Skip to main content
Home Conservation Front

A Point on the Home Page article about Longline Permits

2456

Replies

  • broadbill-probroadbill-pro Member Posts: 68 Deckhand
    Colecchio if you have not heard of Dave Kerstetter before then you are years behind the debate and too out of touch on the issue to comment. Dave has been providing data to NMFS for more than a decade. Data that also established the closed areas. Like Ron you are terrified that an EFP may prove wrong your theory that every LL hook in the water kills unwanted bycatch. Because it is impossible for any science in regard to fisheries to be 100% accurate, guys like you and Ron sit back and take jabs at "what if's" and "could be's". Ron is a friend and without a doubt very well read in regard to any subject, but he has zero experience on the logistics of longlining and relies on second hand data to draw his conclusions. Ron's attempt to discredit Dr. Kerstetter is pathetic and is an embarrassment to the HMS and ICCAT panels he sits on. There is nothing Ron can provide to dispute data that has been provided to NMFS by Dave or any other Scientist other than his opinion, an opinion derived from a person who has never seen a longline hook enter the water.

    Hope you don't mind me borrowing your quote: "Incidental take improves the survival rate of listed species by killing other listed species!". Let's talk about billfishing or any recreational fishing for that matter. Show us a fishery with zero bycatch, the fact is that hook and line recreational bycatch mortality by far outweighs that of the commercial industry. If your fighting for the fish then please direct us to past comments you have made on this subject.

    WaterDamage, if the fishery was "wiped out" and "incapable of sustaining longlining" then why were longliners working in the closed area up until they were removed? Possibly throw bait and lightsticks into an empty ocean? Reminds me of when I asked Bouncer what he thought all those boats with orange balls were doing as they passed him in the inlet if there were no swordfish remaining.
  • Gary S. ColecchioGary S. Colecchio Senior Member Land of Wind and GhostsPosts: 24,905 AG
    Captain :blowkiss

    What did you say your name was and which trade association do you belong to?

    We are also interested in learning how much a model justifying resuming your unsustainable business costs.
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

    "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
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Senior Member Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Anytime you have a researcher who refuses to reveal the source of his funding, any results of his "research" immediately becomes suspect. Much of the "science" that the NMFS uses has been bought and paid for by groups that stand to benefit from the pre-determined results of that "science". Enough is enough already.

    Question: What was the main reason that the east coast swordfish fishery got shut down a while back? Were there too many longlines? If so, why even consider bringing them back?

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • WaterDamageWaterDamage Member Posts: 49 Deckhand
    WaterDamage, if the fishery was "wiped out" and "incapable of sustaining longlining" then why were longliners working in the closed area up until they were removed? Possibly throw bait and lightsticks into an empty ocean? Reminds me of when I asked Bouncer what he thought all those boats with orange balls were doing as they passed him in the inlet if there were no swordfish remaining.

    There is a difference between fishing sustainably, and fishing profitably. Just because it's profitable does not make it sustainable. And with further improvement in technology over the last few decades, this is more true than ever. Are you disputing that sword populations are up substantially since the longliners left the Straits? Let the big boys with the big gear fish out in the big water, for the same reason we don't allow purse seining in ponds.
  • Chester BrewerChester Brewer Senior Member Posts: 171 Officer
    Tom, These areas were closed because there was an unacceptable level of mortality of juvenile swords there. The average landed weight had plummeted and nation wide campaigns to convince folks to stop ordering swordfish had started to hurt. Nelson Beiderman was at the time the head of the BWFA. While I never agreed with "The Hammer" about the gear, I found him to be a very intelligent and straight forward man. Nelson realized that something had to be done to protect his industry and it was he who suggested the areas that should be closed. So the head longliner agreed to these areas to protect longliners from themselves. Wonder of wonders it worked and swordfish became the poster child for successful management at ICCAT. It is truly a shame that some now wish to undo Nelson's contribution to intelligent and successful fisheries management. Chester Brewer
  • broadbill-probroadbill-pro Member Posts: 68 Deckhand
    Gary - Name is Vincent Montella, my resume includes 35 years of recreational and commercial swordfishing. The past 6 years I took up a seat on the HMS Advisory Panel, one of just a few who flies to DC that has hands-on experience. I am not affilated with any group, not Bluewater nor have I participated in the US longline industry since 1995. Currenty I have a vessel fishing with buoy gear off the South Florida coast. My agenda is clear to NMFS, I am there to make sure that the truth about longlining be revealed whether pro or con and to protect the closed zone off the South Florida coast.

    The swordfish issue is very complex, more so than any other fishery. Fortunately the complexity of the subject makes it very easy to weed out comments from those with only an anti-commercial agenda.

    My time is short now, more to comment later on what Chester offered.

    Please note that in typical Ron fashion he throws the first mud and then bails out on the thread. He will not debate this issue, only throw **** and run for cover. Ron knows full well that there has never been a request from anyone to open the areas between Marathon and Fort Pierce. Longlines will never operate in that area again, before you pound your chest and say I told you so, the reason is due to gear conflict only and has nothing to do with what they catch.
  • Capt EasyCapt Easy Senior Member St Pete FLPosts: 203 Officer
    That's your argument ? That it has yet to be listed? :rotflmao

    That the indiscriminate killing of apex predators killing turtles is a good thing is not an absurd enough position to take?

    These rationalizations defy the rational magination.

    You implied they were listed. They are not. When was the last time you caught a Tiger Shark? I caught 8 or 10 friday all alive on a bottom longline. Kept 2 small ones for the market and released the rest.

    Hey Vincent
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Senior Member Ozello Fl.Posts: 13,077 AG
    Ahhh, Karl, Chester, and their puppets stick their foot in their mouths again.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • broadbill-probroadbill-pro Member Posts: 68 Deckhand
    Chester - It's wonderful that you honor Hammer with such kind words, but it's probably time you get a better understanding of just what happened during the bycatch debates prior to the development of the closed areas.

    First, to say Nelson was "the head longliner" is no different than saying Obama represents all Americans. Bluewater is now and has always been funded by a few fleet owners in the Northeast. The majority of vessels owned by those who fund BWA are large steel boats capable of fishing far beyond the closed zones. Fact is that Hammer nor any of the major contributers to BWA ever fished in the current longline prohibited areas. What Nelson did was give up something of little importance to him or BWA in order to satisfy the loudest critics in the coastal Florida area. It was a brilliant move on his part but one that South Florida fisherman paid for.

    "swordfish became the poster child for successful management" this statement may be true but the resurgence of swordfish had very little to do with a longline ban. Logbook data and Dealer receipts confirm that swordfish were recovering prior to the closures. In order to understand the sequence that lead to the resurgence we have to go back to the mid-1980's when 40+ North Atlantic LL vessels migrated to the Caribbean Sea. From PR, St. Croix, Barbados and as far a Aruba every passage was blanketed with longline hooks. The primary catch was large spawning fish. It was not uncommon to have a 200 pound dressed weight average. That scenero lasted for about 10 years when two things happened that devistated the fleet. First a hurricane hit St. Croix and sank or damaged nearly every LL vessel in port, second the price of swordfish became so low that it was no longer profitable to ship fish back to the US mainland. Around 1995 the Caribbean stock was once again left alone to breed, three years later (LL ban) we saw recovery of small fish (2 and 3 yr. old) in the Gulf and Straits of Florida. I gave a presentation at the IGFA a couple years ago that showed the time line, including fish size in specific areas during migration. None of this information comes from science, it is a fisherman log book and I'll challenge anyone to dispute it. Ofcourse removing any hook from the sea helps in conservation, but closing the Straits of Florida had nothing to do with swordfish resurgence.

    I have no problem letting NMFS take the credit, but now you have the truth.

    WaterDamage your answer as to why swordfish population is up since the longline ban is above. Maybe you can tell us why the first year of the LL ban three year old legal size fish were abundant off Florida? Did you ever think about where they came from or how they became 60 to 100 pound fish? Obviously something occured prior to the closure, correct?
  • Chester BrewerChester Brewer Senior Member Posts: 171 Officer
    BP, Thank you for your your input.
    I was aware of the arguments that you make as I have been at ICCAT for 8 years. The establishment of the conservation areas was probably not the only cause of the recovery. The closing of the passages that you mention also played a role. The fact remains however that while the conservation zones may not be prime breeding grounds, they are a nursery. Kerstetter's report shows that this still the case. Using 18/0 circle hooks there was still four times the mortality of juveniles in the closed as opposed to open areas.
    It is pretty basic that we should not kill the big breeders and it is just as basic that fish should not be harvested until they have had a chance to breed. The closing of the passages and the closing of the FEC followed these two basic principles and both contributed to the recovery, in my opinion.
    Let's remember that the FEC is closed to long lining only. You are fishing there now commercially, using tended gear. The argument that those who are adamantly opposed to reopening to long lining are just anti-commercial does not ring true.
    Hammer did not sell out the Florida boats. Part of the deal was a buyout of the smaller coastal boats. It never happened. I'll have to admit that I don't know why. Chester Brewer
  • WaterDamageWaterDamage Member Posts: 49 Deckhand
    WaterDamage your answer as to why swordfish population is up since the longline ban is above. Maybe you can tell us why the first year of the LL ban three year old legal size fish were abundant off Florida? Did you ever think about where they came from or how they became 60 to 100 pound fish? Obviously something occured prior to the closure, correct?

    Of course there's far too little information given to draw any conclusions, but if the LL catch consisted of any significant quantities of 2-3 year old fish then of course you'd see an increase. I'm not disputing that reduced Caribbean LL pressure likely had an effect, but there is no way to separate the effects of that and the closure based solely on the information you've given. I'd be interested in seeing a LL logbook from the Straits over the period 1995-1997, to see the numbers of fish taken, sizes, etc.

    But your own post indicates that the LL fleet was operating well past maximum sustainable yield, and this is my primary concern in the Straits. Reports are showing a decline in catch with just the recs and buoy gear - we don't need any more pressure now, and the research should be done elsewhere.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Senior Member MimsPosts: 851 Officer
    Capt Easy...."the ones with the less complete data are the recretioanl fisherman."

    broadbill-pro...."the fact is that hook and line recreational bycatch mortality by far outweighs that of the commercial industry."


    The lack of Rec data is a direct result of the NMFS and NOAA's failure to perform their legal mandates and listen to rec groups who have
    been bring idea's to the table for some time. Seems like the NMFS likes the "Status-Quo", and maybe the comm groups also.

    So, how do we on one hand claim that the recs have no data, and on the other hand that recs have greater bycatch mortality?? That sounds like the EDF
    tactic used to push Catch Shares and Sector Seperation in the GOM....useing one set of 'scales' for one arguement, but another 'scale' for the other.
  • broadbill-probroadbill-pro Member Posts: 68 Deckhand
    Chester, The Straits have always been an area where pre-spawning fish hang out until they advance into migration mode. The FEC has very few fish under 45'' LJFL, those smaller fish are abundant in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico where the true nursery exists. Nobody was in shock when data revealed that FEC fish are smaller than those outside the closed areas except in the months of Oct-Dec and May-July when a migration of spawners makes it past our area. Would you be opposed to allowing LL back in during the migration of spawners when average core weight would exceed the US annual average, ofcourse you would and that's my point. This is not about the health of the species as much as it is about fishery politics. There is an anti-commercial propaganda movement by people like Ron, Ellen Peel, Karl Wickstrom and John Brownlee to name a few, who are not interested in any science that is contrary to their bias opinion of how the fishery should be managed. I don't blame them for watering their own tree, let's face it they have nothing if it were not for self-promotion but to purposely deceive the public into believing Longlines are on the attack off South Florida is a blantant lie.

    WaterDamage - Unfortunatley in fisheries research we must rely on the best data available, that is what I presented to you. Not a 180 day study or a 2 year study, my information comes from catch rate and fish size data starting in 1978 to present day. Although I spent many years fishing in the Pacific, South America and Africa my ear was always to the ground due to a common market regardless of area of harvest. Example if I had 80,000 in the hold in Cape Town it was critical to know market conditions in Boston prior to shipping. What we are experiencing now is not a decline in stock, it would be impossible for the amount of fish harvested by recs and buoy vessels to have that impact on a fishery of this proportion. What we have found is that swordfish in the Straits seem to cycle with every fourth or fifth year being extraordinary. While your writing your letter to NMFS asking to reject the EFP proposal, let them know that the Straits does not need additional pressure in the form of a General Category allowing an unlimited number of vessels to catch and sell swordfish. The GC permit rule is being written as we speak, there could not be a worse scenario for swordfish or existing fisherman in our area.
  • broadbill-probroadbill-pro Member Posts: 68 Deckhand
    Acme - Granted my opinion that recreational bycatch mortality is greater than commercial is only an assumption, but I thought that was the rule that guided this forum LOL.

    When the recreational sector is seeking legislative support we hear about how many millions are in the user group, but when it's time to count the hooks that this user group deploys the debate goes silent. Exactly like the EDF tactic.
  • Chester BrewerChester Brewer Senior Member Posts: 171 Officer
    BP,

    Everyone who engages in these debates is political and has an agenda. This includes you and especially me. Believe it or not Dave Kerstetter cannot be excluded. His report makes the same argument that Rich Ruais and Glen Delaney sold to Bill Hogarth. The rational goes like this: the northern closed area must be opened so that the US LL industry can catch more of its quota. Otherwise the US will lose quota to other countries which run much dirtier LL operations. Re-read the report and you will see that what I say is true. This argument is now very stale as we have not lost an oz. of quota in the all the time I've been at ICCAT. Yet Dave still includes this in his report; published in 2011.


    The goal and plan has been and will be to provide an argument for opening the FEC down to 29 degrees north.
    I believe that Dave did not include the locations of juvenile "interactions" in his prior report was because many were above this line. The bill fish "interactions" which were revealed were almost exclusively below. Perhaps this was an oversight but I do not think so.

    I do not question Dave's data but I do question his objectivity on this issue.


    BTW Karl and Ellen may or may not be anti-commercial but they are still my personal heroes. Chester Brewer
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Senior Member Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Acme - Granted my opinion that recreational bycatch mortality is greater than commercial is only an assumption, but I thought that was the rule that guided this forum LOL.

    When the recreational sector is seeking legislative support we hear about how many millions are in the user group, but when it's time to count the hooks that this user group deploys the debate goes silent. Exactly like the EDF tactic.

    Why won' the feds count the number of vessels actually fishing offshore, those fishing for reef fish, for pelagics, or both? The technology is here to get it done, yet they adamantly refuse to bring 21st century technology into the equation, instead relying on antiquated techniques that provide unreliable results. Could it be that they don't REALLY want to show that recreational effort has been on the downswing the last few years?
  • Long GoneLong Gone Member FloridaPosts: 82 Deckhand
    Say what you want but im not buying that the rebound of the swordfishery in South Fla shortly after the removal of longliners is mere coincidence. Nope.
  • broadbill-probroadbill-pro Member Posts: 68 Deckhand
    Chester, Personally I think the world of Ellen, she is super intelligent and her dedication is unmatched. Ellen does not hesitate to ask questions and uses common sense to make decisions. I have spent a lot of time with her and must say that I have enjoyed every moment. That does not indicate that we agree on everything as I will state in a moment.

    Some people just need to go away, Karl is one of them. I do not know him personally but had the good fortune to meet his Son and family in West End a couple years ago. Karl’s babble every week on his conservation moment is pitiful to say the least. His comments are purposely misleading and I have not seen one editorial that I could not blow a hundred holes in. This man promotes his agenda from the soap box with pure deceit; there is no room for him in serious fishery debate. He is a fear monger at the highest level.

    The theory that we would lose some quota to less conservation friendly Nations has been the catch phrase for a long time and as you have pointed out even with harvest in the 60% range the US has not had to give anything up. Rich and Glen were not the only people spreading this theory, anyone involved with HMS or ICCAT including John Graves have repeatedly cautioned us that this was reality. Now with about 80% harvest and reduced carry-over it would appear we are in a better position to retain the 3,000mt.

    So here is the big question, why are your recreational reps. (Ellen and Ron) endorsing a new commercial General Category Permit that will have a major impact on the South Florida Swordfish Fishery? Ellen states that it is because she is still worried about losing quota; we know that it is highly unlikely. I have pondered this question for a long time and can only come to one conclusion. They are pushing for a new commercial category in order fill the US quota and thus shutting down longlining mid season. It is not difficult to understand how their minds work once you realize that everything leads to a common goal, to remove longlines from the sea.

    Do people really think the problem ends when the American longliner is extinct? From 1985 to 2004 I worked alongside vessels from foreign nations including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Spain, Uruguay, Brazil and South Africa. These fishing nations do not recognize conservation as we see it here and swordfish, marlin, sailfish, sharks and turtles know no international fences. The US is the laughing stock of fisheries management. We self-impose regulations while the same stock of fish is being decimated outside our EEZ.

    I need to conclude, here is my warning to the recreational angler. When PEW and EDF finally remove the few remaining LL vessels from our waters, they are coming for you. We are already seeing that taking place. There will come a time that you will wish you had commercial support to oppose them. The worst thing that has happened to fisheries management in our lifetime was the appointment of Jane Lubchenco, thankfully that era is drawing to a close.

    My intention is to provide information so that forum members can form an opinion with more than bias rhetoric of those who have a soap box to stand on.
  • broadbill-probroadbill-pro Member Posts: 68 Deckhand
    Long Gone wrote: »
    Say what you want but im not buying that the rebound of the swordfishery in South Fla shortly after the removal of longliners is mere coincidence. Nope.

    It was not shortly after, it was the same day.

    3 year old, 80 pound swordfish just appeared to the tune of 2 per boat and 5 to 10 releases per trip.

    Believe as you wish, but try it with your eyes open.
  • Chester BrewerChester Brewer Senior Member Posts: 171 Officer
    BP,

    We are getting a bit off topic but you do raise a topic that may be related to the proposed EFP issue. That is the ENGO's intentions with regard to fishery issues.

    Of late PEW has been trying to replace LL gear with green stick and buoy gear in the GOM. I applaud their efforts but wish they would try to replace the bottom LL gear as well. I believe they have not done so because they do not want to step on EDF's toes. MPA's are still somewhat on their agenda but much less so since the Felicia Coleman disaster. Pew has certainly not come to the aid of LL's.

    EDF is a different story. The bottom LLs in the Gulf are fully supported by EDF. EDF has setup and funded trade organizations for them and came to their aid when they were forced out to 50 fathoms due to turtle "interactions". EDF is actively attempting to set up as many catch share programs as they can with little regard to the design of those programs or their long term effects.

    You are correct that EDF is already attempting to privatize recreational fishing through sector separation. I have not seen EDF go after an HMS species at least not in our area. I do know they have representatives at HMS meetings, but to what end?

    BWFA probably not behind this as Terri would not want the bitter battle. NMFS has little desire to refight this battle. Margo saw what happened last time. As someone in the agency stated,"why would we open these areas up if the LLs won't fish it"? Now that the catch is up there is little danger of loss of quota.

    So with these thoughts in mind, who do you think the funder is and what are their/its intentions? Chester Brewer
  • broadbill-probroadbill-pro Member Posts: 68 Deckhand
    Chester, Honestly I have not heard or asked who is behind Dave's research but I have a good idea and could confirm it in a few minutes. Dave did not say he would not disclose the source. Actually he said he had no issue with it, only that he would find out if the source had a problem with being identified. I believe he said he would get back with us so let's give him that opportunity. To question Dave's ability to be impartial due to the source of funding attacks the core value of his work as a scientist, a greater insult could not be bestowed. Ron is way out of line and knows that his smear campaign will convince many who do not understand the issues. Fortunately, I am sure Dave considers where the smear comes from.

    The battle over the closed area reminds me of our Countries strategy on the war on terrorism; let's fight it over there so we are safe here. No doubt that is what Hammer was thinking with a course that had the least pain for Bluewater. Reality is that there are a few South Florida PLL and a handful in Fort Pierce. These are small vessels that would like to fish closer to home. They want to extend the closed boundary to 27'30N in order to save some fuel and time. I assume that fisherman are not the only people feeling the bite of fuel prices so maybe some will understand how fuel costs can cripple a small business. There is no illusion of better fishing and there is no expectation that the impact on the resource will be significant. The remaining PLL's have followed the rules, rules that exceed international standards while they compete with foreign product in our markets. The resource is over 100%msy and there are numerous bycatch reduction rules that did not exist prior to being forced out of the FEC. They really are not asking for much, it's a shame that some people see giving an inch as losing a war.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Senior Member MimsPosts: 851 Officer
    To question Dave's ability to be impartial due to the source of funding attacks the core value of his work as a scientist, a greater insult could not be bestowed. Ron is way out of line and knows that his smear campaign will convince many who do not understand the issues.

    it's a shame that some people see giving an inch as losing a war.

    Funding sources do and always have "strings attached" one way or another. Particulary when such sources are kept annyonomous does a legetimate call
    to question movives come. This very thread has seen those on the commercial POV suggest bias and partiality on the Rec side, so having an equal and
    opposing veiw of the very real potential bias on the commercial side with their data gathering activities is quite realistic to expect, and not out of line
    for Rec's to think such. Science performed by and for a particularry industry, and potentially paid for by said industry, or at least by those with a vested
    interest in such can and has been biased to some degree more often than not. Certain eNGO's have made this a Rec -vs- Com issue, no doubt to 'Divide
    and Conquer', but both have a lot to loose by giving in. Certain aspects of the Commercial sector have taken a lot of money from 'Big Green' to push
    certain management schemes, and yes have even tried pushing it into the Rec sector. The very ones in the GOM dooing so also have Commercial interest
    in the South Atlantic Commercial sector.

    The Rec Sector has seen its once prolific fisheries dwindled down to nothing before small increases through strict management began. Florida inshore fishing
    is certainly an example that demonstrates this well. Recreational Fishermen have been ask over and over again to "Give" way more than an inch. While the
    NMFS uses a Black and White data collection process for commercial landings, they have Refused to even listen to idea's presented for the Rec sector. As a result
    of this, and in violation of a 2009 court order, they have maintained their estimating of Rec Landings using a formula that overestimates the Recreational
    Participants in Federal Fisheries by an estimated 350% to 400%. Yes this causes an overestimated landing rate and mortality by equal percentages. Guess what
    that does to our ACL? Guess what that does to The estimated Biomass? Guess what that does to the total allowable catch, including Commercial? Its a shame that
    some feel that the "Best Available Science" that is currently used is good. Its a shame that some feel that using commercial data to manage recerational fisheries
    with is good. Its a real shame that some have actually taken a position of objecting to any idea that mandates reliable science in our fishery management! Its really a
    shame that recreational fishermen are seeing fish in gerater numbers than they have in decades, yet our access is progressivly, and yearly diminished!

    We have given much more than an inch. Some elements in the current administration see the future of recreational fishing as "Catch and release", with those wanting to
    have fish for dinner required to by it from a commercial source.......were not giving any more inches! The commercial sector has just 'as' much right to access the fisheries
    in a sustainable way as recreational Anglers........Just not 'more' !!!
  • Chester BrewerChester Brewer Senior Member Posts: 171 Officer
    Chester, Honestly I have not heard or asked who is behind Dave's research but I have a good idea and could confirm it in a few minutes. Dave did not say he would not disclose the source. Actually he said he had no issue with it, only that he would find out if the source had a problem with being identified. I believe he said he would get back with us so let's give him that opportunity. To question Dave's ability to be impartial due to the source of funding attacks the core value of his work as a scientist, a greater insult could not be bestowed. Ron is way out of line and knows that his smear campaign will convince many who do not understand the issues. Fortunately, I am sure Dave considers where the smear comes from.

    The battle over the closed area reminds me of our Countries strategy on the war on terrorism; let's fight it over there so we are safe here. No doubt that is what Hammer was thinking with a course that had the least pain for Bluewater. Reality is that there are a few South Florida PLL and a handful in Fort Pierce. These are small vessels that would like to fish closer to home. They want to extend the closed boundary to 27'30N in order to save some fuel and time. I assume that fisherman are not the only people feeling the bite of fuel prices so maybe some will understand how fuel costs can cripple a small business. There is no illusion of better fishing and there is no expectation that the impact on the resource will be significant. The remaining PLL's have followed the rules, rules that exceed international standards while they compete with foreign product in our markets. The resource is over 100%msy and there are numerous bycatch reduction rules that did not exist prior to being forced out of the FEC. They really are not asking for much, it's a shame that some people see giving an inch as losing a war.

    I would very much appreciate it, if you would take those few minutes. Chester Brewer
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Senior Member Posts: 1,595 Captain
    The act of refusing to disclose the source of funding, in itself, attacks the core value of his work as a scientist.

    On a side note, what are the legitimate reasons (if any) for wanting to keep a funding source confidential? The anonomous donor to fund the bycatch issue in the red snapper IFQ fishery comes to mind.

    I think we already know who the funding source on both of these issues is anyway, don't we?

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • Capt EasyCapt Easy Senior Member St Pete FLPosts: 203 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »

    I think we already know who the funding source on both of these issues is anyway, don't we?

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

    I don't know who the funding source is. I do know that years ago some Northeast fisherman thought that the Scallop resource was underfished. The government wouldn't listen. They got or hired a college group to do a study for them. They found that the scallops were so thick that the ones on the bottom were suffocating. For the last I'm not sure how many years there has been a boom in scallop fishing. 100 thousand dollar trips aren't uncommon all because some fisherman took in on themselves to find a way to get some real science. Nothing wrong with that.
  • WaterDamageWaterDamage Member Posts: 49 Deckhand
    Reality is that there are a few South Florida PLL and a handful in Fort Pierce. These are small vessels that would like to fish closer to home. They want to extend the closed boundary to 27'30N in order to save some fuel and time. I assume that fisherman are not the only people feeling the bite of fuel prices so maybe some will understand how fuel costs can cripple a small business. There is no illusion of better fishing and there is no expectation that the impact on the resource will be significant. The remaining PLL's have followed the rules, rules that exceed international standards while they compete with foreign product in our markets. The resource is over 100%msy and there are numerous bycatch reduction rules that did not exist prior to being forced out of the FEC. They really are not asking for much, it's a shame that some people see giving an inch as losing a war.

    BP: I do respect both your knowledge and experience here, and I know personally the struggle to maintain profitability in a small business, but this passage reads like a list of excuses to go raiding the cookie jar - a list of justifications to compromise on the purpose of the closed zone. I would much rather the commercial side be represented by a larger fraction of mom-and-pop family-level operations than big operations, but neither the quota threat nor opening of the closed zone are justified to meet this end of limited and questionable research benefit. As you note we should also raise more awareness of the GC threat. Hell I just wish there was a way to get sustainable commercial and recreational interests pulling together...
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Senior Member Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Capt Easy wrote: »
    I don't know who the funding source is. I do know that years ago some Northeast fisherman thought that the Scallop resource was underfished. The government wouldn't listen. They got or hired a college group to do a study for them. They found that the scallops were so thick that the ones on the bottom were suffocating. For the last I'm not sure how many years there has been a boom in scallop fishing. 100 thousand dollar trips aren't uncommon all because some fisherman took in on themselves to find a way to get some real science. Nothing wrong with that.

    Capt.,
    I agree that better data/science is needed outside of the scope or influence of the NMFS, but any such data should be funded/gathered/provided in an open, transparent process. Once data is bought and paid for by "anonymous" groups/corporations, the data immediately becomes suspect - why the need for anonymity? Was the scallop science funded by unknown sources?
  • broadbill-probroadbill-pro Member Posts: 68 Deckhand
    ACME, Never realized how tough recreational fisherman have it.

    On the other hand US pelagic longliners have only had to deal with this;

    *minimum size limits
    *maximum trip limits
    *logbook requirement
    *observer requirement
    *VMS transponder requirement
    *billfish mitigation
    *seabird mitigation
    *seal mitigation
    *sea turtle mitigation
    *shark mitigation
    *marine mammal mitigation
    *bluefin bycatch requirement
    *gangion length requirement
    *hook size and type requirement
    *weak hook requirement
    *bait type restriction
    *restricted fishing areas

    It really is unimaginable that recreational anglers are restricted to take limits in accordance with what they can consume over a few week period or restricted from a species during vulnerable periods like spawning. I see your point that if the commercial sector discontinued providing seafood to 98% of the non-fishing citizens of this Nation then recreational anglers could once again fill their freezers like the old days.

    Again, I am not endorsing allowing PLL back into the closed areas South of 27'30N, but your playing the sympathy card with the wrong guy. I am restricted from deploying a fishing gear type that fed my family for 30 years within 150 miles North or South of my home inlet. I am not whining that to be with my family it was necessary to change professions nor do I feel pity for the cigar smoking multi-million dollar vessel owner who must release the tenth kingfish of the day or is restricted to only 10 snapper per person.

    In regard to research who do you propose to conduct it? Any party involved in an EFP must be approved by NMFS, so you don't trust them either. How about if we hire Russell Nelson to provide PLL data to HMS? LOL
  • broadbill-probroadbill-pro Member Posts: 68 Deckhand
    BP: I do respect both your knowledge and experience here, and I know personally the struggle to maintain profitability in a small business, but this passage reads like a list of excuses to go raiding the cookie jar - a list of justifications to compromise on the purpose of the closed zone. I would much rather the commercial side be represented by a larger fraction of mom-and-pop family-level operations than big operations, but neither the quota threat nor opening of the closed zone are justified to meet this end of limited and questionable research benefit. As you note we should also raise more awareness of the GC threat. Hell I just wish there was a way to get sustainable commercial and recreational interests pulling together...

    There would be a real advantage if both sides would work together, but when one considers the other a villian I doubt it would ever become a reality. My point is that the size of the cookie jar is the same at 30'00N and 27'00N. The existing vessels now offload in places like SC or North Florida to reduce the travel time to and from the fishing grounds, allowing them to use a port closer to home will not increase catch rates and the impact on the fish that are continueing South to the closed areas will be the same.
  • Ron@.38 Special[email protected] Special Senior Member Posts: 6,921 Admiral
    BP,

    I have been off here for a while, but jumped back in on this page.

    Here is what you should be concerned about.

    I am pretty sure I know who is funding this. Only one entity can afford it right now.

    Here is how it will hit you. This research certainly can go on with little effect on rec fisherman but you my commercial friend should be more concerned. If a research fishery is allowed to keep moving on and on with Dave's delayed approach to things you could be one of the first hurt.

    This research fishery can and will survive and flourish for several years while the researchers attempt to find "bycatch hotspots". Actually what they are looking for is landing hot spots. If this entity can successfully pull this off and find a way to research fish the closed zone, the entity can supplement the Day Boat caught fish to a point that they can easily double, triple or quadruple the day boat landings that occur in the closed zone with the day droppers and the buoy boys.

    What is going to happen to your high priced day boat rates on fish when the market is hit with PLL landings in a day boat scenario? The $5,$6, $7 ler lb price for fresh fish will drop when the market is saturated. If PLL's can ever get to a day boat style fishery, your buoy gear market is dead on arrival!

    Do not under-estimate the intent of the funding mechanism of this "research fishing" That is all it is, compensatory "research Fishing" .

    BP, this has much more impact to your landings price than any General Category permit will have. Better watch out, this is not what it seems on the surface.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Digital Now Included!

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

Preview This Month's Issue

Buy Digital Single Issues

Don't miss an issue.
Buy single digital issue for your phone or tablet.

Buy Single Digital Issue on the Florida Sportsman App

Other Magazines

See All Other Magazines

Special Interest Magazines

See All Special Interest Magazines

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Florida Sportsman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement

Phone Icon

Get Digital Access.

All Florida Sportsman subscribers now have digital access to their magazine content. This means you have the option to read your magazine on most popular phones and tablets.

To get started, click the link below to visit mymagnow.com and learn how to access your digital magazine.

Get Digital Access

Not a Subscriber?
Subscribe Now