Record of Public Comment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
From: Jon&Judi Savage To: Fish, Marine (FWE) Subject: Regulatory Menhaden Changes Date: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 7:23:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from a sender outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts mail system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Director McKiernan, I would like to submit a follow up email after speaking last night regarding the proposed regulatory menhaden changes. I believe every vessel that has an open access MA CAP Seine Permit should have fish totes or 55 gal. drums aboard to immediately store their catch. Container volumes should be 125lbs per tote for 48 totes or 17 drums to total 6,000 lbs. Maximum seine size for an open access MA CAP Seine Permit is currently 150 fathom by 8 fathoms deep, I believe this is excessive in retaining 6,000 lbs of menhaden. A maximum fair size for a seine would be 100 fathom by 8 fathoms deep. Early season menhaden can be found on the surface in 200’ of water which requires a good length of netting to not spook fish & depth to prevent fish from diving under net. Additionally in the Fall when storms are offshore producing ground swells the menhaden will retreat from the beaches and seek deeper water to hide at the bottom—usually 40’-50’ deep. A proposed smaller size seine of 50 fathom by 5 fathoms deep would force seiners to fish shallower waters and lead to conflicts between striped bass fishermen from boats & shore, not to mention bathers as well. I currently seine with a 75 fathom by 7 fathom net and average 20 drums a set during summer months off the NH coast. I would like to have the ability to increase the size of this seine if needed to target menhaden earlier & later in the season as these baitfish arrive/depart MA State waters. Thank You for your consideration, Jon Savage capt.sav@ comcast.net 603-944-6004 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Dear Director Daniel McKiernan, I am writing to share my thoughts on the proposed changes to 322 CMR 6.43 . I understand the goal of enhancing compliance with the open access trip limits, however some of these changes have greater consequences and implications that need to be considered. The first change would alter our maximum purse seine to 300’ by 30’. This is a drastic change compared to existing regulations and I believe John Savage comprehensively explained some of the detrimental issues this would cause for fishermen. I believe matching New Hampshire’s net regulations (which also limit at 6000 pounds) would be a fair solution as it also allows for compliance with inter-state participants at the same limits. Additionally, I would like to address that while changing the length of the net could control the volume we catch, changing net depth would only impact our ability to catch fish in certain areas. Complying with the open access fishery, we are not allowed to fish within the designated harbor boundaries. At the same time, subtracting to a 30 foot net would make it impossible to catch fish beyond a 30’ depth. A majority of the places we are permitted to fish have a depth of 40-50 feet right outside of the harbors, noting the channels outside of Beverly and Manchester in example. We have already lost access to fishing grounds because of the Boston dredging project which has made our spots beyond the harbor boundary inaccessible. The new depths from the project make it impossible to productively set around the Boston Islands. If the state moves forward with changing the net size, they should consider a more realistic reduction like that of New Hampshire. Getting seine nets made is not the same as a lot of other fishing gear. It can take upwards of a year to purchase and receive a net, which is not even inclusive of the time, effort, and modifications needed to make them productive. The second change would require participants to “immediately store their harvest of menhaden” in containers. Once again, I understand the intent to promote compliance but think that in practice there are unrealistic expectations with this change. If you reach out to more industry participants, everyone will tell you that it is impossible to immediately store live menhaden. They jump and kick and will come right back out of the containers. A completely full box of pogies will be a 65-70% full box an hour later once they have settled. I n practice, these assumptions for filling boxes or barrels would result in catches less than our actual allocation of 6000 pounds. Part of why many boats store their catch or part of their catch on deck is to level off the boxes and barrels as they are taken off the boat. The other reason for storing our fish on the deck is that immediately storing our catch in containers poses a major safety hazard. These hazards include stacks of totes/barrels falling on crew, shifting on deck and resulting in rolled boats, and more generally force us to jeopardize the stability of our vessels. In the open access fishery, as has been stated in meetings, the vessels impacted by these regulations are smaller vessels. Putting our catch in containers with limited deck space would force us to then go vertical, exponentially lowering our boat’s stability.The stored catch has a direct impact on the vessel’s center of gravity. Being able to store our catch on the deck lets it take up less volume than if the equivalent was in rigid containers. It also allows the weight to stay closer to the water line maintaining stability. The following images demonstrate the technical impact of loading weight in this way above deck and its impacts on stability. *images taken directly from the U SCG Best Practices Guide to Vessel Stability: Guiding Fishermen Safely into the Future 1 1https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/5p/CG-5PC/CG-CVC/CVC3/references/Stability_Referen ce_Guide.pdf In the meeting, Maine was used as a reference for why this system would work. However, in Maine they are operating in protected waters. These boats are often seen overloaded with barrels, scuppers below the water idling back to port. This may be a calculated risk for them to make it back to the dock, however in Massachusetts’ waters we do not have those same protections when the weather turns. At times we have to travel open water in order to find fish and returning home with our load stacked up only invites dangerous incidents. I understand the purpose, but perhaps an agreement could be made so that some of the catch is stored in containers while a portion can be stored on deck to allow us to properly take our limits while doing so safely. The other issue with change 2 is the definition of the volumetric equivalencies. In my opinion, both are flawed; a barrel holds 3 totes but the carrying capacity of a tote is about 70lbs of fresh pogies (live out of a set) and 100-110 pounds when leveled with dead pogies. Therefore both should be adjusted; a barrel of leveled dead pogies holding more than 300 pounds and the leveled tote holding less than 125 pounds. The third change would “Require any commercial permit holder participating in the episodic event set-aside fishery to hold a bait dealer permit and report their harvest nightly into SAFIS as a bait dealer.” The stated reason for this change was to conform with other state regulations, but this change would actually be the easiest to implement and I believe the most effective way to enhance compliance with the trip limits. Daily reporting will show how much is being caught and the uses for the fish. This is the same expectation for the limited access fishery for compliance so why not use it for the small scale as well? As a participant in the small scale fishery, it is clear where the state sees our role in the fishing industry. We all want to protect the fish stocks, for the prevalence of an already cyclical fishery is of utmost priority for the participants. But if the state wants to improve compliance with trip limits, then make changes on reporting trip limits. The other proposed changes will negatively impact our ability to catch fish and make a living as well as jeopardize our safety, not prompt compliance as stated. I hope we are able to develop the fishery in such a way to benefit the menhaden while also promoting realistic harvest practices. If needed, I would be more than happy to provide additional insight or discussion on our fishing practices and understandings (i.e. volumetric storage). Philip Anthony Powell Jr. F/V Gannet April 2, 2021 April 2, 2021 MA Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street Suite 400 Boston MA 02114 Dear Director McKiernan, After attending and listening to the recent public hearing the MSBA Executive Board met on Wednesday April 1 to discuss the proposals made during the hearing. Please accept the following comments on behalf of the Massachusetts Striped Bass Association. 1. Commercial Striped Bass Season and Open Fishing Days (322 CMR 6.07) Since being founded in 1950; MSBA membership has included commercial harvesters of striped bass. Although our current membership includes fishermen that believe the overall value of striped bass to the Commonwealth would be better served as a recreational only species; our formal positions are focused on reform and improvement of the commercial fishery.