It's been Illegal for a long time

[Broadbill-Pro]

Seldom does the subject of fishing come up without someone gasping over the terrible Fisherman who kill sharks for their fins and then discards the carcass.

FYI:

FINAL RULE
TO IMPLEMENT THE
SHARK FINNING PROHIBITION ACT

On December 21, 2000, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (Act) was signed into law (Public Law 106-557). Shark finning is the practice of removing the fin or fins from a shark and discarding the remainder of the shark at sea. Among other things, the Act amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to prohibit any person under U.S. jurisdiction from (i) engaging in the finning of sharks; (ii) possessing shark fins aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass; and (iii) landing shark fins without the corresponding carcass. The Act also required the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue regulations to implement the Act.


The final rule, published on February 11, 2002, prohibits any person on a vessel under U.S. jurisdiction from engaging in shark finning, possessing shark fins on board a U.S. fishing vessel without corresponding shark carcasses, or landing shark fins without corresponding carcasses. The final rule also prohibits foreign fishing vessels from engaging in shark finning in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ), from landing shark fins without the corresponding carcass into a U.S. port, and from transshipping shark fins in the U.S. EEZ. The final rule establishes a rebuttable presumption that any shark fins possessed on board a U.S. fishing vessel, or landed from any fishing vessel, were taken, held, or landed in violation of these regulations if the total wet weight of the shark fins exceeds 5 percent of the total dressed weight of shark carcasses landed or found on board the vessel.

[Another Grand]

Vinnie,

Are you familiar with the case law surrounding this.

Yes, Clinton signed the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000.

As stated in your post....

establishes a rebuttable presumption that any shark fins possessed on board a U.S. fishing vessel, or landed from any fishing vessel, were taken, held, or landed in violation of these regulations if the total wet weight of the shark fins exceeds 5 percent of the total dressed weight of shark carcasses landed or found on board the vessel.

However, the commercial fisherman circumvented this by chartering a transfer boat that would go around and collect all the shark fins every time the percentage was met on each boat.

The loophole was the statutory language of the 2000 act which allowed this to take place because the boat that the fins were being offloaded onto was not a "fishing" boat as per the Magnuson Carter

Here is the link to the appellate case...
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B36C33B16501581D8825740F0058F5FC/$file/0556274.pdf

From the case...

"The question we must resolve is whether TLH had notice
that the KD II’s activities would fall within the definition of
fishing vessel in § 1802(18)(B) and thus render it subject to
the prohibition on possessing shark fins under the SFPA."

"The issue in dispute is whether the KD II was a fishing vessel
within the meaning of the SFPA and the Magnuson Act.
The district court ruled on two separate arguments advanced
by TLH. It first held that there was a genuine issue of material
fact about whether the KD II was “used for, equipped to be
used for or of a type which is normally used for . . . fishing”
as defined in § 1802(18)(A), and it therefore denied summary
judgment as to that ground. The court then held that the KD
II was a fishing vessel as a matter of law under § 1802(18)(B)
because it aided or assisted fishing vessels at sea in the performance
of activities related to fishing, including “purchase,
storage, and transportation.” As a result, the court granted the
government’s motion for summary judgment on that basis."

[Another Grand]

However, it was appealed and the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision in favor of the gov't prohibition...

"Under the circumstances, a reasonable person would not
have fair notice that the activities of the KD II would render
it a fishing vessel under § 1802(18)(B). As a result, we hold
that the district court’s application of the possession prohibition
of the SFPA to the KD II as a fishing vessel under
§ 1802(18)(B) violated due process."


So the point of the story is that even though it has been "illegal" for quite some time, that does not stop them from shark finning. And, just like all open ocean management laws...enforcement isnt exactly up to par.

If you want more information on the subject let me know.

[Broadbill-Pro]

Johnny,

Yes I am familiar with it, the case you state was a vessel transporting fins that did not have carcass onboard. It also did not have fishing gear onboard, making it a tranport vessel only. Since the fins were accumulated over a period of time (+60,000 lbs) and were discharged legally on a South Pacific Island, the Court ruled in favor of the vessel Owners. Shark fins can only be discharged to a licensed shark dealer, I am not aware that the fins never made it to the dealer or were not recorded?? If as you say they were transfered from ship to ship, then there is where the law was broken.

IMO, it was a BS attempt by the NCMC to block the transport of fins, had they been sent air-freight the cost of shipping would have consumed 40% of the fin value.

Since I have been on the HMS AP, each meeting has had fired discussion over the 5% rule, it can not apply to all shark species and must be revised. NOAA law enforcement claims they are not gunning for the Fisherman who exceeds the rule by 1 or 2%, but that does little to assure the Fisherman that they won't be prosecuted.

[Another Grand]

Vinnie,

The intent of the provision was to reduce the amount of shark finning. If a "fishing" boat is offloading their fins every time they get to 5%, how is the statute cutting down on the amount of shark finning?

According to my understanding of this case, the fins were being transferred at sea thus enabling the "fishing" boats to keep on finning indefinitely as the transfer ship was just driving around from boat to boat as soon as a "fishing" boat would reach their 5% it would be offloading onto the other ship allowing them to fin sharks pretty much indefinitely.

IMO, it was not a BS attempt by the NCMC to block the transport of fins. It was an attempt to cut down on the amount of shark finning that was taking place. The intent was pretty evident in the language of the provision, the commercial fisherman were just taking advantage of what they percieved as a loophole. Once a ship reached its allotted percentage of fins/cores then the idea was that they could not keep additional until they returned to port and offloaded.

This is a good law and should be kept in place.

But....of course, we can agree to disagree and my understanding of the case could be miscontrued (I will check)

[Another Grand]

Also, as per the Magnuson Carter definition of a "fishing" vessel

fishing vessel as a matter of law under § 1802(18)(B)
because it aided or assisted fishing vessels at sea in the performance
of activities related to fishing, including “purchase,
storage, and transportation.”

The "transfer" vessel is not just a transport vessel, it is a "fishing" vessel.

[Broadbill-Pro]

Johnny,

The 5% rule does not have a cap, a vessel can keep a million pounds of fins as long as it does not exceed 5% of the carcass weight. I do not understand how you can rationalize that it would cut down on legal finning?

The law is clearly being broken when a fishing vessel uses the same carcass weight for multiple 5% discharges of fins, I am not sure that was the case with the transport vessel. If they were transporting bootleg fins that were not recorded prior to transport, the current law does not need to be amended and covers this situation fully. What does need to be modified is that some sharks have fins that exceed the 5% rule.

Making it mandatory to keep fins intake while onboard is a ridiculas rule, imposes hardship on shark fisherman who operate on vessels with limited holding space and compromises the proper procedure to dress a shark. Again, fins must be offloaded by a certified dealer, if not then they are illegal. A certified dealer can count how many fins per carcass as well as any enforcement agent on the quay during discharge.

Let me tell you about the NCMC and Ken Hinman, they are not your friends and will go to extremes to impose their version of saving the oceans, including removing your right to fish recreationally.

[The BEAST]

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Let me tell you about the NCMC and Ken Hinman, they are not your friends and will go to extremes to impose their version of saving the oceans, including removing your right to fish recreationally.

Holy Chit Vinnie... can you have ANY discussion about commercial fishing and regulations without playing that tired old trump card all the time. You're worse than Al Sharpton!

[Ron.38 Special]

The series of Longline closed zones can be directly attributed to Ken Hinman and the NCMC.

Sounds like a friend to me...........



I had to do it Vinnie.

[Broadbill-Pro]

Over the past month I have read at least 50 articles that Ken has written and to be honest I have not found one to be anti-recreational. For a Guy who looks like he couldn't put a worm on a hook, he surely considers himself the last word on Fishery Conservation. He is quoted in hundreds of magazines and has testified in front of every Fishery Council that exists on the villainous ways of the Commercial sector.

I have sat next to him and listened to his anti-commercial rants and one question always comes to mind.

If he is a true Conservationist, then how is it that the killing of a species one at a time by the masses is less of a crime than the mass killing of a species by an insignificant percentage of the population. It would seem that the survival of the species may not be the ultimate goal, giving him Lobbyist credentials at best.

If we assume that every half pound of fish harvested reflects a meal for an American Citizen, then per capita who is doing more damage. The Commercial Fisherman who feeds 10,000 people with 5,000lbs of fish or the Recreational Fisherman who feeds 4 people with 20lbs of fish every week? It would appear that the Recreational Fisherman is consuming 10 times the amount of fish that Joe Public is.

Ofcourse if you believe that only Fisherman should eat fish, then none of this makes sense.

[The BEAST]

Your wrists must get tired from twisting everyone's thoughts. "Woe is me! I'm so misunderstood!!" says the commercial fisherman.

[Fishalways]

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Over the past month I have read at least 50 articles that Ken has written and to be honest I have not found one to be anti-recreational. For a Guy who looks like he couldn't put a worm on a hook, he surely considers himself the last word on Fishery Conservation. He is quoted in hundreds of magazines and has testified in front of every Fishery Council that exists on the villainous ways of the Commercial sector.

I have sat next to him and listened to his anti-commercial rants and one question always comes to mind.

If he is a true Conservationist, then how is it that the killing of a species one at a time by the masses is less of a crime than the mass killing of a species by an insignificant percentage of the population. It would seem that the survival of the species may not be the ultimate goal, giving him Lobbyist credentials at best.

If we assume that every half pound of fish harvested reflects a meal for an American Citizen, then per capita who is doing more damage. The Commercial Fisherman who feeds 10,000 people with 5,000lbs of fish or the Recreational Fisherman who feeds 4 people with 20lbs of fish every week? It would appear that the Recreational Fisherman is consuming 10 times the amount of fish that Joe Public is.

Ofcourse if you believe that only Fisherman should eat fish, then none of this makes sense.

Ok, Name one species, of ANY animal, that has been destroyed by purely recreational harvest alone.

And don't start with the "supplying the consumer with fish" thing again. There are lots of species of fish that are protected from commercial harvest.

[Broadbill-Pro]

Originally Posted by Fishalways

Ok, Name one species, of ANY animal, that has been destroyed by purely recreational harvest alone.

And don't start with the "supplying the consumer with fish" thing again. There are lots of species of fish that are protected from commercial harvest.

Your blind to the fact that EVERY species is also protected from being "destroyed" by recreational harvest with strict size and catch limits. I can name several species that without recreational bag limits would be decimated by recreational anglers. Let's start with the migration of snook to every Inlet on the FEC. A Buddy released 75 the other day in 4 hours. Striped Bass is another, Seatrout and Redfish another. Ofcourse your mentality is that if Commercial harvest is banned, then you could feed your entire neighborhood rather than just filling the freezer. The effect on the resource would in the end be the same or worse. Swordfish being the elusive creatures that they are, tend to be more protected from recreational fishing. So you sit back and assume that you know what your talking about, yet we both know that you have neither the education or experience to offer an opinion on the HMS topic. Conservationists and Recreational Anglers with far greater knowledge have accepted the fact that all sectors must learn to co-exist, yet the Weekend Warrior and resentful Charter Captain continue the "All for Me" mentality.

Whether you like it or not, America's natural resources belong to non-fisherman as well as fisherman and their source to that product is commercial harvest, whether harvested on our shores or imported to this Country a fish is going to die for the Accountant in Ohio who enjoys seafood.

The "supplying the consumer with fish" thing is what it's all about and the reason your woes fall on deaf ears. The only reason that the FEC is still closed to PLL is "Political Correctness". The recreational sector has nothing to stand on except opinion from mostly keyboard conservationist and Charter Captains who spend more time in front of a computer than fishing.

I can give you a list of the top 10 tournament fisherman in South Florida that have never uttered a word towards conservation, it's called not shitting where you eat. Have you ever asked yourself why you do not have their public support? They are your elite and the funding behind the CCA, RFA, IGFA, TBF and NCMC. Yet they write the checks in closed rooms, where nobody speaks of "post release mortality rates".

[DonK]

North American Bison?

Sorry had to post it....I am not getting in to the fray, but the question was hanging out there.....

From "sporting shoots" and tongue harvest, over 90% of the North American Bison (Buffalo) herd was decimated and now only really survives through Ted Turners' good graces.....

Originally Posted by Fishalways

Ok, Name one species, of ANY animal, that has been destroyed by purely recreational harvest alone.

And don't start with the "supplying the consumer with fish" thing again. There are lots of species of fish that are protected from commercial harvest.

[DIRTYFOOT2]

Bison were commercially hunted also Donkster, not just recreationally decimated. It was a pelt and tongue goldrush that killed the bison. Maybe passenger pigeon would have been a better example. I remember when snook regs were wide open and they were sold as grouper through the backdoor of the fish shack down the street from my childhood home. I remember watching the guys unload them. Neither side is blameless in my book; I too wish not to derail the festivities so carry on ............

[Fishalways]

Originally Posted by DIRTYFOOT2

Bison were commercially hunted also Donkster, not just recreationally decimated. It was a pelt and tongue goldrush that killed the bison. Maybe passenger pigeon would have been a better example. I remember when snook regs were wide open and they were sold as grouper through the backdoor of the fish shack down the street from my childhood home. I remember watching the guys unload them. Neither side is blameless in my book; I too wish not to derail the festivities so carry on ............

Nope

Passenger pidgeon was the cheap chicken of the day.
Commercially harvested and sold to the working poor.

[Fishalways]

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Your blind to the fact that EVERY species is also protected from being "destroyed" by recreational harvest with strict size and catch limits. I can name several species that without recreational bag limits would be decimated by recreational anglers. Let's start with the migration of snook to every Inlet on the FEC. A Buddy released 75 the other day in 4 hours. Striped Bass is another, Seatrout and Redfish another. Ofcourse your mentality is that if Commercial harvest is banned, then you could feed your entire neighborhood rather than just filling the freezer. The effect on the resource would in the end be the same or worse. Swordfish being the elusive creatures that they are, tend to be more protected from recreational fishing. So you sit back and assume that you know what your talking about, yet we both know that you have neither the education or experience to offer an opinion on the HMS topic. Conservationists and Recreational Anglers with far greater knowledge have accepted the fact that all sectors must learn to co-exist, yet the Weekend Warrior and resentful Charter Captain continue the "All for Me" mentality.

Whether you like it or not, America's natural resources belong to non-fisherman as well as fisherman and their source to that product is commercial harvest, whether harvested on our shores or imported to this Country a fish is going to die for the Accountant in Ohio who enjoys seafood.

The "supplying the consumer with fish" thing is what it's all about and the reason your woes fall on deaf ears. The only reason that the FEC is still closed to PLL is "Political Correctness". The recreational sector has nothing to stand on except opinion from mostly keyboard conservationist and Charter Captains who spend more time in front of a computer than fishing.

I can give you a list of the top 10 tournament fisherman in South Florida that have never uttered a word towards conservation, it's called not shitting where you eat. Have you ever asked yourself why you do not have their public support? They are your elite and the funding behind the CCA, RFA, IGFA, TBF and NCMC. Yet they write the checks in closed rooms, where nobody speaks of "post release mortality rates".

and your blind to the fact that all of those species were placed under protection with both commercial and recreational harvest restrictions becasue of over fishing primarily by the commercial interests.

And don't start with the uneducated crap either. You know nothing about me other than what I have posted here. You don't know my educational background, you don't know my history, You know nothing.
Just because I don't aggree with your point of view does not mean I don't know what is going on.

I do know what is going on and I think you are wrong. Period.

OF course it belongs to all Americans, no one has disputed that.

What is being disputed is the fact that there is a disproportionally small number of harvesters that get the lions share at the expense of the species.

Are you claiming that Jewfish should be allowed to be harvested to supply the consumer with fish? IF that is what it is all about.

Who gives a rats patoot what 10 tournament fishermen think. They are not the majority either.

If they don't want to speak up that is their business.

You still haven't given me a reason why swordfish cannot be placed on the non commercial harvest list. No, historic tradition does not count.
It didn't count with any of the other protected species we have brought up and doesn't count for swords.

[Broadbill-Pro]

Originally Posted by Fishalways

and your blind to the fact that all of those species were placed under protection with both commercial and recreational harvest restrictions becasue of over fishing primarily by the commercial interests.

And don't start with the uneducated crap either. You know nothing about me other than what I have posted here. You don't know my educational background, you don't know my history, You know nothing.
Just because I don't aggree with your point of view does not mean I don't know what is going on.

I do know what is going on and I think you are wrong. Period.

OF course it belongs to all Americans, no one has disputed that.

What is being disputed is the fact that there is a disproportionally small number of harvesters that get the lions share at the expense of the species.

Are you claiming that Jewfish should be allowed to be harvested to supply the consumer with fish? IF that is what it is all about.

Who gives a rats patoot what 10 tournament fishermen think. They are not the majority either.

If they don't want to speak up that is their business.

You still haven't given me a reason why swordfish cannot be placed on the non commercial harvest list. No, historic tradition does not count.
It didn't count with any of the other protected species we have brought up and doesn't count for swords.

Thanks you made this repy easy, Swordfish are at 99% MSY.

What you have posted here is enough to determine that you can only see out of one side of your head.

This statement is idiotic:

What is being disputed is the fact that there is a disproportionally small number of harvesters that get the lions share at the expense of the species.

Is that small disproportionally number of harvesters consuming everything they harvest? It's a good thing that Cattle Ranchers and Chicken Farmers do not think the way you do.

Expense of the species? That may have been true once upon a time with vessels that were located on the spawning stock of the Caribbean Sea but in this day and age the US PLL'er is the most regulated vessel on the ocean and has made the allowances that has rebuilt the stock. The problem is that's not enough for you, you want to see them extinct. If that day ever comes it will be due to economics and not the hand of couch potato hypocrits who play the conservationist role with blood on their hands. (Not pointing at any one person, there are many).

[The BEAST]

Same old tired lines Vinnie!

In the early 1900's there was a commercial market for deer and waterfowl. The commercial market hunted them to the brink of extinction. Today's population of these animals is exponentially higher than when they were when marklet hunting began. By your opinion the Whitetail deer, duck, geese, hell, throw in the Turkey too, should be reopened to commercial hunting. Gotta feed the masses of azzes, RIGHT! THe American public now eats chicken and beef instead. I'm sure they could adapt to another species of fish in their diet as well.

Vinnie, your entire platform is biased! You still have your hands in the pot, holding a permit yourself. Retired my azz! When you look up the word "bias" in the dictionary, it has a picture of you.

[Catch-All]

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

....but in this day and age the US PLL'er is the most regulated vessel on the ocean and has made the allowances that has rebuilt the stock.

Hey Vinnie - long time, no sea. I hope you are doing well.

Commercial Pelagic Longline vessels are not the most-regulated US fishing vessels. The fishing vessels in the sea clam and quahog industry are the most highly regulated. Cape May Foods, Seawatch and MidAtlantic are the biggest three players in that market.

The only reason the sword stocks (and other species) had a chance to rebuild was the NCMC's successful lawsuit to shut down the Straits of Florida & Charleston Bump swordfish nursery areas to the indiscriminate over-efficient methods used by commercial longlining. Perhaps what you meant was that by regulating longliners out of the Straits and the Bump, the swordfish stocks had a chance to rebuild?

I don't have a problem with commercial swordfishermen using the traditional methods of harpooning, rod & reel and potbuoys. But I have a big problem with the untended, indiscriminate, over-efficient gear that is inherent to longlining.

An additional issue is that the traditional swordfishing methods of harpooning, potbuoys and rod & reel are tended gear, allowing the commercial fisherman the opportunity to release unintended by-catch. In contrast, longline gear is un-tended gear and the unintended species it indiscriminately catches becomes BY-KILL.

Regards,

Mark
Catch-All
100 Fathom Fishing Club

[Broadbill-Pro]

Jim,

All of the species you mention still have a market value, it's just that an alternative source has been established to supply the public. I can buy duck, geese and turkey anywhere. Just for kicks I Googled "Buy Venison" and came up with 895,000 hits. Get back with me when Swordfish is farm raised.

Mark,

I suppose it's where you stand in relation to the tightest regs. Surely thousands of square miles of "no fish" zones could be considered strict.

Again I will tell you that closing the FEC and Char. Bump had very little to do with swordfish recovery. Our area saw little to no decline until the fleet (40+ vessels) moved to the Passes of the Caribbean and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge mid 1980's. In those areas hundreds of large spawning fish where killed everyday, that's when the US East Coast felt the pain. You want to put it on PLL that's fine, but get the areas correct. I ran that theory by Dr. John Graves and Dr. Russ Nelson in Washington and neither could deny the main cause of the decline. That is why this fishery was well on it's way to recovery before the 2000 closure (it's documented), the Caribbean fleet had been pounded by economic hardship due to imports, a decline in production due to their own hands and loss of vessels to hurricanes prior to the 2000 closure.

I agree with you that unattended gear is not the ideal way to harvest seafood, but in some cases like swordfish it is the only possible way to meet market demand. So we impose the strictest regs possible in regard to by-catch and fishing zones while allow them to survive. Do you have a better way that does not include collecting unemployment?

[mneptune]

Originally Posted by Catch-All

Hey Vinnie - long time, no sea. I hope you are doing well.

Commercial Pelagic Longline vessels are not the most-regulated US fishing vessels. The fishing vessels in the sea clam and quahog industry are the most highly regulated. Cape May Foods, Seawatch and MidAtlantic are the biggest three players in that market.

The only reason the sword stocks (and other species) had a chance to rebuild was the NCMC's successful lawsuit to shut down the Straits of Florida & Charleston Bump swordfish nursery areas to the indiscriminate over-efficient methods used by commercial longlining. Perhaps what you meant was that by regulating longliners out of the Straits and the Bump, the swordfish stocks had a chance to rebuild?

I don't have a problem with commercial swordfishermen using the traditional methods of harpooning, rod & reel and potbuoys. But I have a big problem with the untended, indiscriminate, over-efficient gear that is inherent to longlining.

An additional issue is that the traditional swordfishing methods of harpooning, potbuoys and rod & reel are tended gear, allowing the commercial fisherman the opportunity to release unintended by-catch. In contrast, longline gear is un-tended gear and the unintended species it indiscriminately catches becomes BY-KILL.

Regards,

Mark
Catch-All
100 Fathom Fishing Club

I've been saying that all along!!

Getting back to the topic that started this post (Shark Finning).....

Vinnie,

I do have an honest question for you so please take a minute and think about it before responding OK?

I simply cannot understand or justify the killing of sharks just for their fins. Anyone who has even the slightest understanding of a sharks role in our oceans also understands their contribution to the overall health of the marine ecosystem. If you permit mass killings of an apex predator, it then effects the viability of all other species within that realm.

Do you believe that shark populations are healthy worldwide?

Do you believe that the value of a shark exists only in it's fins?

Do you believe that sharks are not an extremely important species in keeping our oceans healthy?

Do you believe commercial OR recreational fisherman should kill an entire animal for it's fins just so some asian jackass can have a bowl of soup?

If shark fishing / finning keeps going on at the rate it is there will be a total collapse of that fishery and detrimental effects to many other ocean species that rely on sharks whether they are predators or prey of sharks. Somehow, I think it will go the way of most commercial exploits..... Kill until there is no more, than find something else to kill until no more, than find something......well you get the picture?

[The BEAST]

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Jim,

All of the species you mention still have a market value, it's just that an alternative source has been established to supply the public. I can buy duck, geese and turkey anywhere. Just for kicks I Googled "Buy Venison" and came up with 895,000 hits. Get back with me when Swordfish is farm raised.

Thanks for the reply Vinnie. To begin with, ducks, geese, and turkey, commercially raised don't resemble or taste anything like their wild counterpart. The wild fowl and venison (over 50 species which fall into your google category) are still not commercially hunted even though their numbers are in excess of yesteryear. In YOUR world, you would open it up again, if it benefitted you directly.

I just wonder why you continually speak as if Swordfish is the only viable fish protein for market. The masses may want Sword meat but they can do without it. I seriously doubt ANY American will die of starvation or have a protein deficiency, without Swordfish meat. This was evident during the "Say NO to Swordfish" campaign. Obviously, most of the masses can't tell Grouper from an Asian catfish! Example: Order a "grouper" sandwich... it's potluck as to the true genus of the meat without a DNA test!

If you were truly retired, didn't have a permit, and not actively pursuing Swordfish for sale, you would carry a bit more clout with your opinions. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's probably STILL a duck.

[Broadbill-Pro]

Originally Posted by mneptune

:

1. Do you believe that shark populations are healthy worldwide?

2. Do you believe that the value of a shark exists only in it's fins?

3. Do you believe that sharks are not an extremely important species in keeping our oceans healthy?

4. Do you believe commercial OR recreational fisherman should kill an entire animal for it's fins just so some asian jackass can have a bowl of soup?

1. I have listened to testimony by GOM and Mid-Atlantic Shark Fisherman that say Large and Small Coastal Sharks are as abundant today as ever. Ron can verify that he has heard the same. Your question is Worldwide, if you were ever to haul a PLL with 800 blue sharks on it in a single day your answer would be the same as mine. What this forum can not see past is that Swordfish, Marlin, Sailfish, Tuna and Sharks are racists and seldom mingle in great numbers. Any Fisherman who expects to have a job next voyage is bright enough to set gear on the intended species. I can take you to places in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres where we could catch a blue shark on every bait set. I do not know of any vessels that target those areas.

On the other hand I believe that Coastal Sharks Worldwide have taken a beating.

2. Shark meat is a staple diet in many 3rd World Nations. In Brazil we were able to sell as much shark into Sao Paulo as could be caught. Most of it is converted into fish meal and distrubuted to the poor. Please erase the idea that sharks are discarded after being finned, that may have been true 20 years ago on vessels that conserved their fishholds for higher value product, but today due to regulations and market demand shark meat is retained.

3. Sharks are vital to the Oceans eco-system.

4. Well that was not very nice. Do you believe that sharks should be killed to cure cancer? If you have ever lost a loved one to the disease you would be lying if you said no. I am not comparing a bowl of soup with a life threatening disease, but I don't think the shark see's it that way. The fact is that sharks like all other species are a part of the food chain, now whether we are entitled to kill them or a plant for that matter is up for debate.

Those are the answers that a Judge or Fisheries Committee would give you.

My personal opinion is that sharks do not have the financial benefit that warrants killing them. That opinion is formulated from a vessel carrying 20 tons of swordfish and tuna onboard. Though I was forced to keep sharks when fishing from South America and Africa due to my role as Fish Master and not Owner, it was not my desire to waste time, gear or holding capacity for them. From 1978 to 1995 we released every shark caught with the hook intact and that would be our practice today if I were still at Sea.

Recreationally, I see no harm in a few sharks being caught for consumption.

[Broadbill-Pro]

Jim,

Give me a Fking break, for the past 4 years I did not have a permit and I had Fck All clout with you.

I bought a permit after realizing that day fishing produces more meat than I can consume. To date I have sold 2 fish from a single voyage, the proceed was just under $1000. The way I see it considering the purchase price of the permit I should have my capital investment back around 2020. Weren't you looking for a restricted species permit last time we spoke?

At times I have to remind you that you kill fish for a living. The other night at the Sword meeting Professor O told us that it does not matter how you kill them, if you do then you share the responsibility of their demise.

It must keep you up at night to know that in the past 7 months of pitiful fishing you can not point a finger at anyone. It makes one wonder if that 1983 Fort Lauderdale Sword Tournament with no fish weighed may not have been due to PLL? What am I thinking??? Ofcourse it was, RIGHT???

[mneptune]

Vinnie,

A very well thought out and articulate answer to my questions. Thank you.

[The BEAST]

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Jim,

Give me a Fking break, for the past 4 years I did not have a permit and I had Fck All clout with you.

I bought a permit after realizing that day fishing produces more meat than I can consume. To date I have sold 2 fish from a single voyage, the proceed was just under $1000. The way I see it considering the purchase price of the permit I should have my capital investment back around 2020. Weren't you looking for a restricted species permit last time we spoke?

At times I have to remind you that you kill fish for a living. The other night at the Sword meeting Professor O told us that it does not matter how you kill them, if you do then you share the responsibility of their demise.

It must keep you up at night to know that in the past 7 months of pitiful fishing you can not point a finger at anyone. It makes one wonder if that 1983 Fort Lauderdale Sword Tournament with no fish weighed may not have been due to PLL? What am I thinking??? Ofcourse it was, RIGHT???

Wow! Did I strike a nerve? I had refrained from posting on many subjects because I am tired of the constant banter! When it comes to your repetitive statements, I can't stop myself. So here is some repetition from me.

The reason why you have limited clout with me is because I see the "duck" in you! I called that out when you tried to tell everyone you were "retired"! You can take the man from the sea but you can't take the sea out of the seaman. This also pertains to me and the reason why I knock heads with you all the time. I couldn't imagine being without it, but I definitely come from very different viewpoint than yours.

What we discussed via our last phone call is that during these hard times it would be nice to have a restricted species license to be able to defray costs. As I told you then, it is almost impossible to get an RS permit now. Who can catch and sell $5000 worth of grunts in a year without becoming a full time commercial fisherman. I have NO intentions of ever becoming a commercial fisherman, I'm too conservation minded for that! But on the same note... during that conversation you told me your were building a 23' Mako to allow you to trailer up and down the coast economically, to where the fish are, because your Ocean Master was too awkward and expensive to trailer. Does that sound like someone who is a retired commercial fisherman and made claims to be a "recreational fisherman"???? Basically, no matter what was said during our conversation, you hold a permit to sell and I don't! A year ago you opined that daytime Sword fishing was going to hurt the stock worse than the PLL, yet you often fish as a daytimer now, WITH a permit. You are once again a commercial fisherman and I am still a recreational charter captain! I think most members of this forum recognize that!

If you are trying to portray me as part of the killing machine, you are sadly mistaken and barking up the wrong tree, Brother. Read some of my reports and you will see that I take different parties fishing (the masses) and they keep what they want but very seldom more than 3 or 4 fish. Look at the pics in my reports! Of those 3-4 fish we may keep they are never the same species day after day, as in your case, which in itself reduces the impact as well. In fact, I have killed the same number of Swordfish in the last 8 years that you did in one single daytime trip. Devon and I release just about all the fish that the customers (the masses) don't want to take home. Matter of fact we will even STOP fishing an area if the fish are being eaten by sharks. Even as a charter captain, allowing my customers (the masses) to keep whatever they can use within legal limits, we have more than likely, killed less poundage of fish per person, than you and others have (single handedly), in any given year. I have not SOLD a single pound of those fish, either! It pizzes me off when we return to the dock and the charter decides they don't want the fish, after all, and now we have to give them away instead of returning them to the sea.

As far as the comment about the 1980's tournament. I am not naive or stupid enough to beleive that the commercial PLL had no impact on the Swordfish off the Florida coast. Everytime commercial fishing is removed from an area or species that area or species begin to replenish, but it is time to get off this merry-go-round of deplete-replenish-deplete-replenish. That is your philosophy, as well as the thinking of the commercial sector, on the Swordfish in the FEC. One point that has never been rebuffed is that I know of no species that has been overfished solely by recreational fishermen. The recreational fisherman has to constantly undergo a barrage of regulations due to commercial overfishing. It is hard to explain to someone that they can only keep one fish over X inches while the boat next to them with the big 6" numbers on the bow, can fish them all day. The customers (the masses) I take out are not on your side! They'd rather eat chicken and be able to catch fish when they go fishing!

Go ahead and rebutt as I know you will! I'll finish by saying "Have a great day, Vinnie!"

[Broadbill-Pro]

Jim,

Gotta love ya!!, but this line kills me: recreational charter captain!

We now have a new Fishing sector. If there was such a person you certainly are the closest thing to it and believe it or not I respect you for it.

The new vessel does not have a permit nor can I afford to buy one for it. My intention was/is similiar to yours, to offset the cost of my recreational habit.

We have caught 3 other swords since the 2 that were sold, they were given away to my Guests. Was I Commercial fishing then? The gear type that I intend to use during my commercial operation (deep drop) does not allow me to exceed the recreational bag limit, though I can keep 20 fish per voyage it is not likely to catch more than 2 or 3. If my intention was to get rich off this deal I did not think it thru very well.

[mneptune]

Tune in again tomorrow boy's and girl's for another episode of "How The Sea Churns"

[TTesterman]

did you guys ever watch sharkwater??? good doc. about what was and is going on. every decision you make must be from the heart and taking a stand is well worth it. I tag some sharks and get fin clips with my girl and her fellow scientist lab rat creatures....it's actually fun when your crew is good. I kill stuff for eating and I think all men with a set should be able to rationalize whats wrong...