A Tale of two pictures – NOAA and Enviros have it all wrong on Gulf of Maine Cod!
This is a picture of approximately 2000 lbs. of cod. It represents the first time I have targeted cod in two years. While one picture does not determine the status of the stock it is a powerful illustrator of our current assessment shortcomings. This presentation is on Gulf of Maine Cod but the problems it illustrates cut across numerous species. By way of background, this was a one hour research tow in an open area. I travelled 20 miles to make this tow and it represents the first area that had not been taken over by lobster traps. This alone is cause for concern because most of the Gulf of Maine is now defacto closed to commercial fishing and the trawl survey, by the proliferation of fixed gear. The fact is, none of us now know how many cod exist because no one, including the NOAA trawl survey can fish here. Read the rest here, by David Goethel 16:36
Enviros Petition for Immediate and Permanent Rule Making to Prohibit Fishing for Gulf of Maine Cod
Very good article that anyone without a doctoral degree should be able to understand. Problem is NOAA and the NGOs are too smart to understand simple trawling education. This is what should be in the NY times and Boston Globe.
I was going to suggest something similar as far as getting it out to a larger audience. It’s too good an explanation as to what is wrong with the fisheries assessments, beginning with groundfish & moving on from there. This is a perfect example where the perfect questions demand at least even an imperfect answer, BUT they need a response! I plan on forwarding this article to my Massachusetts’ legislators. Who else will?
Jim Kendall – NBSC
Right on David! As the NOAA dysfunction continues, we continue to catch “phantom” fish in astonishing numbers. If things were as bad as NMFS so steadfastly (and inaccurately) says they are, we wouldn’t be seeing a 10th of the codfish we’re seeing. I just made another offshore gillnet trip and had to move away from codfish as I now have exhausted my paltry annual quota. The fish we were (and have been) catching were of all sizes; most of our 200lb. landing limit being large. With May 1 looming on the horizon one can only imagine the chaos which will no doubt ensue what with the ultra-paltry limits on the “iconic” codfish. Mr. Bullard by the way seems to have no problem whatsoever with seeing the iconic New England fisherman going by the wayside in lieu of the iconic codfish. It’s high time for a reality check by NOAA and as you so poignantly illustrate, a meeting of the minds. –
All that can be said is wow! Is anyone surprised? Again NOAA/NMFS is a rogue government agency that has been hijacked by the ENGO’s and the green mafia.
This has never been about conservation. It was always about elimination and demonizing fishermen as the culprits of this farce narrative of no cod or yellowtails.
Years ago I asked the question at a council meeting that went unanswered. I’ll ask it again.
What is the government going to do for the folks that have been destroyed by these continuous lies that emanate from these agencies? What about the broken dreams, broken families, and stressed out people who just gave up?
Who has the courage from these agencies to answer these questions? What say you Mr. Bullard?
the puppet has nothing to say.the ngo’s do the talking!!
Speaking of Rogue Agencies. Dale Jones famous SHREDDING “ILLUSION” comes to mind after Hillary Clinton PRIVATIZED her SECRETARY OF STATE “Email REPORTING”. As stated by the MEDIA, had she been WIRED into the SYSTEM with the FEDERAL Email SYSTEM she would not be able to dump any unfavorable REPORTS. As I stated in the past you can not shred a HARD-DRIVE or SERVER. Hence DALE JONES info is still retrievable!!! Time to expose the PAST, the SHREDDING was a ROUSE. It’s time to expose the “EMERALD CITY” JANIE’S RUBY SLIPPERS may have brought Her to OREGON. But now the time has come to write up a “LIST” for the JUNKET to “CLUB FED”!!!
if noaa/nmfs had any balls,they could stop ngo’s,just plead insanity,and get to work.industry would even work with you i’d bet!
DAVID GOETHEL IS ONE OF BEST FISHERMEN ON THE EAST COAST . HE CARES AND KNOWS ,GOM FISH AND THEIR HABITS , KNOWS THE OCEAN BOTTOMS , ALSO CARES ABOUT FISHERMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES !!!
DAVID AND HIS WIFE ELLEN ARE BOTH OCEAN SCIENTIST, ENVIRONMENTALISTS ,AND HAVE GREAT KNOWLEDGE OF OUR OCEANS . ANYONE OF TWO , WOULD BE THE BEST N.E. REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR THAT NEW ENGLAND COULD EVER HAVE !!!
The only problem is he tells the truth while the others lie to conform to the green agenda. For this reason he would never be considered.
IN THE BEGINNING , WAS BULLARD GREEN ? I THINK ONCE IN HE CHANGED ,COLORS ,
JUST THINKING , WHO WOULD GREAT FOR THAT JOB .
Thank You David, this lays it out quite clearly. We deserve sound science and need to get away from “Faith-Based” assessments and shoddy and skimpy surveys.
And we deserve some answers regarding NOAA consistently “stonewalling” the real-time, at-sea observations that you present in this article. Management’s dire “theoretical” stock population
declarations have had fishermen scratching their heads for years.
The “fish are all gone due to overfishing and unreported by-catch and habitat destruction” posture of NOAA’s fishery regulators—inspired by the well-funded eco-NGOs crisis-of-the-month campaigns—are almost always at odds with cooperative survey results and fishermen’s indisputable at-sea every day experiences of abundance.
If the Regional Fisheries Councils’ “suggestions” can be overridden by one vote from NOAA’s John Bullard, for instance, then we do not have essential “stakeholder representation”. And if NOAA Science does not relinquish its defensive closed off stance to such information as presented in this article—when it does not happen to agree with theirs—then we do not have the governing of our fisheries ” based upon the best scientific information available”. NOAA then is in violation of the “Scientific Information” Standard 2 of the Magnuson Stevens Act:
§ 600.315 National Standard 2—Scientific Information.
“Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available.”
“National Standard 2 (see §600.315). In cases where scientific data are severely limited, effort should also be directed to identifying and gathering the needed data.”
“Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) development”
“An FMP should identify scientific information needed from other sources to improve understanding and management of the resource, marine ecosystem, and the fishery (including fishing communities).” The phrase in parentheses was written into the Act–not added by me.
Time to shut off the black boxes and go to work. Civil disobedience is the only thing left. Cooperation has been and always will be a waste of time unless there is a fundamental change in leadership and attitude at NOAA. Good luck with that. End of story!
This is possibly the best article I have ever read. Well done, David.