Saturday Longline Meeting

[Another Grand]

CCA and its partners have been praised and maligned for their efforts. Most of the criticism has been from groups that do not understand the legislation or are looking for solutions that are not attainable. I’d like to address some of those criticisms.“Why are recreational fishermen buying out longliners who destroyed the fishery?” One of the earliest votes taken by CCA on the negotiation was whether we as recreational fishermen were willing to pay for some of the buyout of the longline fleet. The vote was unanimous. CCA has always operated on a principle that we were willing to put our money where our conservation mouth is. We have had any number of instances in which CCA has directly participated in the buy-out of gear and licenses through the contribution of funds by our members or as an organization. As an example here in Louisiana, we supported legislation that placed a surcharge on recreational fishing licenses to provide funds for commercial fishermen impacted by the net ban. In Texas, we made direct contributions to the state to buy-out bay shrimp licenses. CCA looks at resource issues to determine what gains can be made and how those gains will improve recreational fishing. We are not willing to stand back and avoid achieving improvements because someone else is responsible for damage. We are willing to pay because we are getting a benefit.
“There is no conservation benefit.” Approximately 52 percent of the total small swordfish bycatch reported by US pelagic longline fishermen in the US EEZ occurs in the three proposed closed areas. Similarly, approximately 31 percent of the total billfish bycatch reported by US pelagic longline fishermen in the US EEZ occurs in these three areas combined.In addition, these closed areas will reduce the longline catch of other species including mahi mahi. “The vessels have already left the areas being closed.” Prior to entering into the MOU,The Billfish Foundation commissioned a study by Dr. Phil Goodyear to look at the biological effects of time and area closures on the reduction of bycatch in the tuna and swordfish longline fleets. Dr. Goodyear looked at thousands of data sets from longline vessels in the south Atlantic and the Gulf to determine where and when the greatest reductions could be achieved if areas were closed. That data was used to determine which areas should be closed. In addition, in the Gulf the objective was to address the area of the greatest billfish bycatch and the recreational and longline fleet interaction without displacing the longline fleet to new areas of the Gulf or the Caribbean.“There will be displacement of the fleet to the mid-Atlantic bight.” There are two issues here. The first is the impact of the vessels being bought out and the second is the potential for more effort in the mid-Atlantic as a result of the closed areas.
A substantial portion of the negotiation over the MOU was spent discussing how to avoid the displacement of the eligible vessels to any fishery. The provisions in the bill, which restrict the vessels accepting the buyout from participating in any commercial fishery, were a result of those discussions. Vessels will be required to forfeit all of their state and federal fishery
permits. In addition, the vessels will be required to permanently forfeit their fisheries endorsement, which will restrict any subsequent owner from placing the vessel in a commercial fishery. The vessels are also prevented from reflagging. Since these vessels are in limited entry systems this will reduce the number of licenses in the swordfish, tuna, shark and red snapper
fisheries. None of these vessels will ever again carry a longline.
“This won’t help get a rebuilding plan for swordfish.” This bill is not intended as the exclusive measure to achieve a rebuilding plan for swordfish. The bills aim is to reduce the harvest of small swordfish and billfish. However, it will greatly assist in the achievement of an Atlantic-wide recovery that was just negotiated at the recent ICCAT meeting in Rio. ICCAT agreed with the United States that it would adopt a ten-year rebuilding program for swordfish. That agreement came at some substantial cost to the domestic swordfish industry. In addition to taking a quota reduction, the domestic industry agreed to phase down its allowable discard of small swordfish. Without this concession by the industry, no deal approaching a ten-year
rebuilding plan was possible.Taken as a whole, the U.S. industry will take a quota reduction approaching 20% over the next three years, while other fishing fleets from the EU and Japan will take considerably less
of a cut. I believe that the existence and the potential for eventual passage of this legislation gave the industry the support to make this sacrifice.
“Why not let NMFS close areas?” Earlier in my testimony I spoke of red snapper and the need to allow the Councils and not the Congress to manage fisheries. CCA strongly endorses this principle and has conducted its activities to ensure the minimum amount of federal interference in fisheries management. Given that, you might ask why we are supporting a
legislative approach to the address longline bycatch when the National Marine Fisheries Service is in the process of proposing rules that will do just that. The reason is that NMFS does not have the authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to accomplish what can be accomplished
through your bill. As Penny Dalton will tell you, the bill you have introduced goes well beyond what NMFS can accomplish through rulemaking.
NMFS can clearly close areas to longlining, however, in doing so they must take several factors into consideration, including the economic impact on the longline fishery and the biological impact on other fisheries if the closed areas result in the displacement of vessels. They have no authority to buyout displaced vessels and therefore have to adjust the area they
are proposing to mitigate the impact on the industry and other fisheries. This mix of considerations is best described by comparing the NMFS proposal for the Gulf of Mexico presented to the HMS AP in June and the S.1911 Gulf closure. What NMFS proposed was to close an area in the Western Gulf from about Port Eads westward to the Mexican boarder for the months of June, July and August. This will have a significant biological benefit for billfish in
the western Gulf and could have a positive impact on the spawning populations of bluefin tuna. It will, however, displace the entire western Gulf longline fleet to the eastern Gulf during that period. CCA members in Texas will enjoy substantially improved recreational billfishing and will be effectively free of any longline interaction. However, our members in Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama and Florida will get to enjoy an even greater interaction with the longline fleet as they shift their effort to the east. Your bill is designed to prevent the lateral displacement of the fleet in the Gulf and by pushing the longline effort further offshore it creates separation of the two activities and produces a positive conservation effect. On the East Coast this is even more dramatic. Your bill proposes a permanent closure
on the East Coast from Key West to North Carolina. It assumes that there will be a number of vessels displaced as a result and offers to buy them out of all commercial fishing rather than allow them to shift their effort. NMFS can close the same area or even one larger, but when they do, they will simply send the effort elsewhere either to the Gulf or the mid-Atlantic. The
alternative would be to reduce the size of the closure thereby reducing the potential for displacement, but also reducing the conservation benefit. Neither of these two results is going to make recreational fishermen happy.
The answer is absolutely clear to us. If we can get the kind of meaningful conservation that is in your bill then we wanted to part of passing it. Thank you again for your leadership and allowing us to testify.

[Another Grand]

To complement my research I offer this thought for inquisitive minds:

If this was passed in 1999, and ICCAT agreed to give us 10 years to rebuild a fishery..........why would they be expecting us to meet our quota by 2008. In this research, it is evident that both ICCAT and the BWFA association understood the state that our fishery was in. Surely, they would not expect us to reach this quota if we are in a process of rebuilding our fishery.

Soooooooooo......getting back to my original argument for my friends in the Government......if they purchased the permits and vessels from the commercial longliners, then they better be ready to purchase every single one of our 31' cc, 80's, and everything else that we purchased in reliance of a healthy fishery.

This was agreed to be a PERMANENT CLOSURE!!!!

[Tuna Devil]

Nice job on the research Johnny.

When you are a prominent Lawyer, I will be proud to say I knew you when.

[Another Grand]

One more tidbit of information for you guys to explain a prior post so that I am not viewed upon as a hater. I recently posted that I am no longer going to support Lindgren Pittman. Please understand, the people in there have always treated me extremely kindly and very respectful, particulary the two ladies up front. My issue is not with the individuals at the company, solely the principles upon which they act.

They are one of the leading proponents trying to reopen the closed area. These individuals premise their entire argument on the allegation that other countries who have no regard for the fishery or the species will come and fish our waters.....thus we must meer our quota to prevent this.

Ok......if you are so concerned with their conservation and preserving our quota, please explain why your business consists of supplying those same countries their gear? Talk about irony in an argument, give me a f'in break.

I sat at that meeting yesterday thinking you have got to be kidding me. I am to young to say that I experienced the unbelievable swordfishing before the longliners. I am old enough to tell you what it was like growing up with my dad and brothers fishing for pelagics in an ocean filled with highflyers yet devoid of life. Take a second and read the reports on FS or other forums, there have been more huge Dolphin, Marlin, etc caught in that last couple years than the whole time I was growing up. This is why I was amazed when I showed up to that meeting expecting the doors to be bulging out with people, only to find vacant seats. Yes, we were well represented by those that were there, but put it in perspective and it was very saddening.

I digress, I just wanted to explain my prior comments.

[Thumper235]

Another Grand, Thanks for the research. Thats good info most recreational guys like me would never have seen.

[Catch-All]

Originally Posted by Another Grand

This is why I was amazed when I showed up to that meeting expecting the doors to be bulging out with people, only to find vacant seats. Yes, we were well represented by those that were there, but put it in perspective and it was very saddening.

John - fantastic job researching this stuff for us. Thanks. It helps to have a historical perspective on the closed sword zones.

As for the turnout, yes, you would think that there would have been people bulging out of the meeting room doors, standing room only. But as I mentioned in a previous post, it's been my experience that a lot of the people who say online in a fishing forum that they will be at a meeting are full of hot air. There are a lot of armchair fishermen out there who know that there are enough diehard hardcore fishermen like you, me and a lot of others who will
sacrifice our time, money and sweat to do the trenchwork that is required.

Of the fishing acquaintenances I know, I would say that for every 200 fishermen, maybe 2 are members of one or more online fishing forums. And there might be 1 more that lurks on these sites but doesn't contribute anything in terms of advice, opinions, fishing reports, etc. That's only 1.5% of fishermen. (disclaimer - not a scientific study, purely based on estimates, guesswork and opinion ) Yet a lot of the notice for these types of meetings we get are online. If the vast number of fishermen aren't staying knowledgable of fishing-related matters thru the internet then how can they ever know to come to these meetings?

No one is at fault except for the lazy fishermen who are happy to wallow in their ignorance, secure in the knowledge that someone else will look after their interests. Then they express surprise and shock when a new reg comes into play or an area they've fished for years becomes a MPA, or whatever. "Harrumph! Why wasn't I informed? How dare they impose this new MPA without telling me?" My answer to them is "Well, Capt Dumbass, I didn't see YOU at the meeting. Where were you when you had a chance to voice your opinion?"

I beat my head against the wall but every time I see one of my fishin' buds out on the water or at the ramp or at the tackle store, I try to get them to join the online forums like this one and others so that they'll be better informed and won't be caught unawares. Maybe if we all tried to recruit the people we know and get them out of their armchairs and get them involved, we'll all have a better, stronger representation at these meetings.

Mark
Catch-All

[edk]

I was at the meeting. I thought that it was going well and there was a lot of good input from the floor. I thought Dr. Hogarth was listening until his outburst on the reporting issue. I think he was totally out of line on that - sure the recreational reporting has not been 100% but a lot of that has to do with the lack of interest they have shown in supporting recreational reporting. I had a problem 3 years ago when I tried to report a fish and couldn't get an answer on the NMFS reporting #. It turned out that the answering machine on tha # was down - it took me a week to track down Greg Fairclough through other numbers at NMFS to find out what the problem was. Lucky for me that I had the time to do that - the number was down for a couple of weeks with no explanation for the people that were trying to call in fish to be legal. I know of several people that just said "the hell with it" after trying to call in fish in that time. I am happy to hear that they are going to have an online reporting system, but I am really disappointed that it has taken so long, and that it appears that they have not consulted the recreational fisherman as to what the content of the reporting system should be.

This takes you to the post that refers to the downtime in the reporting system.

Do you report your catch? Survey/Discussion

Ed

[Tunachaser]

Nice research work Johnny. Thanks for posting - this type of post helps to make us all a little better informed.
I would like to set up a trip with Me, You, Turtle & Darren soon.

[RiskTaker]

All:

This was an excellent meeting, IMO!

This original post may have been too long and/or opinionated for some readers, so I have revised the content substantially to make it an easy read for those that are epic challenged. The post has been shortened

All of the groups presenting on Saturday did not want the EFP granted to the Bluewater Fisherman's Association.

Dr. Bill Hogarth has the final word on the decision within NMFS: there is no voting, it is all about petitioning, consultation, e-mails and letters.

We must give great credit to NMFS in the first place for establishing these "time and Area closures". It has enabled us to see a rejuvenation in the fish supply.

Thanks for all the speaking and non-speaking members of the fishing community that made their presence known by attending in person. Special thanks to Skip Smith and Ron Coddington for working so hard on these issues and keeping the ball rolling and enabling this special meeting with the key decision maker of NMFS. They expressed themselves very well.

I think that Bouncer Smith summed it up very well. He described this fishery as going from boom to bust. We would like to not repeat the cycle of going bust again. And that may be a fundamental reason not to allow PLL style fishing exemptions.

One thing that Dr. Hogarth stated, that bothers me is: " If we lose our historic percentage of the swordfishing quota and it is allocated elsewhere, to newly emerging Carribbean nations perhaps, we could be lucky if we can catch many fish in the future, Honestly." Can this really happen to us when ICCAT is properly managing the North Atlantic pond? It does not make much sense to kick it up a notch, just to guarantee our place at the table for our pre-existing share of the quota, especially when the price for the fish does not really justify the effort.

Dr. Hogarth mentioned that about 12 % of the domestic fleet had observers on-board with about 100% participation with GOM vessels. ICCAT needs some reforms. An observer effect was recognized when observers are aboard vessels.

We had the opportunity and obligation to see to it that NMFS manages effectively in the public eye. The EFPs for Bluewater did not pass that litmus test. Actually from the tone on the meeting, it seemed to be more about getting into the zone to catch more lucrative fish, like Big eye and Yellowfin tuna, more so than an altruistic reason to catch more of the swordfish quota.

There are still opportunities to measure fishing pressure in scientific ways, and there are a lot of recreational data points that could be sampled if NMFS would consider that a viable Design of Experiment.

[The BEAST]

RT,

"HUH?!?"

[quack quack]

Sorry I was not there I had a trip out of town scheduled for 6 months and had to go.

[NightCrawler]

Originally Posted by The BEAST

RT,

"HUH?!?"

Made perfect sense to me?? After I ran through my un-obfuscator-parser-demangler the remaining 3 sentences were right on the money!!!

One of these days gonna have to introduce myself to you at a PBOA meeting

[snooknreds2]

Originally Posted by The BEAST

RT,

"HUH?!?"

I thought i was the only one that could not make sense of his post, stopped reading them along time ago RT no offense man, i just dont get why you have to turn a sentence into a paragraph and a paragraph into a essay every time


as far as the meeting I am sorry I missed it. I did not wake up in time from swording the night before. Kris thanks for the ride anyways!!

[RiskTaker]

Snooksred:

Sorry, if that post stretched beyond your typical reading span. The FS forum is a great place if you like simple one liners. But there were 12 specific points that were made on that post. If you had made it to the meeting, you could have skipped the entire post. Since you didn't make it, then perhaps you may have been interested to dig into the scope and depth of the meeting. Of which I did try to expose a few, but not all, of the pertinent items that transpired.

You can't please them all. C'est la vie.

[miamiangler1]

[QUOTE=RiskTaker;

Hey RiskTaker ..like your long posts .. gives me something to read when I get home ... like all of the info !

[RiskTaker]

Miamiangler1:

Alrighty then..... perhaps just for your reading pleasure... or anyone else that is truly interested.

Another epic adventure: For others, it may be a confusing chore to deal with all my keystrokes . C'est la vie. Huh ??? What did he say?

Hopefully, a few more tid bits of timely and accurate info. revealed and I hope a little bit better composed, so as not to get some, all confused in Mumbo-Jumbo.

My Report from DC

But you were there, so you can correct me if I made any material mis-statements, or expound on additional details, as needed.

I am starting to get Island fever: I need to take a tall glass of rum and two ice cubes. Ciao. How long, to the point of Know return?

[P33JP3]

Originally Posted by RiskTaker

How long, to the point of Know return?

about 1/2 bottle of rum!!