Capt. Mike Bartlett sent this my way and I thought it was worth sharing…have a look…
Hi Jerry,
I’d greatly appreciate if you could get out some information to your Massachusetts readers about this issue that is before the NEFMC. Enclosed is my letter to the Council.
Capt. Mike Bartlett
B-Fast Charters
www.bfastcharters.com
Enclosed is a letter to editors/legislators and clients with interests in Recreational ground fishing. Consider writing a letter to the Council expressing your interests and concerns relative to this issue.
Dear Editor,
The New England Fisheries Management council is endeavoring to radically alter if not ostensibly shut-down recreational rod and reel ground fishing for cod, haddock, pollock, etc. for private, charter and party-boat fisherman in New England coastal waters. As reported by NE Fisherman`s Field Editor, Ed Nowak, who regularly attends the Council meetings, “A motion to achieve a 67 percent reduction in recreational, party and charter boat landings was carried at the November 9th meeting of the NEFMC. If recreational fishing goes over the proposed reduction in landings, the council plans to install further size and bag limit restrictions” Currently new size and bag limitations are part of the proposal. The new bag limits, if imposed, will virtually shut-down charter and party ground fishing.
Many of you and your readers make annual trips to New England to fish for cod. They have experienced cod fishing like “the good old days” as a result of the years conservation measures restricting commercial and recreational fishing. Now that the fish are back in size and numbers as well as expanded back into their historical ranges in New England, the “17 member Council; thirteen of them favor,or are representatives of the Commercial fishing industry” wishes no one to have access to the resource. To say the least, the Council is biased. Further, the meeting in early December where the motion will be voted will be “full of Commercial fisherman”.
The restoration efforts for ground fish, like the striped bass, are one of the few fisheries management success stories.
This resource belongs to all of us. Recreational anglers are now getting more of their fair share. Evidently the Council doesn`t think that is right. Please endeavor to get the word out to your readership and have interested individuals send letters to:
New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950; to the attention of Thomas Hill, Chairman.
Inclosed is my letter to the Council. You may use this for background information.
Regards,
Capt. Mike Bartlett
B-Fast Charters
www.bfastcharters.com
P.O. Box 122
N. Pembroke, MA 02358
November 18, 2001
Thomas Hill, Chairman
New England Fishery Management Council
50 Water Street
Newburyport, MA 01950
Dear Tom,
This letter is in response to a motion which carried at your November 9th meeting for a proposed 67 percent reduction in the recreational, party and charter boat landings of ground fish, i.e. cod, pollock, haddock, in the water off New England.
For the past four years, anglers have seen an increase in the aforementioned species the likes off which we have not seen in some twenty years. Increased numbers of cod and haddock on the inshore banks, indicative of increased recruitment, as well increases in larger size-class fish, indicative of more carry-over and improved growth rate have been the rule in recreational landings. Recreational anglers are finding cod in numbers in inshore habitats once again, indicative of restoration of the species to its historical range. As an anecdotal example, in May, striped bass fisherman trolling a tube and worm rig were consistently catching keeper-sized cod in the rocks off Cohasset, MA in twenty feet of water, fifty feet from the shore! Frankly, I haven`t heard of this in my lifetime. This is without doubt, a direct result of the restrictions in commercial fishing and a marker of a fishery well on its way to recovery to historical levels.
The myopic practices in the management of renewable marine resources, regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service, promulgated this ground fish problem. The NMFS, an off-shoot of the Department of Commerce, has regulated marine fisheries for the commercial fisherman and not the fish. NMFS allowed too many commercial fishermen, too much technology and too much effort lead to too few fish—History repeating itself with the commercial fisherman holding the cod-end. Commercial fishermen were allowed to take more than the Maximal Sustainable Yield allows, sending marine resources into decline—gross mismanagement. Commercial fishermen aren`t to blame. They were just trying to earn their daily bread.
Your Council is now charged with managing marine resources for the fish not the commercial fisherman-a complete reversal in roles and practices of fisheries managers in the past. As a result, the bulk of the restrictions implemented to date have been restrictions in commercial fishing effort, retraining of commercial fishermen, boat buy-backs, etc. Restrictions in recreational fishing have already been implemented commensurate with the historical recreational fishing impact on the resource. As you know, recreational, charter and party boat anglers are using archaic technology-the hook and line. Rod and reel angling never has and never will deplete the ocean. Further, under-sized hooked fish can be more easily released immediately, whereas commercial by-catch has no such chance. Recreational anglers are limited to two hooks, 21" size limit, a ten fish bag limit and a no sale provision. These measures were and are in line with the relatively low impact the aforementioned technology has on the fishery.
With cod, pollock, and haddock numbers and the aforementioned yearly growth increases of ground fish on the inshore grounds and banks, why implement further restrictions on recreational angling? Could it be that the restrictions on commercial landings have improved the fish stocks? Could it be that it is now easier to catch cod and haddock on a hook and line and thus recreational landing are now going up? Could it be that the Council has done its job too well? Just what is the goal of placing further restrictions on recreational anglers? Recreational angling didnt cause the decline. Is it because recreational angling is now benefiting from improved fish stocks and commercial fishing interests dont like this? Marine resources are a common with access rights to all, equally. Recreational landings never have equaled commercial landings. With current commercial restrictions are landings approaching parity? Is that mismanagement of the fishery and marine resources or a problem for the commercial fisherman?
-2-
Please consider this concept seriously: the economic impact further restrictions on recreational angling will have on local communities and businesses. The proposed landing reductions and restrictions on recreational angling will ostensibly put charter and party boat companies out of business, preventing an infusion of capital into local community businesses and out of many retrained commercial fisherman`s pockets, at a time when the economy is sliding into a recession.
The improvement of the New England ground fish stocks has attracted media attention up and down the East Coast. Traveling recreational anglers from Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island now make annual pilgrimages to New England waters to fill their coolers with white fish fillets. Local service-oriented business and merchants reap the benefits at a time when tourism is slow—the cold months of winter and spring. Traveling anglers spend their money on lodging, restaurants, gasoline, tackle and charter/party boat fares. Many retrained commercial fishermen, having secured the license to carry passengers and retrofitted their vessels, now earn their wages taking recreational anglers fishing. This is precisely the direction your Council and the aforementioned regulations have been steering commercial fishermen, away from commercial fishing thus lessening its impact and allowing the stocks to rebuild. Further, the government has paid for the retraining and retrofitting.
Now, when the renewed marine resources, the fish, have benefited, local economies are benefiting, recreational anglers are benefiting and many commercial fishermen, who are participating during part of the year in the recreational ground fish industry to augment their incomes, are benefiting, the Council, made up of 13 commercial fishing interest representatives and 4 recreational fishing interest representatives, motions to sabotage the whole process. The Council meeting in early December, where further sanctions against recreational anglers will be voted on , undoubtedly, will be packed with commercial fisherman. The fox is in the proverbial chicken coop.
Please consider this letter as my formal objection to placing any further restrictions on the recreational, charter and party boat anglers fishing for ground fish. As a recreational and commercial fisherman, charter captain and Marine Biologist, I find the motion for a 67 percent reduction in recreational landings, illogical under the present circumstances. Further, it appears that the present council bias is endeavoring to coerce the public into allowing commercial fishing interests to continue business as usual, to the detriment of recreational anglers, which can never be. Renewable marine resources have not and will not tolerate it.
Please include this letter in your meeting notes. If there is anything that I can do to help you further with this endeavor, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Michael L. Bartlett
B-Fast Charters
781-293-6402
Jerry Vovcsko
Moderator: Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island Forums