Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Home arrow News arrow Washington arrow New law may mean bump up in New England fish catch
New law may mean bump up in New England fish catch
BOSTON—Congress passed a law Tuesday that fishermen say will bring fairness to fish-sharing negotiations with Canada and likely lead to a higher catch limit on a key New England species.
 

Every year, negotiators decide how much each nation can pull up in a rich section of the Georges Bank fishing grounds that includes both U.S. and Canadian waters. The new law allows the U.S. to deal with Canada without being held to the tight 10-year timeline to rebuild the fish stocks, which applies in all other American waters.

Without the pressure of that timeline, Canada can allow its fishermen to catch more of a given species in a given year. The change evens things out, lawmakers said.

"For too long, our fishery managers have been placed at a competitive disadvantage in negotiating catch limits with their Canadian counterparts because of an erroneous interpretation of the law," said Sen. Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, who led the push for passage of the law with Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank.

Fishermen are hoping the change will lead to a quick increase in what they say is an unnecessarily low catch limit for yellowtail flounder. That low limit threatens the entire industry, they say, because new rules shut down fishing on all species once the catch limit on even one species is reached.

"Knowing that they have more yellowtail would keep (fishermen) more at ease fishing out in the ocean, (knowing) if they do come across yellowtail they won't be shut down," said Richie Canastra of Whaling City Seafood Display Auction in New Bedford.

Read the complete story by Jay Lindsay of The AP at The Boston Globe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bookmark and Share Print
 

MELISSA WOOD, NATIONAL FISHERMEN: Meting out the meager

May 22, 2012 - Listening to the New England Council's Groundfish Advisory Panel talk about how that industry is going to pay for monitoring costs is kind of like trying to figure out how to pay your bills when you've just lost your job. Though monitoring is important keeping costs down is critical. As Panel Member Gary Libby pointed out, "If we had 100 percent monitoring we probably wouldn't have an industry."