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).