Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
FS Jeff
EditorTreasure Coast, FLPosts: 376 Moderator
96 inch minimum for sharks?
FS Jeff
EditorTreasure Coast, FLPosts: 376 Moderator
Some of you who enjoy keeping a blacktip or spinner now and then for the grill should know that NOAA Fisheries is floating a proposal to raise rec shark minimum from 54 to 96 inches. Purpose, they say, is to protect dusky shark and a few other imperiled species from possible landings by mistake. (No min. proposed for commercial sector, though they're discussing some additional longline closures). Public comment period open till Feb. 12, 2013. Public hearings January 15 in Madeira Beach, Jan. 17 in Vero Beach (I'll be at that one), and conference calls Jan. 9 and Feb. 5. I'll try to post locations for the hearings and numbers for the calls in a few days when we get 'em.
What do you guys think about shark limits? I personally prefer to keep small ones, if I'm going to cook one--not that I do it very often.
If you have the time, here's full text of the proposal:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/11/26/2012-28056/highly-migratory-species-atlantic-shark-management-measures
I'm currently finishing in-depth coverage of the shark fishery for the February issue of FS, but thought it worthwhile to chime in here to gauge your feelings.
Editor out.
What do you guys think about shark limits? I personally prefer to keep small ones, if I'm going to cook one--not that I do it very often.
If you have the time, here's full text of the proposal:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/11/26/2012-28056/highly-migratory-species-atlantic-shark-management-measures
I'm currently finishing in-depth coverage of the shark fishery for the February issue of FS, but thought it worthwhile to chime in here to gauge your feelings.
Editor out.
Jeff Weakley
Replies
And that where the problem lies, they should be focusing ONLY on the commercial sector. How many recreational fisherman do we see that ever even keep a shark let alone a fish in the 54 inch range? Very few.
If NOAA wants to protect the dusky shark and a few other imperiled species from possible landings by mistake, they should concentrate their efforts on the commercial fisherman. Raising the minimum on recreational fisherman would be another useless reg.
I also can tell you that FWC always fights for the recreational fisherman when it comes to shark fishing. I have seen them do it in scoping meetings. There also would be the likelihood that FWC can't change it but may not support it with in kind state regulations.
In the recreational swordfishery, Makos and Threshers are common bycatch when night fishing. Those waters would be affected by this rule since all swordfishing is cone in Federal waters.
I will watch here for comments and I will bring them to DC on Jan 8th.
If you read the rule, remember that the only options available now are the alternatives listed in the proposed rule. Too late for new ideas.
A minimum shark of 8 feet?! For the weekend angler? Could I sue NOAA for forcing me to attempt to land something I shouldnt so I can have a shark steak? Making landing a shark too dangerous is again, poor, really poor, management and a slap in the face to the everyday American recreational fisherman.
This really is nothing more than a backdoor attempt at banning recreational shark harvest. Almost certainly enviro-driven. Shark peril is GREATLY overstated. In the actual ocean the US shark population is exploding due to severe restrictions and limits on commercial and recreational harvest. Sand bars are 100 percent closed to all harvest. Duskys too. Caribbean reef shark... completely closed to everyone. Sand tigers- closed to all. Is this really not enough protection that now we need to make it illegal for a guy to take home a 3 foot black tip to eat? Come on NMFS....
8 foot minimum, how exactly would this reduce dusky harvest? Duskys do exceed 8 feet. In fact 8 feet would exclude blacktips, spinners, sharknose, and many others and would, under this theory result in a greater dusky harvest.
Its simply bad science and presumption.
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
Long gone is right, probably result in increased kill of Dusky sharks if anything else.
This is taking the recreational fishery out of the market solely due to misidentification between spinners and blacktips.
Eliminating us one species at a time.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/newslist/2012/12-11-12_a5_proposed_rule_public_hearings_schedule.pdf
Conference call /
Webinar
January 9, 2013
1 p.m. – 4 p.m.
To participate in conference call, call:
(888) 469-2979
Passcode: 2809363
To participate in webinar, RSVP at:
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/
74030603
A confirmation email with webinar login information will be sent after RSVP is
registered.
Public Hearing January 15, 2013
4 p.m. – 7 p.m.
Madeira Beach, FL Gulf Beaches Public Library
100 Municipal Drive
Madeira Beach, FL 33708
(727) 391-2828
Public Hearing January 17, 2013
5 p.m. – 8 p.m.
Vero Beach, FL Vero Beach Community Center
2266 14th Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 3296
The comment period for draft Amendment 5 ends on February 12, 2013. Written public
comments can be submitted electronically or by mail. Submit written comments to Peter
Cooper, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, please mark the outside of the
envelope “Comments on the Draft Amendment 5 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP.” Submit
all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then
enter NOAA-NMFS-2012-0161 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to
comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of
that line.
This notice is a courtesy to the HMS fishery participants to help keep you informed about the
fishery. For further information on these proposed measures, contact Peter Cooper, Guý
DuBeck, Michael Clark, or Karyl Brewster-Geisz at 301-427-8503. The information will also be
posted on the HMS website at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms.
Don't they have to look at boater safety at some point? can you see a weekend angler trying to measure/boat an 8 ft shark? Then gut and ice it down immediately, in whole condition? I think were gonna need a bigger cooler.
Give me a break NOAA some of these guys have really gotta go.
thanks for making the trip for us Ron.
Matt
Comments Regarding Amendment 5 to the Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (Atlantic Shark Management Measures)
NOAA-NMFS-2012-0161
Respectfully Submitted by
Jeff Weakley, Editor
Florida Sportsman Magazine
Stuart, FL
[email protected]
772-219-7400
In Florida, a 96-inch recreational minimum for sharks will amount to a de-facto, unnecessary prohibition on landings for the recreational fleet. For a number of reasons, explained below, I respectfully ask the HMS Division to strike this proposal and either leave the recreational shark minimum at 54 inches or consider alternative measures.
Blacktip sharks, by way of example, are popular to catch, good to eat, and according to the latest assessment, fully recovered in the Gulf of Mexico (the status of Atlantic blacktip is unknown, but anecdotal reports among sportfishermen indicate a robust fishery). While they don’t command the same popularity on the table as, say, dolphin or snapper, blacktips are nonetheless an important gamefish and highly regarded among Florida anglers as a rare treat for the grill, much as are mako. Nurse sharks are also desired by many.
Blacktips rarely, if ever, reach 96 inches—but even for sharks which do, as the mako, a fish of that size is undesirable in the eyes of modern sportfishermen. From a practical standpoint, most anglers aboard the typical 20- to 30-foot private vessel do not have the icebox capacity to properly store a 96-inch shark. Fish that size are also dangerous; most anglers would prefer to release anything larger than 4 or 5 feet. The harvest of trophy sharks for display or taxidermy, having long been supplanted by a photo-release ethic, is now an anachronism relegated to a few charterboats—hardly a priority of the vast majority of fishermen.
From a public health perspective, the Florida Dept. of Health advises against consuming sharks larger than 43 inches, due to unsafe concentrations of methylmercury. These advisories are published by sportfishing and general media with sufficient frequency as to engender a public attitude discouraging retention of large sharks.
For these reasons, as well as continuity with existing regulations, I recommend leaving the 54-inch minimum in place. Alternately, HMS Division should make a size-limit exception for blacktip, the closely related spinner shark, and the unmistakable nurse shark. In Florida state waters, there is already no minimum for blacktip shark.
As to the issue of misidentification with overfished species listed in Amendment 5, Florida state regulations already prohibit the retention of scalloped hammerhead, as well as the similar smooth and greater hammerhead. The dusky shark is readily distinguished from blacktip and spinner, due to the fact that it has no conspicuous markings on the fins. Also, the dusky has an interdorsal ridge, whereas the latter two do not. Blacknose shark is identifiable by name alone.
Finally, I can assure you Florida Sportsman Magazine and website would eagerly assist with educating anglers as to the status and identifying characteristics of shark species in need of special protection. Among existing sources that could be used as a model, I submit the following ID sheet from the Mississippi Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo: www.mississippideepseafishingrodeo.com/Shark/shark-id-book.pdf. Also, the NOAA Field Guide to Requiem Sharks: www.spo.nwr.noaa.gov/tr153.pdf.
It seems like a maximum size limit makes more sense. Eat the small ones. If there are a lot of juveniles of endangered sharks in one area then it should be closed to landings while those sharks are there.
I never thought recs kept that many sharks, then again like most rec fisherys, who knows how many are kept.
I am heading to DC this afternoon for the first public hearing which will be held after a mandatory presentation to the Advisory Panel. I will forward information after the meeting tomorrow.
Ron Coddington
Hope you've had a chance to read the February issue of FS--I poured everything I could into this shark management issue. Blacktips are excellent eating, so are nurses, spinners, and lots of others. If the 96-inch minimum passes, good bye shark steaks. BUT--The commercial fleet will be SELLING MORE sharks than in recent years--no minimum size for them!!!
“Everyone behaves badly--given the chance.”
― Ernest Hemingway
How can that be when they are restricted by a set # per trip? Spin, spin spin, pinhead.
and "If" they do the part of adding each fish tiles, sea bass, mullet all of them.. people are smart enough to read and understand more.. but not having a good guideline to go by on a black tip or sandbar shark vs a dusky or silky shark with a huge jump in size is crazy to say the least and it confuses people..
we have science and pictures in 2013 to tell us whats going on some and to make life easier.. the $..? didn't they charge you for a fishing license and stamps/ didn't they just get 100 million..?? registrations, etc they put out a fishing rules book every year just make it a good one.. and let people know what we have and what we can take..
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 can second all of your points as written. Hope the good guys win this one since the only time recreationals kill blacktips is an occasional one for the grill and every one is a small one since the bigger fish just can't be kept properly and spoil very quickly... Keep up the good work.
Bob LeMay
(954) 435-5666
If the TAC isn't rasied then your concerns of increased commercial catch are unfounded.
Just more sensationalism to promote your struggling magazine/flyer.
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?
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.
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.