was a nice rec. fishery - Page 2

1bandit · 06-05-2008, 08:24 PM

AL Gore said it was all due to the global warming.

JupiterSailfish · 06-06-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightCrawler

I blame OBAMA

Nick C · 06-08-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightCrawler

I blame OBAMA

I blame yo momma

flounder pounder · 06-30-2008, 01:54 PM

I am not a real math guy, but it would seem to me if the bouy guys are fishing here more, and they probally fish much more freguently than the rec guys, then they are taking more fish. If they take one a night that is still 7 more gone that week that I will not have a chance of stumbling into. It may not have a huge effect but it is sure impossible to have no effect no matter how small.

Jesslyn · 06-30-2008, 02:48 PM

Most buoy guys are hush hush these days deciding not to talk and keep things to themselves.

espada · 06-30-2008, 03:57 PM

I can not imagine why ?

Broadbill-Pro · 07-01-2008, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flounder pounder

I am not a real math guy, but it would seem to me if the bouy guys are fishing here more, and they probally fish much more freguently than the rec guys, then they are taking more fish. If they take one a night that is still 7 more gone that week that I will not have a chance of stumbling into. It may not have a huge effect but it is sure impossible to have no effect no matter how small.

Your math is good, but are you implying that those 7 fish were reserved for recreational fishing?

iriesoul · 07-01-2008, 01:21 PM

flounder pounder · 07-02-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Your math is good, but are you implying that those 7 fish were reserved for recreational fishing?

I didnt imply anything in my text, and I dont really feel I have any more right to them than the bouy guys. I actually have my commercial license thou I dont do much of anything with it, I do respect their right to make a living as much as my right to fish fo fun. I was only stating that is impossible for them to have no effect on the fishery. What effect it has on this specific area I will leave that to someone much smarter than me to figure out. If anything I was implying that I should have first chance on those 7 fish the hell with the rest of the rec guys. - that was a joke before you guys all go nuts. Since I know it seems to be the way all forums work, it is like a highschool debate.

Disco Lady · 07-02-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriesoul

COÑO!!!!!!!!

The BEAST · 07-07-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Your math is good, but are you implying that those 7 fish were reserved for recreational fishing?

Damn Vinnie... give it a rest! Aren't your arms tired yet from continually stirring the pot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Broadbill-Pro · 07-09-2008, 07:25 AM

Jim,

If I jumped off a bridge, you would surely follow me.

Ron.38 Special · 07-09-2008, 03:20 PM

OK, Here we go....

If you carefully review the data, you will see that last season (second half 07) we had some of the highest PLL catch rates in recent years.

A quick analysis shows that in the shortened season to adjust to a new calendar year season, we caught the equivilent of 92% of the seasonally adjusted quota before carry over.

Simply put, we have a direct quota of 1066 tons per season (6 months) before adjustments for quota we didn't catch last year. In the un-adjusted season number for last half of 07, we caught and adjusted 977 tons or unadjusted 1163 tons. Adjusted its 92% of the seasonal quota, unadjusted, its overr 100% of the quota, or we exceeded the ICCAT recommended landings for that time period!

The first 4 months of 08, we caught 42% or 443 tons. Since the season used to start in Dec 1, if we include Decembers catch, we are at 60% of the seasonal quota.

PLL's are complaining about access and their ability to catch fish, Heck, they exceeded the ICCAT recommended catch for last season, is it any wonder we are catching less fish????? PLL's have to be catching more fish per vessel than they ever have done historically or they wouldn't be able to catch 92% of the quota with a fraction of the effort!

RiskTaker · 07-10-2008, 12:05 AM

Here is the link to the published summary statements for the latest 2008 figures:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/new...030%202008.pdf

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/swo...y%2 0Gear.pdf

Note: These numbers should be for the first four months of 2008, as they are published as the 2008 numbers; however, the spreadsheet cells list the year as 2007, for each of the 4 months for 2008. (So don't get overly confused when you view the .pdf document.) This is probably just a minor spreadsheet error which hopefully will be corrected before the next monthly update is posted.

(HMS Advisors please take note to pass the word to the Director, OSF, to have this corrected.)

2007

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/swo...031%202007.pdf

Source location: Office of Sustainable Fisheries - Highly Migratory Species

Here is another interesting observation:

If you consider the percentage of our annual harvest caught by Buoy Fishermen compared to PLL, below the N35 lattitude; the buoy fishermen accounted for about 11% of the harvest, (not the quota), in 2007 and about 4% for the first 4 months of 2008, again below the N35 lattitude.

So as much as we may be complaining about Buoy fishermen "getting them all" in the FEC waters, they still account for a small percentage of the harvest. So the good news is that there is Commercial access in So. Florida waters and hopefully that will be sufficient reason to keep PLL out of this area permanently. Maybe, it is a strategy that can be viewed as the lesser of two evils?

Or maybe only the recreational, charter and head boats should be allowed to catch them in so. Florida? Incidental catches are even more negligible to the harvest.

If not a lesser evil, then we may notice that we may really start complaining about fewer swordfish to be found in South Florida waters if some of the PLL fleet start harvesting in this area too.

Some may say that if they didn't catch them here, then they can still catch them there because they are still highly migratory fish and the fish will be picked off (a/k/a harvested) somewhere, no matter what. At least we don't have the PLL fleet patrolling the narrow corridor of the straights of Florida, plus the Bahamians do not harvest them commercially by PLL means.

But it still goes back to the bottom line: we are still harvesting xxx metric tons of swordfish from our waters year over year. So if we are starting to notice a decline, we have some data available to indicate that the harvest we are doing has xxx impact.

P.S. - I like tenderized meat.

07-10-2008, 12:05 AM	#34 (permalink)
RiskTaker Grander Join Date: May 2004 Location: Pompano Beach, Florida, USA Best Catch: Had one once, then it took the boat away Posts: 1,969	Published data for swordfish landings to April, 2008 Here is the link to the published summary statements for the latest 2008 figures: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/new...030%202008.pdf http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/swo...y%2 0Gear.pdf Note: These numbers should be for the first four months of 2008, as they are published as the 2008 numbers; however, the spreadsheet cells list the year as 2007, for each of the 4 months for 2008. (So don't get overly confused when you view the .pdf document.) This is probably just a minor spreadsheet error which hopefully will be corrected before the next monthly update is posted. (HMS Advisors please take note to pass the word to the Director, OSF, to have this corrected.) 2007 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/swo...031%202007.pdf Source location: Office of Sustainable Fisheries - Highly Migratory Species Here is another interesting observation: If you consider the percentage of our annual harvest caught by Buoy Fishermen compared to PLL, below the N35 lattitude; the buoy fishermen accounted for about 11% of the harvest, (not the quota), in 2007 and about 4% for the first 4 months of 2008, again below the N35 lattitude. So as much as we may be complaining about Buoy fishermen "getting them all" in the FEC waters, they still account for a small percentage of the harvest. So the good news is that there is Commercial access in So. Florida waters and hopefully that will be sufficient reason to keep PLL out of this area permanently. Maybe, it is a strategy that can be viewed as the lesser of two evils? Or maybe only the recreational, charter and head boats should be allowed to catch them in so. Florida? Incidental catches are even more negligible to the harvest. If not a lesser evil, then we may notice that we may really start complaining about fewer swordfish to be found in South Florida waters if some of the PLL fleet start harvesting in this area too. Some may say that if they didn't catch them here, then they can still catch them there because they are still highly migratory fish and the fish will be picked off (a/k/a harvested) somewhere, no matter what. At least we don't have the PLL fleet patrolling the narrow corridor of the straights of Florida, plus the Bahamians do not harvest them commercially by PLL means. But it still goes back to the bottom line: we are still harvesting xxx metric tons of swordfish from our waters year over year. So if we are starting to notice a decline, we have some data available to indicate that the harvest we are doing has xxx impact. P.S. - I like tenderized meat. __________________ The writer must write what he has to say, not speak it. - Ernest Hemingway.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Seasonal Fishery for Swords?	frigate chaser	Swordfish Conservation	22	05-05-2008 12:05 AM
What will Hogarths Departure mean for the Exempt Fishery Permits?	Ron.38 Special	Swordfish Conservation	9	01-31-2008 03:07 PM
COMMERCIAL SHALLOW-WATER GROUPER FISHERY SET TO CLOSE IN GU	Reporter	General Chat	0	10-06-2005 04:30 PM
Fishery CEO is making waves - Anchorage Daily News	Reporter	General Chat	0	09-11-2005 11:59 AM
Fishery damaged by Katrina - WBBH	Reporter	General Chat	0	09-10-2005 06:50 PM

06-05-2008, 08:24 PM	#21 (permalink)
1bandit Lines In Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Gulf Shores AL Boat: 26' Twin V Best Catch: 23.5 red snapper Occupation: Cabinet Maker Posts: 11	AL Gore said it was all due to the global warming.

06-30-2008, 01:54 PM	#24 (permalink)
flounder pounder Lines In Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 42	I am not a real math guy, but it would seem to me if the bouy guys are fishing here more, and they probally fish much more freguently than the rec guys, then they are taking more fish. If they take one a night that is still 7 more gone that week that I will not have a chance of stumbling into. It may not have a huge effect but it is sure impossible to have no effect no matter how small.

06-30-2008, 02:48 PM	#25 (permalink)
Jesslyn Hooked Up Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 669	Most buoy guys are hush hush these days deciding not to talk and keep things to themselves.

06-30-2008, 03:57 PM	#26 (permalink)
espada Lines In Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 45	I can not imagine why ?

07-01-2008, 01:21 PM	#28 (permalink)
iriesoul Hooked Up Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 245

07-09-2008, 07:25 AM	#32 (permalink)
Broadbill-Pro Grander Join Date: Jan 2006 Best Catch: When I look at a Commercial Fishing Vessel I see 300 million Americans and you only see the Crew Posts: 1,314	Jim, If I jumped off a bridge, you would surely follow me.

07-09-2008, 03:20 PM	#33 (permalink)
Ron.38 Special Hooked Up Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 234	OK, Here we go.... If you carefully review the data, you will see that last season (second half 07) we had some of the highest PLL catch rates in recent years. A quick analysis shows that in the shortened season to adjust to a new calendar year season, we caught the equivilent of 92% of the seasonally adjusted quota before carry over. Simply put, we have a direct quota of 1066 tons per season (6 months) before adjustments for quota we didn't catch last year. In the un-adjusted season number for last half of 07, we caught and adjusted 977 tons or unadjusted 1163 tons. Adjusted its 92% of the seasonal quota, unadjusted, its overr 100% of the quota, or we exceeded the ICCAT recommended landings for that time period! The first 4 months of 08, we caught 42% or 443 tons. Since the season used to start in Dec 1, if we include Decembers catch, we are at 60% of the seasonal quota. PLL's are complaining about access and their ability to catch fish, Heck, they exceeded the ICCAT recommended catch for last season, is it any wonder we are catching less fish????? PLL's have to be catching more fish per vessel than they ever have done historically or they wouldn't be able to catch 92% of the quota with a fraction of the effort!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)