number) and listed by serial number on the weighouts. 



There are other problems that surface when the application 

 of mesh regulations is discussed in New England. One com- 

 mon objection some fishermen voice is that dogfish (Squalus 

 acanthias and Mustelus canis) will gill in the large cod end 

 meshes creating time-consuming labor requirements for their 

 removal. Comparing a 5-in or greater mesh vs. a 4-in or 

 smaller mesh, this may be a valid concern. However, the dif- 

 ference between using a 5%-in and a 5% -in mesh, in regards to 

 dogfish gilling, may be insignificant. One way to look at it is 

 that there are fewer meshes in the larger cod end thus less gilled 

 fish to remove. 



Another concern of fishermen is the effect of a bar breaking 

 in a cod end mesh. In a 3-in cod end a bar breaks leaving a 6-in 

 hole; a failure that can be tolerated. Unfortunately, the days 

 of using a 3-in mesh are gone. The difference between a bar 

 failure between a 5% and a 5%- in cod end is a hole lO'/i in vs. 

 one of 11 '/i in; both probably will give the same losses. One 

 other common complaint is that the large cod end just will not 

 be strong enough to handle large catches. So far there is no 

 evidence that this complaint is valid but if it does turn out to be 

 a problem there should be an easy technical solution available. 



It should be kept in mind that the application of large mesh 

 cod ends may have certain advantages to the fishermen, other 

 than catch related, that outweigh the above disadvantages. 

 The larger mesh should have a "cleaner" catch requiring 

 easier landing and handling on deck. The cost of webbing, 

 which is sold by weight, should be less, and it should be easier 

 to mend. The larger mesh should also offer less towing 

 resistance which may save on fuel costs. 



Unfortunately, in New England, the relatively simple case of 

 a single species groundfishery does not exist. However, New 

 England is fortunate in that one mesh size probably can be 

 chosen to accommodate management requirements for many 

 key species — Atlantic cod, haddock, pollock, yellowtail 

 flounder, winter flounder, and American plaice. Two impor- 

 tant commercial species that require a smaller mesh are redfish 

 and silver hake. 



From a mesh based viewpoint there are two basic systems of 

 management for New England's mixed bottom trawl fishery; 

 one that allows a vessel to go to sea with more than one mesh 

 size aboard and the other that does not. Present fishing 

 strategies of most inshore and offshore vessels make it 

 desirable to carry two mesh sizes to sea. The main reason is 

 that it gives the captain flexibility in making his trip profitable. 

 However, most fishermen and enforcement personnel agree 

 that it is difficult, if even possible, to enforce a mesh size 

 regulation with two mesh sizes aboard. No matter how 

 technically sophisticated a dual mesh regulation can be made, 

 the psychological barrier, i.e., the temptation to cheat, that ex- 

 ists when a fisherman knows the "other fellow" has a small 

 mesh onboard and could be using it to outfish him, is insur- 

 mountable. 



The solution seems to be in the one mesh only form of 

 regulation. There are areas and seasons where this probably 

 can work well without too many changes in fishing strategies. 

 In some areas there may have to be major changes in tradi- 

 tional practices but these changes will not necessarily be 

 detrimental to the fishermen. In other areas, mostly inshore, 

 small mesh even for the larger groundfish may be the only way 

 possible to fish. The main applications problem in determining 



a workable management scheme with mesh size regulation as a 

 primary tool is effective enforcement. 



Another point that must be kept in mind is that if a fishery 

 has several different gears involved, the regulations must be 

 balanced so that the fish become vulnerable to them at about 

 the same age. There may be economic factors, due to dif- 

 ferences in operating costs, that would create the need to ad- 

 just a balance based strictly on age of first capture. 



Summation 



The most recent groundfish management proposals in the 

 northeast have included mesh size regulations as one of the 

 main management tools. This basically entails increasing the 

 size of the cod-end mesh to allow greater escapement of the 

 smaller fish. Besides increasing the mean size of the fish 

 caught, there are many direct and indirect effects on the 

 fishing industry, resource management, and the ecosystem 

 itself. 



An example of direct economic impact is that in most cases 

 larger fish bring a better price to the fishermen. When small 

 flounders are worth only $0. 10/lb, large flounders are bringing 

 about $0.80 to the fishermen. This, in large part, is due to the 

 fact that larger fish allow for more efficient processing. In 

 many aspects larger fish are also of better quality, e.g., large 

 whiting have improved texture and firmness. Larger whiting 

 can also be processed as fillets worth a lot more than the 

 smaller fish that mostly have to go into reduction. The above 

 discussion points out that a change in mesh size can impact the 

 processing sector of the fishing industry and the availability of 

 certain processed products. 



Larger mesh has direct impacts on the fishermen. The catch 

 usually comes up cleaner, less by-catch of trash and un- 

 marketable species. Compared with a smaller mesh that catch 

 is usually greater by weight but fewer in number because it is 

 composed of larger fish. This would then create less work on 

 deck sorting, cutting, and gutting. The by-catch control aspect 

 here is a double-edged sword. Some of the smaller species, 

 whiting and redfish for example, are marketable and this catch 

 would be reduced by a larger mesh. In the same manner less 

 work on deck could lead to reduced crewing which has both 

 positive and negative economic consequences. 



Going to a larger mesh will allow more fish to grow to a 

 larger size. This has the direct benefit of increasing the overall 

 yields of the resource. It also puts more age groups and greater 

 numbers of fish into the spawning pool, thus increasing the 

 spawning potential and possible future year class strengths. 

 What is not known is how more larger fish in the sea may im- 

 pact the overall ecological balance. Larger mesh may increase 

 resource stability, and correspondingly, reduce market cycles. 

 This could lead to increased price stability and thus improved 

 capability for financial planning for both fishermen and pro- 

 cessor. However, a better financial climate may increase in- 

 vestment into fishing operations and in fact bring an increase 

 in effort that could lead to overfishing. To carry this train of 

 thought further, a larger industry, during a natural downturn 

 in the fish populations, may be strong enough politically to 

 bring on protectionist (predator, not the prey) regulations. 

 These regulations, such as mortgage guarantees, fuel subsidies, 

 lost gear replacement, etc., have the tendency to keep marginal 

 operators in the fishery longer, thus adding to the overfishing 

 pressure. The professional fisherman plays the cycles for max- 



20 



