liberals at it again trying to hurt shrimpers

[keakar]

now they want to start making state wildlife agents specifically target and go after shrimpers for teds, I wonder if they just viewed it as an untapped revenue source?

http://www.tlgnewspaper.com/louisian...ea-turtle-laws

I want to know why I haven't seen any stories of mass overpopulations of sea turtles because of these teds that they claim are needed? it was never shrimpers hurting turtle populations but the wholesale slaughter of them on Mexican beaches as a food source and that has never stopped AFAIK.

just another example of liberal feel good regulations that hurt fishermen

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by keakar

now they want to start making state wildlife agents specifically target and go after shrimpers for teds, I wonder if they just viewed it as an untapped revenue source?

http://www.tlgnewspaper.com/louisian...ea-turtle-laws

I want to know why I haven't seen any stories of mass overpopulations of sea turtles because of these teds that they claim are needed? it was never shrimpers hurting turtle populations but the wholesale slaughter of them on Mexican beaches as a food source and that has never stopped AFAIK.

just another example of liberal feel good regulations that hurt fishermen

In addition to the basic case that the TEDs are wasteful and unnecessary, there is a more important issue here concerning separation of powers between the federal and state governments.

The feds may well have the power to make stupid laws, and they've givem ample proof of that in foolish laws like the unreasonable and unscientific snapper regulations. But the state of Louisiana would do well to maintain its refusal to become an enforcement authority of stupid federal laws in all areas.

[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.

[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?

[keakar]

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.

but that's just it, the turtles are used as an excuse but the shrimpers are not the ones killing them so the whole premis for teds is bogus.

that said I agree with you and hate how trawling is hugely wasteful in the massive bycatch slaughter and I wish they could find a way to stop the killing of dozens of small fish every drag with a recreational trawl and hundreds of small fish per hour by the big trawlers. when I used to trawl I would raise more often and pick out and throw the fish back first before picking the shrimp so only a handful might not make it, but the seagulls ate well lol. many small trout reds and croakers and even an occasional snapper was seen and I never shook the feeling of wanting a way to not kill these little ones I wanted to grow big so I could catch later.

but the question is how to "not catch" something not much bigger then the species you are targeting.

I often wondered if there might be a way to "pool" the catch in a holding tank so its taken out of the water right away while the boat is in motion so fish can swim and separate from the shrimp that settle to the bottom. but i have no clue how something like that could work to bring the catch instantly onboard like an escalator to separate out the shrimp and lets the fish back to the water still alive and frisky.

[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.

[capt coonassty]

Originally Posted by keakar

but that's just it, the turtles are used as an excuse but the shrimpers are not the ones killing them so the whole premis for teds is bogus.

that said I agree with you and hate how trawling is hugely wasteful in the massive bycatch slaughter and I wish they could find a way to stop the killing of dozens of small fish every drag with a recreational trawl and hundreds of small fish per hour by the big trawlers. when I used to trawl I would raise more often and pick out and throw the fish back first before picking the shrimp so only a handful might not make it, but the seagulls ate well lol. many small trout reds and croakers and even an occasional snapper was seen and I never shook the feeling of wanting a way to not kill these little ones I wanted to grow big so I could catch later.

but the question is how to "not catch" something not much bigger then the species you are targeting.

I often wondered if there might be a way to "pool" the catch in a holding tank so its taken out of the water right away while the boat is in motion so fish can swim and separate from the shrimp that settle to the bottom. but i have no clue how something like that could work to bring the catch instantly onboard like an escalator to separate out the shrimp and lets the fish back to the water still alive and frisky.

While I didn't say that they are responsible for turtle deaths I'm just making the point that a species that takes at least 25 years to sexually mature is going to take a long time to recover.

I'll be the first one to say that I would love to see them recover. I've heard from several people who have traveled and spent time of pacific islands that turtle is great eating. And a pair of turtle boots would be sweet.

[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.

[capt coonassty]

I think markets should dictate prices. With that being said we should restrict imported shrimp.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by capt coonassty

I think markets should dictate prices. With that being said we should restrict imported shrimp.

Having just completed the study of Thomas Sowell's, Basic Economics, I don't think I can get behind protectionist import policies. Capitalism benefits both producers and consumers if government would get out of the way and let it work. I don't buy the stuff personally, but I appreciate the availability of imported (mostly farmed) seafood at the grocery stores, and I recognize that its presence leaves more local seafood (and bait) for my family and at more competitive prices.

Markets should dictate prices, but the prices should be based on reasonable production costs, not production costs that are inflated due to irrational, unsubstantiated fears that bycatch is harming resources in an unsustainable way.

The more important issue is separation of powers. The Feds need to enforce federal rules without strong arming state agencies into acting like federal thugs. DO WE REALLY WANT LDWF AGENTS ENFORCING ALL FEDERAL FISHING RULES (including red snapper)?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by keakar

now they want to start making state wildlife agents specifically target and go after shrimpers for teds, I wonder if they just viewed it as an untapped revenue source?

http://www.tlgnewspaper.com/louisian...ea-turtle-laws

I want to know why I haven't seen any stories of mass overpopulations of sea turtles because of these teds that they claim are needed? it was never shrimpers hurting turtle populations but the wholesale slaughter of them on Mexican beaches as a food source and that has never stopped AFAIK.

just another example of liberal feel good regulations that hurt fishermen

I think you misread the article This is the shrimpers trying to repeal the law. They are trying to show they want to do more and be in compliance with federal regulations which includes placing TEDs on their trawls.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

In addition to the basic case that the TEDs are wasteful and unnecessary, there is a more important issue here concerning separation of powers between the federal and state governments.

The feds may well have the power to make stupid laws, and they've givem ample proof of that in foolish laws like the unreasonable and unscientific snapper regulations. But the state of Louisiana would do well to maintain its refusal to become an enforcement authority of stupid federal laws in all areas.

TEDs aren't the entire solution for declining sea turtle populations but they do play a large part for bycatchvrrduction when used. Did anyone read the article? The shrimp task force is the one campaigning for this

[Marque]

Is it crazy to assume that most of the bycatch is not eaten by larger fish and other marine life? I know the seagulls get plenty of it but I have to think that other predatory fish get in on the easy meal as well? I mean they catch Tuna 15 miles out of mouth of the Mississippi behind shrimp boats, I am sure other bigger fish have caught on as well . I worked as a deckhand one summer on a skimmer in southwest pass and I can remember catching 1 speckled trout that was big enough to filet. We would dump the nets in salt saturated brine and skim the dead fish off. It was mostly eels, croakers and needle fish. I have to think that a good portion of by catch would have been consumed by predators if it hadn't ended up in a net. What difference ecologically does it make if the by catch is consumed after its sorted and dumped? Shrimpers don't catch all the shrimp out there, I have to assume the same for by catch. There's always by catch. As for Sea Turtles, I think there would be a lot more of them if they moved out of the way of boats. I've worked and fished offshore long enough to see more than a few plowed into by recreational fisherman, commercial fishing boats, head boats, work boats, pretty much any boat around a rig or platform.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by Marque

Is it crazy to assume that most of the bycatch is not eaten by larger fish and other marine life? I know the seagulls get plenty of it but I have to think that other predatory fish get in on the easy meal as well? I mean they catch Tuna 15 miles out of mouth of the Mississippi behind shrimp boats, I am sure other bigger fish have caught on as well . I worked as a deckhand one summer on a skimmer in southwest pass and I can remember catching 1 speckled trout that was big enough to filet. We would dump the nets in salt saturated brine and skim the dead fish off. It was mostly eels, croakers and needle fish. I have to think that a good portion of by catch would have been consumed by predators if it hadn't ended up in a net. What difference ecologically does it make if the by catch is consumed after its sorted and dumped? Shrimpers don't catch all the shrimp out there, I have to assume the same for by catch. There's always by catch. As for Sea Turtles, I think there would be a lot more of them if they moved out of the way of boats. I've worked and fished offshore long enough to see more than a few plowed into by recreational fisherman, commercial fishing boats, head boats, work boats, pretty much any boat around a rig or platform.

well nothing goes to waste that's for sure, but its always best to return as much as you can alive and avoid catching things you don't want altogether.

I think we all agree on that.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I think you misread the article This is the shrimpers trying to repeal the law. They are trying to show they want to do more and be in compliance with federal regulations which includes placing TEDs on their trawls.

I think YOU misread the thread post

and to be accurate if you bother to look into the facts behind this strange request, they are doing this under duress, only because they want the feds to impose more tariffs on imported shrimp which the feds aren't willing to do until we show more compliance with fed regulations. so this is a way they believe they can get the feds to go along with higher import tariffs.

and to be clear the name doesn't mean they just work for the benefit of the fisherman, the "shrimpers" only make up one third of the task force and the other third is shrimp processors with the final third being LDWF agency members or affiliates so this is NOT a group of shrimpers begging to be regulated more as you may wish to think.

not to mention it is run by the DWLF and operates under their guidance so it is not a private entity

CCA constantly works against fishermen against all manner of common sense and fair fisheries management despite having "so-called" fishermen and sportsmen making these decisions so assuming things based on the name something is called is flawed thinking.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by keakar

I think YOU misread the thread post

and to be accurate if you bother to look into the facts behind this strange request, they are doing this under duress, only because they want the feds to impose more tariffs on imported shrimp which the feds aren't willing to do until we show more compliance with fed regulations. so this is a way they believe they can get the feds to go along with higher import tariffs.

and to be clear the name doesn't mean they just work for the benefit of the fisherman, the "shrimpers" only make up one third of the task force and the other third is shrimp processors with the final third being LDWF agency members or affiliates so this is NOT a group of shrimpers begging to be regulated more as you may wish to think.

not to mention it is run by the DWLF and operates under their guidance so it is not a private entity
.

Just read the article again please. It says "The Louisiana Task Force voted 7-0 in favor of repealing the state law". If "the shrimpers only make up a third" and they were truly against this then why was the vote unanimous? Why didn't at leat one person vote against it?