My Report from DC

[catching]

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Dan,

My comment was that fish migrate thru the Straits at greater depths than we generally fish and that on an "off night" when the bite is not so good, they do not stop and wait for us. I do not feel that the "breeding/migration" stock is greatly affected by human fishing methods until she settles down at her desired destination to spawn. Then it is a buffalo shoot, much like our own buffalo shoot of 40'' to 60'' fish on the FEC.

Ok Vinnie call me stupid still confused. So are you saying like actual depth of the baits or depth of the water as in east and west?

See you tomorrow; maybe after the meeting I can buy you a beer for all of your great contributions to the site and the views from the otherside of the fence in this debate

[Rich Ruais]

[quote=Fishalways;50207]

As for the above quote, the issue is whether or not the fishery is actually rebuilt. It has been said by you and many others on all sides of this issue that the science is inadeqate at best. If that is the case, then how can you, or anyone else for that matter be certain that the resource is actually rebuilt to sustaing the harvesting that has been allocated by ICCAT?

I don't think I have ever said the science is inadequate on swords. The CPUE (catch per unit effort) data base necessary for assessment is huge and longterm. Swordfish is not like bluefin where the catch data is questionable and falsified in certain cases, stock structure is not definitively known, mixing rates are unknown, migration patterns complex and unknown, spawning sites in question, age at spawning in dispute and much more. Scientists are pretty honest about the deplorable state of knowledge on bluefin but, as far as I can tell, they are pretty confident in their assessment of swordfish. Don't take my word for this: call the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center and ask for the top swordfish scientist.

The rec guys would rather screw the quota and protect the limited US waters as best we can. I for one would rather withdraw from ICCAT, much like Kyoto, and put reasonable restrictions on the importation and harvesting of Swordfish. And have this apply to ALL, rec and commercial alike.

Can't help you here, this is just not going to happen period. State Department has never been and never likely will be a friend to U.S. recreational or commercial fishermen.

Like others on this forum though, the threat of closing down the swordfish harvest or puting higher take restrictions does not bother me one bit. If the swordfish industry went to a full no take, I would still fish for them and I believe many others would not stop either. I would rather catch a 600# sword and be required to release it than catch a dozen 100# sword that I can keep.

You have a right to this attitude even if some of the rest of us see it as a bit of a luxury. Maybe you are independently wealthy, I don't know. But if you do have to work for a living like most of us, think about how unjust you might view someones attitude that could put you out of your business for no legitimate reason! Further, the probability of you catching a 600# in the future is better with the U.S. remaining a player at ICCAT and in the world of high seas fishing for swordfish.


I honestly think the best idea for the US would be to get out of ICCAT and impose tarrrifs on imported swordfish. The tarrifs would have to equalize the cost of swordfish between the foreign interests and the domestic interests. I.e. a price per pound that allows the commercial guys to make a decent living without threatening the resource.

Sorry, all the above is "pie in the sky" that is not going to happen in anybody who is reading this' lifetime. The foreigners are just going to take control of swordfish fishing and policies with our voice neutered for lack of serious catch.

Rich

[Broadbill-Pro]

When one looks at the amount of large spawners that migrate to the Caribbean each year, the fact that we only catch a handfull of them on the FEC and a mid-Atlantic far coastal fishery (Bermuda) has never been so successful, they are getting past us some how.

That really only leaves three scenerios, 1. they don't feed much while traveling. 2. most swim at greaters depths than we fish (bottom?) 3. they hug the eastern atlantic and come west below 25N.

Unfortunatly I have to take my wife to MIA at 10am, won't be able to make the meeting. I don't believe I will miss much, had NMFS been looking for a debate they would not have choosen the IGFA (home court advantage) for the setting. They are giving the Recs a bonus meeting to make sure that foul is not cried later if the decision is not favorable. There is nothing left say that has not already been said on this forum, NMFS can not use this information and must hold a public meeting. I'll take a rain check on the beer. Thanks!

[catching]

Thanks for the feedback Vinnie

My spin is that there is just not as many larger adult breeding fish left to be caught as in the past due to certain reasons in our area or for that matter the current closed areas, and it only takes a few large females dropping up to 30 million eggs yearly to quickly get stock levels up but the main population is still juvenile non breeders due to Swordfish slow rate of growth.

[RiskTaker]

Vinnie:

Even if you could not make it, that is fine: it is better to make Mama happy .... Many a familiar face were not present on this particular Saturday morning, yet the troopers were all present. But it was indeed a weighted non-PLL commercial session and there was plenty of critical mass present for that particular style of review and closing remarks.

Dr. Hogarth stated that "No decision" has been made as of that time and he hinted that it is not necessarily an all or nothing approach to the proposed Exempted Fishing Permits, with respect to the Bluewater Fisherman's Association application. As a matter of fact, he mentioned that many EFPs come across his plate, like, to the order of magnitude of 40 or so. So this was just one BIG drop in his bucket. This may not be news to you, I was just stating more info. for the benefit of a fishing forum post. There could be approval of a compromise: or perhaps all, or perhaps nothing. After all is said and done, he has made it plainly clear to the public, that he has the final say in this matter. Wow, it is now Tuesday, COB! I wonder if a decision has been made, after hearing that a decision could be rendered ASA Tuesday.

The reality remains an outstanding issue, at least in public view: because, if there is to be any serious scientific data gathering studies from any portion of this exemption, it will need to be spelled out in clearer terms of a more focused Design of Experiment, and perhaps limits spelled out. The possible contingencies were staggering to me, because I have a job with a getter done objective, and those possible contingencies smelled foul to me as far as accomplishing a task without, jumping through a series of hoops to satisfy a large committee.

Dr. Hogarth mentioned that Tuna fishing and Swordfish fishing is performed "differently" in PLL applications, so that it could be possible to focus more specifically to one species, or another. After more discussion, it became clear that specifics should be required and these specifics could tailor the requirements to satisfy, a specified outcome. Hopefully, this outcome will still be within the bounds of what all the previous discussions was about. Any "smoke and mirrors" approach to accomplish another objective, I hope will be conscientiously blocked, simply on the principle alone, that was not, what all the disciussion and debate was all about. It seemed like the EFP primary objective was to fish, east of the axis and north of Ft. Pierce to GA., and to fish for swordfish to stimulate a substantial bump, above and beyond what would be done by fishing otherwise, and to provide scientific data for a non-frivolous experiement.

I hope that 100% observer-ship is required, as it was publicly admitted that there is a definitive "Observer Effect" when there is an independent observer aboard commercial fishing vessels.

As far as the recent previous posts go, I would be inclined to agree with Vinnie that a big percentage of large fish are slipping by us, but not necessarily undetected, as we seem to catch some big fish at a particular time. Very few anglers fish east of the EEZ in Bahamian waters for swordfish and the old time sailor stories say that there are plenty of fish there, co-mingled with the sharks. The NW channel is a big thoroughfare, still little fishing pressure is applied there, so what do we know? How many people fish deep for swordfish on a regular basis, so how much is to know there? It seems like as much recreational fishing pressure as we seem to apply in the Quad-county area, we do not have a dragnet out. It seems very realistic to me that many large fish, scoot on by. Oh, I forgot to mention the windy days we choose not to fish.

When the fish have an out(s), they will continue to flourish. When we patrol all the gateways, then pick away, as the Buffalo shoot was described, we are enabled for serious overfishing opportunities.

Rich, there were a few commercial buoy fishermen present at the Saturday meeting. Obviously, they did not want to get pounced upon, by the Rec./Conservation/Billfish/etc. crowd, nor did they. As a matter of fact, one person cited some of his fish catch statistics and concluded with the statement that the "Exemption" should not be granted and that the PLL commercial guys should be doing buoy fishing in this area, implying that this was currently within your legal domain now. So 35 buoys as you decide to deploy them, should be something to consider for a new day in coastal commercial fishing. It seems that the By-catch issue could be diminshed, providing the lines are punctually attended to. (I still like the sloagan, that at the end of the day, it is about how many fish get pulled from the water: we are all dancing to that drum beat.)

I am willing to say, there is a lot of critical mass among fishers that just does not approve of PLL style fishing in close proximity of territorial waters or critical gateways. This may not become the final outcome but you can rest assured that the hey-days of PLL fishing will be highly scrutinized forever more by a large mass of people. In my career, that is considered writing on the wall: I would be looking for a contingency plan, just in case the writing is clearly stated someday, on a pink slip.

We still need to stay focused on reform in ICCAT, because that is the root cause of dividedness, among a single nation, and the divideds all fish.

(Oh, now it rings my bell why LP may be such a proponent of supporting an EFP: Buoy fishing spells a lot more ball sales, but the commercial grade PLL equipment demand could be dampened.) At least they are diversified into the recreational marketplace too: there is probably a lot of lost/wasted equipment in that sector too.

If I am lucky, I will be patrolling for swordfish on the eastern side of the gulfsteam axis soon. Will report back any big fish that did not slip though the fence. (This does not mean I will be commercial fishing but instead, Island Stylin in Bahamian waters with a fishing permit and perhaps checking out swordfishing around Gunn Cay (Key) to Isaccs.)

BTW - the 1/7/2007 Bahamas regulations for visitors remain intact kind-of; still a very bad decision. We are cutting a little bit of slack, anticipating an immediate and favorable remediation, pending May, 2007 elections. If it don't happen by then or within summer months/2007, my voice will be petitioning for a full Boycott, until a science based assessment is negotiated. Just another little voice in the crowd.

[Rich Ruais]

Originally Posted by RiskTaker

I hope that 100% observer-ship is required, as it was publicly admitted that there is a definitive "Observer Effect" when there is an independent observer aboard commercial fishing vessels.

Thanks for the update on the meeting with Dr. Hogarth. Sounds like you all got your point across again. You were also quite competently represented at a "Stakeholder" meeting set up by Dr. Hogarth after the ICCAT Advisory Committee meeting. Ron can fill in the details here to the Club.

We have agreed to 100% observer coverage of any experiment that may or may not be approved.

Rich, there were a few commercial buoy fishermen present at the Saturday meeting. Obviously, they did not want to get pounced upon, by the Rec./Conservation/Billfish/etc. crowd, nor did they. As a matter of fact, one person cited some of his fish catch statistics and concluded with the statement that the "Exemption" should not be granted and that the PLL commercial guys should be doing buoy fishing in this area, implying that this was currently within your legal domain now. So 35 buoys as you decide to deploy them, should be something to consider for a new day in coastal commercial fishing.

There is a lot of "high seas area" in the requested EFP area not likely suitable for profitable buoy gear fishing trips.

This may not become the final outcome but you can rest assured that the hey-days of PLL fishing will be highly scrutinized forever more by a large mass of people.

This has been the case here in the U.S. for almost 20 years! What about the rest of the PLL fishing world? US PLL's are trying to have an influence there but can only do so with a seat and voice at ICCAT which requires being a "player" in the fishery.

We still need to stay focused on reform in ICCAT, because that is the root cause of dividedness, among a single nation, and the divideds all fish.

Agreed!

BTW - the 1/7/2007 Bahamas regulations for visitors remain intact kind-of; still a very bad decision. We are cutting a little bit of slack, anticipating an immediate and favorable remediation, pending May, 2007 elections. If it don't happen by then or within summer months/2007, my voice will be petitioning for a full Boycott, until a science based assessment is negotiated. Just another little voice in the crowd.

Not familiar with this issue. Thanks again for the report on the meeting.

Rich

[Ron.38 Special]

The following are some very strong points against the EFP's:

1. Bycatch reduction due dolely to the closed zones is as follows:

Juvenile swordfish 39.5%
White Marlin 47.5%
Blue Marlin 50.3%
Sailfish 74.6%
Dolphin 47.2%
Large Coastal Shark 27.9%
Pelagic Sharks 55.9%

2. Existing research on cirlce hooks has been limited to turtle bycatch only, and no data exists which documents any decrease in other species due to circle hook use except the use of exclusively no offset hooks.

3. Offset cirlce hook, the preferred hook of choice for PLL's has no data suggesting any benefit in bycatch reduction.

4. Even with circle hooks, survival rates are not statistically different in the PLL industry. (Kerstetter & Graves 2005)

5. Existing scientific data indicates that mortality of bycatch significantly increases with an increase in soak time. this is the primary problem with PLL's and the industry has resited attempts at regulating soak time of haul back direction to limit soak time.

6. Juvenile swordfish exhibit mortality rates of greater than 50% with circle hook use, when soak time exceeds two hours. TWO HOURS!!!!!

7. Marlin mortality exceeds 50% when soak time exceeds 8 hours.

8. No data has been collected which would verify any post release mortality decrease since little taggin has been done in this situation.

The closed zones produced a significant decrease in bycatch as documented by PLL log books and POP observer programs. No statistically significant decrease in bycatch mortality has been documented in the PLL industry.

Further, no studies have shown any decrease in bycatch of species other than turtles .

Certainly, prior to risking any impact to the very sucessful closed zones, the PLL industry must demonstrate in existing open areas, that a benefit, close to the impact of the closed zones, can be achieved by circle hooks alone.

The PLL industry, of course, isn't going to undertake that kind of study and a true scientific study is necessary before we reverse the gains of the closed zones as an HMS management tool.

As stated by others, the PLL industry must be held to the standard set by the closed zones with respect to any analysis of the efficiency of circle hooks as a true managment tool. When the PLL industry can match the bycatch reduction that the closed zones have, and inact soak time managment as a bycatch survival tool, then we may have to look at some entry into other fishing areas from what they have available to them right now.

As it stands now, the PLL industry is selectively presenting data to support a basis of fact that is not supportable. They cannot actually show a decrease in bycatch and ultimate release mortality with the existing PLL protocol.

With the current state of the "new technology" as stated by the PLL industry, the risk to the juvenile swordfish stock, and other pelagic species is too high to warrant this futile attempt at saving the quota.

[quack quack]

Very interesting data Ron. I think this puts everything in prospective.

[Another Grand]

Thanks Ron

[Ron.38 Special]

I guess some comment on the meeting with Hogarth is expected so here we go.

The meeting was well attended by the invited group. This was not a public meeting called by NMFS, it was a meeting with the Sworfish Club that was set up Arpil 3 with Hogarth in DC. If it was a public meeting, it would have required public notice, etc to comply with Fed regs.

The Swordfish club made sure every rec fishing group was invited including TBF, IGFA, CCA, RFA, Lighthour Point Fishing Club, WPB fishing club, Miami Rod and Reel club, and some general public.

We purposely did not advertise on all the forums, to fill up the room with a bunch of faces, we selected the group for the speakers and input they could give ont his important issue. We did not stop anyone from entering if they made it to the meeting.

You know the points made, they have all been discussed here.

What's my opinion after the meeting, well I certaily don't think the EFP will be approved anything like what it proposed and by the time its made real research, if its allowed, it will be a real research project and not a "lets go fishing boys". But, I really don't think this one will go the way of the PLL's. There is too much opposition from some very important groups, and now our politicians are weighing in on it from Florida, including Senator Martinez, Senator Nelson, Governor Crist, The FWC, and every national environmental and fishing organization.

I also note that the Chairman of the SAFMC was on hand and requested a time extension for the comment period to allow them to weigh in on this one. They apparently don't think this is compatible with the Wahoo Dolphin managment plan.

[catching]

[quote=RiskTaker;50533]

As far as the recent previous posts go, I would be inclined to agree with Vinnie that a big percentage of large fish are slipping by us, but not necessarily undetected, as we seem to catch some big fish at a particular time. Very few anglers fish east of the EEZ in Bahamian waters for swordfish and the old time sailor stories say that there are plenty of fish there, co-mingled with the sharks. The NW channel is a big thoroughfare, still little fishing pressure is applied there, so what do we know? How many people fish deep for swordfish on a regular basis, so how much is to know there? It seems like as much recreational fishing pressure as we seem to apply in the Quad-county area, we do not have a dragnet out. It seems very realistic to me that many large fish, scoot on by. Oh, I forgot to mention the windy days we choose not to fish.

QUOTE]

Sorry RT I beg to differ with you guys on this one, back in the late 60's and 70's my Uncle fished out front and their avg fish was well over 200 pounds when fishing recreationally, the few PLL trips he did the fish were still much larger than the avg caught by today’s recreational angler. Coincidence I think not.

[RiskTaker]

Catching:

You are certainly welcome to differ on a statement like that because it is purely a speculation. But I think you may have differed out of context.

Back in the 60s and 70s who was fishing for swordfish off Florida. There was practically no fishing pressure: of course you would expect the fish to be at their largest size. Then in the 70s the resource starting getting tapped, then in a big way resulting in overfishing. It is only practical to expect that the fish size may be downsized based upon steady and systematic fishing pressure like we see today.

The point that I was trying to concur with Vinnie, was that a lot of the "traveller" swordfish probably pass right on by us, without any fishing interaction. Granted, they are the larger fish, " whatever size that may be" in today's fishery, but certainly larger than the bulk of the fish hanging in the staging grounds. Reports of what the PLL vessels are catching North of Florida would probably validate that statement, if those fish are mostly larger than what we typically catch locally.

I am still anxious to do some night swordfishing on the eastern side of the stream in Bahamian waters, to see how we do. The persistent problem has been that of fishing all day, then not wanting to go fishing again at night. But I have heard Captain Alli say that there are a lot of large travellers that pass on the Bahamas side, especially in April time frame, heading North. Again, the point being that there is a lot of unpatrolled water where the fish can slip by us and we do not even detect it. As far as I know, Bahamians do not fish for them PLL style. I am not even sure if very many recreational/rod&reel Bahamians fish for them.

[catching]

RT you are talking about missing tens of thousands of fish that migrate north and south through the Straits of Florida yearly. If there were that many larger breeding size adults passing through. The rec and bouy fishery should be able to catch more than a few dozen fish over 300 pounds a year. There are probably lots of large residential Swords hanging on the east side of the stream but that is because no one really fishes them, but once those few large fish are caught it will be like it is out front. The travelers should still have an avg weight of at least 150-200 pounds which is just not happening anymore. Remember these fish are traveling why would there be larger on one side of the stream and not the other when back in day before the holocaust we had big fish out front on a very regular basis that were traveling through our waters.

[Ron.38 Special]

When you compare to the 70's, remeber that the biomass was relatively untapped and was at a level of 1.8 times what it is today. It consited of larger fish and more fish which made up the biomass.

Of course today, the claim is that the biomass is at 1.0 more or less.