Swordfisherman Alert - Page 2

Hicatch · 09-22-2006, 08:05 AM

Here's my perspective that I shared with Bobby Boyle yesterday:

First of all even if the areas that are being asked for are opened there will not be any changes in the amount of fish landed against the quota. I base this on the fact that effort will only be redistributed and there will not be any additional effort; if 50 boats are active in the fishery and catching x amount of fish the same 50 boats are still only going to catch the same or close to that previous number. So there will not be any gains toward catching the quota. No increase in effort should mean no significant changes to the status of the stock which means the 50 line will not feel any effects from the request made by the PLL industry.

Secondly, this is not an attractive fishery, not like it was in the 1980's, basically fuel prices and other expenses have risen exponentially while the return on effort has remained very similar to what it was in the hey day. So who is going to invest 200-500,000 dollars into a modern pelagic long line vessel? Not me or anyone I know!! Furthermore, it has become increasingly difficult to find qualified captains and crews to operate these vessels. Most are not qualified and the ones that are have left for greener pastures or have joined the ranks as rec guys like BP has done.

Conclusion, even with the potential openings we will not make any noticeable increases in landings of swordfish against our quota. You can thank NMFS for this, they and economics have effectively reduced the US fleet to a point where we will never catch our quota again. The end result being we will lose quota at this or next year's ICCAT. What will happen? I'm not sure but you better hope that someone has the foresight to secure an amount of fish for the recreational fleet that will be very difficult completely catch. I've maintained all along that this fishery will end up mirroring the blue fin tuna fishery, you'd better hope that my assumption is not accurate.

Ambitious · 09-22-2006, 10:35 AM

that's exactly the point then, if the reduced LL fleet will not be able to increase quota why change the status quo? The only reason I can see is to make the existing LLs more profitable by reducing the distance they need to travel to the grounds. That puts these boats much closer to our rec fishery and the nursery area right? (i.e.: 50 line as you stated) I would rather they be off the EZ corner or wherever it is they fish. Now if putting them that far can be shown to be driving them out of business, that's a different story because then = even less catch/quota. Its a quandry in that case but that fact would have to be proven. its a tough situation but why risk heavier efforts on E. Fla where we all know first hand the fish are young?

Hicatch · 09-22-2006, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambitious

that's exactly the point then, if the reduced LL fleet will not be able to increase quota why change the status quo? The only reason I can see is to make the existing LLs more profitable by reducing the distance they need to travel to the grounds. That puts these boats much closer to our rec fishery and the nursery area right? (i.e.: 50 line as you stated) I would rather they be off the EZ corner or wherever it is they fish. Now if putting them that far can be shown to be driving them out of business, that's a different story because then = even less catch/quota. Its a quandry in that case but that fact would have to be proven. its a tough situation but why risk heavier efforts on E. Fla where we all know first hand the fish are young?

Simply put, there is nothing that can be done to revitalize this rebuilt/recovered fishery from a commercial standpoint. We've conceded our bargaining position at ICCAT and we will lose our quota. So now be prepared to deal with a fishery that mirrors the angling category for blue fin tunas unless there is someone with enough savy to convince NMFS to delegate a rec quota that will be large enough to fulfill the requirements of the fishery. This is where reporting fish becomes paramount.

How are you going to explain to your children that swordfish, which are fully recovered can't be fished for year round? Charter guys are going to suffer, local tackle businesses will be forced out of business and we will be forced to fish during specific times of the year and may be limited in trips significantly due to weather related issues. This is not acceptable.

quack quack · 09-22-2006, 11:06 AM

The way they want to increase the catch of the quota is to increase vessel size :shock: Now they can not get a bigger boat on there current permits so many or all smaller LL boats are out of the game now.But if they are allowed an exemption to put the permit on a bigger boat the fleet will almost double again :shock: The problem is that then all fisheries will want to be able to increase there vessel size and that can not be done :shock: They want bigger boats with greater range and fish freezing abilities.Then they could all fish the banks and stay out longer and run 2 crews.The problem is when they come back in with 100 thousand lbs the price goes to sh t for the next guy and so on.Then they bitch about the price being crappy.We are going to lose quota no matter what lets hope we can keep our rec fishing open.By the way the NE meeting had 5 rec guys total :shock:

ProfessorO · 09-22-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicatch

First of all even if the areas that are being asked for are opened there will not be any changes in the amount of fish landed against the quota. I base this on the fact that effort will only be redistributed and there will not be any additional effort; if 50 boats are active in the fishery and catching x amount of fish the same 50 boats are still only going to catch the same or close to that previous number. So there will not be any gains toward catching the quota. No increase in effort should mean no significant changes to the status of the stock which means the 50 line will not feel any effects from the request made by the PLL industry.

Steve, as always you bring a lot of knowledge to the table during these
discussions. However, I am not so sure that these statements are
correct. If they are, the only reason for the LLrs would want to fish the
straits is to save gas (which, of course, is a good economic reason).
I'm assuming now that the proposed open area is as BP states above.
These areas still are in the range of the ocean where due to habitat compression and that it is a nursey ground, there is a higher fish density.
I find it hard to believe that the LLrs will not catch more swords here and
this is why they want to get some of the closed areas reopened.

So do you believe, if we opened up the entire straits, the LL fleet
could not decimate the fishery again because they are not the same
fleet of 2-3 decades ago??

Is it possible for someone from the SESC to post what their official
stance is going to be?? Who is speaking on our behalf?? I know the
following statement may offend some, but I am not so sure that all
the speakers from the SESC will have the best interest of recreational
fishing in mind, but instead, are more interested in convincing the gov't
to put out new, cheap permits. Their argument for this may backfire!
cheers, O

Islander · 09-22-2006, 12:57 PM

This is a post I coped from FS Forum...............

Had his forwarded to me... thought I would pass it on...
OK folks, for those of you who fish offshore and want to continue to fish for swordfish your time is almost up. Once again, and I can tell you that my time going to meetings and trying to show concern for people who apparently do not care enough to provide their suggestions is almost up, there were no rec fishermen at the meeting tonight but me. There were 7 com fishermen/fishhouse owners there. I was able to get the staff to give up an email address that you can send your suggestions to but you only have about 2 weeks to do so and after that when the next year comes and you hear that the swordfish quota has been taken away from the United States and the rec quota has been cut and you won't be able to land a fish you only have yourself to blame. The notice of this meeting was sent several times over the past few weeks. There were not even any big game private rec people there or tournament reps so swordfishing in the gulf must not be something people want to be able to do. You know what showing up at the red snapper hearing did so you can make a difference if you are concerned at all.
ICCAT will probably take swordfish quota away from the U.S. and give it to some other country and if that happens we will never get it back. There are ways to catch more swordfish and you need to let the NMFS know how you think it should be done like maybe increasing the rec bag limit. The com sector is asking to reopen the closed areas, to be able to use live bait again, to allow unlimited incidental catch and other ways to increase the catch. If you don't care then don't send an email. If you do then send your opinion to rick.a.pearson@noaa.gov . There is no official email as this is a staff person who will use his email to receive comments. In the subject line put "swordfish issues". You have until 9-30-06 to say something. Its up to you.
Bob

Capt. Bob Zales, II
bobzales@att.net
bus. ph 850.763.7249
fax 850.763.3558

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is all about the numbers boys and girls. If we do not take a stand and propose some viable suggestions to save our Numbers (quota). Then this fishery as stated before WILL parallel the Blue Fin Tuna Fishery !!

There had better be standing room only support at the NMFS meeting on Wed. Sept 27 by the recreational community

TIME TO STAND UP OR SHUT UP

Broadbill-Pro · 09-22-2006, 01:03 PM

ProfessorO wrote:
I am not so sure that all the speakers from the SESC will have the best interest of recreational fishing in mind, but instead, are more interested in convincing the gov't to put out new, cheap permits.

OOOOOUCH #-o

Islander · 09-22-2006, 01:04 PM

ProfessorO Wrote:

Is it possible for someone from the SESC to post what their official
stance is going to be?? Who is speaking on our behalf??

I to would be interested in this information also.

Thanks ,
Karl Mullinax
Cell # 772-538-0241
kmtuna@bellsouth.net

Hicatch · 09-22-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfessorO

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicatch

First of all even if the areas that are being asked for are opened there will not be any changes in the amount of fish landed against the quota. I base this on the fact that effort will only be redistributed and there will not be any additional effort; if 50 boats are active in the fishery and catching x amount of fish the same 50 boats are still only going to catch the same or close to that previous number. So there will not be any gains toward catching the quota. No increase in effort should mean no significant changes to the status of the stock which means the 50 line will not feel any effects from the request made by the PLL industry.

Steve, as always you bring a lot of knowledge to the table during these
discussions. However, I am not so sure that these statements are
correct. If they are, the only reason for the LLrs would want to fish the
straits is to save gas (which, of course, is a good economic reason).
I'm assuming now that the proposed open area is as BP states above.
These areas still are in the range of the ocean where due to habitat compression and that it is a nursey ground, there is a higher fish density.
I find it hard to believe that the LLrs will not catch more swords here and
this is why they want to get some of the closed areas reopened.

So do you believe, if we opened up the entire straits, the LL fleet
could not decimate the fishery again because they are not the same
fleet of 2-3 decades ago??

Is it possible for someone from the SESC to post what their official
stance is going to be?? Who is speaking on our behalf?? I know the
following statement may offend some, but I am not so sure that all
the speakers from the SESC will have the best interest of recreational
fishing in mind, but instead, are more interested in convincing the gov't
to put out new, cheap permits. Their argument for this may backfire!
cheers, O

Without going into great detail, my response to your question Arthur is yes. Look at if from a mathematical standpoint, if there is no increase in the number of vessels then there is no increase of effort, so based on that there will bo ne change in result. Arthur, please read through all of my comments and understand that from my experience in the industry there will be little to no chance for an increase in effort, i.e. new PLL vessels entering the fishery. So all this talk/input to NMFS really means nothing. We will lose quota eventually.

Ron.38 Special · 09-22-2006, 02:01 PM

Broadbill Pro,

To put everything inperspective it may be helpful if you answer one question, and I think I alread know the answer.

Simply put, What role does yor dad have in spearheading any attempt to open up any part of the closed zone?

Ron.38 Special · 09-22-2006, 02:11 PM

My personal opinion on the closed zone it the following:

The closed zone has done more to protect and replenish swordfish stock than anyother protection or managment effort ever taken on by NMFS.

The closure of the nursery area has allowed a continuous supply of fresh year class fish to migrate to areas where they can be caught by longliners and any other commerical fishery. But these fish have moved on in most cases after sexualy maturity.

Protecting this closed zone protects juvenile stocks for rebuild of the fishery, not only in the EEZ, but in the entire North Atlantic Ocean.

Professor O can give a much better exsplaination about the uniques oceanographic features which make this area so special but its safe to say it is unlike any other place in the worlds oceans.

The longliners and the longlie industry like LP, Hi-Liner, the individual commercial operations, and the corporate commercial fishing industry needs to be protected from itself!!!!!!!!!!

They abused the Straits of Florida off the Southeast coast last time they had it and only drastic meaures like closures can protect a fish like this.

One Ocean managment is fine from a perspective of Highly Migratory Species, BUT, when a juvenile nursery area like the Florida East Coast can be identified, it is in the best interest of all stake holders to protect this area at all costs.

In all fairness to all readers, some one should have an index of who each username really is, and if they represent any commerical or industry interest or if they are in the fishery for purely recreational benefit.

It is entirely possible that the value of the Florida Recreational Swordfishery is more valuable than the entire US longline fleet.

quack quack · 09-22-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron.38 Special

My personal opinion on the closed zone it the following:

It is entirely possible that the value of the Florida Recreational Swordfishery is more valuable than the entire US longline fleet.

The value of the rec fleet to the economy does not mean anything at Iccat :shock: If we lose the commercial fleet we would lose all our fish

to another country.We would not be able to keep any fish at all.

At this meeting it is very important not to bash the commercial guys.Nmfs shuts there ears to any one that starts to only bash the commercial fleet.Because without the commercial fishing fleet we would not need the nmfs :shock: So any one speaking at the meeting had better hold there tongs when it comes to bashing.You can say you do not like LLers but do not bash in this fight we must all work together rec and commercial.

this comes from some one in the know

no bashing or else we are wasting our time next week.

Ron.38 Special · 09-22-2006, 02:58 PM

QQ,

You are exactly right, the guys there to do nothing but bash the commericals will be yelling at deaf ears....

Remember, NMFS is part of the Department of Commerce.

The BEAST · 09-22-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicatch

How are you going to explain to your children that swordfish, which are fully recovered can't be fished for year round? Charter guys are going to suffer, local tackle businesses will be forced out of business and we will be forced to fish during specific times of the year and may be limited in trips significantly due to weather related issues. This is not acceptable.

These statements are ludicrous. How in the world do you forsee all that? Allow more commercial fishing to preserve the species! Now that is logical thinking. We all have seen how well that works. Fully recovered? Right! The average fish caught is 100# shy of the fish caught in the 70's. We have already suffered because a select minority has plundered the resource. Sounds more like a scare tactic to me. Who's interests are we really talking about? Is this really about the rec/sportsman?

Maybe I am thick as wood and maybe I do have tooo much salt in my ears as BB-Pro says but I still have the feeling that there is a hidden agenda being applied to the rec/sportsman on this forum with smoke, mirrors and double talk. The LL's can't meet their quotas now so what is all the hullabaloo? It's becoming more obvious that the true intended target is reopening all the restricted areas, sooner than later. Is this forum being mislead, with Pied Pipers in our midst?

The words are clear as muddy water! The restricted areas are safe... Oh yeah, let's open up the Straits from Marathon - south and Ft Pierce - north. We already have bent the rules with commercial buoy bandits allowed to fish in the restricted area. As the fish stock depletes once again, our restricted fish will spread out becoming targets themselves and our catches will reduce for sure. What's next? Next year they will want to reduce the closed area to Key Largo to Pompano, so on a so forth.

Swordfish regs will follow the Bluefin. ???? If every LL went out of business and no foreign interests can fish inside the 200nm EEZ then how would the Sword fishery decline to the point of closed seasons or reduced catches for the rec/sportsman. Even if they cut our limits to 1 fish per night over 70", is that such a bad thing? I could live with more fish caught and less fish kept. I do it everyday with Sailfish. Catch 10 and keep 0 works for me and most everyone else I know.

The biggest problem with the commercial sector is that as history shows, they will glut the market and then bitch of low prices. Here we are again hearing their same sad story. The gluttony and greed is uncontrollable. They did it with Swords, Shark, Redfish, Red Snapper, Kingfish, Mullet, Amberjacks, and now the Gulf grouper stocks. Who is the first to pay for this gluttony, year after year? The rec/sportsman with decreased catch limits, while they the commercials still have allowable poundage and many times smaller size limits. When they learn self control, and only then, will they earn rec/sportsman sympathy. I as a charter captain, know that I can't keep pounding the same reef, over and over every day, and expect it to remain alive. Who is truly the one that is thick as wood with salt in their ears?

I think the major question is who is more vital to the economy? The multi-billion $'s spent in the rec/sportsman industry, or the smaller commercial industry that takes from the fishery for profit with very little return to the economy. I'm not so sure that everyone on this forum has the best interest of this fishery in mind.

Once again, can someone explain to me how harvesting MORE fish and shrinking closed areas can possibly benefit the Swordfish??? Maybe the LL's should move to Alaska and take up crab fishing until they are all gone, too.

A few years back a commercial fisherman told me that his philosophy was, and I quote: "If it gets 35 cents a pound, KILL IT!" I will NEVER forget that!

Capt. Jim
The BEAST

quack quack · 09-22-2006, 03:31 PM

Beast said I think the major question is who is more vital to the economy? The multi-billion $'s spent in the rec/sportsman industry, or the smaller commercial industry that takes from the fishery for profit with very little return to the economy. I'm not so sure that everyone on this forum has the best interest of this fishery in mind.

Once again, can someone explain to me how harvesting MORE fish and shrinking closed areas can possibly benefit the Swordfish??? Maybe the LL's should move to Alaska and take up crab fishing until they are all gone, too.

Capt. Jim

The job of the nmfs is to manage the fish stocks not to manage our economy :???: That is the root of the problem Jim.

Look our sword problem in regards to our economy is nothing compared to the economic disaster awaiting the Head boats and charter boats up north.They are talking about closing the fluke fishing down completely next year.The fluke stocks are the best they have been in years but because they are not at the same level as 1936 they are not recovered :shock: Because of the sustainable fisheries act 1000s of people and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on rec fluke fishing could be lost.But they say that is not there problem the law or {act} is the law.

Bait Washer · 09-22-2006, 03:34 PM

I just received a news letter from Ellen from the Billfish Foundation
that I believe clearly outlines their position. I suggest everyone
request a copy.

The BEAST · 09-22-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quack quack

The job of the nmfs is to manage the fish stocks not to manage our economy :???: That is the root of the problem Jim.

Look our sword problem in regards to our economy is nothing compared to the economic disaster awaiting the Head boats and charter boats up north.They are talking about closing the fluke fishing down completely next year.The fluke stocks are the best they have been in years but because they are not at the same level as 1936 they are not recovered :shock: Because of the sustainable fisheries act 1000s of people and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on rec fluke fishing could be lost.But they say that is not there problem the law or {act} is the law.

Once again, with double talk. How is Fluke fishing in the NE directly related to opening portions of the Straits to commercial Swordfishing?

Capt. Jim
The BEAST

Broadbill-Pro · 09-22-2006, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron.38 Special

Broadbill Pro,

To put everything inperspective it may be helpful if you answer one question, and I think I alread know the answer.

Simply put, What role does yor dad have in spearheading any attempt to open up any part of the closed zone?

I stopped short of reading the rest of the posts to answer your question.

My Father owned a LL vessel from 1980 to 1981, I was the Captain of that vessel. The vessel caught fire in 1981 and sank. It was never replaced. My Father has not now or ever been a commercial fisherman. On the contrary, he held the NJ State Striper record for a while in the early 70's, was a charter boat Captain at Hillsboro Inlet in the late 70's, a private sportfishing yacht Captain all thru the 80's. He is still involved in the fishing industry thru recreational sales of a product he manufactures. His customers include nearly every tackle shop and major chain store in the US. What my Father may have said in regard to LL is purely in defense of his Son, same as any Father would do.

I have had a rod and reel in my hand since I was 5 years old, though I found a way to make a living doing what I enjoyed, my heart has always been in recreational fishing.

You just don't give up. What are you trying to prove. For a fellow who seems well written at times you really should put more research into your posts before you hit the keyboard.

Let's put this to bed right now, I can meet you anywhere you desire for a drink, you can shoot away with any question you desire. You may even learn something. I am 5 minutes away from your house at the moment, say the word and I will be there with a bottle.

The BEAST · 09-22-2006, 04:12 PM

Pulling one excerpt from my post hardly answers the many questions that more and more of us are starting to wonder.

If the LL's cannot reach their quota now, and it is professed that no more LL's will become invovled, how are they going to increase their catch?????

The only underlying answer would be to open the Straits which would be more profitable by higher catch rates with lower operating expense. Isn't that truly the ultimate goal?

This is getting more and more individualized. Now we are being told the NMFS doesn't care about the rec/sportsman because without the commercial industry there would be no NMFS. So they, the NMFS, have only 1 specific agenda/goal!

Capt. Jim

09-22-2006, 11:06 AM	#24 (permalink)
quack quack Old Salt Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: lake worth Best Catch: 25lb codfish 5 yrs old first hanger Posts: 4,608	The way they want to increase the catch of the quota is to increase vessel size :shock: Now they can not get a bigger boat on there current permits so many or all smaller LL boats are out of the game now.But if they are allowed an exemption to put the permit on a bigger boat the fleet will almost double again :shock: The problem is that then all fisheries will want to be able to increase there vessel size and that can not be done :shock: They want bigger boats with greater range and fish freezing abilities.Then they could all fish the banks and stay out longer and run 2 crews.The problem is when they come back in with 100 thousand lbs the price goes to sh t for the next guy and so on.Then they bitch about the price being crappy.We are going to lose quota no matter what lets hope we can keep our rec fishing open.By the way the NE meeting had 5 rec guys total :shock: __________________ Either we can be a part of the solution or we can be the victims of a decision.

09-22-2006, 03:31 PM	#35 (permalink)
quack quack Old Salt Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: lake worth Best Catch: 25lb codfish 5 yrs old first hanger Posts: 4,608	Beast said I think the major question is who is more vital to the economy? The multi-billion $'s spent in the rec/sportsman industry, or the smaller commercial industry that takes from the fishery for profit with very little return to the economy. I'm not so sure that everyone on this forum has the best interest of this fishery in mind. Once again, can someone explain to me how harvesting MORE fish and shrinking closed areas can possibly benefit the Swordfish??? Maybe the LL's should move to Alaska and take up crab fishing until they are all gone, too. Capt. Jim The job of the nmfs is to manage the fish stocks not to manage our economy :???: That is the root of the problem Jim. Look our sword problem in regards to our economy is nothing compared to the economic disaster awaiting the Head boats and charter boats up north.They are talking about closing the fluke fishing down completely next year.The fluke stocks are the best they have been in years but because they are not at the same level as 1936 they are not recovered :shock: Because of the sustainable fisheries act 1000s of people and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on rec fluke fishing could be lost.But they say that is not there problem the law or {act} is the law. __________________ Either we can be a part of the solution or we can be the victims of a decision.

09-22-2006, 08:05 AM	#21 (permalink)
Hicatch Hooked Up Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 103	Here's my perspective that I shared with Bobby Boyle yesterday: First of all even if the areas that are being asked for are opened there will not be any changes in the amount of fish landed against the quota. I base this on the fact that effort will only be redistributed and there will not be any additional effort; if 50 boats are active in the fishery and catching x amount of fish the same 50 boats are still only going to catch the same or close to that previous number. So there will not be any gains toward catching the quota. No increase in effort should mean no significant changes to the status of the stock which means the 50 line will not feel any effects from the request made by the PLL industry. Secondly, this is not an attractive fishery, not like it was in the 1980's, basically fuel prices and other expenses have risen exponentially while the return on effort has remained very similar to what it was in the hey day. So who is going to invest 200-500,000 dollars into a modern pelagic long line vessel? Not me or anyone I know!! Furthermore, it has become increasingly difficult to find qualified captains and crews to operate these vessels. Most are not qualified and the ones that are have left for greener pastures or have joined the ranks as rec guys like BP has done. Conclusion, even with the potential openings we will not make any noticeable increases in landings of swordfish against our quota. You can thank NMFS for this, they and economics have effectively reduced the US fleet to a point where we will never catch our quota again. The end result being we will lose quota at this or next year's ICCAT. What will happen? I'm not sure but you better hope that someone has the foresight to secure an amount of fish for the recreational fleet that will be very difficult completely catch. I've maintained all along that this fishery will end up mirroring the blue fin tuna fishery, you'd better hope that my assumption is not accurate.

09-22-2006, 10:35 AM	#22 (permalink)
Ambitious Lines In Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 77	that's exactly the point then, if the reduced LL fleet will not be able to increase quota why change the status quo? The only reason I can see is to make the existing LLs more profitable by reducing the distance they need to travel to the grounds. That puts these boats much closer to our rec fishery and the nursery area right? (i.e.: 50 line as you stated) I would rather they be off the EZ corner or wherever it is they fish. Now if putting them that far can be shown to be driving them out of business, that's a different story because then = even less catch/quota. Its a quandry in that case but that fact would have to be proven. its a tough situation but why risk heavier efforts on E. Fla where we all know first hand the fish are young?

09-22-2006, 12:57 PM	#26 (permalink)
Islander Hooked Up Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Vero Beach, FL. Boat: FISHING Best Catch: The next one Posts: 197	This is a post I coped from FS Forum............... Had his forwarded to me... thought I would pass it on... OK folks, for those of you who fish offshore and want to continue to fish for swordfish your time is almost up. Once again, and I can tell you that my time going to meetings and trying to show concern for people who apparently do not care enough to provide their suggestions is almost up, there were no rec fishermen at the meeting tonight but me. There were 7 com fishermen/fishhouse owners there. I was able to get the staff to give up an email address that you can send your suggestions to but you only have about 2 weeks to do so and after that when the next year comes and you hear that the swordfish quota has been taken away from the United States and the rec quota has been cut and you won't be able to land a fish you only have yourself to blame. The notice of this meeting was sent several times over the past few weeks. There were not even any big game private rec people there or tournament reps so swordfishing in the gulf must not be something people want to be able to do. You know what showing up at the red snapper hearing did so you can make a difference if you are concerned at all. ICCAT will probably take swordfish quota away from the U.S. and give it to some other country and if that happens we will never get it back. There are ways to catch more swordfish and you need to let the NMFS know how you think it should be done like maybe increasing the rec bag limit. The com sector is asking to reopen the closed areas, to be able to use live bait again, to allow unlimited incidental catch and other ways to increase the catch. If you don't care then don't send an email. If you do then send your opinion to rick.a.pearson@noaa.gov . There is no official email as this is a staff person who will use his email to receive comments. In the subject line put "swordfish issues". You have until 9-30-06 to say something. Its up to you. Bob Capt. Bob Zales, II bobzales@att.net bus. ph 850.763.7249 fax 850.763.3558 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is all about the numbers boys and girls. If we do not take a stand and propose some viable suggestions to save our Numbers (quota). Then this fishery as stated before WILL parallel the Blue Fin Tuna Fishery !! There had better be standing room only support at the NMFS meeting on Wed. Sept 27 by the recreational community TIME TO STAND UP OR SHUT UP

09-22-2006, 01:03 PM	#27 (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: 1,310	ProfessorO wrote: I am not so sure that all the speakers from the SESC will have the best interest of recreational fishing in mind, but instead, are more interested in convincing the gov't to put out new, cheap permits. OOOOOUCH #-o

09-22-2006, 01:04 PM	#28 (permalink)
Islander Hooked Up Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Vero Beach, FL. Boat: FISHING Best Catch: The next one Posts: 197	ProfessorO Wrote: Is it possible for someone from the SESC to post what their official stance is going to be?? Who is speaking on our behalf?? I to would be interested in this information also. Thanks , Karl Mullinax Cell # 772-538-0241 kmtuna@bellsouth.net

09-22-2006, 02:01 PM	#30 (permalink)
Ron.38 Special Hooked Up Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 234	Broadbill Pro, To put everything inperspective it may be helpful if you answer one question, and I think I alread know the answer. Simply put, What role does yor dad have in spearheading any attempt to open up any part of the closed zone?

09-22-2006, 02:11 PM	#31 (permalink)
Ron.38 Special Hooked Up Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 234	My personal opinion on the closed zone it the following: The closed zone has done more to protect and replenish swordfish stock than anyother protection or managment effort ever taken on by NMFS. The closure of the nursery area has allowed a continuous supply of fresh year class fish to migrate to areas where they can be caught by longliners and any other commerical fishery. But these fish have moved on in most cases after sexualy maturity. Protecting this closed zone protects juvenile stocks for rebuild of the fishery, not only in the EEZ, but in the entire North Atlantic Ocean. Professor O can give a much better exsplaination about the uniques oceanographic features which make this area so special but its safe to say it is unlike any other place in the worlds oceans. The longliners and the longlie industry like LP, Hi-Liner, the individual commercial operations, and the corporate commercial fishing industry needs to be protected from itself!!!!!!!!!! They abused the Straits of Florida off the Southeast coast last time they had it and only drastic meaures like closures can protect a fish like this. One Ocean managment is fine from a perspective of Highly Migratory Species, BUT, when a juvenile nursery area like the Florida East Coast can be identified, it is in the best interest of all stake holders to protect this area at all costs. In all fairness to all readers, some one should have an index of who each username really is, and if they represent any commerical or industry interest or if they are in the fishery for purely recreational benefit. It is entirely possible that the value of the Florida Recreational Swordfishery is more valuable than the entire US longline fleet.

09-22-2006, 02:58 PM	#33 (permalink)
Ron.38 Special Hooked Up Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 234	QQ, You are exactly right, the guys there to do nothing but bash the commericals will be yelling at deaf ears.... Remember, NMFS is part of the Department of Commerce.

09-22-2006, 03:34 PM	#36 (permalink)
Bait Washer Lines In Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sebastian,Fl. Boat: boats and fishing Occupation: manager Posts: 87	I just received a news letter from Ellen from the Billfish Foundation that I believe clearly outlines their position. I suggest everyone request a copy.