loligo

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGSSCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 26 & 27, 2009Under the provisions ofM.G.L. Ch 30A and pursuant to the authority found in M.G.L. Ch. 130 ss. 2, 17A,38, 80 & 100A Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) and the Marine FisheriesAdvisory Commission (MFC) have scheduled public hearings toaccept comments on:1.DMF proposals to amend regulations governing pelagicfisheries for species such as menhaden, sea herring and mackerel conducted inwaters under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth using various gear types,including purse seines, surface gillnets, and cast nets. Proposals include a)purse seine permit and vessel size requirements; b) surface gillnet permitrequirements and gear specifications; and c) cast net permitting requirements.Note: Certain proposals apply to the Inshore Net Regulated Areas as defined in322 CMR 4.02.a. Purseseine permit and vessel size proposals (322 CMR 7.00 & 8.00), include: i)Clarificationthat a Coastal Access Permit (CAP) for mobile gear is required to use purse seines, but that moratoriumon new CAPs does not apply to those being issued specifically for the use ofpurse seines;ii)Clarificationthat the 72-foot maximum vessel length limit for CAP holders does apply to purse seine vessels but propose to exemptcertain permit holders who have fished purse seines with vessels longer than72-feet in waters under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth since 1995; andiii)Continuedlimitation on purse seining in the Inshore Net Regulated Areas as regulatedthrough permit conditions. iv)Acceptcomments on a prohibition on purse seining in the Inshore Net Regulated Areas oncertain days of the week such as weekends.b. Surfacegillnet permit & gear specifications proposals (322 CMR 4.14, 6.07, 7.00& 12.00), include: i)Requirea commercial surface gillnet permit and annual catch reporting to fish thisgear in any approved waters under jurisdiction of the Commonwealth. This amendsthe current requirement to obtain an Inshore Net Restricted Area Permit to fishthese areas with a surface gillnet. Use of surface gillnets smaller than 200square feet would be exempt from the permit requirement.ii)Requireany person using a surface gillnet for purposes of obtaining bait for sale toperson who is not a licensed dealer to obtain both a commercialfishermen’s permit and a bait dealer’s permit. iii)Clarifythat vessels using or possessing only surface gillnets shall not be precludedfrom possessing striped bass under a longstanding regulation that prohibitsstriped bass possession for vessels “rigged for netting.” iv)Newsection (322 CMR 4.14) that establishes restrictions on the use of surfacegillnets including: 1.atending requirement for all fishermen fishing surface gillnets to remainwithin 100 feet of the net at all times;2.gearmarking requirements where for each 50 linear feet of gillnet, at least oneheadrope float must be marked with the DMF 6-digit permit number, and a buoymarking scheme that displays the letters “SNN” and the 6-digit number;3.Maximumnet length of 200 feet fishing at any one time. Comments will be acceptedregarding the adoption of a larger maximum net length. Additional nets may notbe used but may be stowed aboard the vessel;4.Amaximum mesh opening of 3 ¾” and a minimum mesh opening of 2 ½”;5.Seasonalriver herring protection closure that prohibits the use of surface gillnets inthe Inshore Net Restricted Areas prior to June 1 in any year;6.Year-roundprohibition of surface gillnets in Buzzards Bay;7.Prohibitionon setting a surface gillnet within a designated navigation channel;c.Castnet permitting & use proposals (322 CMR 4.15), include:i)Allowany person to use a cast net for purposes of catching bait species for personaluse without a permit;ii)Requireany person using a cast net for purposes of obtaining bait for sale to a baitdealer to obtain a commercial fishing permit;iii)Requireany person using a cast net for purposes of obtaining bait for sale to someonewho is not a dealer to obtain both a commercial fishermen’s permit and abait dealer’s permit. [img]mailbox:///C%7C/Users/loligo/AppData/Roaming/Thunderbird/Profiles/dnx0wg5y.default/Mail/mail.capecodfisherman-1.net/Inbox?number=20031407&part=1.2&filename=image001.j pg[/img]2.DMF proposal to allow for-hire fishing operations to disposeof striped bass frames (racks) at-sea after filleting fish (322 CMR 6.07).3.DMF proposals to complement federal rules affecting fixedgear and trap/pot use as mandated by updates to the Atlantic Large Whale TakeReduction Plan and Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan, including:a.eliminationof a November prohibition on use of sink gillnets in an area north of Cape Cod(322 CMR 4.08);b.color-specificbuoy line marking requirements for all fixed and pot/trap gear (322 CMR 4.13);c.amendingthe definition of storing or abandoning fixed gear to require hauling gear at least every30 days (322 CMR 4.13 & 12.02);d.prohibitinggillnets during March in certain waters under the jurisdiction of theCommonwealth south of Cape Cod(322 CMR 12.04);e.requiringweak links with a breaking strength of up to 600-lbs. on all trap/pot gear fished year-round in waters under thejurisdiction of the Commonwealth, except for the current 500-lb weak linkrequirement in the Right Whale Critical Habitat from January thru May 15 (322CMR 12.05); andf.requiringacoustic pingers on sink gillnets fished during September 15th thru May inUpper Massachusetts Bay and Ipswich Bay from Marblehead to the New HampshireBorder and during December 1 thru February and April 1 thru May in theMassachusetts Bay & Cape Cod South Areas (322 CMR 12.12).

1. DMF proposal to require commercial lobstermen authorized to fish traps in the Outer Cape Cod Lobster Conservation Management Area to fish only traps rigged with current trap tags after March 15 (322 CMR 6.31).

1. DMF proposal to adopt a November 6, 2008 control date for the spiny dogfish fishery (322 CMR 7.04). No restrictions are currently proposed for use with this control date.

Publichearings have been scheduled for Monday, January 26, 2009 (6PM) at the AnnisquamRiver Marine FisheriesStation (30 Emerson Ave., Gloucester) & Tuesday, January 27, 2009 (6PM) at Radisson – PlymouthHarbor (180 Water St.). Comments receivedby e-mail (marine.fish@state.ma.us),fax (617.626.1509), or mail (251 Causeway St., Suite 400; Boston, MA 02114)will be accepted until 3PM on Friday, January 30, 2009.Contact DMF forregulations and further details or visit our website at www.mass.gov/marinefisheries.

loligo

Kinda funny how they've already re-classified the "inshore net" permit on our renewal app's eh?

Makes you think they've already decided all of this and are just have the meetings to satisfy their legal requirements to hold hearings?

I warned you all about this quite some time ago and not too many of you seemed to give a $^%^. See how you all feel about big boats taking our pogies for lobster bait before we even get a chance to go bassing....you'll give a spit then, won't you?

junior11

What is the difference between inshore net and surface gilnet??? Should I check them both off for the extra 30 bucks?

PtJudeRI

Don't they see that this is going to KILL what is left of the population?!?!?!? What the hell is wrong with these M F ing people... Doesn't anyone get it???

__________________

Lets have a Sexy Party! 38 Henriques FB 2000 ~ 17 Montauk 1978

Capt Dave

Junior, an inshore net could be a sinking net so if you use both types you'll need two permits now.

junior11

Thanks Dave, that is what I figured... but just figured I would ask to make sure. Guess I'll be shelling out an extra 30.

loligo

wrong....if you used a "sink net", you'd already have a limited entry gill net permit, otherwise there is no use of sink nets allowed, for taking bait.

The state already requires a permit for anyone for any net that exceeds the 200 sq.' rule, regardless if the bait is going to be sold or not. This reclassification is just a smoke screen to distract you from the big one, which is that they are poised to allow full blown, unrestricted access to all state waters except Buzzards, to anyone who wants to purse seine menhaden.

Check this thread out, it will give you a clearer pic without my having to type all of it again.

http://www.thehulltruth.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=177510&posts=20&highlight=sei ne&highlightmode=1#M1866227

Capt Dave

I don't know at this point if I'm wrong or you are loligo. Below is the description of the inshore net endorsement from the MA DMF. I saw no where that a sinking bait net is not allowed.

INSHORE NET
The harvest of bait fish from harbors and estuaries with a net other than
a surface gillnet requires an endorsement on your commercial permit.

By the way, a cast net is a sinking net.

shinerdunker

Decisions on this were made long ago...The puplic hearings are a mandated "show". Light bulbs went off when minor schillings were made carrying the pogies last year. After the bulbs went off, the phone calls and meetings started.

Loligo is right about the sinking bait net thing

loligo

Right - wrong? Who gives a #$%^? Those of you who think this not something to be payed attention to will see it is and then will be was. As it stands, there aren't any seiners working outside the inshore net areas, IOW, inside harbors. When this is approved all that will change. There are already people out there who commercially fish for menhaden, who are going to have there access diminished and the resource will be severely impacted as well.

Do you really think it makes sense to reduce the amount of netting a small boat can fish, but giving an open ticket to anyone who wants to sein them? One set can be more than one small boat can catch in several years. This is the real point. Notice in the hearing letter, that there is nothing about restrictions on when or how much these new vessels will be allowed??


Why they are having the hearings is beyond me, it seems as if this is already decided. Be sure of this, if the greed has it's way, this will reverberate into many other fisheries, count on it.

Time to pay attention or be sorry you didn't.

Incidentally, the inshore net permit we already have/had? covered both gill nets and cast nets, so why 2 permits now? $$$$$

Another interesting item, at Decembers commission meeting they were scheduled to discuss the public petition process, exactly what they discussed is beyond me, but this is something that should be left alone IMO, without the public petion process we are essentially managed by a dictatorship......

north coast

It's basicly a dictatorship now. When was the last time -anything- you said/sent to them actually made a difference?
Yes, they have their meetings,hearings, whatever, but I believe 99% of this crap they come up with is decided well in advance .It would take some MAJOR outcry to have even a small chance of changing any of it.I've sent off TONS of stuff over the years, called and spoken to Diodati, and Coats,and a few members of the management council. Never seems to make any difference.I'm not saying we shouldn't try,but as the years go by, I get less and less optimistic about things EVER being done right in fisheries management.Sad really.

loligo

To the issue of allowing new vessels CAP permits to seine in states waters, I am thinking that there may be thoughts from DMF and MFC that with there being more and more federal regs and involvement and controversy to the south surrounding the menhaden fishery that some of them think they'd better get a permit here now before there is too much controversy or federal management precludes it's possibility?If so, this is flawed and there is tremendous evidence to back this. Take for example the CCZ, which was made necessary because the state would'nt say no to the big boats, because the council wouldn't do the right thing. So the feds told the state they had better do something about all these landings from states waters (since the big boats were fishing 7 days a week) so they just shut off fishing for everyone.

Now we are gonna let seiners in and let them beat the hell out of the bait and the feds are gonna get ticked off because our policy/regs won't work under their plans and....just like before.Right now there are just a handful of guys making some money off the bait and no lack of bait for the most part, so why screw with whats working? The new permits won't even yield $15K before processing management cost's etc., so why even bother?

Pay attention folks.

loligo

Just how many of these should we let loose in Massachusetts waters?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqv3m3VnkiE

north coast

how bout fu%^ing NONE!

loligo

C+P this and email it to: marine.fish@state.ma.us




In order that I might better understand these proposals for management of the menhaden mackerel and sea herring fisheries, I'd like to ask you a few questions.


How many new seining vessels specifically are you proposing to allow a new permit to?

How many gill net and cast net permits are you proposing to allow, to be endorsed to sell?

What studies has the Ma. DMF done to determine what the effect of expanded exploitation of these forage species will be on our inshore resources?

sincerely,

your name here.The responses oughta be interesting.

loligo

This is good reading- http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1//mar...ecast_2008.pdf

loligo

Add this to the list of questions-

How does the state intend to verify the catch reports for the gill net and cast net permits?

How could they possibly?

shinerdunker

The state will use the mandatory reporting requirement of primary buyers to compile data. The veracity of the reports garnered from primary buyers will be what it will be - Just like all the small fisheries in the state.

loligo

So if I sell a pogy to Larry the bass fisherman, who's going to know? That's what I meant.

When the primary buyer isn't a real buyer but a retail customer. It's ridiculous to even suggest it, it is a cash business and piece goods.

There's zero incentive to report and plenty to not as well, taxes and all....

This is just more of the dmf justifying their positions by looking like they are serious about properly managing our fisheries. Proposing to make reporting something that neither party can verify is silly, but it sure sounds responsible.

shinerdunker

Nothing is proposed to change regarding reporting. These are the same rules we have been under the last few years. Fishermen are already required to register as primary buyers to sell to the public. A good example of this is a lobsterman that sells any lobsters to the public. Also, a second permit is not going to be required to use a cast net. What they are proposing is to clarify that they do not require a permit (net endorsment) of any kind for cast netting bait. You only need a commercial fishing permit to sell bait to a primary buyer - Same as if you were to gill net them.

As far as under-reporting (catch, cash,etc.) , that is more of an enforcement issue. It is really no different than than the plumber getting paid cash for unclogging a toilet or a bucket of fluke going to a back door for cash - nearly impossible to stop unless a badge is in the middle of the transaction. That will always be a never ending battle.

Since not much change is being proposed for the non purse seine fishers of this species, I think the focus should be on proper regs regarding the industrial fishing of menhadden in state water. The reasons the seine boats stopped fishing years ago was mainly resource related. Now that they see the resource is again fishable, they are going to jump back in. The "clarification" in the proposals stating that the current moratorium on new Coastal Access Permits does not apply to boats fishing purse gear is where the big battle is. Most of this is decided by political pressure. A few stereotypical whinings to state reps and congressmen is the first step. Next is the phone calls and then presto - Desired result.