have watched the decline of flounder fishing to a point where we have less than 10% of what there was in 2013. I have been sounding the alarm about striped bass since 2007 and yet for many years after they were being warned of the implications I was raising, they (The MA DMF) continued to annually raise the commercial quotas.
Since 2013 when the cod populations were declared to be "less than 4% of a healthy biomass" in The Gulf of Maine, the State of Massachusetts has allowed INCREASING DRAGGER ACTIVITY in it's waters adjacent to The Gulf of Maine causing massive cod mortality that is not being monitored on any quota. Also, there are gill nets stretched across cod breeding grounds that are supposedly" fishing for flounder and/or haddock but they are causing massive cod mortality as well.
On the other side of Cape Cod, the draggers quickly wipe out the few summer flounder that make it inshore and there has been virtually no reasonable fluke (summer flounder) run in over five years yet The Ma. DMF just approved (on 02/20/2020) a doubling of the trip limits for summer flounder for draggers from 1000 pounds a day to 2000 pounds a day in spite of evidence (a recent study by fishery scientists) that the summer flounder population is in severe decline.
I believe we have a case to "force" (sue)  the state to end all netting in it's state waters.
 
Thank you!
 
Captain Jason Colby
Little Sister Charters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jason colby said:

I just sent an email to The Conservation Law Foundation:

 

Hello!
 
 
Please pass my contact info on to someone I can speak to about the issue of The State of Massachusetts DMF ignoring it's citizens and knowingly allowing a few commercial boats (six I was told) to destroy the angling opportunity for tens of thousands of recreational anglers as well as the livelihood of hundreds of charter businesses, tackle shops and other related small companies that they also have a responsibility to, yet have been ignoring pleas for help for the last 7 years.
Over those seven years we have watched the decline of flounder fishing to a point where we have less than 10% of what there was in 2013. I have been sounding the alarm about striped bass since 2007 and yet for many years after they were being warned of the implications I was raising, they (The MA DMF) continued to annually raise the commercial quotas.
Since 2013 when the cod populations were declared to be "less than 4% of a healthy biomass" in The Gulf of Maine, the State of Massachusetts has allowed INCREASING DRAGGER ACTIVITY in it's waters adjacent to The Gulf of Maine causing massive cod mortality that is not being monitored on any quota. Also, there are gill nets stretched across cod breeding grounds that are supposedly" fishing for flounder and/or haddock but they are causing massive cod mortality as well.
On the other side of Cape Cod, the draggers quickly wipe out the few summer flounder that make it inshore and there has been virtually no reasonable fluke (summer flounder) run in over five years yet The Ma. DMF just approved (on 02/20/2020) a doubling of the trip limits for summer flounder for draggers from 1000 pounds a day to 2000 pounds a day in spite of evidence (a recent study by fishery scientists) that the summer flounder population is in severe decline.
I believe we have a case to "force" (sue)  the state to end all netting in it's state waters.
 
Thank you!
 
Captain Jason Colby
Little Sister Charters

Yes, and before someone mentions it, I was just putting the striped bass issue on the table and we know in Mass. that the issue is not nets for them. And I also put the "irresponsible practice" of doubling the fluke quota even though it is not in state waters. I just need to establish the insane actions of The DMF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 3:45 PM, jason colby said:

I guess I have to make it simple for you to understand by scaling it down for you:

"Sushi-Jumbo's" are returning $10/pound and large/medium's are returning $1/pound. 

A: Little Mikey took his dragger out in Rhode Island Sound where he is allowed to retain 10 pounds of summer flounder a day. On his first tow he catches 100 pounds of fluke and he retains 5 pounds of the $10 stuff and tosses the other 95 pounds of $1 stuff overboard dead. He repeats the procedure and gets his 10 pound quota for a $100 return. (190 pounds of dead discards)

B: Little Mikey keeps the one 5 pound jumbo and another 5 pounds of $1 stuff and goes home with only $51 worth of fish. (90 pounds of dead discards)

What should Mikey do?

 

The point is that for a little extra effort (another hour tow) a inshore dragger can substantially increase his daily take. Now factor in the offshore boats with 1000 to 2000 daily allowances (January-sometime in March) and "Houston, we have a problem".

dont insult his intelligence - jesus 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.