DOCSLIB.ORG

Herring Amendment 4 Scoping Comments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Herring Amendment 4 Scoping Comments New England Fishery Management Council 50 WATER STREET I NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950 I PHONE 978 465 0492 I FAX 9784653116 John Pappalardo, Chairman I Paul J. Howard, Executive Director Herring Amendment 4 Scoping Comments New England Fishery Management Council 50 WATER STREET I NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS 01950 I PHONE 978 465 0492 [ FAX 9784653116 John Pappalardo, Chairman [ Paul J. Howard, Executive Director Herring Amendment 4 Scoping Comments Comments received via Email to NMFS with Attachments AMERICAN PELAGIC ASSOCIATION 4 Fish Island New Bedford, MA 02740 (508) 979-1171 June 30, 2008 Via Electronic Mail Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 Re: Scoping Comments on Herring Amendment 4 Dear Ms. Kurkul: I would like to make reference to a letter submitted to you today by Kelly Drye, on behalf of Cape Seafoods, Inc., Lund's Fisheries, Inc., Northern Pelagic Group, LLC, Western Sea Fishing Co., Inc., and the numerous vessels associated with and supplying these businesses. In addition to the Kelly Drye comment letter, we wish to make the following comments in response to the National Marine Fisheries Service's ("NMFS") call for comments on the elements under consideration in Atlantic Herring Amendment 4. 1. Catch Monitoring The herring fleet and shoreside processors are currently subject to some ofthe most stringent monitoring and reporting requirements of any fishery in the northeast. Any additional monitoring and reporting requirements should be consistent with other fisheries in the region, should be developed to support fisheries management plan goals and objectives, and not made "punitive". The loudest critics ofthe current herring fishery management are those associated with the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (CCCHFA) and their proxies. A recent e-mail correspondence (June 6, 2008) with NMFS NERO (Mark Grant, Sector Policy Analyst) showed that "the two groundfish sectors currently operating have a few more-stringent reporting requirements, primarily the necessity to notify their manager of all landings more rapidly and the manager's responsibility to track landings and provide data to NMFS in addition to the required VTR submissions." Reporting requirements for the herring fishery are as follows, according to an e-mail of June 24 from Carrie Nordeen, NMFS NERO Herring Plan coordinator: "In general, APA, Herring Amendment 4 scoping comments 1 7/8/2008 reporting requirements for the herring fishery include weekly IVR (limited access vessels must report every weekly even ifthere was zero catch; open access vessels must report if their catch was greater than or equal to 2,000 lb in one trip) and monthly VTR reports. If a vessel anticipates landing herring, it should declare a herring trip in VMS, contact the Observer Program about carrying an observer, and make the pre-landing notification. Reporting requirements may vary ifthe vessel has a herring carrier or herring transfer/receive catch at sea LOA. Quota monitoring for herring is based on a combination ofIVR and dealer data." Perhaps NMFSINEFMC staff should conduct an analysis ofthe differences in the reporting requirements ofthe two groundfish sectors (with only a handful ofvessels participating) compared to the herring fishery with upwards of20-30 vessels participating. Our sense is there would be little problem bringing herring vessels and plants onto a reporting "par" with the CCCHF A sectors, ifit served important fishery management plan goals and objectives. This could include provision offederal fishery observers according to SBRM guidelines, and of 100% weighing ofthe catch at first point of offload (or first point ofprocess, whichever achieves this goal best). We do object to the more "punitive" proposals for monitoring and reporting requirements advanced by the CCCHFA and its proxies. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Peter Moore American Pelagic Association APA, Herring Amendment 4 scoping comments 2 7/8/2008 Friel10s of the Blacksume Frank Matta, President June 29. 2008 To: The New England Fishery Management Council Re: Herring Amendment 4 Scoping Comments On behalf of the state-designated Blackstone River Watershed Council/Friends of the Blackstone, I write to express our concern about the fate of river herring in danger of being caught up as by-catch by fisheries harvesting other small species out in the ocean. As the initial proponents of the fish ladders scheduled to be constructed as of August 2008 at the three southernmost dams ofthe Blackstone River, we are especially concerned about the anadromous fish that we hope will soon have access to these passages and to the their natural spawning grounds. The Blackstone River Watershed Council/Friends of the Blackstone strongly urges that the New England Fishery Management Council, in reviewing its fishery management plan, require more stringent monitoring of the herring fishery, assure appropriate enforcement of pertinent regulations, raise fines for non-compliance and endorse the notion that such fines be channeled towards supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) promoting fish ladders not only in the Blackstone but in other supporting waters ofthe state. We thank you for your attention to what we believe is a matter ofconsiderable urgency, given the federal government's designation ofriver herring as a "species ofconcern". Sincerely yours, t> : /~ (L [) '- \k..L- II ~'-- Alice R. Clemente Secretary, BRWC/FOB OUELLETTE & SMITH ATTORNEYS AT LAW AND PROCTORS IN ADMIRALTY A Professional Association 127 EASTERN AVENUE SUITE 1 GLOUCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01930 Stephen M. Ouellette* Telephone: (978) 281-7788 David S. Smith' Facsimile: (978) 281-4411 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.fishlaw.com *Also Admitted in Maine http://www.maritimelawusa.com June 30, 2008 Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator National Marine Fisheries Service One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 Re: Comments on Herring Scoping Document for Amendment 4 Dear Ms. Kurkul, I have been asked to submit comments on the Scoping Document for Amendment 4 to the Atlantic Herring Management plan on behalfofMargaret F., Inc. and the FIV OCEAN VENTURE. My clients are particularly concerned with two aspects ofthe Scoping Document; 1) the proposal to allow formation ofsectors and; 2) the proposed control date ofDecember 31, 2006 for establishment ofquota allocation for Area l A. For the following reasons, my clients believe that the New England Fishery Management Council and NMFS should remove these items from consideration in the current amendment process. I note initially, that it has barely been one year since Amendment 1 to the Herring Plan implemented a limited access permit structure. Under the implementing regulations, vessels were qualified based on their fishing history between January 1, 1993, and December 31,2003. Following issuance oflimited access herring permits a number ofindividuals, including my clients, have made significant investments in the herring fishery to continue their activity in Area IA. Banks, previously reluctant to finance herring vessels, loaned significant sums relying on establishment ofthe limited access herring permits to these owners. Even before the final application date for those initial limited access permits passed, the NEFMC is considering adopting a proposal to limit any future allocation for an Area lA allocation to history prior to December 31,2006. We have also been advised that NMFS is unable to separate landings by area before 2002, so that, in effect, the Amendment 1 qualifications will be rendered meaningless, and a vessel's future landings from Area lA will be determined based on the 2003 to 2006 timeframe. The proposal will effectively invalidate the recently issued limited access herring permits and threatens to wreak havoc in the existing fishery, as vessels owners and their lenders face significant losses in their investments. Commnets on Scoping.doc OUELLETTE & SMITH Patricia Kurkul, Regional Administrator June 30, 2008 -2- The rationale for this unusual limitation on qualification period makes no sense and appears intended to benefit a few vessel owners who increased effort in the years leading up to 2006. The increase that was so large, it prompted action to seasonally limit access to Area lA to these vessels, which extracted significant and disproportionately large quantities offish from Area 1A. As such, iflandings after December 31, 2006 are utilized, this small number ofvessels will not be disproportionately benefited by their excessive, and determinately harmful, landings, which gave rise to the seasonal gear limitations. It is evident that the dramatic growth in harvesting capacity ofthe mid-water and pair trawl fleet in the past five years placed significant stress on Area lA, resulting in exclusion ofthis excessive fishing power. The proposal would actually reward this harmful explosion in effort by transferring a disproportionate share ofthe fishery to a very few, large vessels, to the detriment ofthe fixed gear and purse seine vessels, most with significant history preceding 2003. In the event that the Council adopted this new control date, this would force vessels remaining in Area lA to buy or lease quota from those excluded based on excessive fishing power. While it is not unusual for fishermen to seek to have quota allocations based on their best years in terms oflandings, NEFMC and NMFSshould not do so where it both runs contrary to the existing limited
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Translation Series No.1375
    FISHERIES RESEARCH BOARD OF CANADA Translation Series No. 1375 Bioebenoses and biomass of benthos of the Newfoundland-Labrador region. By Ki1N. Nesis Original title: Biotsenozy i biomassa bentosa N'yufaund- • .lendskogo-Labradorskogo raiona.. From: Trudy Vsesoyuznogo Nauchno-Issledovatel'skogo •Instituta Morskogo Rybnogo Khozyaistva Okeanografii (eNIRO), 57: 453-489, 1965. Translated by the Translation Bureau(AM) Foreign Languages Division Department of the Secretary of State of Canada Fisheries Research Board of Canada • Biological Station , st. John's, Nfld 1970 75 pages typescript 'r OEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE SECRÉTARIAT D'ÉTAT TRANSLATION BUREAU BUREAU DES TRADUCTIONS FOREIGN LANGUAGES DIVISION DES LANGUES DIVISION ° CANADA ÉTRANGÈRES TRANSLATED FROM - TR,ADUCTION DE INTO - EN Russian English 'AUTHOR - AUTEUR Nesis K.N. TITLE IN ENGLISH - TITRE ; ANGLAIS Biocoenoses and biomas of benthos of the Newfolindland-Labradoriregion Title . in foreign_iangnage---(tranalitarate_foreisn -ottantatere) Biotsenozy i biomassa bentosa N i yufaundlendSkogo-Labradorskogoraiona. , .ReF5RENCE IN FOREIGN ANGUA2E (NAME OF BOOK OR PUBLICATION) IN FULL. TRANSLITERATE FOREIGN CFiA,IRACTERS. • REFERENCE' EN LANGUE ETRANGERE (NOM DU LIVRE OU PUBLICATION), AU COMPLET. TRANSCRIRE EN CARACTERES PHONETIQUEL •. Trudylesesoyuznogo nauchno-iàsledovaterskogo instituta morskogo — rybnogo khozyaistva i okeanogràfii - :REFEREN CE IN ENGLISH - RÉFÉRENCE EN ANGLAIS • Trudy of the 40.1-Union Scientific-Research Instituteof Marine . Fiseriés and Oceanography. PUBLISH ER ÉDITEUR PAGE,NUMBERS IN ORIGINAL DATE OF PUBLICATION NUMEROS DES PAGES DANS DATE DE PUBLICATION . L'ORIGINAL YE.tR ISSUE.NO . 36 VOLUME ANNEE NUMERO PLACE OF PUBLICATION NUMBER OF TYPED PAGES LIEU DE PUBLICATION NOMBRE DE PAG.ES DACTY LOGRAPHIEES 1965 5 7 REQUEr IN G• DEPA RTMENT Fisheries Research Board TRANSLATION BUREAU NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Shrimp Fishing in Mexico
    235 Shrimp fishing in Mexico Based on the work of D. Aguilar and J. Grande-Vidal AN OVERVIEW Mexico has coastlines of 8 475 km along the Pacific and 3 294 km along the Atlantic Oceans. Shrimp fishing in Mexico takes place in the Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, both by artisanal and industrial fleets. A large number of small fishing vessels use many types of gear to catch shrimp. The larger offshore shrimp vessels, numbering about 2 212, trawl using either two nets (Pacific side) or four nets (Atlantic). In 2003, shrimp production in Mexico of 123 905 tonnes came from three sources: 21.26 percent from artisanal fisheries, 28.41 percent from industrial fisheries and 50.33 percent from aquaculture activities. Shrimp is the most important fishery commodity produced in Mexico in terms of value, exports and employment. Catches of Mexican Pacific shrimp appear to have reached their maximum. There is general recognition that overcapacity is a problem in the various shrimp fleets. DEVELOPMENT AND STRUCTURE Although trawling for shrimp started in the late 1920s, shrimp has been captured in inshore areas since pre-Columbian times. Magallón-Barajas (1987) describes the lagoon shrimp fishery, developed in the pre-Hispanic era by natives of the southeastern Gulf of California, which used barriers built with mangrove sticks across the channels and mouths of estuaries and lagoons. The National Fisheries Institute (INP, 2000) and Magallón-Barajas (1987) reviewed the history of shrimp fishing on the Pacific coast of Mexico. It began in 1921 at Guaymas with two United States boats.
    [Show full text]
  • Fronts in the World Ocean's Large Marine Ecosystems. ICES CM 2007
    - 1 - This paper can be freely cited without prior reference to the authors International Council ICES CM 2007/D:21 for the Exploration Theme Session D: Comparative Marine Ecosystem of the Sea (ICES) Structure and Function: Descriptors and Characteristics Fronts in the World Ocean’s Large Marine Ecosystems Igor M. Belkin and Peter C. Cornillon Abstract. Oceanic fronts shape marine ecosystems; therefore front mapping and characterization is one of the most important aspects of physical oceanography. Here we report on the first effort to map and describe all major fronts in the World Ocean’s Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs). Apart from a geographical review, these fronts are classified according to their origin and physical mechanisms that maintain them. This first-ever zero-order pattern of the LME fronts is based on a unique global frontal data base assembled at the University of Rhode Island. Thermal fronts were automatically derived from 12 years (1985-1996) of twice-daily satellite 9-km resolution global AVHRR SST fields with the Cayula-Cornillon front detection algorithm. These frontal maps serve as guidance in using hydrographic data to explore subsurface thermohaline fronts, whose surface thermal signatures have been mapped from space. Our most recent study of chlorophyll fronts in the Northwest Atlantic from high-resolution 1-km data (Belkin and O’Reilly, 2007) revealed a close spatial association between chlorophyll fronts and SST fronts, suggesting causative links between these two types of fronts. Keywords: Fronts; Large Marine Ecosystems; World Ocean; sea surface temperature. Igor M. Belkin: Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, 215 South Ferry Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882, USA [tel.: +1 401 874 6533, fax: +1 874 6728, email: [email protected]].
    [Show full text]
  • PGCCDBS Report 2007
    ICES PGCCDBS Report 2007 ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management ICES CM 2007/ACFM:09 Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS) 5–9 March 2007 Valetta, Malta International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H.C. Andersens Boulevard 44-46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES. 2007. Report of the Planning Group on Commercial Catch, Discards and Biological Sampling (PGCCDBS), 5–9 March 2007, Valetta, Malta. ACFM:09. 115 pp. For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the General Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council. © 2007 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. ICES PGCCDBS Report 2007 | i Contents Executive summary.......................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Terms of Reference ......................................................................................... 7 1.2 Background...................................................................................................... 7 1.3 General introductory remarks
    [Show full text]
  • Ices/Nafo Wgdec Report 2015
    ICES/NAFO WGDEC REPORT 2015 ICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ICES CM 2015/ACOM:27 Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC) 16–20 February 2015 Horta, Azores, Portugal International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected] Recommended format for purposes of citation: ICES. 2015. Report of the ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on Deep-water Ecology (WGDEC), 16–20 February 2015, Horta, Azores, Portugal. ICES CM 2015/ACOM:27. 113 pp. For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the Gen- eral Secretary. The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council. © 2015 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES/NAFO WGDEC REPORT 2015 | i Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 4 Opening of the meeting ........................................................................................................ 5 1 Adoption of the agenda ................................................................................................ 6 2 Provide all available new information on distribution of VMEs in the North Atlantic with a view to advising on any new closures to bottom fisheries or revision of existing closures to bottom fisheries (NEAFC standing request). In addition, provide new information on location of habitats sensitive to particular fishing activities (i.e. vulnerable marine ecosystems, VMEs) within EU waters (EC request) ................................... 8 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Areas within the NEAFC regulatory area ........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Sea Scallop Abundance and Distribution in the Georges Bank Closed Area II - Preliminary Results
    An Assessment of Sea Scallop Abundance and Distribution in the Georges Bank Closed Area II - Preliminary Results Submitted to: Sea Scallop Plan Development Team Falmouth, Massachusetts William D. DuPaul David B. Rudders Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, VA 23062 VIMS Marine Resource Report No. 2007-3 June 27, 2007 Draft document-for Scallop PDT use only Do not circulate, copy or cite Project Summary As the spatial and temporal dynamics of marine ecosystems have recently become better understood, the concept of entirely closing or limiting activities in certain areas has gained support as a method to conserve and enhance marine resources. In the last decade, the sea scallop resource has benefited from measures that have closed specific areas to fishing effort. As a result of closures on both Georges Bank and in the mid-Atlantic region, biomass of scallops in those areas has expanded. As the time approaches for the fishery to harvest scallops from the closed areas, quality, timely and detailed stock assessment information is required for managers to make informed decisions about the re-opening. During May of 2007, an experimental cruise was conducted aboard the F/V Celtic, a commercial sea scallop vessel. At pre-determined sampling stations within the exemption area of Georges Bank Closed Area II (GBCAII) both a standard NMFS survey dredge and a commercial New Bedford style dredge were simultaneously towed. From the cruise, fine scale survey data was used to assess scallop abundance and distribution in the closed areas. The results of this study will provide additional information in support of upcoming openings of closed areas within the context of continuing sea scallop industry access to the groundfish closed areas on Georges Bank.
    [Show full text]
  • Prionace Glauca) Across Their Life History
    Movements of Blue Sharks (Prionace glauca) across Their Life History Frederic Vandeperre1,2*, Alexandre Aires-da-Silva3, Jorge Fontes1,2, Marco Santos1,2, Ricardo Serra˜o Santos1,2, Pedro Afonso1,2 1 Centre of IMAR of the University of the Azores; Department of Oceanography and Fisheries, Horta, Portugal, 2 LARSyS Associated Laboratory, Lisboa, Portugal, 3 Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission, La Jolla, California, United States of America Abstract Spatial structuring and segregation by sex and size is considered to be an intrinsic attribute of shark populations. These spatial patterns remain poorly understood, particularly for oceanic species such as blue shark (Prionace glauca), despite its importance for the management and conservation of this highly migratory species. This study presents the results of a long- term electronic tagging experiment to investigate the migratory patterns of blue shark, to elucidate how these patterns change across its life history and to assess the existence of a nursery area in the central North Atlantic. Blue sharks belonging to different life stages (n = 34) were tracked for periods up to 952 days during which they moved extensively (up to an estimated 28.139 km), occupying large parts of the oceanic basin. Notwithstanding a large individual variability, there were pronounced differences in movements and space use across the species’ life history. The study provides strong evidence for the existence of a discrete central North Atlantic nursery, where juveniles can reside for up to at least 2 years. In contrast with previously described nurseries of coastal and semi-pelagic sharks, this oceanic nursery is comparatively vast and open suggesting that shelter from predators is not its main function.
    [Show full text]
  • Review and Analysis of International Legal and Policy Instruments Related
    REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY INSTRUMENTS RELATED TO DEEP-SEA FISHERIES AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN AREAS BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDICTION Cover photograph: Unknown fish (possibly Antimora spp.) photographed in waters 1 800–3 000 m, 300 km northeast of St John’s, Canada. Courtesy of Bedford Institute of Oceanography. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL AND POLICY INSTRUMENTS RELATED TO DEEP-SEA FISHERIES AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN AREAS BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDICTION Dr James Harrison Director of the Scottish Centre for International Law University of Edinburgh Law School Mr Terje Lobach International Legal specialist Prof Elisa Morgera Director of the Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance University of Strathclyde Law School with technical inputs by Mr Pio Manoa Development Law Service FAO Legal Office The ABNJ Deep Seas Project Sustainable Fisheries Management and Biodiversity Conservation of Deep-sea Living Marine Resources and Ecosystems in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) )RRGDQG$JULFXOWXUH2UJDQL]DWLRQRIWKH8QLWHG1DWLRQV 5RPH The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadmap to Recovery: a Global Network of Marine Reserves
    © Greenpeace/Åslund Roadmap to Recovery: A global network of marine reserves Callum M. Roberts, Leanne Mason and Julie P. Hawkins Contributing authors: Elizabeth Masden, Gwilym Rowlands, Jenny Storey and Anna Swift Environment Department, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK Correspondence to: [email protected] 3 4 Roadmap to Recovery: A global network of marine reserves content 1. Summary 7 2. Introduction 9 3. Aims of this report 11 4. Life on the high seas 11 4.1 The pelagic realm 11 4.2 The deep sea 13 5. History of exploitation of the high seas 16 6. Present status and threats to life on the high seas 17 6.1 Fishing 17 6.2 Global warming 18 6.3 Disposal of CO2 18 6.4 Oil and mineral exploitation 18 6.5 Bioprospecting 20 6.6 Noise 20 7. Designing a global marine reserve network for the high seas 20 7.1 Marine reserves and why they are needed 20 7.2 Will marine reserves protect species on the high seas? 21 7.3 Identifying candidate sites for protection 23 7.4 The grid 25 8. Principles of marine reserve networking 25 8.1 Site selection 25 8.2 Networking and connectivity 26 8.3 Level of replication 26 8.4 Spacing of marine reserves 26 8.5 Size of marine reserves 26 8.6 Coverage of marine reserves 27 9. Procedure used for computer-assisted design of a network 28 of marine reserves 9.1 Features and targets used for Marxan analyses 29 Oceanographic Features 29 Physical features 29 Biological data 29 Expert consultation 31 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Publication No. 6
    SECTION C 435 C-l C-1 REMARKS ON EFFECT OF FOOD ANIMALS ON COD BEHAVIOUR By Sv. Aa. Horsted and Erik Smidt1 ABSTRACT In Greenland waters cod make long spawning and feeding migrations. The most important feeding ugrations take place in early summer, when cod follow the capelin into the fjords to the shore, lnd later in the summer, when cod follow the launce over the banks in the Davis Strait and in coastal iaters. Later on cod have been observed feeding quite near the shore in coastal areas, where the food consists of small capelin, Arctic squid and euphausiids. Cod may also be concentrated near lcebergs in summer and autumn. Finally. when cod have disappeared from the upper water layers be­ :ause of winter cooling, large numbers can be taken on the prawn grounds, where PandaZua borealis Ls the main food. COD PURSUING THE CAPELIN INTO THE FJORDS IN THE EARLY SUMMER In West Greenland large shoals of capelin (Mal lotus villosus) migrate into many 'of the fjords :or spawning, and in Southwest Greenland they are often pursued by cod. Both when the capelin ,efore spawning swim in shoals over the deeper parts of the fjords and coastal waters and when they ~ather near shore to spawn, one can follow the cod hunting them right up to the surface (Hansen, L949, p. 40), and investigations of cod stomachs show that they are full of capelin. During this Jeriod it is often difficult to catch cod with jig or long-line, as they pay no attention to the looks, even when baited with fresh capelin.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
    Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Migratory Group Cobia ASMFC Vision: Sustainably Managing Atlantic Coastal Fisheries November 2017 Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Migratory Group Cobia Prepared by Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Cobia Plan Development Team Plan Development Team Members: Louis Daniel, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Chair Mike Schmidtke, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Ryan Jiorle, Virginia Marine Resources Commission Steve Poland, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Mike Denson, South Carolina Kathy Knowlton, Georgia Krista Shipley, Florida Deb Lambert, NMFS Kari MacLauchlin, SAFMC This Plan was prepared under the guidance of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s South Atlantic State/Federal Fisheries Management Board, Chaired by Jim Estes of Florida and Advisory assistance was provided by the South Atlantic Species Advisory Panel Chaired by Tom Powers of Virginia. This is a report of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission pursuant to U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA15NMF4740069. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION: The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) has developed an Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Cobia, under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA). Management authority for this species is from zero to three nautical miles offshore, including internal state waters, and lies with the Commission. Regulations are promulgated by the Atlantic coastal states. Responsibility for compatible management action in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) from 3-200 miles from shore lies with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) and NOAA Fisheries under their Coastal Migratory Pelagics Fishery Management Plan (CMP FMP) under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Protocols of the EU Bottom Trawl Survey of Flemish Cap
    NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES ORGANIZATION Scientific Council Studies Number 46 Protocols of the EU bottom trawl survey of Flemish Cap 2014 creative cc commons COMMONS DEED Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 Canada You are free to copy and distribute the work and to make derivative works under the following conditions: Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Your fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ca/legalcode.en ISSN-0250-6432 Sci. Council Studies, No. 46, 2014, 1–42 Publication (Upload) date: 21 May 2014 Protocols of the EU bottom trawl survey of Flemish Cap Antonio Vázquez1, José Miguel Casas2 and Ricardo Alpoim3 1Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas, Muelle de Bouzas, Vigo, Spain, Email: [email protected] 2Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Apdo. 1552, 36200 Vigo, Spain, Email: [email protected] 3Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera. Av. Brasília, 1400 Lisboa, Portugal, Email: [email protected] Vázquez, A., J. Miguel Casas, R. Alpoim. 2014. Protocols of the EU bottom trawl survey of Flemish Cap. Scientific Council Studies, 46: 1–42. doi:10.2960/S.v46.m1 Abstract Methods and procedures used in the EU bottom trawl survey of Flemish Cap (NAFO Division 3M) are described in detail. The objectives of publicizing these protocols are to achieve a better understanding of its results, and to contribute to the routines being unaltered.
    [Show full text]