NorEast Fishing Forum banner

Closing the Mudhole to Fishing??

1 reading
2.5K views 10 replies 6 participants last post by  MIKE TUNA  
#1 ·
FROM THE RFA

NO FISHING ZONES PROPOSED IN NEFMC AMENDMENT 13 FOR EAST COAST

PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.

A "no-fishing zone" option and various alternatives regarding where they should be sited have been included in the proposed Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Species managed under the plan include cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, white hake, and winter flounder (blackbacks). The proposal is found in section 3.7 of Amendment 13. In the public hearing document, the proposal begins on page 65.

The first proposal is, "Should they be established?" and the second is "Where?".

No-Fishing zones may be established under what is called 'Level 1 Habitat Closure'. The document clearly states on page 67 that this option will, "ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISH NO-TAKE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND WOULD PROHIBIT THE USE OF ALL FISHING GEAR IN THESE CLOSURES. THIS LEVEL OF CLOSURE WOULD CLOSE THE AREA TO ALL FISHING GEAR, BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL."

If 'Level 1 Habitat Closure' is chosen, there are a series of maps showing various schemes for where closed areas would be sited. The maps begin on page 69 of the Amendment 13 public hearing document. There are several alternatives for where these areas will be established.

Here are the highlights:
Beginning 3 miles off the coast of Chatham, MA, extending north almost as far as Provincetown and out to 20 miles. About 900 square miles total.

Depending on location, beginning anywhere from 3 miles to 20 miles off the North Shore of MA and extending out about 20 miles. About 800 square miles total.

About 10 miles south of the western end of Nantucket and extending west to about 20 miles south of the western shore of Buzzards Bay and for 20 miles south. A total of about 800 square miles.

Another is about 15 miles due east of Montauk, or to think of it another way, 20 miles due south of the Southwest tip of Block Island, extending east to about 60 miles south of the western shore of Narragansett Bay and then heading due south for 40 miles. About 800 square miles total.

Another is off of New Jersey and Long Island. From the New Jersey perspective, this area would extend from about Asbury Park New Jersey to the tip of Sandy Hook beginning 3 miles from shore and extending out about 20 miles. From the Long Island perspective, this area would start about 10 miles offshore from the Western end of LI and continue east to the western end of Great South Bay and extending 20 miles beyond that. This area is 900 square miles.

Another would encompass the area off of New Jersey/New York known as 'The Mudhole'.

Finally, an area that would begin about 20 miles off of Cape Hatteras. From North to South, this area runs from about Manteo to Ocracoke Island and extends about 40 miles out to sea for a grand total of 800 square miles.

The public hearings are underway. See the list below of the remaining hearings.

If you are attending the public hearings, demand that the New England Council reject 'Level 1 Habitat Closures' for all areas.

NEFMC is accepting comments via email until October 15th. Send your comments to:
<comments@nefmc.org>

In the subject line, NEFMC request that comments be labeled, "Comments on Groundfish Amendment 13".

PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE

Hyannis, MA
Monday, September 15th
2:00pm
(Recreational Issues at 7:00pm)

Gloucester, MA
Monday, September 22
4:00pm

Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Tuesday, September 23rd
2:00pm
(Recreational Issues at 7:00pm)

Ellsworth, Maine
Wednesday, September 24
5:00pm

Portland, Maine
Thursday, September 25
4:00pm

Fairhaven, MA
Tuesday, September 30
4:00pm

Michael J. Doebley
Deputy Director for Government Affairs
Recreational Fishing Alliance
1-888-Join-RFA

(This post edited by togmaster on 09/14/2003)
 
#4 ·
A few questions.

It says that:

quote:
Species managed under the plan include cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail flounder, white hake, and winter flounder (blackbacks)


and:

quote:
No-Fishing zones may be established under what is called 'Level 1 Habitat Closure'. The document clearly states on page 67 that this option will, "ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISH NO-TAKE MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND WOULD PROHIBIT THE USE OF ALL FISHING GEAR IN THESE CLOSURES. THIS LEVEL OF CLOSURE WOULD CLOSE THE AREA TO ALL FISHING GEAR, BOTH COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL."


It is not clear anywhere in the language whether or not they will allow fishing for other species within these MPA's. The way it is written above, it looks as though they want to close all fishing and angling with the designated area. But how does preventing sharking, help the groundfish. I doubt they are proposing to stop all fishing within these areas, just the groundfish species.

And,

For years, the commercial fishery for winter flounder has been thriving. Allegedly, because the offshore stocks of them are so plentiful. That has been what I have been told by the officials at the DEC when questioned about why the commercial fishing for such a dwindling number of fish has been allowed to continue. Now, they are listed as one of the species to be protected by the MPA? Is this because their stocks are dwindling too, or because the fishing for them, incorporates too many of the other species of concern as by-catch?

Hey Mike,

If the proposal above only restricts the fishing and angling for the targeted species above, and there are no cod in these areas anyway, what's the big deal? Maybe, this will actually help to bring them back.

And maybe we will eventually get a flounder fishery again.

I'm sure there will be another round of dates proposed for the Southern states affected by this proposal.
 
#5 ·
One of the proposal's would be for a Level 1 Habitat Closure. This would be for all types of gear and cover all types of fishing and fish.

Don't forget the Channel Islands off Southern CA were closed this year to all forms of fishing because of a problem with groundfish that is 95% commercial. Anglers in that area lost their best tuna grounds. People in CA thought it would never happen, but now it's closed for the next 100 years.
 
#6 ·
closing cod fish?

The closure of the mud hole for cod has no bearing on the fishery. The fish migrate down from up north and with the pressure on the fishery up there none of them will make it down thats the reason we have not seen cod fish inthe bite. They need to close the right areas to have an increase on the fishery. That's my point. We need a better understanding of the areas that are over fished and the location of the spawing areas to help the fishey. Like you said your self the flounder spawn in deeper water so why close the inshore areas? the commercial pressure is the biggest problem long with technology.So I hope they get it right for all the right reasons:(
 
#8 ·
Whollllly shut down Batman:(

Man if they took the time to print 200 pages of everything to whales and turtles this is a tough one to beat!
Do you realize the impact it will have on the party boats, commercil guys, tackle guys, bait guys and rec's. The boating industry will suffer greatly. I cannot see how shutting down rod and reel will gain any advantage. They are doing it so they cannot get an argument. This is sad day which can affect all those comm. and rec's. ?
 
#9 ·
Mudhole

Togmaster,

You're right the Mudhole has nothing to do with the ground species this amendment covers. But the Mudhole and the Hudson Canyon are two of the main targets singled out by the PEW Report as prime canidates for MPA's. This is the Enviro's first attempt to get it.

Amend 13 is heavily influenced by the lawsuits from the Enviro's. I doubt they'll get it this time but it sure scares me. The PEW report to congress made it very clear, they want 100% no fish zones and much of our prime grounds (Hudson Canyon and the Mudhole) are their targets. They really don't care about rebuilding stocks or who does what damage. They want nature preserves.

Maps for this amendment can be found at www.nefmc.org