Governor Crist makes statement...

[NightCrawler]

For Immediate Release: Contact: Ted Forsgren
May 14, 2007 1-850-224-3474

Here is a link to the letter:
http://www.ccaflorida.org/press_rele...rToHogarth.PDF

GOVERNOR CRIST ADDS STRONG OBJECTION TO SWORDFISH LONGLINERS’ ATTEMPT TO ENTER EAST COAST PROTECTED AREAS

Florida Governor Charlie Crist has added his strong objections to those of other marine conservationists, in requesting that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) deny an attempt by the 13 longline boats to conduct “research” in the areas closed to swordfish longlining off of Florida’s East coast and the Gulf of Mexico. In a letter to Dr. William Hogarth, Director (NMFS), Governor Crist states that “I, therefore, respectfully ask that you deny this permit request and uphold existing policies that help swordfish and other migratory species continue to flourish.”

“As a State Senator, Attorney General and now as Governor, Charlie Crist has been a strong supporter of marine fisheries conservation efforts,” said Ted Forsgren, CCA Florida Executive Director. “It is great to have our Governor jump in on these major issues.”

The Gulf Stream off of Florida’s East coast and the DeSoto Canyon area off of the Florida Panhandle have been closed to commercial swordfish longlining since 2000. The longlining ban has resulted in a dramatic recovery and increased abundance of sailfish, swordfish, dolphin and wahoo in these areas. Allowing 13 large, commercial longline boats into these protected areas under the guise of “research” and “fisheries data collection” is unwarranted, unnecessary, and bad public policy.

“The commercial longliners and the National Marine Fisheries Service have virtually the entire Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico to conduct the so called by-catch research,” said Forsgren. “They absolutely do not need to longline in the closed areas.”

This is not the first attempt by the longline industry to get back into the protected longline closure areas. Their previous attempt in 2005 was met with huge objections from the public angling community and conservation groups. That proposal was rejected.

The public comment period has been extended again to June 20. Additional comments can still be sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service.


SEND YOUR OBJECTIONS TO:

Michael Clark
Highly Migratory Species Management Division (F/SFI)
Office of Sustainable Fisheries
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910

E-MAIL ADDRESS – SF1.030107C@NOAA.GOV
(Include this ID in email subject line: I.D.030107C)

[quack quack]

Why do they keep extending the deadline?Hundreds if not thousands of emails and letters.All the fishing clubs like TBF,CCA,RFA etc oppose this as well as elected officials congressmen etc and now the Governor oppose this.So why extend the deadline again every one but the president has said no permits.Maybe the next letters should go to the Pres he is a fisherman

[NightCrawler]

eric could you read the letter? I fixed the link...should be good now

[quack quack]

yeah it was great thanks Steph

[catching]

E-Mail
Please send your comments to comments@whitehouse.gov. Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message.

Vice President Richard Cheney: vice_president@whitehouse.gov

Should we see if we can get some recognition at the White House on this subject?

[Gaitor]

Perhaps we should send SAFMC and NMFS a Morse Code message with a ball-peen hammer on top of their thick skulls. You would think that reasonably intelligent people (with credentials) would have gotten the message by now.

[Broadbill-Pro]

Originally Posted by Gaitor

Perhaps we should send SAFMC and NMFS a Morse Code message with a ball-peen hammer on top of their thick skulls. You would think that reasonably intelligent people (with credentials) would have gotten the message by now.

Do you believe that the message from the recreational sector is the only one that exists? Again, these are not your fish or my fish, the resource belongs to the entire American public when in our EEZ, including the commercial sector.

Every article written fails to mention that the proposed area for the EFP's is a small portion of the FEC closed area far from recreational usage, the public is being mislead to believe that we will return to the days of the wild west when PLL were allowed in all areas. I oppose the EFP's being labled experimental, there is no need to disguise the fact that the stock has recovered and PLL operate within current regulations that reduce incidental bycatch to the (lowest extent practical) is accordance with the MSA.

Better yet, let it go to court and lose the entire closed area to an impartial Judge. You really are being mislead by the recreational leaders to think that this can go away, learn to compromise and make a deal before you lose way more than you bargained for. A lawsuit will not be limited to the small area that is being requested now. Believe me when I tell you that the funding and Lawyers are lined up. I do not want to fish between LL vessels off Broward again, no scare tactic, just reality.

[just2fish]

when the gov, makes a statement like that i has to send a message to the pll's and there assoc. exactly who and what there up against to get back in. even in the smallest of zones.

[RiskTaker]

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Do you believe that the message from the recreational sector is the only one that exists? Again, these are not your fish or my fish, the resource belongs to the entire American public when in our EEZ, including the commercial sector.

Every article written fails to mention that the proposed area for the EFP's is a small portion of the FEC closed area far from recreational usage, the public is being mislead to believe that we will return to the days of the wild west when PLL were allowed in all areas. I oppose the EFP's being labled experimental, there is no need to disguise the fact that the stock has recovered and PLL operate within current regulations that reduce incidental bycatch to the (lowest extent practical) is accordance with the MSA.

Better yet, let it go to court and lose the entire closed area to an impartial Judge. You really are being mislead by the recreational leaders to think that this can go away, learn to compromise and make a deal before you lose way more than you bargained for. A lawsuit will not be limited to the small area that is being requested now. Believe me when I tell you that the funding and Lawyers are lined up. I do not want to fish between LL vessels off Broward again, no scare tactic, just reality.

I view this issue a little bit differently. I agree it is totally about a public resource, belonging to "we the people" and not just select individuals/fictitious entitiies and it is not just about an experiment. It is about commercially fishing with longline gear, where data of experiments would also be a requirement to do the fishing. I would kind of view this situation to be similarly comparable to the public's right to keep and bear arms as well as being able to hunt on public lands. I see the NMFS as the Federal authority that manages the public domain usage. In a similar way, the public is managed within specified limits to fish in this domain; fictitious entities, a/k/a corporations and other such busness entities, may not be permitted to use the resource by similar or other specified methods. (Perhaps, described in a somewhat humorous way, by not allowing hunters to go out hunting with chemical weapons, dynamite and machine guns, yet they are still allowed to hunt the management area with firearms, bows, clubs and knives.)

I view the current NMFS management plan in similar context: we are still allowed to fish in the managed zones, but the technique is regulated to not allow longline fishing methods in these specific management zones. Commercial fishing is still allowed with specified methods.

I do not see any practical way that such a challenging lawsuit (to challenge to allow PLL style fishing in a section of a mangement area) could possibly stand-up in a civil court of law, with reasonable minds at the helm.

The only possible angle could be against the management technique. And even if that concept were to lose by court decision, that would clearly invalidate reasonable attempts at conservation measures, which simply could not fly. NMFS clearly has that Federal authority to measure and meter this fishery with aquaculture in mind and a clear directive to preserve a sustainable fishery, as far as the United States is concerned.

Tell me something new, or some trick loophole that I am missing, that could make me run scared, should a Commercial lawsuit be filed against the Federal government. Otherwise, lawsuits happen. It just seems like throwing good money after bad.

The general public has equal access to fish in this zone.
There are basic regulations in place for the fishery.
Certain types of fishing is prohibited: Chemical, Dynamite, depth charges, machine guns and Pelagic Longlines.

How could anything be overturned? I would like to know that.

And I agree too that I do not want to be fishing co-mingled in Longline gear where the general public fishes most often, like within 20 miles offshore in the FEC counties. But I would say that paying good money to good lawyers is throwing good resources at an issue that does not appear to have a solid leg to stand on.

I am all ears to hear otherwise.

[rollin]

"You really are being mislead by the recreational leaders to think that this can go away, learn to compromise and make a deal before you lose way more than you bargained for."

NOPE - no compromise - no PLL gear in the closed zones, at all, ever - that is the message - its simple, loud, clear - unyielding.

we should see if maybe Gov. Crist could help us get these zones closed to PLL gear PERMANENTLY!

R

[mneptune]

As a ex-federal marine enforcement officer I can tell you first hand the carnage that commercial fishing fleets have inflicted upon the resources that belong to all of us. The incidental bycatch kills and other environmental damage they inflict has decimated fisheries in nearly all coastal states and means nothing to them if there is a dollar in it. They will rape a resource in one area and than move on to the next.

I applaud the Governors statement directed at the NMFS to deny the longlining proposal, (nice to see the "good old boy" politics of past era's coming to an end).

I have personally witnessed the decimation of fisheries in the Southeast coastal waters from commercial greed. I would never deny anyone the right to make a living, but in order to sustain our marine resources we all must make a stand and do what is right or there will be nothing left in the end. If you give the commercial industry an inch they will make a move to take a mile.

JUST SAY NO to commercial longlining, gill netting, and drag netting in Florida coastal waters!!!!!!

[rollin]

"I view this issue a little bit differently. I agree it is totally about a public resource, belonging to "we the people" and not just select individuals/fictitious entitiies and it is not just about an experiment. It is about commercially fishing with longline gear, where data of experiments would also be a requirement to do the fishing. I would kind of view this situation to be similarly comparable to the public's right to keep and bear arms as well as being able to hunt on public lands."

once again, RT has found the head to the nail.

no recreational fishing pressure has ever decimated a fish species.

they are ALL of our resources. not just a chosen few.

R

[Broadbill-Pro]

Mike,

PLL is hardly dynamite or a depth charge. You seem to have lost track of the bigger picture, to retain the ICCAT quota for the ultimate good of the species. This is where NMFS is feeling the pressure. Again keep in mind that the 14,000mt quota will be caught in the North Atlantic by longline vessels, that can be done by an American commercial fisherman with strict bycatch regulations or a Mexican longliner with no bycatch regulations who will be sending his swordfish to US markets and using the marlin and turtles for burritos, thus supplying cheap protein to their citizens. Nothing gets released on foreign vessels. I spent the last 10 years of my career fishing in S. America and Africa, it was a daily battle to keep the crew from killing seabirds that they dried on the rails and fed to their families.

Your statement that the public has equal access to this zone is untrue, the recreational public has an overwhelming majority of the FEC zone and only utilizes probably less than 10% of that area. As you have stated there are guidelines established in regard to fishing, PLL is not outlawed in our society and never will be, in the right hands it is not the indiscriminant killer that the ignorant believe. Had this type of fishing been labled is the catagory you describe, the remaining 90% of the US EEZ would be off limits to PLL as well.

So now that we have established that PLL is an acceptable form of harvesting seafood for the public, lets look at why there are closed areas. 1. The swordfish stock was believed to be depressed (issue resolved). 2. PLL using J hooks had an unacceptable amount of bycatch mortality (issue resolved). 3. Gear conflict with local recreational vessels (issue resolved). If you don't believe that an impartial Federal Judge can not make a decision based on those facts, then you should read it again.

mneptune,

With all due respect, it is a good thing that you are an EX-marine enforcement officer. Any officer of the public that uses words such as carnage, decimated, rape and greed is not the type of person that should be responsible for regulating a traffic zone, no less a fishery that provides the financial support for thousands of families. A badge and a closed mind is a terrible combination.

[rollin]

"Your statement that the public has equal access to this zone is untrue, the recreational public has an overwhelming majority of the FEC zone and only utilizes probably less than 10% of that area."

sorry if im sounding ignorant again, but isnt commercial fishing allowed in the FEC, just not using PLL gear?

"As you have stated there are guidelines established in regard to fishing, PLL is not outlawed in our society and never will be, in the right hands it is not the indiscriminant killer that the ignorant believe."

sorry again, BBO, but wasnt the PLL gear outlawed in the FEC? and wasnt it because of all of the negative aspects such as bycatch? and wasnt PLL gear responsible for the decimation the sword population here? and isnt the ban responsible for the return of good populations of other species that we've been seeing lately such as tunas, marlin, sails, wahoo, etc.?

"The swordfish stock was believed to be depressed (issue resolved)."

says who? i thought that they said that the biomass is still way below historic levels and would benefit from further protection? isnt "sustainable level" just another way of saying, "yeah, its still way down, but we can fish it without actually driving the species into extinction completely?"

"PLL using J hooks had an unacceptable amount of bycatch mortality (issue resolved)."

what is an acceptable level of bycatch mortality to you BBP?

"Gear conflict with local recreational vessels (issue resolved)."

i think its resolved right now because they're no more PLL gear out front where we fish. wouldnt the return of the PLL gear to the zone mean that they could fish wherever they want? what if they dont catch enough fish out east - couldnt they set up out front?

"If you don't believe that an impartial Federal Judge can not make a decision based on those facts, then you should read it again."

i'm not a federal anything, but i doubt most of those "facts" and i'm just using common sense. a good lawyer could probably argue this to death for years. probably tie it up in court for a decade or so, racking up huge attorney's fees while not getting anything really done. hmmm. at least the fish would have a repreive.

R

[mneptune]

Broadbill-Pro,

You know, your right, I could have chosen my words more carefully but I still stand by my comments. I have nothing against commercial fishing, as I said everyone has a right to make a living. Alot of the commercial captains I dealt with were good solid people just making a living for themselves and their families.

However, there is also a contingent that use methods that kill non-targeted species or take fish that have not reached the maturity level to reproduce and replenish the population. I have seen this time and again with my own two eyes. The marine enviornment is extensive but it is also fragile. Bycatch kills and the taking of targeted species with little to no regard for the ability of a population to sustain itself is simply not logical. The formula is quite simple.... if you take more fish than their ability to reproduce = a declining or collapsed fishery. We must be concerned about the health of our oceans and its vast resources first and foremost.

My point is this.... It is up to ALL of us, whether you are a recreational or commercial angler, to be good stewards of the environment and the all the species that live in it. It is all our responsibility to protect this resource and to ensure that strict harvesting limits are maintained. The consequences of not taking care of this resource is simply unacceptable.

In closing, we are all very fortunate that we have a forum like this to exchange our view points and discuss what is most important... our resources and how to use them wisely.

[Broadbill-Pro]

sorry if im sounding ignorant again, but isnt commercial fishing allowed in the FEC, just not using PLL gear?

are you disbuting that the recreational sector has more access to the FEC?


sorry again, BBO, but wasnt the PLL gear outlawed in the FEC? and wasnt it because of all of the negative aspects such as bycatch? and wasnt PLL gear responsible for the decimation the sword population here? and isnt the ban responsible for the return of good populations of other species that we've been seeing lately such as tunas, marlin, sails, wahoo, etc.?


Yes it's banned on the FEC, not banned in other areas of the US EEZ that have as much or more bycatch.

PLL gear was responsible for damaging the swordfish stock, just not PLL gear operating on the FEC, the damage happened to the spawning stock in the Caribbean Sea. Read past posts..

More tunas? where? marlin? where? wahoo? where? The current level of these species is comparable with historic levels. Sailfish, kingfish and most near coastal species have certainly rebounded in our area mostly due to the net ban and the abundance of bait that migrates our shores once again.



says who? i thought that they said that the biomass is still way below historic levels and would benefit from further protection? isnt "sustainable level" just another way of saying, "yeah, its still way down, but we can fish it without actually driving the species into extinction completely?"

I recreationally fished swordfish in the 70's prior to the PLL influence on the FEC, my family ran charters to catch them as well. At no time was the fishing as good as in the past few years. Biomass reflects size of fish as well as amount, with recs killing under 60'' fish I doubt the average size will ever recover. MSY reflects that the species is repopulating faster than being harvested, this leaves room for expanded pressure without harming the stock.


what is an acceptable level of bycatch mortality to you BBP?

To put a number on it would be difficult, NMFS will make comparisions from past data using J hooks to determine what is acceptable. Yesterday I broke off a sailfish at the boat with a kingfish treble hook stinger wrapped around it's bill, later in the day a seabird dove into a kite bait and became throat hooked. I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but if those two mortalites can happen to me, then I would say it is wide spread in the recreational fleet. BTW, yesterdays bycatch mortality was unacceptable, but I'm allowed to do it again today.



i think its resolved right now because they're no more PLL gear out front where we fish. wouldnt the return of the PLL gear to the zone mean that they could fish wherever they want? what if they dont catch enough fish out east - couldnt they set up out front?

NO, the proposed EFP's are for North of 28'N, the commercial sector is willing to write off operating in the highly used recreational areas from Marathon to Fort Pierce forever.



i'm not a federal anything, but i doubt most of those "facts" and i'm just using common sense. a good lawyer could probably argue this to death for years. probably tie it up in court for a decade or so, racking up huge attorney's fees while not getting anything really done. hmmm. at least the fish would have a repreive.

Doubt what you will, I write from experience. I recently sat thru HMS meetings in Washington. When the issue of circle hook regs in billfish tournaments was discussed, the entire Advisory Panel agreed that given the fact that White Marlin are being considered as an Endangered Species, that anyone who could afford to enter a tournament had the ability to adapt to this hook type and that Dr. Jonh Graves the leading Scientist in this field presented numbers that indicates 300 to 400 additional White Marlin will die by extending the J hook ban, NMFS HMS still relaxed the regulation until next year. I suppose what I am trying to say is that you are correct to assume that what makes sense is not always what becomes policy.

R [/quote]

[Broadbill-Pro]

Originally Posted by mneptune

Broadbill-Pro,

You know, your right, I could have chosen my words more carefully but I still stand by my comments. I have nothing against commercial fishing, as I said everyone has a right to make a living. Alot of the commercial captains I dealt with were good solid people just making a living for themselves and their families.

However, there is also a contingent that use methods that kill non-targeted species or take fish that have not reached the maturity level to reproduce and replenish the population. I have seen this time and again with my own two eyes. The marine enviornment is extensive but it is also fragile. Bycatch kills and the taking of targeted species with little to no regard for the ability of a population to sustain itself is simply not logical. The formula is quite simple.... if you take more fish than their ability to reproduce = a declining or collapsed fishery. We must be concerned about the health of our oceans and its vast resources first and foremost.

My point is this.... It is up to ALL of us, whether you are a recreational or commercial angler, to be good stewards of the environment and the all the species that live in it. It is all our responsibility to protect this resource and to ensure that strict harvesting limits are maintained. The consequences of not taking care of this resource is simply unacceptable.

In closing, we are all very fortunate that we have a forum like this to exchange our view points and discuss what is most important... our resources and how to use them wisely.

Well Said

[rollin]

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

sorry if im sounding ignorant again, but isnt commercial fishing allowed in the FEC, just not using PLL gear?

are you disbuting that the recreational sector has more access to the FEC?

in shear numbers of fishermen? no. there is more access to rec. fishermen simply because of there are more of us. How many tons of swords are caught by rec. fishermen in the EEZ compared to the comm. take? (not trying to be confrontational, i just really dont know the answer and would like to).

sorry again, BBO, but wasnt the PLL gear outlawed in the FEC? and wasnt it because of all of the negative aspects such as bycatch? and wasnt PLL gear responsible for the decimation the sword population here? and isnt the ban responsible for the return of good populations of other species that we've been seeing lately such as tunas, marlin, sails, wahoo, etc.?


Yes it's banned on the FEC, not banned in other areas of the US EEZ that have as much or more b