96 inch minimum for sharks?

[ANUMBER1]

Freely admit I'm a pinhead on some subjects, and you're right to ask for clarification.

For the record, the commercial shark fishery is indeed tightly managed and under tons of pressure by HMS to comply with a spectrum of regulations--everything from obligate dehooking systems to ID courses for crewmen.

That said, the present plan by HMS would be to implement a recreational-only minimum size limit of 96 inches. A commercial fisherman fishing right next to you could retain a 36-inch blacktip (good-eating size)..heck he could keep up to 33 of them depending on his permit. A recreational guy would have to release fish of that size. This is a legitimate complaint.

And as to the commercial sector selling more--that is in fact the current plan: raising the allocation of blacktip based on the new stock assessment. The recreational "allocation" would be rendered meaningless by the minimum size (good luck finding a 96-inch blacktip).

I apologize for the pinhead. I haven't commercial shark fished in ten years and I held a directed permit. The money wasn't in the meat it was in the fins, a 36" blacktip didn't provide much money and still won't.
If the TAC isn't rasied then your concerns of increased commercial catch are unfounded.

Just more sensationalism to promote your struggling magazine/flyer.

[ACME Ventures Fishing]

This proposed rule is about as ridiculous as the Red Snapper closures are. While virtually closeing Shark retention to
the Recreational Sector, Who rarely retains shark when compared to the number of angler days for all speceis, and
on the other hand allows greater access for the commercial sector by decreasing the size requirements, effectivly
opening up harvest possibilities on certain shark stocks.

The arguement of shark misidentification seems to be their rationale for this absurd proposal, and yet what is it
really going to accomplish? Well they will basically close Recreational Harvest, and allow Commercial a greater number
to be retained (notice I said Number not pounds), but still, greater access for commercial harvest. Sure seems like
commercial interest were being considered as a priority in this. Wonder if it flies, if the Rec ACL which will likely be
all but dried up, will be transferred to commercial?

[ANUMBER1]

You are allowed 33 fish per trip, not lbs but individual number of fish, so your point is moot.
ACME, with the price of fuel and bait I would target the larger fish, I don't want cull thru 50 small fish to catch a big one, not very cost effective.

BTW, I love reading the rec posts on catching/killing hundreds of small trout just to fill a limit.

[stokes]

This proposed rule is about as ridiculous as the Red Snapper closures are. While virtually closeing Shark retention to
the Recreational Sector, Who rarely retains shark when compared to the number of angler days for all speceis, and
on the other hand allows greater access for the commercial sector by decreasing the size requirements, effectivly
opening up harvest possibilities on certain shark stocks.

The arguement of shark misidentification seems to be their rationale for this absurd proposal, and yet what is it
really going to accomplish? Well they will basically close Recreational Harvest, and allow Commercial a greater number
to be retained (notice I said Number not pounds), but still, greater access for commercial harvest. Sure seems like
commercial interest were being considered as a priority in this. Wonder if it flies, if the Rec ACL which will likely be
all but dried up, will be transferred to commercial?

I agree with this post. How this proposal was even elevated to discussion level, let alone a legitimate possible regulation is preposterous. I know the proposal has been discarded (and hopefully discredited with consequences for the originator), but if this is the kind of regulation we have to actually comment on, there is obviously no rationale being applied to our fishery science. How about proposing a 96" limit on spotted unicorn dogfish in May? Let's waste some time and money discussing that...

It makes about as much sense. Absurdity should be identified and labeled as unexceptable by our policy makers.