liberals at it again trying to hurt shrimpers

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by capt coonassty

Its because most turtles live well over 50 years. I'm all for commercial shrimping, but the damage that they do to fisheries stocks are unimaginable.

It was hypothesized that commercial shrimping was damaging red snapper stocks, but that hypothesis was soundly refuted by the data after increases in fuel costs and price drops (due to imported shrimp) reduced the Gulf shrimping efforts that were supposedly harming the age zero snapper.

If commercial shrimping efforts are harming fish stocks, then they should be curtailed on that basis (rather than turtles) after sound science demonstrates which species are being harmed and the time and locations of commercial shrimping efforts which are causing the harm.

As far as I can tell the present assertion that current levels of commercial shrimping effort are causing "unimaginable" harm to fisheries stocks is completely unsupported by the data. The stocks of red snapper, triple tail, speckled trout, red drum, and most other important species are very healthy in Louisiana waters and in federal waters adjacent to Louisiana. To which stocks has "unimaginable" harm been caused, and where is the supporting data piblished?

[capt coonassty]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It was hypothesized that commercial shrimping was damaging red snapper stocks, but that hypothesis was soundly refuted by the data after increases in fuel costs and price drops (due to imported shrimp) reduced the Gulf shrimping efforts that were supposedly harming the age zero snapper.

If commercial shrimping efforts are harming fish stocks, then they should be curtailed on that basis (rather than turtles) after sound science demonstrates which species are being harmed and the time and locations of commercial shrimping efforts which are causing the harm.

As far as I can tell the present assertion that current levels of commercial shrimping effort are causing "unimaginable" harm to fisheries stocks is completely unsupported by the data. The stocks of red snapper, triple tail, speckled trout, red drum, and most other important species are very healthy in Louisiana waters and in federal waters adjacent to Louisiana. To which stocks has "unimaginable" harm been caused, and where is the supporting data piblished?

While I have nothing to back this up. I would imagine that without by catch mortality it would open up more forage for the fish mentioned. I'm sure most people have seen the thousands of fish washing up on the beaches after inshore season opens up.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by capt coonassty

While I have nothing to back this up. I would imagine that without by catch mortality it would open up more forage for the fish mentioned. I'm sure most people have seen the thousands of fish washing up on the beaches after inshore season opens up.

I don't know how much that is true, most times im out the fish don't make it 500 yards from the boat under any circumstances between birds and the fish having a field day eating them but I suppose if a large commercial trawler was near shore they might was up on the beach.

most times birds follow trawlers like flies on turds so anything floating in the water instantly gets eaten and not wasted but I would rather them get returned to the water alive if there was a "reasonable" way but they never do anything "reasonable" with regulations or gear restrictions.

the bycatch question is a tough one because the never ending question is how do you find a way to let 2"-3" fish get out easily but not let 2"-3" shrimp be able to escape at the same time?

short of forcing trawlers to raise the nets every 15 minutes and exclusively use salt barrels (fish float, shrimp sink) instead of dumping the catch on deck or in picking boxes, I don't know how you can keep the bycatch from drowning in the trawl on you

[capt coonassty]

BRD's

Bycatch reduction device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bycatch reduction device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bycatch reduction device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[keakar]

Originally Posted by capt coonassty

BRD's

Bycatch reduction device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yes I know about those useless things, they do help a "little" but they serve to lose a whole lot more shrimp then they ever allow any fish to escape but the bigger fish can get out ok with them in use but sadly they do nothing to stop the entrapment of the 2"-3" fish because they just are just too young to outswim the trawls.

im just fantasizing about finding a way to not allow "any" shrimp to escape and still remove the bycatch. at present, only half of what a shrimper has go through his net stays in his net because of these flawed devices that work without caring how much shrimp can get out.

most shrimpers I know will stitch the teds closed to stop the loss of shrimp and if checked they pull the extra rope that unzips the ted so when the net comes up the ted "appears fully fuctional to anyone checking or watching nearby. that's why they have that seamingly useless extra rope hanging from the trawl, its run through the webbing to keep the flap closed but slips right out when pulled on

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by capt coonassty

BRD's

The thing about "Bycatch reduction devices" is that they are also inevitably catch reduction devices.

BRDs reduce the intented catch as well as the bycatch, thus driving up operational and fuel costs for the fishers and thus product costs for the customers.

Adding more burdens to commercial (or recreational) fishermen is only warranted if there is solid data showing that the ongoing resource impacts of not adding the burdens is significant enough to justify the added burdens. Even without TEDs, turtle catch rates in the Gulf are very low, under 1 turtle every 300 hours of trawling.

[capt coonassty]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The thing about "Bycatch reduction devices" is that they are also inevitably catch reduction devices.

BRDs reduce the intented catch as well as the bycatch, thus driving up operational and fuel costs for the fishers and thus product costs for the customers.

Adding more burdens to commercial (or recreational) fishermen is only warranted if there is solid data showing that the ongoing resource impacts of not adding the burdens is significant enough to justify the added burdens. Even without TEDs, turtle catch rates in the Gulf are very low, under 1 turtle every 300 hours of trawling.

This is exactly it. Cost. I'm perfectly willing to pay extra for a resource that is caught more sustainable and responsibly and do so often. You're saying that the value of the wasted resources is less than the increase you would see at the store.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by capt coonassty

This is exactly it. Cost. I'm perfectly willing to pay extra for a resource that is caught more sustainable and responsibly and do so often. You're saying that the value of the wasted resources is less than the increase you would see at the store.

what he is trying to say is fishermen are being bankrupted by these devices that double and triple the cost of catching shrimp and while you talk the talk, are you willing to pay $15 a pound for 30 count shrimp and $30 a pound for 16 count? or are you going to just buy that $12 a pound prime beef steak instead? because that's about what the prices "should" be at so shrimpers can make an adequate profit margin on what is costs to catch them. right now shrimpers are averaging selling their shrimp for maybe 5% more then what they spend to catch them and that is not counting maint repairs and breakdowns.

right now they barely make any money at all and if something breaks they lose money on the trip.