More on Closed Fishing Zones - Fly Fishing Forum
Stripers and Coastal Gamefish Stripers, Blues, Inshore tuna!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-04-2001, 12:20 PM
Lefty's Avatar
Lefty Lefty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: North Shore, Ma.
Posts: 1,850
More on Closed Fishing Zones

Yesterday on the way home I heard a piece on NPR about the latest on these off limits to fishing areas. All I can say as an observer listening to the piece is this:

1. The marine science sounded professional and solid.

2. There was not a hint of anti fishing, in fact, the scientists were pro fishing, both comm and rec.

3. To support their theories they sighted how there is a 40 mile zone by Cape Kennedy closed for NASA rocket launch security for many years. The areas adjascent to it have yielded world records in sport fishing for Red Drum and a couple other species.

4. There are currently 14 such zones in the US waters and many over seas. Australia was given as a case where these things have worked.

5. The main thrust was to make more fish for harvesting not some wacko PETA-esque campaign.

Here is one other side of the coin I found today on the front page of the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1691669.stm

I know which way I starting to lean on this issue, but I will certainly keep an open mind.

Last edited by Lefty; 12-04-2001 at 05:51 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #2  
Old 12-06-2001, 12:14 PM
bcasey's Avatar
bcasey bcasey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 517
Thumbs up

Most definitely, keep an open mind. However, also try to read between the lines, ask yourself, whats missing? When you read about the 20% of the area that someone (lets ask who) wants to close,keep in mind that if you close off all state waters from Maine to Texas( as was discussed at the CCA-MA executive meeting last night ) based on the total area including all federal waters, Thats not quite 20%. So, ask yourself, when someone wants to create new rules and regulations, can't we be specific, let's understand the entire story, let's not allow something that can blow-up in our faces.
The CCA is all about conservation and preservation, so tell us why the closure is needed and how it will produce the results it was intended to produce. Yes, closing off some areas will provide sanctuary for breeding stock and baitfish, but let's understand the purpose and the potential benefit before we agree to something we don't understand. And once we see how and where the closures will take place as well as for how long, we might just support them.
Speaking for myself only, I could never agree to closures or limits unless I understood the whole story. Lets see the whole story!
__________________
CASE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old 12-06-2001, 04:32 PM
Roop Roop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Any
Posts: 1,260
You can't tell me NPR is an unbiased source.

Let's look at what they want to stop - ALL FISHING. Why?

Remember that CCA made it's name by bringing back the redfish from near extinction. Why can we not be trusted as sportsman (let's not address the commercial issue right now) to be responsible for the protection of an area or species?

It would seem to me that CCA has a better track record in species protection and propagation than the federal government.

Of course, I also believe that the government was created to serve the needs and wishes of the people - not tell us what to do.

Crazy huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old 12-06-2001, 08:36 PM
DocT DocT is offline
Recent Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 8
Angry

I live in WA.
I belong to CCA and, by default, am assigned to the MD Chapter.
CCA covers the waterfront from ME to TX.
Why they are not present in CA, OR or WA is beyond me; we can certainly use their intervention on many issues here.

I'm truly confused over Marine Protective Zones. WDFW established one last year here in Puget Sound and, on the table for this year, is establishing 4 more. To me, it seems these are being established in a very arbitrary manner. The one they established last year is just outside and to the North of Gig Harbor to protect the "bottom fish." Nobody fishes for bottom fish in the area they protected that I know of. It is a great spot for scuba divers, however.

If there's science to back up establishing these zones, then I more than likely would support it. Butl, to date, they seem to be getting a foot in the door to prevent sportfishing. I''ve not seen ANY data to support establishing them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old 12-06-2001, 09:00 PM
Chris's Avatar
Chris Chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Maine and Greater New England
Posts: 536
Send a message via AIM to Chris
I heard that report also and would agrue that no reference in that article or any other I've heard on NPR advocates banning fishing. All the article stated was that in areas that were closed- generally parts of offshore banks or in the case of the Kennedy Space Center as a security zone- and monitored as to the rates of fish recovery. They took the data collected from several areas that had been closed, reasons for which weren't the topic of the report, and simply stated that as the populations recovered within the restricted zones populations of fish adjacent to the reserves showed marked increases also. This was believed to be because as more dominent fish set up shop in the prime feeding and breeding areas, less dominent fish were forced outward as populations and competition for real estate increased.

What I didn't hear was a general anti/peta/skunk hugger call to close more chunks of ocean to fishing. The idea that perhaps strategic closures of certain productive nurseries may be an asset in helping to increase fish stocks across the boards was suggested. However, not before more science and input from the researchers and fisherman. There may have been some arbitrary closures in places but to date none of them effect access for inshore flyfishing as much as the monied gentry do in places like many of the high brow towns on the Nw England coast.

As a side I was training in Atlanta last year and one of the guys in my class was a service tech on equipment at Kennedy Space Center and had clearence to fish in the security zone established off shore. He says it's the best saltwater fishing he's ever seen on the Florida coast
__________________
Chris
sacofly@gmail.com

Last edited by Chris; 12-06-2001 at 09:06 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old 12-07-2001, 07:13 AM
bcasey's Avatar
bcasey bcasey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 517
Question

OK, say a "no fishing zone " is established in an area to protect ground fish, say this area has a depth of 200 or 300ft. If the purpose of the closure is to inhance the groundfish then whats wrong with fishing the remaining water column ?
Also, let's not loose site of the fact that these closures are not only directed at the recreational fisherman, the commercial guys will be affected as well.
We all want more, bigger fish so the idea may be a sound one, just to vague. We need much more info before anybody can make a reasonable assessment of any proposals where closure is being considered.
__________________
CASE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old 12-07-2001, 09:19 AM
Lefty's Avatar
Lefty Lefty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: North Shore, Ma.
Posts: 1,850
Roop,
I admit that NPR is akin to WGBH-the height of the "Harvard Bow Tie" crowd leaning to the left. They nauseate me at times too, but other times they go in depth while the rest of the media does sound bites and Jerry Springer-esque sensationalism. But that had no bearing on my fair assessment of the piece.
They were a bunch of scientists reporting data. It was dry.
I don't think we as sportsman have the resource to manage the whole east coast right now either. Here in Mass. everyone you talk to wants a higher limit than 28" for Stripers. Many favor adding 8" to that total (36"). Your almighty CCA can't evan pull that off because of lack of action by it's members and strong political lobbys and other Ma. state pol shenanigans.
When we as a group turn a deaf ear to the Marine biology community we all loose. I find it actually rediculous that anyone would fear us loosing our fishing rights. There is 1500 miles of coast line in this state alone. Fishing is the #1 most done sport in the country. If they evan tried to overdo it without sound science, they would be strung up, and I'd be first in line for that action committee.
As an example look at the hunting situation in Ol' Liberal Mass. People still hunt. Towns stop it only when the houses get too close together. Killing a warm blooded animal with bullets that could kill humans accidentally is way higher on the scale of the wackos in terms of importance than fishing, yet here in Liberal Ma. hunting persists(which I personally would defend hunters right too). Point is: if they can't stop hunting of warm blooded animals in Mass. how the hell do you think some small enviro-wacko group is going to shut down fishing in say Fla.? (a multi billion $$ recreation) No way.
Right now they are experimenting and we can afford the space. The world is polluted and the resources are abused, or overused. We should accept the help and be involved with them so we can keep an eye on them. Show me where PETA is behind this. I'd like to know if they are( or any other similar group)I don't see it.
I still haven't found out who, or what group, wants to stop ALL FISHING. You talk about sound science, well who is the group (besides PETA) and what is their interest in the NO Fishing zones. Let's get scientific about that. All I'm hearing are generalities to date. Who are they?

Lefty

Last edited by Lefty; 12-07-2001 at 07:02 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old 12-07-2001, 09:49 AM
Lefty's Avatar
Lefty Lefty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: North Shore, Ma.
Posts: 1,850
BTW- Read about the piece here:
http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/feat...e_reserve.html

Here's a couple of snips from it:

"And the new studies suggest their efforts are paying off. On All Things Considered, NPR's Christopher Joyce reports that fish in these reserves are thriving and that they can become nurseries for replenishing nearby fisheries.

In his report, Joyce talks about two compelling pieces of evidence described in a study published in the Nov. 30 issue of the Journal Science. One of the marine reserves highlighted in the article is located near St. Lucia, a speck of an island in the Eastern Caribbean. Dr. Callum Roberts, co-author of the study, says generations of fishermen have fished there using hand lines or
nets, but by the mid-1990s, the reefs became almost barren. So conservationists cordoned off an 11-mile stretch of reef that prohibited fishing.

"The fishermen were skeptical at first," Roberts said. "They worried this would make their lives harder rather than better, and for the first couple of years they were right."

But now, five years later, the refuge is bursting with fish. "Catches
near the reserve are up between 46 and 90 percent, and the fishermen are happy," he observed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old 12-07-2001, 10:22 AM
Tod D Tod D is offline
Here fishy fishy
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: south shore MA, cape cod
Posts: 395
Lefty - nice thread & follow up. This is truly an important issue that I think we all need to educate ourselves on.

Wanted to comment that I thought Chris made a nice point in his post regarding NE shore access. In reflexively responding 'no way!' to any and all perceived attempts to curtail fishing do we risk lumping together the 'not in my backyard/beach/marsh' efforts throughout much of NE to limit public shoreline access w/ (potentially) legitimate efforts to protect and grow fish stocks? Don't want to infer too much from Chris' comments, but that was my take on where he was going.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old 12-07-2001, 11:49 AM
juro's Avatar
juro juro is offline
Coast2coast Flyfishaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Steelhead country|striper coast|bonefish belt
Posts: 20,593
Not to backtrack but...

Any organization is biased in some way, thus the ability and need to organize. The more organized things become, the more apart the group becomes from being "the people".

This concept of "the people" is interesting. 10% of the time it's the most important human concept on Earth. But at the same time it's also everyone, no one, everything and nothing and 90% pure propaganda. I'm not sure you can equate organizations and "the people".

Government is an organization, and if nothing else it's tangible, structured, sanctioned and essential. It's "the people's" job to keep government from stabbing us in the back - and it's the government's job to keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot. I think the national park system was a pretty good example of that.

I think commercial species exploitation and industrial habitat destruction are good examples of the people needing intervention. Goes both ways I guess. I hope the balance holds.

I think the CCA is a perfect example of that balance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Roop
You can't tell me NPR is an unbiased source.

Let's look at what they want to stop - ALL FISHING. Why?

Remember that CCA made it's name by bringing back the redfish from near extinction. Why can we not be trusted as sportsman (let's not address the commercial issue right now) to be responsible for the protection of an area or species?

It would seem to me that CCA has a better track record in species protection and propagation than the federal government.

Of course, I also believe that the government was created to serve the needs and wishes of the people - not tell us what to do.

Crazy huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old 12-07-2001, 01:35 PM
DFix DFix is offline
Fluff
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salem, MA; Deerfield, NH
Posts: 1,033
Terry - just to be argumentative. A little, TEENY, piece of the evidence that says CCA MA and it's membership aren't totally to blame: the VA legislature wouldn't budge on their size or catch regulations either one or two years ago unless Massachusetts bumped down. We had just gone back to 30", been there for a year or so, and this was raised as part of the problem. So, in essence, I guess you COULD say CCA is contributory by not being able to sway a legislature seemingly connected at the hip to a far more vocal or powerful commercial lobby and it's unwillingness to err on the side of the fishery.

I suppose the archives on different BB's can be researched to substantiate this. I suppose meeting minutes and such can be accessed from committees in the various states under respective information acts to support or subvert this information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old 12-07-2001, 02:06 PM
juro's Avatar
juro juro is offline
Coast2coast Flyfishaholic
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Steelhead country|striper coast|bonefish belt
Posts: 20,593
Trying to cut to the core of the issue, I have absolutely no doubt at all that it's a good policy to shut down fishing in those areas where it's devastating the population. We must not forget Chesapeake Bay's striped bass spawning ground moratorium and the profound effect it had.

When discussing fishing, we can't compare commercial seining to a recreational flyfishing season either. Stopping one will have a much more emphatic effect on a population than the other in fact I would argue that a typical fish population could withstand fly fishing without measurable harm while it often can't survive a large scale commercial harvest.

So if they cut the million ton per year harvest of sand eels in the North sea to 500,000 tons, I would think that's good. If they say we can't flyfish on Cape Cod because it traumatizes the fish, well then that's when it's time for a revolution.


.02
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old 12-07-2001, 02:19 PM
Roop Roop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Any
Posts: 1,260
Interesting points.

Will jump into this tomorrow after I check my information.

Roop
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old 12-07-2001, 10:36 PM
Chris's Avatar
Chris Chris is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Maine and Greater New England
Posts: 536
Send a message via AIM to Chris
My point in regards to access was that, at this point, I think we have more to be concerned about from the money folks buying up shore front property and then restricting parking and weigh points near them. Just look at the complaints about fisherman parking on the causeway, the difficulty of access on the Brewster side not to mention some of the north shore. The most important thing is to make sure we are heard when the powers that be sit down to draw the lines as to where, how and when fishing will be allowed.

I will say that Maine has held its ground for the in regards to the Kennebec striper nursery. It is right up there with the Chessepeek for spawning production. While we watched Massachusetts ease lenght, bag and commercial regulations on stripers Maine held fast and only after populations improved markedly did we change from one fish 36+" to a slot of one fish between 20" + 26" OR one over 40"- AND no commercial taking. You can't get striper in a restaurant here. Also, the Kennebec is closed to the use of bait and keeping fish until July first. You are required to fish with a single treble on a lure all season. These regs extend from the first impoundment in Waterville to an imaginary line drawn across the mouth of the river from Popham to Newagen. The elver fishing has also been restricted as well increasing the sand eel populations and in turn giving the yung fish a good chance at bulking up for the run south.

I would argue that one of the reasons the fishery is hanging in there so well and not dropping off from the easing if regs on the lower coast is because our nursery is so well protected. I saw a lot of young fish up here this year.

We need to talk seriously and loudly when the fisheries people start stirring but not assume that just because NPR said there were interesting stats coming from a few test cases that fishing will go away. I thought it was good news all in all but as yet not much of a threat.
__________________
Chris
sacofly@gmail.com

Last edited by Chris; 12-07-2001 at 10:39 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old 12-10-2001, 09:34 AM
DFix DFix is offline
Fluff
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salem, MA; Deerfield, NH
Posts: 1,033
Just goes to show money doesn't always talk. No hidden message in that -
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
To better serve you...We are CLOSED! Penguin Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 15 02-01-2008 02:39 PM
Dead zones in Gulf of Mexico continue to grow. GregD Our Environment 4 08-04-2007 05:03 PM
Ocean Dead Zones due to nutrient loads GregD Our Environment 4 08-28-2004 09:42 PM
Lower Elwha is closed to all fishing Moonlight Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum 27 07-25-2002 02:33 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:27 AM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)