Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Scandalous crab bycatch exposed

  1. #1
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default Scandalous crab bycatch exposed

    This is an interesting picture. They are supposed to be trawling for bottom fish NOT tanner crabs. The picture tells the truth........

    http://deckboss.blogspot.com/2009/10...h-exposed.html


    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default and no real observers...

    I remember watching the shrimp boats leave San Felipe (Mexico) to head into the Sea of Cortez (the most alive sea in the world); the Mexican authorities had observers on every boat - carrying fully automatic weapons.

    I guess the Mexican government cared a lot about whether those fishermen got and might keep anything besides what they were there for.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    welfare state of Alaska
    Posts
    5,153

    Default commercial fishing is a business

    Commercial fishing is a business driven by the pusuit of money- just like the oil, insurance, banks, used car lots, and the other companies we love to bad-mouth.

    Why should we expect the commercial fishing business to have any better ethics and code of conduct that any other business? Yes- commercial fishermen are great people - but so are the employees of all the other establishments.

    The Mexican government appears to understands this - we apparently do not.
    Living the urban lifestyle so I can pay my way and for my family's needs, and support my country. And you?
    ".. ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" JFK

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    607

    Default Trawling

    Bottom trawling should be outlawed, It's to wasteful.

    I worked on a trawler out of Kodiak for a short time in 1991, we were after cod, We never got one crab because the net had rollers on the front of it, Probably rolled over and killed a lot of crab.

    All are by-catch was dead, Halibut, arrowtooth, pollack,salmon, and various other species. I personally picked up and threw overboard dozen's of Halibut on every tow, Not one of them started swimming, just drifted out of sight dead. Lot's of 50 to 70 pound Halibut.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Captain how many skates do you catch a year? or pollock. or sculpin. They all count as bycatch. Someone wants those pollock you know. Shoe fits...you wanna wear it?

    Bycatch in any form should be attempted to be reduced. Should commercial charter companies have to go to plastic lures only to reduce bycatch? Could be a good idea.........but not really as it's not needed. It would be great to have it all logged though as in a logbook for bycatch estimates as well as Halibut/Rockfish.

    You were on a trawler "for a while", wow.

    That photo shows a horrible tow. However, it's one photo. What if we compared it to the hundreds of thousands of other tows? I guess they don't fit in some odd agenda though.

    Bycatch, total catch, age at take, marine mammal monitoring, bird monitoring, stomach analysis, are all being done. The observer program is moving forward with new possible restructuring. That photo didn't happen in a vacuum no matter what you or others believe. The amount of data in the GOA is limited and flawed in some ways, but overall pretty good. It's available if you want to look.

    Familyman and TV, our government does care even if you try to make it seem as if it doesn't with your comments. Vessels over 60 foot must carry federal observers 30% of the overall fishing days in a quarter, and must obtain coverage in every fishery they participate in. This is Alaska, USA, not Mexico so our observers don't need guns. These young folks collect up to 700 pounds of fish in a random manner or as close as possible on a fishing boat. They sort it, weigh it, sex it, and record it. This data is then vetted going through a rigorous process of review. This is for thousands, and thousands of tows. Over, and Over, and Over.
    NMFS has a good idea of take. Is it perfect? No, and hopefully the deficiencies are going to be addressed shortly. 1991 is not now. The fishery is light years ahead of that, and moving forward.

    I hope you are a fan of the new restructuring plan to obtain more and better data......are you?

  6. #6
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default without an identification of the boat...

    ... that picture means squat. how do we know that is not a pic of a F&G survey trawl, directed at crab? not saying it is or isn't , but anonymous postings like that aren't worth poop.
    if it were a bottom trawler that was aiming at groundfish, you can be darn sure the skipper didn't tow there again, worth no money and tied up lots of fishing time.
    as far as bycatch, i think that trawlers should all have observers 24/7, and all edible bycatch MUST BE RETAINED and processed at the expense of the vessel and GIVEN to food banks... pretty soon we would have some darn clean fisheries....
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  7. #7
    Member MRFISH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    They sort it, weigh it, sex it, and record it.
    Akbrownsfan...I'd give you another rep point for this line alone, but apparently I gotta spread it around a bit more first.

    But, humor aside, you are right. We aren't operating in a data vacuum. There is observer coverage and other extrapolation to try and account for this...and it is accounted for. True, the data may not be a perfect census, but it's pretty darned close. And, Akbrownsfan has already pointed out efforts to improve the process even more.

    The picture is shocking and disappointing. Any reasonable attempt to reduce bycatch should be embraced. But that picture is most likely an exception, rather than the rule.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    Looks like the fishery is moving towards Electronic Monitoring (with cameras and vessel monitoring devices ((that they already have and paid for)) and actual random coverage where data needs exist. By that I mean not as much coverage for say midwater pollock and more for flatfish/Pacific Cod. Rockfish vessels in the rockfish pilot program are already at 100% coverage for most of the summer. The proposed changes are pretty exciting. Coverage on smaller vessel even under 60 foot..EM technology....Good Science. I believe you can manage the fishery, have some limited amount of bycatch, and still be environmentally responsible. We'll see.
    Last edited by Akbrownsfan; 10-16-2009 at 20:10. Reason: had to say...MrFish I truly laughed out loud. Thanks.

  9. #9
    Member homerdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    homer, alaska
    Posts
    3,922

    Default electronic monitoring is a good thing...

    i have heard too many stories, both from observers and crews, of drags that were "missed" in the reporting, observers that were not awakened to witness a drag, or didn't see anything but the cod-end and missed the carnage on the wings...
    make em keep it all... fill the hold with profitless bycatch and they have to come in and offload...
    Alaska Board of Game 2015 tour... "Kicking the can down the road"
    http://www.alaskabackcountryhunters.org/

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    607

    Default I agree

    By-catch should be reduced in every fishery, However most of the charter by-catch is released unharmed, Rock fish are one exception, but most guys I know including myself, move if we have are limit in rock fish and we keep catching them. Usually the Halibut move in and chase the rock fish off before you have your limit of rock fish.

    It's easy to target rock fish, or move away from them,while fishing for Halibut. I take clients fishing that don't want any rock fish quite often, I gladly stay away from them. less cutting.

    I've never been a fan of collecting data on the spread of fire while the house is burning down.

    Even a so called clean tow waste fish and lots of them, It's amazing that anyone would try to defend this type of fishing. there are other ways to harvest a lot of these fish with no by-catch.

    Just admitting that monitoring is needed,is admitting that the trawlers need to be watched or they will do something wasteful.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default so do you say the US does, or doesn't take as effective measures as I noted from mx?

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    Familyman and TV, our government does care even if you try to make it seem as if it doesn't with your comments.
    I merely stated fact of what I saw - many people here likely have not seen that, which makes it possibly an interesting sight to convey/discuss - plus, as you say, I did intimate that our government might not take as clear nor effective of a role in reducing by-catch as that which I describe in Mexico....

    But are you countering my assertion that the US takes a less emphatic role in this effort? If so, state how? (what you posted seems to back up what I said; sorry) Or if not, then what?

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    607

    Default Good

    I'm glad to see that the usual suspects that carry water for the commercial fishing industry aren't trying to defend the wasteful bottom Trawl fisheries!!!!!!!!!!!!

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by homerdave View Post
    i have heard too many stories, both from observers and crews, of drags that were "missed" in the reporting, observers that were not awakened to witness a drag, or didn't see anything but the cod-end and missed the carnage on the wings...
    make em keep it all... fill the hold with profitless bycatch and they have to come in and offload...

    I think you are on the right track here Dave! Make them stand to loose by taking large amounts of by catch. They will figure out a way to cut it back if it hits them in the wallet! At the very least it will make it a priority for them. Make them donate the edible bycatch to those in need!

  14. #14
    Member polardds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    801

    Default Dave is on the to some good ideas

    Dave is on the right path, just have to get it implemented. That is the hard part. And the uphill battle. It makes too much sense to work!!

  15. #15

    Default

    If very strict penalties were put on bycatch, comm fish fleet would adapt and find new methods to to eliminate bycatch.

  16. #16
    Member AKBassking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    SE Alaska-Summer Columbia River-Winter
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 270ti View Post
    If very strict penalties were put on bycatch, comm fish fleet would adapt and find new methods to to eliminate bycatch.

    Good point.

    ALASKAN SEA-DUCTION
    1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
    MMSI# 338131469
    Blog: http://alaskanseaduction.blogspot.com/

  17. #17

    Default

    In this day and age, I can't believe bycatch is tolerated anymore. With all of the technology out there, why aren't the comm fish fleet changing things up? Me thinks they need a little nudge via the pocketbook. The methods and standards that were acceptable in 1950 should not be tolerated in 2009.

    There is no reason why every comm fish boat shouldn't have monitoring system on them with the technology available to us today. Period! If a commercial fisherman has a problem with it, then let somebody else harvest those fish who is willing to do it while be held accountable for what he kills.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    607

    Default Other options

    Pacific grey cod are harvested with pots or jigging machines, they don't even need to be trawled for, They actually get a better price for the cod that is caught using other methods then trawling. A friend of mine used jigging machines for cod near false pass, it was a lucrative venture.

    I'm not sure about pollock.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,293

    Default

    yah, and you could catch halibut on a charter boat with a snoopy Zebco rod too. I mean it's possible.

    Capt, I can't tell you if you are serious, and want to improve the fishery or if you just like stirring the pot and scapegoating the commercial fishery.

    Changes are in the works. Big changes. I've posted links IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET EDUCATED on the issues.

    There is nothing intrinsically wrong with trawling period. Bycatch is mandated to be reduced...bottom line. There are proposals in the works to try to make that happen.
    Jig fishery can not possible harvest enough to harvest the quota. Pot fishing is very labor intensive and once again could not catch the quota. Both are already allocated quota that gets rolled over to the trawlers as they don't generally catch enough.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Akbrownsfan View Post
    yah, and you could catch halibut on a charter boat with a snoopy Zebco rod too. I mean it's possible.

    Capt, I can't tell you if you are serious, and want to improve the fishery or if you just like stirring the pot and scapegoating the commercial fishery.

    Changes are in the works. Big changes. I've posted links IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GET EDUCATED on the issues.

    There is nothing intrinsically wrong with trawling period. Bycatch is mandated to be reduced...bottom line. There are proposals in the works to try to make that happen.
    Jig fishery can not possible harvest enough to harvest the quota. Pot fishing is very labor intensive and once again could not catch the quota. Both are already allocated quota that gets rolled over to the trawlers as they don't generally catch enough.
    Not really trying to stir anything,Just my opinion.I don't like to see any waste at all, in any fishery, including the charter fleet. I just think that if it was mandated that they had to fish with the methods I mentioned then more people would do it and in the end they would harvest enough.

    Scapegoating ????? doesn't even apply here.

    I have first hand knowledge of the trawl fishery.

    The subject is the trawl by-catch nothing else, so there's nothing to scapegoat, unless charter fishermen are also responsible for trawl by-catch

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •