A Message from Keep America Fishing:
Do you believe that the only way to conserve our public lands and waters is to lock recreational fishermen out? Do you view recreational fishing as an extractive activity on par with oil drilling and commercial bottom trawling?
Of course you don’t.
But right now, that’s what some anti-fishing organizations are actively accusing us of. When demanding areas off the New England coast be designated as “fully protected” marine monuments, their real agenda is to set up no-fishing zones.
The federal government is currently exploring this issue. There is the potential for all recreational fishing to be banned, even though there’s no evidence to suggest we pose a threat to the habitat or fish populations in these areas.
It’s time to make your voice heard above our opponents – send a letter today.
What to say: Click here for talking points
Banning recreational fishing in these areas is harmful to New England communities and our national heritage. We can’t let our opponents drown us out. Make your voice heard today.
The On The Water staff is made up of experienced anglers from across the Northeast who fish local waters year-round. The team brings firsthand, on-the-water experience and regional knowledge to coverage of Northeast fisheries, techniques, seasonal patterns, regulations, and conservation.
If it is designated areas only, then I think it is a logical and fully rational way to go. We have National and State Parks to preserve those areas and the wildlife so why not protect our precious underwater habitats as well by designated no recreational fishing zones. There is a lot of open water out there… lots and lots so a few no fishing zones really is not that big a deal unless you just don’t like Obama or have $$ in your eyes or just like to oppose any good sense regulations at all… There are now over 7 billion (BILLION) people on this planet. We need preservation!
My vote is for protection and… yes, I LOVE to fish.
Please… if your going to attack me now, be rational about it. My points make sense.
Thanks!
When national parks were created there were reasonable leaders who loved the outdoors themselves and loved freedom and American values
Today – we have a national administration that is proven to be none of the above AND have proven to take an inch and then a mile- so if you allow this now – there is no turning back –
The seals and sharks were just going to be “save a few” – now inshore fishing is gone from seals and no one will go in the water due to sharks – we gave an inch they took a mile –
EVERYONE stand up to this!
I’m not against this and don5 see it as so political. Every year, more people less fish. The north Atlantic fisheries can’t sustain the status quo.
If the daily bag limits and RI fishing license laws were actually enforced consistently for a few years, I’d have a more concrete opinion on this issue…I see bridge fishermen putting 5” scup and juvenile stripers in buckets weekly. I called them out once, in person, was ignored, and called the DEM. No one even showed up to give em a ticket or anything. I live too close to the fishing areas I’m talking about, and have a daughter. Don’t need any angry bike path fisherman drama. I support responsible rec fishing, including the one striped bass/day rule…And I also support well regulated commercial guys. Offshore. Leave the bay alone.
No problem with seals or sharks in Florida. Sharks must be protected because of their slow growth rate and breeding habits. Fishing in Florida continues to get better by restricting commercial fishing. New England allows blue fin tune to be taken even though the fishery is collapsing. Allows long liners. All are banned in Florida.
Mike. you are so correct! these NGO’s are not about conservation. that are OBSTRUCTIONISTS!
Southern sectors have learned from the mistakes in the north. Maybe we can learn from the successful ones in the south now.
Scott Smith
Mike… sorry but this is not about politics. Sorry if Obama has you un-nerved… He’ll be out soon enough.
Please look at the map provided by OTW to see the area proposed. It is a million billion miles off shore (well not that far but really really far off shore). Who the heck goes way out there to catch fish recreationally anyways? If your hearing or reading that this is just the beginning and they will turn an inch to miles etc., then you are just buying into tactics of fear.
The fact is, recreational fishing is a HUGE industry that drives a large part of the US economy. No administration and/or local government are going to try and snuff that out. This would affect thousands and thousands of jobs, millions upon millions of lost capital and… why… it would just plain ol’e put a lot of glum looks upon the faces of a whole bunch of folks… from us “grown-ups” to the wee little ones who have succeeded in buying some good old fishin time with dad and even mom too.
If you think about the plan, in a simple non-fearing way and, a non-political way, then perhaps you might see that zoning off a few (way) off shore spawning/feeding grounds for migratory fish to replenish/refresh their numbers, then perhaps you might see that this is a good thing as it will not only insure a better chance of a prolonged and quality recreational fishing experience on and off the water as well as preserve the ever important recreational fishing industry ($$$) right here in our own areas as well as across the nation.
Honestly, I am surprised that OTW is in movement against this sensible act of preservation and, sorry but, I do not, at all, believe that they, the man at the helm in Washington and his (or perhaps future her) administration would institute a policy that would begin to remove millions/billions of continuous tax revenue from their pockets…
Something to think about… ?
Brian, OTW is not against preserving sensitive bottom habitat in these special areas. We simply want to make sure that the area is not declared “off limits” to recreational fishermen. The canyons are actually a very popular offshore fishing area for pelagic fish, but our fishing activity has no effect on the sensitive bottom areas that Obama is looking to protect.
Commercial long liners setting 52 miles of hooks, water pollution and warming sea temperatures, other countries more relaxed size and catch limits, and recreational fishing are all threat to migratory fish passing through the canyons. I agree with your sentiment, something needs to be done but recreational fishing is at the bottom of the list. How about we stop turning giant tuna pods into canned tuna? Why don’t we stop long liners from harvesting miles of sword fish and shark? Why don’t we stop polluting our earth and oceans? Because it costs money. Making recreational fishing illegal won’t help tuna populations recover. Although it will look like something is being done, which satisfies people like you (the uninterested interestedes). It doesnt hurt the commercial industry, so that satisfies the big business. And it only hurts the recreational fisherman (dad can’t take son fishing). And the fish? Only the recreational fisherman really cares about the fish, we are the only ones that really care about its future. We don’t make money fishing, it’s the opposite.
This “Brian” above is a different than me. We do have opposing views.
I completely agree . Rec fishing is an ez.target. How bout reimplimenting a REASONABLE boundary like the 200 miles we used to have? Keep the foreign boats further out at least!
Completely agree
Completely agree with your point.
I’m in total agreement with Brian. I’d also add that anyone who loves to fish should be invested conservation. Teddy Roosevelt should be our model.
I’m very much disturbed by the continued over regulation in this country in general. Recreational fishermen generally prove very little impact to a fishery when compared to trawlers and oil riggers. Not to say there isn’t an impact, of course. However, if you’re going to protect an area it should be 100% protected, meaning no vessels or marine activity of any kind in that area. Not simply hypocritical, overzealous, and arbitrary regulation against recreational tax-paying citizens. Furthermore, until the 3nm international waters nonsense is resolved, it won’t matter as other countries don’t value conservation the way many of us here in the U.S. do.
Yes Dan, over-regulation led to the destruction of the cod fishery….
Destruction of cod…i can’t disagree with you more! I am a rec guy..because NOAA tells you there are no cod because they sample in the same trawls after two abnormal winters and the bait moves…suddenly no cod. Well two three weeks ago i went north of stellwagon for haddock and couldn’t get away from the cod. Today i went to the figs and it was a cod every time the jig hit the bottom and they are slamming them on cox’s ledge…but hey there are no cod wirhin this huge range.
I don’t know what to think. And I’m sure a lot of us are feeling the same way. On one hand, most fishermen are conservationists, and some measures have to be taken to save our fisheries from total depletion. But at the same time, who wants to be told that you “can’t fish there any more”. It’s a tough decision. Certainly, we should all practice catch and release, wherever we fish. But is that enough? I have no answers, and like many, I’m not sure how to feel about this. The whole situation sucks.
Obama needs to keep his moronic ideas bouncing around that empty skull of his and stay out of New England!!!! There is no way that there is any report that moron can conjure up that recreational fishing the north east canyons is depleting fish stocks out there!!! There simply aren’t enough boats out there to overfish any species out there…. In the grand scheme of things there is only a very small percentage of recreational fisherman that have boats able to handle fishing out there… Obama should spend his time and effort in packing his bags!
You’re just expelling political bias…
The planet’s resources are being slammed hard and that is saying the very least of what a global population of over 7 billion feels they are in need of and are entitled too as far as natural resources. Protection of natural habitats is not only a responsible act for other species than human but it is critical to the actual survival of all species on this planet. Imagine all those people having offspring…. and the pressure on what is left of this planet as far as what has not yet been driven to extinction due to our self righteous expectations that we rule as if Kings and Queens and can take take take and not care about preservation… Well… I guess I am glad I am up there in age but what about our children? This planet is having a huge facelift due to the strains upon it and is speeding up greatly. Their removing/leveling actual mountains in the mid Atlantic states just to get to the coal!
Political bias should not be a factor here…. Only good common sense should be a factor.
Again…. there is a huge HUGE ocean out there with miles of elbowroom to spare… Let’s protect some critical breeding ground fisheries and be an example for the rest of the world… Now wouldn’t that be great? Our children we teach to fish would be able to go out on the water and land 50″ Stripers, Cod and so on just like us! and not have to rely on dated media films to see what it was like, in the good ol’e days of fishing at it’s best.
Preservation people… Our survival as a species depends on it.
Guys right now you head out to your known spot and catch fish. What will be you rant when that goes away due to overfishing?
Our government forgets the economic stream from which it fishes for our dollars to fund many of the fisheries programs of research. The licenses and fees that recreational anglers pay helps fund a vast amount of research. The money that recreational anglers pay to charter boat captains, the money spent at restaurants, hotels/motels and souvenir shops as well as taxidermists and professional photography, all of this contributes to a thriving, healthy econ omic symbiotic relationship. When has any government intervention improved upon private enterprise? So, when fewer and fewer people participate in recreational fishing, how and where will the government obtain money to support their crazy ideas? Do you think marine biologists and researches would not stoop to skew the data to justify more grant dollars? How do you think these professionals get paid? There are a multitude of laws, regulations and fines that should be enforced and applied, but are ignored. If there is no accountability for illegal behavior that exists now, what is adding to the list going to improve?
Bill the research indicates that if you protect the zone from everyone so the fish can replenish there will be more fish.
I agree that locking rec anglers out is not necessarily the way to manage the area, but the reality is, how many of us are really making continental shelf runs anyway?
Any person that trusts the government should look at the American Indian
It is a big ocean. Protect some of it.
No single rain drop ever believes it is responsible for the flood.
We’ve gone through something similar here in Southern California this year. The “Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)” petitioned NOAH to ban the take of bluefin tuna in U.S. waters (the west coast stock was their focus). Previously, the limit was 10 BFT per day. There was no size limit. Most recreational fish caught were between 15 and 50 lbs. Pacific BFT don’t reach sexual maturity until they > 50 lbs (about 4 years old I think). Now, it was nearly impossible to catch 10 BFT in a day anyway, and still, nobody really has a need for 10 BFT. On top of that, while we’ve had BFT anywhere from 5 – 100 miles off shore the past three years, there are been long long periods in the past where they disappear. So, it’s a treat to catch these fish – it doesn’t happen very often. Anyway, so, the CBD pushed for a total ban and an eventual limit of 2 BFT per person per day was created. The recreational guys out here aren’t complaining too much, especially since there’s been alot of BFT between 100 – 200 lbs caught this year. But, we got a sensible limit because there’s a strong fishing community down hear with a big sport boat fleet.
Excuse my digression above…. my point is that you have to stand up to these proposals for “total bans” especially when it comes to recreational fishing. And, the canyons are a long way out. I can’t image that the recreational take is significant, especially in some of those northeast canyons and high spots they have their eye one. You guys have to challenge these bans. The other side wants a total ban…once it’s challenged you hope to end up with some sort of negotiated level that (1) isn’t a bad and (2) allows some recreational take. But, if you don’t challenge the ban, then it may happen and there’s no going back.
I don’t know what the regulations are in the canyons, but I can’t imagine a reason why there shouldn’t be SOME regulations. But, you won’t even end up with SOME regulations if you don’t put up a defense. You’ll end up with a ban and no fishing. Recreational fishing shouldn’t be banned unless there’s good scientific data to say doing so would help populations.
What group is petitioning to have this ban put in place?
Good luck!
Why always the recreational fishermen? We practice catch and release if the close it should be for everybody
Unfortunately, I can see this becoming a slug-fest between Brian and his tree hugging buddies and the recreational fisherman… To believe the two fish that I on occasion and many others bring back to the dock is the reason Blue Fin Tuna and other pelagic species are becoming more difficult to find is ludicrous at best…
Freely dispersed pelagics resemble airborne spores and seeds… They can drift almost anywhere but only complete their life cycle in favorable habitats. This is an attempt to grab favorable fishing grounds from recreational captains by the leftist tree huggers, or in this case, those that have imbibed of salt water a bit to much…
As others have already stated here, once the Feds get their hand into the bucket, they’ll never quit… I understand the commercial guys are in need of making a living, but at what cost? The long liners and net boats are the ones annihilating most pelagic species off the beach… Tough decision to tell these captains and their crews they can’t make a living… but we would like to think these boats would realize they’re shooting themselves in the foot by taking everything that gets netted and hooked on 30+ miles of long lines…
Yes, you’re right, it is a big ocean out there and I’m for protecting that marine environment from pollution, over harvesting and any other type of human impact that can disrupt that ecosystem… But to protect those species by eliminating recreational boats is incredibly short sighted and will not have the slightest impact on the fisheries…
Unfortunately, we need to target commercial net boats and long liners… These guys don’t pick and choose what goes into the hold, and by the time the long liners haul there hook sets, most any pelagic that’s short is not in a viable enough state to be thrown back and survive…
I set out of Cape May NJ… Every recreational captain I know is intelligent enough to pick and choose what goes into the fish well and take photos of the rest… Even if it means tying up at the end of a trip with nothing to show for his efforts…
We all want our children to inherit a planet that will sustain our species… For our species to survive all other species must be in a viable state… And if the human race does not survive, all surviving species will find their own natural balance once again… So we need to find that balance so that all may thrive, but at what cost? NOT the extreme that Brian and the lefties preach for… And certainly by NOT doing nothing at all… We need a balance that works for the oceans first and the human species second… Indeed, a most difficult balance to achieve…
Norm, you have it exactly right. And I’ll add this: Does anyone remember Obama’s National Ocean Council, formed early in his first term to “zone” uses of our oceans, coastal waters, and even inland. In other words, its intent is to tell us what we can do where, and, while it may start in blue water that few ever venture out to, that’s not where it will stop. This current effort is all part of the same package. It may not be Obama’s intention to restrict or ban recreational fishing, but it certainly is the intent of many of those with whom he allies himself.
All conservation property paid for by the people should certainly be enjoyed recreationally by the people in a non commercial way.
This may be naive and I might come off as an idiot to some if not most but let’s look at this historically to see the issue here before attacking anyone. So currently the fisheries are low and as a recreational angler and a fairly young one at that I know that even 20 years ago the fishing we much better than it is now. I also know that the majority of all sought after species are targeted recreationally and commercially. I also know that there are far more recreational anglers than commercial. However a single commercial vessel has the ability to take that of 100 plus times more than a single recreational vessel in a single day. So based on that simple fact, clearly one good day of commercial fishing from a single vessel would be equal if not more to an entire season of 5 recreational vessels. So we talk about the long line and drag nets as being the problem. A simple solution is to restrict the length of the long line and drag nets. And to that point brings the question as to when the fishing was best. Anyone know? Of course it was before the development of heavy commercial fishing. I can’t deny that recreational fishing doesn’t help but in the big picture our fishing practice does not cause a fraction of the damage current commercial fishing techniques causes. So here is the naive part. Why not reorganize commercial fishing into a recreational sport and mix it with commercial investments. The commercial boats could charter like party boats and charge a small fee (covering fuel expenses or something) and allow the passengers to keep 10 to 20% of the catch from rod and hook. The cost of upkeep of company assets would be taken care of and the catch would still turn a profit with less fish being caught daily. Because really this whole idea stinks of economic plundering. Recreational fisherman have the choice to sell their catch at market and commercial vessels still bring in the most profit. This helps with both recreational and commercial fishing issues as well as not hurting the economy and helps to allow the fisheries to stay ahead of the game. I’m sure this idea could be looked at and seriously tweeked but the basis is sound enough and as long as strict regulations are put into place and enforced then the fishing will slowly start to incline again. Finally the areas in question should be protected with these concepts of regulations and not just a strict ban on all fishing. Now if you all want to bash me for being an idiot go ahead really I don’t mind. I just think this would be a good idea to start with as it is less extreme and benefits all that is involved, the fish being the primary beneficiary.
Good thoughts Greg, unfortunately everyone will just dig their heels in instead of thinking of creative solutions like yours.
[…] public comment at the email address atlanticconservation@noaa.gov until Friday, September 18, 2015. Click here for more information and a sample email […]
If you want a voice at the legislative level please consider joining CCA – the Coastal Conservation Association. Not expensive and comes with subscription to Tide magazine.
I’m for roping off territory to humans in general, including this proposed zone as long as they actually enforce / tighten regs on draggers and the rest of the commercial fleet.
While I’m at is, wish we could find a rep to stand up to the Marine Mammals Protection Act!! At the very least we could embark on humanely neutering seals to help manage the wildly out of control infestation, scourge, that has ruined prime surf fishing grounds for a variety of species and businesses.
Interesting concept Greg. Actually friends of mine do go out with charter captains occasionally on their meat-fishing days (they get to take 25 stripers 2 or 3 times each week and those are days for extra cash in the pocket) – but compared to the efforts of individuals only keeping one versus two fish? Irrelevant. Whether or not they have people along for the ride I doubt would change how much they remove from the water.
The market needs to catch up to the scarcity. People got used to a ready and cheap supply of fish, with the technology keeping pace with dwindling supply.
It is pathetic that the Obama administration is trying to preserve something that 99.9% of the american people will never get to see, or visit, or enjoy. Obama’s predecessors created national parks and forests, places that the American people can visit and enjoy. Obama’s Administration just wants to tell the American people to stay out of that area, because the only Americans that would be in that area would be fishermen. I can understand the commercial industry due to the by-catch ( the under sized fish or the wrong species ) that are unnecessarily killed in the process of catching fish with long lines, trollers and other netting processes. When it comes to recreational fishing if it is under sized or the wrong species, there is catch and release which doesn’t unnecessarily kill fish.
Commenters should put their role in commenting. Charter boat operators comments /rants on Obama overlook a bigger picture because they have bills to pay. Commercial fishing would rant about restricting their income as many have stated above . We cannot let fishing get overrun by commercial interests like the cattle industry .