Swordfisherman Alert - Page 3

reel life · 09-22-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfessorO

[
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

does somebody care to answer this one

Capt Ray C
also know as dragon baits on the other forum

Ambitious · 09-22-2006, 06:42 PM

I second "reel life", what is SESC's official position other than what Capt. Ron said (or is that it)? Most of us from Ft Pierce and north have only recently entered the fishery (3 years for our boat) so, we look to you guys down there to inform us and your opinions are important. Also, I am a TBF member but have not receievd a letter re: this subject outlining their position, any way to post that?? Thanks...

The BEAST · 09-22-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnacle Bill

Hey guys, theres a part to this you are missing. These fish do not spend their entire life off South florida waiting for you to catch them. They roam up and down the coast and into INTERNATIONAL waters! This is why the quotas are important. If the US does not catch the quota, and it is given to some other country they WILL catch their quota and that means less fish for all Americans, recreational and commercial alike.
Something to think about.

Yes, that is why they are called highly migratory. Maybe you can explain how opening up parts of the restricted area and catching more fish will benefit the fishery!?!

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile.

Broadbill-Pro · 09-22-2006, 08:24 PM

Jim,

That question has been answered a 100 times, your mind is already made up so why ask again?

One more time just for you with out the "X" LL suger coating.

The Billfish Foundation wrote:

The failure of the U.S. commercial fleet to take their yearly quota places the U.S. in a position at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) where it is vulnerable to the demands of other countries with developing fleets to share quota. These demands are likely to increase as numerous countries are just now developing a fishery for swordfish.

The Billfish Foundation's concern is three-fold:

One, we want to see the recovery of North Atlantic swordfish continue.

Two, it is likely that the countries that may receive new swordfish quotas are not as committed to conservation as the U.S.

Three, if the U.S. allocation is reduced and reallocated to other countries, then the NMFS might redistribute the U.S. quota within the two U.S. user groups - recreational and commercial fishers. This decision would be based on catch history and could result in the government taking from the recreational fishing community's quota and giving to the commercial swordfish fishery. This is why TBF has maintained that it is very important for anglers to properly report all landings of swordfish. If the recreational fishery has no catch history for swordfish landed, then there is no catch history to base a reallocation upon. No catch history means no allocation.

Hicatch · 09-22-2006, 09:38 PM

Beast you Wrote:

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?

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

Sorry Beast if you feel my predition is ludicrous; I hope you're correct. Unfortunately you did not comprehend everything I wrote; I stated that when/if we lose our quota it is possible that we will be left with a fishery that mirrors the blue fin tuna fishery. Please open your ears these fish are managed globally not domestically. Although our government hands down the rules; the rules are set in an international forum. So if we are left with an attainable quota there could be closed seasons. This is not acceptable for a fishery that will have an assesment that shows it has fully recovered according to the best available science.

Additionally, I have a pretty good track record for predicting fisheries management, several years ago on FS Forum I stated the domestic PLL fleet would be circle hook only; look what we have now. I also stated there would be maximum hooks per set and limited soak times, these are being considered for future management.

Furthermore, I'm not a fisheries biologist not am I a part of any boards that determine fisheries management policies. However, I have over 25 years involvement within the industry from having had immediate family members owning various types of commercial long line and bandit vessels to being in the tackle business since 1985 supplying both commercial and sportfishing gear. The last 5 years have been primarily recreational tackle.

So I've seen up close how the management process works and have a good grasp on what to expect. I still stand that the FEC will not be opened, based on NMFS not wanting to stir the hornets nest that exists here. As well as I don't believe it would make any difference towards catching more fish anyway. So let's all agree that everything must be done to make sure we are not left with a very limited fishery for recreational interests. This will be the real tragedy and this is how our kids will end up missing out. If you feel in any way that this is a pro commercial view you truly have blinders on.

Let it be stated here that I am for the fish and the right to fish for them by everyone not just a select few.

The BEAST · 09-23-2006, 12:58 AM

BB-Pro,

Only problem is YOU didn't answer crap. You merely posted a TBF letter, twice, which is full of glittering generalities. At least Hi-catch is attempting to answer my questions without the condescending extras.

Hi-catch,

I'm not going to fill this post up with quotes from previous posters. You can research them yourself. I am understanding that it isn't cost effective to fish for Swordfish anymore. No one will spend 200-500K for a boat to swordfish. So please tell me, if I were to believe that this was a good thing for the rec sector as well, how do you intend to meet your quota this year or years to come? If you win the struggle what is truly won... the commercials get quotas they once again can't meet and WE get 1 fish per day. I keep hearing about closed seasons also. I guarantee you WILL see closed seasons if the quota is met or exceeded.

Let's say, for the sake of easy math, 100,000 pounds/fish or half of your 200,000 excess quota are given away to another country. 50% or 50,000 migrate out of the EEZ and every one are caught by these foreign vessels. This time you miraculously reach the quota. Seems to me we are left with 50,000 that didn't leave the EEZ. Isn't that in actuality, conservation. I absolutely am not getting how killing fish, either by US lines or foreign lines conserves the fishery for our children. A dead fish is a dead fish. Am I missing something here? Is the common practice of the commercial fishing fleet to make sure they kill 100,000 if 100,000 is alotted. If it gets 35 cents a pound, KILL IT!

I agree, we all have equal rights to fish. Search back in your track record and tell me what happened to the Red Snapper, Redfish, Kingfish, Mullet, and Amberjack. These US coastal fish, well inside the EEZ, had no foreign intervention yet somehow they were decimated. Who was responsible for that? Who was responsible for decimating the Swordfish population in the Straits? Please, don't elude these questions. I want to hear your answers. The Amberjack, Kingfish and Swordfish are still a commercial target with many thousands of pounds in limits while I as a sportfisherman can keep one per day. Talk to me about equal rights to fish. The numbers of fish harvested commercial vs recreational is obscene. Equal my azz. Geez, why do we have a bad taste in our mouths? They ruin the fishery, move on to the next, and forever and a year later we still have bare minimum limits. Maybe we should limit the commercial boat to 1 per person per day. How would that fly? Equal my azz.

I'll make a prediction too... within 5 years the commercial interests will have lobbyed ($$$) and talked their way back into the Straits. In 10 years the fishery will be depleted again. This is one time I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

Capt. Jim
The BEAST

Broadbill-Pro · 09-23-2006, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The BEAST

BB-Pro,

Only problem is YOU didn't answer crap. You merely posted a TBF letter, twice, which is full of glittering generalities. At least Hi-catch is attempting to answer my questions without the condescending extras.

You have made it perfectly clear that the words of "X" LL guys means nothing to you. My first instinct when I address you now is to try and provide the words of someone you could possibly respect. I realize that is a sad way to debate someone, but with the lack of respect you have displayed towards commercial fisherman, there is no other way to address you.

Hicatch · 09-23-2006, 12:32 PM

Jim, I've not endorsed opening the Straits nor have I suggested increasing commercial effort. I've continually stated that the rec sector will suffer the most from losing quota by having to be subjected to closed seasons due to the remaining commercial fleet being able to catch the quota that we will have after ICCAT is done doling out what was once our property. Which you so eloquently paraphrased in you last reply. You just can't seem to get passed a subjective view that is not in conflict with your values. You keep trying to read something into my statements that simply isn't there. You then attempt to spin what I've said into your words while saying that I have a different point of view; I don't get it :???:

I believe that it will be a travesty if this fishery is subjected to closed seasons. The recreatinoal sector has to have a plan in place in order to prevent this from occuring. CAN you agree with this?

Another thing it's not my quota, it's OUR'S.

The BEAST · 09-23-2006, 03:19 PM

Hi-catch & BB-Pro,

How do we reach quota without increased fishing pressure? If WE reach the quota, they close the season. If we don't reach the quota they close the season for recs so the commercials can reach their quota. Either way the recs get screwed once again. In 39 years of rec fishing I have only seen the recs come out ahead 1 time and that was banning the nets, The comm's are fighting and trying every trick thay can come up with to get the nets back in our state waters.

What it boils down to is the commercial fisherman have more $$$ and lobbying power to buy their way into OUR fish. The recreational sector will always get screwed until we form a strong alliance with $$$ to back it. I have seen, on this forum, magazine spokespersons get slammed for sticking up for the rec guy. I have seen on this forum that the NMFS is all for the commercial guys to justify their existence. So where is the concern for the rec fisherman. There is none. The recreational fisherman supports more businesses and provides more to the economy yet is on the bottom of the list when it comes to law making.

Funny how, in your opinion, I am the one twisting things. Lack of respect for the LL. Now that IS funny! You have to earn respect to get respect. Throughout history the commercial guys didn't have respect for themselves. They are so narrow focused they can't save themselves from themselves. They were content killing thousands of pounds of bycatch (sharks porpoises turtles etc.) to reap 1000 pounds of target fish. How do you get respect with a past track record like theirs? Here we are, once again hearing the pity party trying to "soften" the past. All of a sudden the commercial guys are conservation minded and our friends. When in truth, the commercials don't give a rats azz about the recs. If we opened all limits and species to commercial fishing again they would fish them into extinction. That industry will never change. Exploitation of a species until its gone and then move on to the next. What happened to all those fish species I mentioned above? I have asked numerous questions giving every opportunity for commercial answers and all I hear is rebuttal directed soley at me. Both of you hold a portion of the responsibility for the state of todays fishery through involvement with commercial fishing both directly and indirectly. Both are admittedly "proud" of your commercial past. Destroying species to near fatal levels is something to be proud of. Respect? "If it gets 35 cents per pound, KILL IT!" The commercial guys can cry me a river. The only problem is there is not enough tears to float that boat anymore.

The recreational guys on the forum are not giving me a debate. Only the commercial sector is and frankly I could care less what they think of me. I simply wanted everyone to be aware that everything is not always what it appears to be.

Capt. Jim
The BEAST

Hicatch · 09-23-2006, 10:07 PM

Jim,

I'm not saying increase commercial effort; I'm emphasizing the importance of protecting the recreational fishery from being hindered in anyway. I've accepted that we will lose our quota eventually, and am lobbying here to promote protecting the recreational fishery in which I happen to be a participant; I don't rely on charters as you do to make a living nor do I set buoy gear. But I do benefit for a healthy recreational fishery based on sales of sportfishing gear that goes into the pursuit of these fish.

This is the kind of disagreement that I don't understand and I've lost my interest in trying to convey the importance of informing people like you of how things are currently and how things can become. In 5 years from now when the fishery is shut down you'll remember what I've stated hear and realize all that what I've divulged has been in the best interest of sportfishing for swordfish and you'll wish you would have listened more closely because you can't make money from charters catching swordifsh.
Believe me this is not what I want to see happen, but I feel better knowing I did all I can to let everyone know what could transpire.

neptune · 09-23-2006, 11:41 PM

Hicatch, what in the world makes you think we (the US) will lose our quota and in 5 years from now the fishery will be closed, that is an extreme condition. I doubt that that will happen to a fishery that is recovering and has the economic influence that the recreational pursuit of swordfish has on the economy.

The BEAST · 09-23-2006, 11:57 PM

Hicatch,

I thank you for your time and finally being candid in your response. That is exactly what I was striving for, some honesty.

Now we are in agreement that the "quota" is a moot point that the recreational fisherman actually cannot fix. I have no remorse for the commercial guy and he is definitely on his own when it comes to that. I do rely on sportfishing charters to make a living as you rely on sport fisherman in your tackle shop. In the 6 or 7 years of fishing once again for these Swordfish, I have only kept 3. Most of my customers only want to CATCH the fish and take more pride in watching it swim away. My customers respect and embrace my Billfish "catch and release only" policy I impose on my boat. Because Swordfish are a table treat I do allow an exception to my rule on those charters but my self imposed boat limit is 1 per trip. I also love eating a Swordfish steak every now and again but I am not above eating fried Grunts. I already live in a predominately catch and release sport fishing world.

I, like you, hope that our 5 & 10 year predictions don't come true. We both know that as other species have had season lock downs, that didn't pertain to catching them but only the keeping of them. That isn't as bad as the last 20+ years when the fishing for Swordfish was a ridiculous venture because a greedy lot had fished them into depletion. I will gladly go out now and catch 2 or 3 fish and release everyone of them, rather than fish all summer to possibly catch and keep one fish.

I do agree and will support any and all honest efforts directed to saving the Swordfish for recreational sport fishing use.

Capt. Jim
The BEAST

The BEAST · 09-24-2006, 12:03 AM

neptune,

I am not accusing Hicatch of this but whenever you are dealing with the commercial vs. recreational aspect of an arguement the scare tactic is one of the first methods used. It is something you must see through. Back during the "ban the nets" process they threatened that there would be NO bait to fish with. They even went so far as to load the chum blocks with 50% ground cardboard. Many of the sport guys started buying into it. Today, years after the ban, there is plenty of bait for sale and there is substantially more bait available year round to catch yourself.

Face it, there is no way it could be any worse than when they are allowed to have their way with a fishery. We witnessed and lived that already.

Capt. Jim
The BEAST

Broadbill-Pro · 09-24-2006, 08:56 AM

Beast,

On another thread Ron38 suggested everyone expose themselves and the reason we contribute to this forum. Due to my supposed agenda I have already done that several times on here. You believe you are in a debate with a pro-commercial interest when you address me, that could not be further from the truth and I am not sure what I could say to get it thru to you.

Unlike you, I have not earned a single dollar from the North Atlantic in the past 17 years. I do not exploit local fish stocks so that the potatoe farmer can bend a rod here. I do not buy fish, sell tackle or rely on charters to earn a living. I have no financial interest in the ocean. There is a fine line between being a Commercial Fisherman and a Charter Captain, I have heard many times that the potatoe farmers right to buy fish from his local markets thru commercial fishing should not be a concern, so why is his right to fly here and pay you nearly a grand for a day of fishing a concern? This is not a personal attack, only a comparison. I do not see fault with either fishing sector.

You constantly refer to the history of commercial fishing and it's evils. I agree with you, but are you not talking about human nature? Have you not seen the photos of 50 recreationally caught snook, the photos of a dozen sailfish hanging at Bahia Mar or still to this day the Marlin that are killed in the name of records or even worse photos? Recreational fisherman have blood on their hands also.

With new regulations most of that killing has been abolished and recreational interest now feel that slate is wiped clean, so why is it that the commercial sector must be constantly reminded of their past behavior? Do they not deserve a clean slate and the chance to continue their profession within new stricter regulations that meet todays conservation guidlines?

The past quota will never be reached and I see your point that it seems senseless to pursue something unachievable. But we must be concerned with the amount of reduction we are looking at. If ICCAT decides that our reduction should be 50% of the current quota, I think we (recs) are in for some tougher regulations. If the reduction is 25%, I doubt we will feel the effect. I know the foot in the door idea puts chills in recs spine, but by somehow showing ICCAT that the US may need to retain the current quota for the future the revised qouta may not be so harsh. This can only be done thru some type of expansion of the commercial sector, I do not care if it is thru permit regulations, gear restriction or limited open areas (which you seem to oppose all).

With the attitude that we (recs) want all or nothing, the outcome will surely be nothing.

ReelIntubaiter · 09-24-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicatch

I still stand that the FEC will not be opened, based on NMFS not wanting to stir the hornets nest that exists here. As well as I don't believe it would make any difference towards catching more fish anyway.

Hi Catch, I didn't understand this statement. Are you implying that if commercial LLing for Swordfish is opened in the Florida straights that the Swordfish population will be unafected? Please explain. I was around in the late 1970s and witnessed the total decimation of the Swordfish population by LLers in 3 YEARS!

Broadbill-Pro · 09-24-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ReelIntubaiter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hicatch

I still stand that the FEC will not be opened, based on NMFS not wanting to stir the hornets nest that exists here. As well as I don't believe it would make any difference towards catching more fish anyway.

Hi Catch, I didn't understand this statement. Are you implying that if commercial LLing for Swordfish is opened in the Florida straights that the Swordfish population will be unafected? Please explain. I was around in the late 1970s and witnessed the total decimation of the Swordfish population by LLers in 3 YEARS!

What he is implying is that commercial effort will not increase and total catch per vessel will most likely remain the same as it is now.

Not sure where you got that 3 year decimation from, I LL'ed here from 1977 to 1990 and catch rates were seasonally consistant thru all those years. As a matter of fact the vessels that fished here right up to the closure did well on a seasonal basis. I can tell you that the interaction with recreational fisherman from 1977 to 1990 was zero off this coast, with the exception of Bahama bound vessels that stole our fish and gear. There was hardly any rec effort until the closure was implemented. The odd vessel that went out and did not catch is not a barometer of fish stocks. Heck, I was skunked twice last week, the recs must have decimated them in the last 4 years.

ReelIntubaiter · 09-24-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Not sure where you got that 3 year decimation from, I LL'ed here from 1977 to 1990 and catch rates were seasonally consistant thru all those years.

Broadbill-Pro, You must be joking when you say that the LLers did not decimate the Swordfish population! What was the average weight of a Swordfish that you caught in 1977? What was the average weight of Swordfish you caught in 1990? How may pups did you kill over the years? Why were the Swordfish tournaments CANCELLED permanently (late 1970s) until the last few years? Every study done shows a steady decline in Atlantic Swordfish population in the 1980s and 1990s directly related to LLers!
Who are you trying to kid. I would like to see your actual numbers. Maybe you were getting better at catching a steadily declining population of Swordfish.

I guarantee everyone that LLers like Broadbill-Pro can't wait to get back in our area. And if allowed history WILL repeat itself. There are two emotions which are universal in any market ( be it commercial fishing or stock market) FEAR and GREED. The GREED part will usually win out and they won't be happy until they catcvh every Swordfish in the ocean.

The BEAST · 09-24-2006, 05:49 PM

I hate to do all these excerpts but it is the only way to answer all of BB-Pro's thoughts. I won't repost BB-Pro's entire post because everyone can reread that for themselves. I know I have asked numerous questions in my posts and only a select few get answered. I apologize for the length but please bear with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

You believe you are in a debate with a pro-commercial interest when you address me, that could not be further from the truth and I am not sure what I could say to get it thru to you.

To begin with I am not solely addressing you, but if the shoe fits, wear it. Your screen name kind of reflects your position. You were in the BIG commercial LL business and now you want to profess you could care less of their plight. That is like saying you graduated from
UM or UF and now you support the Florida State Seminoles.

Quote:

Unlike you, I have not earned a single dollar from the North Atlantic in the past 17 years. There is a fine line between being a Commercial Fisherman and a Charter Captain... ---- ...so why is his (potatoe farmer) right to fly here and pay you nearly a grand for a day of fishing a concern?

In those years as an LL prior to your career change 17 years ago, you killed more poundage of fish than I will in my entire life to include my career as a charter captain. Here is my profile. I don't get $1000 for a trip, only $700 which barely makes me a living. The potatoe farmer as you so elloquently put it, flies down here to go sport fishing not grocery shopping. I never run more than 6 or 7 lines compared to the 500-1000 or more hooks you deployed on a daily basis. 99% of the time I release legal sized fish and very, very seldom keep the max bag limit. All fish kept on The BEAST belong to the anglers. I have never held an SPL and never sold a single pound of fish. Fine line between charter and commercial? Hardly!

Quote:

Have you not seen the photos of 50 recreationally caught snook, the photos of a dozen sailfish hanging at Bahia Mar or still to this day the Marlin that are killed in the name of records or even worse photos? Recreational fisherman have blood on their hands also.

I agree with you on that point and if you have seen my previous posts where I voiced my opinions about "macho pics" you would see that I don't agree with this and, matter of fact, I have very few pics on my website. You can't be serious though! You really think that, as gross as those old photos are, they contributed to the decimation of several species. Even with all those nasty pics, we were still catching good quality and numbers of fish until the commercials jumped in. We rec fisherman had 0 catch regualtions as to size or bag and still caught plenty. You, I, and everyone on this forum know that the commercial fisherman is solely responsible for the depletion of stock and institution of regulations.

Quote:

...so why is it that the commercial sector must be constantly reminded of their past behavior? Do they not deserve a clean slate and the chance to continue their profession within new stricter regulations that meet todays conservation guidlines?

Because they have proven they can't conrol their greed. We must regulate them because they can't regulate themselves. Can you take a recovering alcoholic in a bar and expect him not to want a drink? If you give him a drink will he not want another? Would you allow a paroled rapist to take your daughter to dinner? Did they, and do they not, still contribute to the daily raping of a species with little regard for anyone else? This past has not been all that long ago as you might suggest. What was it, 1998 when they were pushed out? Can you, swearing on your families life, tell me that they do not want to come into the Straits, again? I believe that we are what we are, and very few truly reform.

Quote:

The past quota will never be reached and I see your point that it seems senseless to pursue something unachievable... I think we (recs) are in for some tougher regulations....I know the foot in the door idea puts chills in recs spine, but by somehow showing ICCAT that the US may need to retain the current quota for the future the revised qouta may not be so harsh.... This can only be done thru some type of expansion of the commercial sector, I do not care if it is thru permit regulations, gear restriction or limited open areas (which you seem to oppose all).

Well we have finally agreed that the "quota" reason is invalid. Tougher regulations can be lived with. No fishery cannot! You and I both know that it is impossible to stop fishing for a specific species. We will be allowed to fish for Swordfish, even though they might not allow us to keep 3 per trip or any for that matter. You have closed seasons on Snook but you can still fish for them. And there it is! It might not be so bad to let them in again. There is the true objective!!! I say, NO WAY, ABSOLUTELY NOT! Look, I am not opposed to all commercial fishing. Read my post to Captain Ollie in the hand gear thread. I recognize the need to feed the public. I AM opposed to BIG commercial and their disregard of others. The bigge

09-22-2006, 06:42 PM	#42 (permalink)
Ambitious Lines In Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 77	I second "reel life", what is SESC's official position other than what Capt. Ron said (or is that it)? Most of us from Ft Pierce and north have only recently entered the fishery (3 years for our boat) so, we look to you guys down there to inform us and your opinions are important. Also, I am a TBF member but have not receievd a letter re: this subject outlining their position, any way to post that?? Thanks...

09-22-2006, 08:24 PM	#44 (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: 1,294	Jim, That question has been answered a 100 times, your mind is already made up so why ask again? One more time just for you with out the "X" LL suger coating. The Billfish Foundation wrote: The failure of the U.S. commercial fleet to take their yearly quota places the U.S. in a position at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) where it is vulnerable to the demands of other countries with developing fleets to share quota. These demands are likely to increase as numerous countries are just now developing a fishery for swordfish. The Billfish Foundation's concern is three-fold: One, we want to see the recovery of North Atlantic swordfish continue. Two, it is likely that the countries that may receive new swordfish quotas are not as committed to conservation as the U.S. Three, if the U.S. allocation is reduced and reallocated to other countries, then the NMFS might redistribute the U.S. quota within the two U.S. user groups - recreational and commercial fishers. This decision would be based on catch history and could result in the government taking from the recreational fishing community's quota and giving to the commercial swordfish fishery. This is why TBF has maintained that it is very important for anglers to properly report all landings of swordfish. If the recreational fishery has no catch history for swordfish landed, then there is no catch history to base a reallocation upon. No catch history means no allocation.

09-22-2006, 09:38 PM	#45 (permalink)
Hicatch Hooked Up Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 103	Beast you Wrote: 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? 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 Sorry Beast if you feel my predition is ludicrous; I hope you're correct. Unfortunately you did not comprehend everything I wrote; I stated that when/if we lose our quota it is possible that we will be left with a fishery that mirrors the blue fin tuna fishery. Please open your ears these fish are managed globally not domestically. Although our government hands down the rules; the rules are set in an international forum. So if we are left with an attainable quota there could be closed seasons. This is not acceptable for a fishery that will have an assesment that shows it has fully recovered according to the best available science. Additionally, I have a pretty good track record for predicting fisheries management, several years ago on FS Forum I stated the domestic PLL fleet would be circle hook only; look what we have now. I also stated there would be maximum hooks per set and limited soak times, these are being considered for future management. Furthermore, I'm not a fisheries biologist not am I a part of any boards that determine fisheries management policies. However, I have over 25 years involvement within the industry from having had immediate family members owning various types of commercial long line and bandit vessels to being in the tackle business since 1985 supplying both commercial and sportfishing gear. The last 5 years have been primarily recreational tackle. So I've seen up close how the management process works and have a good grasp on what to expect. I still stand that the FEC will not be opened, based on NMFS not wanting to stir the hornets nest that exists here. As well as I don't believe it would make any difference towards catching more fish anyway. So let's all agree that everything must be done to make sure we are not left with a very limited fishery for recreational interests. This will be the real tragedy and this is how our kids will end up missing out. If you feel in any way that this is a pro commercial view you truly have blinders on. Let it be stated here that I am for the fish and the right to fish for them by everyone not just a select few.

09-23-2006, 12:58 AM	#46 (permalink)
The BEAST Charter Captain Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Miami/upper Keys Boat: 2007 WorldCat 330TE / 300 Suzuki's Best Catch: every catch is my best catch Occupation: charter captain Posts: 845	BB-Pro, Only problem is YOU didn't answer crap. You merely posted a TBF letter, twice, which is full of glittering generalities. At least Hi-catch is attempting to answer my questions without the condescending extras. Hi-catch, I'm not going to fill this post up with quotes from previous posters. You can research them yourself. I am understanding that it isn't cost effective to fish for Swordfish anymore. No one will spend 200-500K for a boat to swordfish. So please tell me, if I were to believe that this was a good thing for the rec sector as well, how do you intend to meet your quota this year or years to come? If you win the struggle what is truly won... the commercials get quotas they once again can't meet and WE get 1 fish per day. I keep hearing about closed seasons also. I guarantee you WILL see closed seasons if the quota is met or exceeded. Let's say, for the sake of easy math, 100,000 pounds/fish or half of your 200,000 excess quota are given away to another country. 50% or 50,000 migrate out of the EEZ and every one are caught by these foreign vessels. This time you miraculously reach the quota. Seems to me we are left with 50,000 that didn't leave the EEZ. Isn't that in actuality, conservation. I absolutely am not getting how killing fish, either by US lines or foreign lines conserves the fishery for our children. A dead fish is a dead fish. Am I missing something here? Is the common practice of the commercial fishing fleet to make sure they kill 100,000 if 100,000 is alotted. If it gets 35 cents a pound, KILL IT! I agree, we all have equal rights to fish. Search back in your track record and tell me what happened to the Red Snapper, Redfish, Kingfish, Mullet, and Amberjack. These US coastal fish, well inside the EEZ, had no foreign intervention yet somehow they were decimated. Who was responsible for that? Who was responsible for decimating the Swordfish population in the Straits? Please, don't elude these questions. I want to hear your answers. The Amberjack, Kingfish and Swordfish are still a commercial target with many thousands of pounds in limits while I as a sportfisherman can keep one per day. Talk to me about equal rights to fish. The numbers of fish harvested commercial vs recreational is obscene. Equal my azz. Geez, why do we have a bad taste in our mouths? They ruin the fishery, move on to the next, and forever and a year later we still have bare minimum limits. Maybe we should limit the commercial boat to 1 per person per day. How would that fly? Equal my azz. I'll make a prediction too... within 5 years the commercial interests will have lobbyed ($$$) and talked their way back into the Straits. In 10 years the fishery will be depleted again. This is one time I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Capt. Jim The BEAST

09-23-2006, 12:32 PM	#48 (permalink)
Hicatch Hooked Up Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 103	Jim, I've not endorsed opening the Straits nor have I suggested increasing commercial effort. I've continually stated that the rec sector will suffer the most from losing quota by having to be subjected to closed seasons due to the remaining commercial fleet being able to catch the quota that we will have after ICCAT is done doling out what was once our property. Which you so eloquently paraphrased in you last reply. You just can't seem to get passed a subjective view that is not in conflict with your values. You keep trying to read something into my statements that simply isn't there. You then attempt to spin what I've said into your words while saying that I have a different point of view; I don't get it :???: I believe that it will be a travesty if this fishery is subjected to closed seasons. The recreatinoal sector has to have a plan in place in order to prevent this from occuring. CAN you agree with this? Another thing it's not my quota, it's OUR'S.

09-23-2006, 03:19 PM	#49 (permalink)
The BEAST Charter Captain Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Miami/upper Keys Boat: 2007 WorldCat 330TE / 300 Suzuki's Best Catch: every catch is my best catch Occupation: charter captain Posts: 845	Hi-catch & BB-Pro, How do we reach quota without increased fishing pressure? If WE reach the quota, they close the season. If we don't reach the quota they close the season for recs so the commercials can reach their quota. Either way the recs get screwed once again. In 39 years of rec fishing I have only seen the recs come out ahead 1 time and that was banning the nets, The comm's are fighting and trying every trick thay can come up with to get the nets back in our state waters. What it boils down to is the commercial fisherman have more $$$ and lobbying power to buy their way into OUR fish. The recreational sector will always get screwed until we form a strong alliance with $$$ to back it. I have seen, on this forum, magazine spokespersons get slammed for sticking up for the rec guy. I have seen on this forum that the NMFS is all for the commercial guys to justify their existence. So where is the concern for the rec fisherman. There is none. The recreational fisherman supports more businesses and provides more to the economy yet is on the bottom of the list when it comes to law making. Funny how, in your opinion, I am the one twisting things. Lack of respect for the LL. Now that IS funny! You have to earn respect to get respect. Throughout history the commercial guys didn't have respect for themselves. They are so narrow focused they can't save themselves from themselves. They were content killing thousands of pounds of bycatch (sharks porpoises turtles etc.) to reap 1000 pounds of target fish. How do you get respect with a past track record like theirs? Here we are, once again hearing the pity party trying to "soften" the past. All of a sudden the commercial guys are conservation minded and our friends. When in truth, the commercials don't give a rats azz about the recs. If we opened all limits and species to commercial fishing again they would fish them into extinction. That industry will never change. Exploitation of a species until its gone and then move on to the next. What happened to all those fish species I mentioned above? I have asked numerous questions giving every opportunity for commercial answers and all I hear is rebuttal directed soley at me. Both of you hold a portion of the responsibility for the state of todays fishery through involvement with commercial fishing both directly and indirectly. Both are admittedly "proud" of your commercial past. Destroying species to near fatal levels is something to be proud of. Respect? "If it gets 35 cents per pound, KILL IT!" The commercial guys can cry me a river. The only problem is there is not enough tears to float that boat anymore. The recreational guys on the forum are not giving me a debate. Only the commercial sector is and frankly I could care less what they think of me. I simply wanted everyone to be aware that everything is not always what it appears to be. Capt. Jim The BEAST

09-23-2006, 10:07 PM	#50 (permalink)
Hicatch Hooked Up Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 103	Jim, I'm not saying increase commercial effort; I'm emphasizing the importance of protecting the recreational fishery from being hindered in anyway. I've accepted that we will lose our quota eventually, and am lobbying here to promote protecting the recreational fishery in which I happen to be a participant; I don't rely on charters as you do to make a living nor do I set buoy gear. But I do benefit for a healthy recreational fishery based on sales of sportfishing gear that goes into the pursuit of these fish. This is the kind of disagreement that I don't understand and I've lost my interest in trying to convey the importance of informing people like you of how things are currently and how things can become. In 5 years from now when the fishery is shut down you'll remember what I've stated hear and realize all that what I've divulged has been in the best interest of sportfishing for swordfish and you'll wish you would have listened more closely because you can't make money from charters catching swordifsh. Believe me this is not what I want to see happen, but I feel better knowing I did all I can to let everyone know what could transpire.

09-23-2006, 11:41 PM	#51 (permalink)
neptune Lines In Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 96	Hicatch, what in the world makes you think we (the US) will lose our quota and in 5 years from now the fishery will be closed, that is an extreme condition. I doubt that that will happen to a fishery that is recovering and has the economic influence that the recreational pursuit of swordfish has on the economy.

09-23-2006, 11:57 PM	#52 (permalink)
The BEAST Charter Captain Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Miami/upper Keys Boat: 2007 WorldCat 330TE / 300 Suzuki's Best Catch: every catch is my best catch Occupation: charter captain Posts: 845	Hicatch, I thank you for your time and finally being candid in your response. That is exactly what I was striving for, some honesty. Now we are in agreement that the "quota" is a moot point that the recreational fisherman actually cannot fix. I have no remorse for the commercial guy and he is definitely on his own when it comes to that. I do rely on sportfishing charters to make a living as you rely on sport fisherman in your tackle shop. In the 6 or 7 years of fishing once again for these Swordfish, I have only kept 3. Most of my customers only want to CATCH the fish and take more pride in watching it swim away. My customers respect and embrace my Billfish "catch and release only" policy I impose on my boat. Because Swordfish are a table treat I do allow an exception to my rule on those charters but my self imposed boat limit is 1 per trip. I also love eating a Swordfish steak every now and again but I am not above eating fried Grunts. I already live in a predominately catch and release sport fishing world. I, like you, hope that our 5 & 10 year predictions don't come true. We both know that as other species have had season lock downs, that didn't pertain to catching them but only the keeping of them. That isn't as bad as the last 20+ years when the fishing for Swordfish was a ridiculous venture because a greedy lot had fished them into depletion. I will gladly go out now and catch 2 or 3 fish and release everyone of them, rather than fish all summer to possibly catch and keep one fish. I do agree and will support any and all honest efforts directed to saving the Swordfish for recreational sport fishing use. Capt. Jim The BEAST

09-24-2006, 12:03 AM	#53 (permalink)
The BEAST Charter Captain Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Miami/upper Keys Boat: 2007 WorldCat 330TE / 300 Suzuki's Best Catch: every catch is my best catch Occupation: charter captain Posts: 845	neptune, I am not accusing Hicatch of this but whenever you are dealing with the commercial vs. recreational aspect of an arguement the scare tactic is one of the first methods used. It is something you must see through. Back during the "ban the nets" process they threatened that there would be NO bait to fish with. They even went so far as to load the chum blocks with 50% ground cardboard. Many of the sport guys started buying into it. Today, years after the ban, there is plenty of bait for sale and there is substantially more bait available year round to catch yourself. Face it, there is no way it could be any worse than when they are allowed to have their way with a fishery. We witnessed and lived that already. Capt. Jim The BEAST

09-24-2006, 08:56 AM	#54 (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: 1,294	Beast, On another thread Ron38 suggested everyone expose themselves and the reason we contribute to this forum. Due to my supposed agenda I have already done that several times on here. You believe you are in a debate with a pro-commercial interest when you address me, that could not be further from the truth and I am not sure what I could say to get it thru to you. Unlike you, I have not earned a single dollar from the North Atlantic in the past 17 years. I do not exploit local fish stocks so that the potatoe farmer can bend a rod here. I do not buy fish, sell tackle or rely on charters to earn a living. I have no financial interest in the ocean. There is a fine line between being a Commercial Fisherman and a Charter Captain, I have heard many times that the potatoe farmers right to buy fish from his local markets thru commercial fishing should not be a concern, so why is his right to fly here and pay you nearly a grand for a day of fishing a concern? This is not a personal attack, only a comparison. I do not see fault with either fishing sector. You constantly refer to the history of commercial fishing and it's evils. I agree with you, but are you not talking about human nature? Have you not seen the photos of 50 recreationally caught snook, the photos of a dozen sailfish hanging at Bahia Mar or still to this day the Marlin that are killed in the name of records or even worse photos? Recreational fisherman have blood on their hands also. With new regulations most of that killing has been abolished and recreational interest now feel that slate is wiped clean, so why is it that the commercial sector must be constantly reminded of their past behavior? Do they not deserve a clean slate and the chance to continue their profession within new stricter regulations that meet todays conservation guidlines? The past quota will never be reached and I see your point that it seems senseless to pursue something unachievable. But we must be concerned with the amount of reduction we are looking at. If ICCAT decides that our reduction should be 50% of the current quota, I think we (recs) are in for some tougher regulations. If the reduction is 25%, I doubt we will feel the effect. I know the foot in the door idea puts chills in recs spine, but by somehow showing ICCAT that the US may need to retain the current quota for the future the revised qouta may not be so harsh. This can only be done thru some type of expansion of the commercial sector, I do not care if it is thru permit regulations, gear restriction or limited open areas (which you seem to oppose all). With the attitude that we (recs) want all or nothing, the outcome will surely be nothing.