What are your ideas to keep our quota

[quack quack]

Now that NMFS is coming up to a deadline on how to show ICCAT that we are going to try and catch our full quota.What are your ideas on how to achieve this.

Last year they came to town asking this same question at the meeting in Broward.A bunch of people got up and spoke about protecting this fishery but not one single person had a suggestion.I was the last person to get up and speak.I introduced myself and asked if any one had a plan to help the quota.Bouncer is the only one to say anything and he suggested the recs get amnesty for not reporting and if we could report fish we had not called in.They said they could not do that.But that was the only suggestion made.

So then the LLers requested to open the closed areas to 13 or so boats.They were to general in there application and more or less tried to force it on us.We rallied together sent letters and emails and we all helped to defeat there proposal to come in.

Now ICCAT has seen the application by BW defeated and is asking how do we plan on trying to catch our un used quota.So now NMFS is ready to take what ever steps are necessary to show ICCAT we will be or are trying to catch our quota.The other ICCAT members are already to take 1000MT of our quota away so they can sell it back to us.

We can not be mad at NMFS because they came down and asked us how to go about catching more of the quota!!!!!!!!We are in the same place as last year.Only this time the deadline is almost here and time is running out..

So there will be no bashing of ideas on this thread..Any debates or bashing can be moved to another thread or discussed under a diff thread.Any one that bash's an idea will be removed from the thread.Please discuss or debate any idea on this thread in Pm's or another thread.

Please post up your ideas on helping us to achieve this goal of saving the quota.

[Bait Washer]

Great start
My little bit of heaven is confined to EC and SE Fl. and am not as well versed
as I would like on other areas but, here goes.
Give the commercial sector the tools they need to be able to harvest swordfish profitably where they are not in direct conflict with another sector of the fishery. Larger boats, more hp I don't know.
There are enough with commercial back rounds who should know how to do
it.
I still like the idea of an agreement with Canada to harvest our unused quota.

[Another Grand]

Beautiful thread Eric! I will post when I get a chance, but these are just some suggestion from a friend of mine, when asked what his opinion was.....not necessarily approaching the immediate problem, but suggestions none the less.

From friend

"Let's take your argument that the US should withdraw from ICCAT. Do i wish we could too? Yes, and I would venture to bet on a referendum vote, the majority of Americans would vote to remove us from ICCAT, NAFTA, Kyoto, UN, and all sorts of other international trade agreements/associations where the US gets the short end of the stick.

Do I think its feasible? Probably not, unless you had some politicians with some real strong nerve, which are hard to find on issues like this, because the average bear doesn't even know what ICCAT is. So, if I were debating/lobbying i wouldn;t use this argument at this point of time because the lieklihood of sucess is so small. I might say something like this to plant a seed for the future if the landscape happens to change, but i would not focus on it.

Same goes for capping the buoy permits in the area. I might benefit if NMFS capped buoys as access would be capped, and I am already "in". But I would not vote for that in the end becuase I am for free markets (unless the business is wasteful or destructive) and I think placing barriers to entry could have unintended consequences. For example, i think this would force a Vessel Monitoring systems on buoy boats, another $3000 plus hassle when it breaks, etc.

The other bouy fisherman may be for this, but they might not have thought about how NMFS might have to go about enforcing this rule and what efftect the rule could have on the value or transferability of his permit.

I would be more supportive of an income qualification, but in the end I think thats on of those things that in the end won't have much effect. Most charter capatins have the income requirement, so it really only keeps a small handfull of folks from participating,
In the end you have to be careful when you call on the government to act. Very rarely do they act in a way that does nothing but benefit you. Ususally the benefit comes with a string attached that they wrap around your neck.

If I were to go to the government there are some things i would ask for.

1. An online forum where citizens could ask the governement questions in areas of deiscrepency and receive a public, binding opinion.

2. A tagging system like the one on BFT so that all fish legally bought have a tag.

3. A tarrif on swordfsh imports so that they was some import/export neutrality. Right now we are running a serious deficit, which has become pretty common for the ole US of A.

4. Lift of size and tonnage upgrades restrictions on directed permits so that we have all the tools necessary to compete in the world market for pelagics (long range freezer ships).

5. Increased education of local enforcement officers on the technicalities of buoy fishing. I had a game and fish officer accuse me of longlining at the dock because I had a spool of leaders. USCG Miami/Fort Lauderdale does not have a clue about this gear type. I asked the officer if he had been trained on this and his response was not yet.

6. Increased enforcement on the swordgrounds and at the dock. One of the things they could do is write a report on the fish harvested so that NMFS could have another check and balance on the fish reporting. I know this might effect me in a bad way. No one likes the stress of dealing with the cops. Generally though if its the same cop they will remember you and give you a break next time if you were compliant the first time. But i do think it would end the bs on the radio, at least make people think twice about handing off fish, and bring some order to what is a chaotic situation at times."

[DIRTYFOOT2]

Send the PLL fleet to the Grand Banks to fill the quota......

AG - Buisness is by nature as wasteful and destructive as they can profitably get away with. Corporate structure mandates it. Govt responsibility is to regulate free trade to to protect the common good. Determining what is the common good should not be determined by profitability, rather sustainability.

[Fishalways]

Originally Posted by Another Grand

"Let's take your argument that the US should withdraw from ICCAT. Do i wish we could too? Yes, and I would venture to bet on a referendum vote, the majority of Americans would vote to remove us from ICCAT, NAFTA, Kyoto, UN, and all sorts of other international trade agreements/associations where the US gets the short end of the stick.

3. A tarrif on swordfsh imports so that they was some import/export neutrality. Right now we are running a serious deficit, which has become pretty common for the ole US of A.

These two are the main ones I can support.
As I see it, unless we do somthing to change the nature of the market to make the US commercials able to compete with the foreign commercials, nothing is going to change since no one will fish a market only to loose money. No matter how much they want to keep the quota.

Everything I have been reading and hearing is that no one can make money on swordfish selling at $3.00 a pound. Is this correct? If we flood the market who do you think will stop fishing for swords? The US com's or the foreign com's?

[swordgirl]

Originally Posted by DIRTYFOOT2

Send the PLL fleet to the Grand Banks to fill the quota......

can the PLLs fish the grand banks in the winter? I would think that is a summer/fall thing after watching the perfect storm.

[DIRTYFOOT2]

Originally Posted by swordgirl

can the PLLs fish the grand banks in the winter? I would think that is a summer/fall thing after watching the perfect storm.

The real reason it won't be done is economic not meteorological. If swordies were a higher priced commodity, bet your ass they'd figure a way to fish em in any kind of weather....deadliest catch style.Check out another movie called " the corporation ". It will also give you some ideas about longlining.

[Another Grand]

Eric or Vinnie, from what I understand it is not possible to have a "tarrif" on fish imports. What is possible, and has been suggested to NMFS before, is that the US can ban sales from countries who do not follow conservation practices. Am I correct?

I believe this is the appropriate section that references this ability:

(a) DETERMINATIONS BY SECRETARY OF STATE.-- If the Secretary of State determines that--

(1) he has been unable, within a reasonable period of time, to conclude with any foreign nation an international fishery agreement allowing fishing vessels of the United States equitable access to fisheries over which that nation asserts exclusive fishery management authority, including fisheries for tuna species, as recognized by the United States, in accordance with fishing activities of such vessels, if any, and under terms not more restrictive than those established under sections 201(c) and (d) and 204(b)(7) and (10), because such nation has (A) refused to commence negotiations, or (B) failed to negotiate in good faith;


(2) any foreign nation is not allowing fishing vessels of the United States to engage in fishing for tuna species in accordance with an applicable international fishery agreement, whether or not such nation is a party thereto;


(3) any foreign nation is not complying with its obligations under any existing international fishery agreement concerning fishing by fishing vessels of the United States in any fishery over which that nation asserts exclusive fishery management authority; or


(4) any fishing vessel of the United States, while fishing in waters beyond any foreign nation's territorial sea, to the extent that such sea is recognized by the United States, is seized by any foreign nation--

(A) in violation of an applicable international fishery agreement;

(B) without authorization under an agreement between the United States and such nation; or

(C) as a consequence of a claim of jurisdiction which is not recognized by the United States;

he shall certify such determination to the Secretary of the Treasury.


(b) PROHIBITIONS.--Upon receipt of any certification from the Secretary of State under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately take such action as may be necessary and appropriate to prohibit the importation into the United States--

(1) of all fish and fish products from the fishery involved, if any; and

(2) upon recommendation of the Secretary of State, such other fish or fish products, from any fishery of the foreign nation concerned, which the Secretary of State finds to be appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section.


(c) REMOVAL OF PROHIBITION.--If the Secretary of State finds that the reasons for the imposition of any import prohibition under this section no longer prevail, the Secretary of State shall notify the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall promptly remove such import prohibition.


(d) DEFINITIONS.--As used in this section--

(1) The term "fish" includes any highly migratory species.

(2) The term "fish products" means any article which is produced from or composed of (in whole or in part) any fish

[quack quack]

I broke my own rule

[quack quack]

ggggggggggggggggggggggg

[Another Grand]

As cites from Magnusun Stevens Act.....I imply this gives us the power to come to the aid of our longline fleet to better equip them with bigger, better, gear so that we can compete. I imply it also provides us the ability to "challenge" ICCAT for not having "comparable fishery management measures with the United States. I bolded and underline some other of my suggestions.

104-297

(g) ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES.--


(1) PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN OR PLAN AMENDMENT.--The Secretary shall prepare a fishery management plan or plan amendment under subsection (c) with respect to any highly migratory species fishery to which section 302(a)(3) applies. In preparing and implementing any such plan or amendment, the Secretary shall--

(A) consult with and consider the comments and views of affected Councils, commissioners and advisory groups appointed under Acts implementing relevant international fishery agreements pertaining to highly migratory species, and the advisory panel established under section 302(g);

(B) establish an advisory panel under section 302(g) for each fishery management plan to be prepared under this paragraph;

(C) evaluate the likely effects, if any, of conservation and management measures on participants in the affected fisheries and minimize, to the extent practicable, any disadvantage to United States fishermen in relation to foreign competitors

(D) with respect to a highly migratory species for which the United States is authorized to harvest an allocation, quota, or at a fishing mortality level under a relevant international fishery agreement, provide fishing vessels of the United States with a reasonable opportunity to harvest such allocation, quota, or at such fishing mortality level;

(E) review, on a continuing basis (and promptly whenever a recommendation pertaining to fishing for highly migratory species has been made under a relevant international fishery agreement), and revise as appropriate, the conservation and management measures included in the plan;

(F) diligently pursue, through international entities (such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), comparable international fishery management measures with respect to fishing for highly migratory species; and

(G) ensure that conservation and management measures under this subsection--

(i) promote international conservation of the affected fishery;

(ii) take into consideration traditional fishing patterns of fishing vessels of the United States and the operating requirements of the fisheries;

(iii) are fair and equitable in allocating fishing privileges among United States fishermen and do not have economic allocation as the sole purpose; and

(iv) promote, to the extent practicable, implementation of scientific research programs that include the tagging and release of Atlantic highly migratory species.


104-297

(h) REPEAL OR REVOCATION OF A FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN.--The Secretary may repeal or revoke a fishery management plan for a fishery under the authority of a Council only if the Council approves the repeal or revocation by a three-quarters majority of the voting members of the Council.

COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR ATLANTIC PELAGIC LONGLINE FISHERY.--(1) The Secretary of Commerce shall--

(A) establish an advisory panel under section 302(g)(4) of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by this Act, for pelagic longline fishing vessels that participate in fisheries for Atlantic highly migratory species;

(B) conduct surveys and workshops with affected fishery participants to provide information and identify options for future management programs;

[quack quack]

Johnny the best person to dicuss these ideas with is Ellen ot TBF.Call TBF and ASK for her at ext 108 I think.

[Another Grand]

Yeah maybe I will give her a call.

Or I could just go ask Condi

[Another Grand]

Here is a study/paper to explain profit as the driving factor of longline fishing

http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/docu...es_fishery.pdf

Here is the revise Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act set into effect in January.

"President George W. Bush, through his Ocean Action Plan, made reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act a top priority. The President called for a hard deadline to end overfishing, increased use of market-based management tools, creation of a national saltwater angler registry, and an emphasis on ecosystem approaches to management."

In particular read the Foriegn Trade section and the multiple references to our(US) ability to challenge international treaties and organizations

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2005/doc...0112_FINAL.pdf

Here is the aforementioned Ocean Action Plan the president set forth.

CEQ: Committee on Ocean Policy

[Another Grand]

Here is the environmental assessment release Oct. 5th

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Swo...h%20Season.pdf

Here is the new compliance guide

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Swo...h%20Season.pdf

Here is information concerning the quota reccomendations
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/new...ce10-05-07.pdf

Here is the landings update
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/swo...031%202007.pdf

[Another Grand]

There are numerous ideas other than what has been suggested. The proposed idea, which I am still saying is not a bad idea, is rewarding our long line boats for not caring about the fishery. If they cared, they would target the swordfish, realizing what they have on the plate to lose. Instead, they let it go until the point where they knew something like this would be the result and they would be allowed back in to areas that we have determined are vital. This is not the only option. All I have scene on here is FUD, there has been no numbers posted. The area has past and present catch data, lets see some numbers to make sure that if this is the route we are going to take that we will reach the quota. None of the three reasons you stated, approached the direct issue, that being we need to reach the quota

As of now, I see several different solutions. One of which is to have the government supplement the price of Swordfish so that it is equal to or greater than the price of Tuna for the next year. We have the ability to catch swordfish with the boats we have in the areas they are allowed to fish. They are just not fishing for them, because the Tuna earns a higher return. For the next year, we should supplement the price, so that there is just as much incentive to fish Tuna as swordfish.

If the plan is to let the longliners in areas that have already been closed, then lets let them in the whole length of the seaboard until the quota is met. The fishery is going to close regardless when the quota is reached, and if it isnt us that is killing them somebody else will be. They are not going to destroy the fishery in a year because they will not be taking any more fish than what has been allocated to be removed from our ocean.

We need to get the quota up so we dont get screwed, and in the meantime have a whole other approach directed at long term solutions, working full time the next year to achieve these solutions. Including putting our fleet on a level where they are able to compete. Bigger boats, better boats = more fish. The above reference material grants the power to the government to aid our boats so that we are able to compete.

We are not going to be able to implement tariffs, I have done a great deal of research on this. However, we can take measures to force countries to hold up to our standards of "environmentally friendly" fishing. Trade Doctrines prevent us from stopping them from importing but we can take measures similar to what was taken with canned tuna, where the can must say if it is caught with Dolphin safe gear.

Lets stop with the FUD, and put some science, numbers and law into this.

We also do have the power to challenge ICATT's suggestions, this power was granted in the above referenced documents. We are the United States, we dont need to be threatened by any international organization.

I would like to take a stance in ICATT regardless of our situation and hold every country in ICATT accountable for environmentally friendly gear, to a par level with that set forth by United States.

It is time to stand up and make changes This is a political year, lets make this a political issue. The recreational fisherman and commercial fisherman combined have great political power and resources, not to be underestimated.

[Broadbill-Pro]

109-479
SEC. 610.14 EQUIVALENT CONSERVATION MEASURES. 16 USC 1826k.
(a) IDENTIFICATION.—The Secretary shall identify, and list in the report under section
607, a nation if—


(1) fishing vessels of that nation are engaged, or have been engaged during the
preceding calendar year in fishing activities or practices;

(A) in waters beyond any national jurisdiction that result in bycatch of a protected
living marine resource; or

(B) beyond the exclusive economic zone of the United States that result in bycatch
of a protected living marine resource shared by the United States;

(2) the relevant international organization for the conservation and protection of such
resources or the relevant international or regional fishery organization has failed to
implement effective measures to end or reduce such bycatch, or the nation is not a party to,
or does not maintain cooperating status with, such organization; and

(3) the nation has not adopted a regulatory program governing such fishing practices
designed to end or reduce such bycatch that is comparable to that of the United States,taking into account different conditions.

(b) CONSULTATION AND NEGOTIATION.—The Secretary, acting through the
Secretary of State, shall—

(1) notify, as soon as possible, other nations whose vessels engage in fishing activities
or practices described in subsection (a), about the provisions of this section and this Act;

(2) initiate discussions as soon as possible with all foreign governments which are
engaged in, or which have persons or companies engaged in, fishing activities or practices
described in subsection (a), for the purpose of entering into bilateral and multilateral treaties
with such countries to protect such species;

(3) seek agreements calling for international restrictions on fishing activities or
practices described in subsection (a) through the United Nations, the Food and Agriculture
Organization’s Committee on Fisheries, and appropriate international fishery managementbodies; and

(4) initiate the amendment of any existing international treaty for the protection and
conservation of such species to which the United States is a party in order to make such
treaty consistent with the purposes and policies of this section.(c)


CONSERVATION CERTIFICATION PROCEDURE.—

(1) DETERMINATION.—The Secretary shall establish a procedure consistent with the
provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, for determining
whether the government of a harvesting nation identified under subsection

(a) and listed in
the report under section 607—

(A) has provided documentary evidence of the adoption of a regulatory program
governing the conservation of the protected living marine resource that is comparable to
that of the United States, taking into account different conditions, and which, in the case of pelagic longline fishing, includes mandatory use of Circle Hooks, careful handlingand release equipment, and training and observer programs; and(B) has established a management plan containing requirements that will assist in
gathering species-specific data to support international stock assessments and
conservation enforcement efforts for protected living marine resources.



(b) PROHIBITIONS.--Upon receipt of any certification from the Secretary of State under subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately take such action as may be necessary and appropriate to prohibit the importation into the United States--


(3) any foreign nation is not complying with its obligations under any existing international fishery agreement concerning fishing by fishing vessels of the United States in any fishery over which that nation asserts exclusive fishery management authority; or




At the moment there is no effort to establish if Nations exporting swordfish to the US are complying (we know the are not).

Without financial security in the market place, we can not ask our PLL fleet to make further investment into the fishery. The LAWS are there to make sure that our fisherman have an even playing field, but they are not being enforced.

[Disco Lady]

COÑO!!!!!!!!!!!

[Another Grand]

Rediculous! Vinnie, thanks for pointing me in that direction. I have been reading about it all morning. The whole import thing is unbelievable, I mean, I am seriously getting pissed off!!!

Check this story out
EC and Chile reach agreement on 10-year swordfish dispute

Here is a great read: Atlantic Swordfish Fisheries; Dealer Permitting and Import Documentation Requirements| Federal Register Environmental Documents | USEPA

This is an excerpt from that link:

Complicating factors surrounding this issue were identified in the
ANPR and include: (1) the high volume of swordfish imported into the
United States from numerous sources; (2) domestic landings and imports
of Pacific swordfish; (3) the uncertain impact on foreign exporters and
processors of regulations that prohibit the possession of small
swordfish or swordfish parts in the United States, and (4) the
difficulty of distinguishing between Pacific and Atlantic swordfish.
Currently, Atlantic swordfish or swordfish pieces less than the
alternative minimum size can be legally imported to the United States;
however, it is not known what proportion of international landings
comprises swordfish less than the minimum size. Further, swordfish
steaks and fillets are frequently imported, and the size of the
original swordfish and the ocean area of catch cannot always be readily
determined from the processed product (e.g., steaks, fillets).
Information is available from trade organizations concerning the
businesses that may be impacted by regulating the swordfish in the
United States; however, these businesses evolve rapidly, making it
difficult to track their involvement in the swordfish industry.

Man, and then I got into reading this one, this one was an unbelievable source of information in general but I was trying to ascertain information concerning upgrading our fleet

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); U.S. Atlantic Swordfish Fishery Management Measures | Federal Register Environmental Documents | USEPA

In particular:

It is not possible to precisely quantify the economic impacts
associated with the alternatives to modify HMS limited access permit
vessel upgrading restrictions. This is because the decision to upgrade
is a business decision, and depends largely upon whether the returns
expected from an upgrade outweigh the costs of planning the upgrade,
construction, financing, time to complete the necessary work, age of
the current vessel, and the forgone revenues associated with being out
of the fishery while vessel work is being completed. The potential
economic benefits of vessel upgrades largely depend upon future
harvests, ex-vessel prices, fuel prices, and labor costs. These factors
fluctuate, often dramatically, with market forces from year to year
making any estimated benefits difficult to assess. Independent of those
factors, however, vessel owners will gain the economic benefits
associated with having the increased flexibility to adjust vessel
configurations in terms of length and horsepower to best fit their
business. In addition, vessel owners under the following alternatives
would be better able to more easily comply with observer accommodation
requirements, and thus avoid lost fishing time. The potential to expand
bunk and berthing areas could enhance the quality of life for crew and
captains, providing intangible benefits and also potentially reducing
the actual costs of retaining labor. Finally, the potential to upgrade
vessels might have important positive safety implications, especially
for smaller vessels operating far offshore in areas prone to extreme
weather.
Under each of the following alternatives, vessel owners will have
to weigh the costs of potentially upgrading the length or horsepower of
their vessels by the potential economic benefits associated with an
upgrade. Many vessel owners may choose not to upgrade, even with
relaxed upgrade restrictions, because of the capital costs associated
with upgrading. The main economic benefit associated with the following
alternatives will likely be from not having to acquire a permit from a
larger vessel, including the associated transaction costs, when an
owner wishes to increase vessel size or horsepower.
The capital costs associated with potential upgrades are difficult
to estimate. Large vessel length upgrades are not likely to occur by
modifying existing vessels, according to several marine engineers and
shipyards that NMFS contacted. They are more likely to result from the
purchase of another vessel and the subsequent transfer of permits to
that vessel. Horsepower upgrades are more likely to occur on existing
vessels in conjunction with an engine replacement due to capital
depreciation.
NMFS contacted several shipyards regarding the potential costs of
new vessels and upgrades to existing vessels. The shipyards agreed that
it is probably more economical to perform large increases in vessel
length by acquiring another larger vessel, than by modifying existing
vessels. However, the estimated cost of building a new vessel is
uncertain because few new vessels have been built since the upgrade
restrictions were implemented in 1999, according to the shipyards
contacted. The overall cost of upgrading would likely depend on the
current size of the vessel, the age of the vessel, where the work will
be done, financing costs, and whether an existing used vessel is
available with the desired specifications, versus constructing a new
vessel. For example, a 68 foot PLL vessel over 20 years old recently
had a sales price of $245,000, according to a vessel broker list. To
better quantify the associated costs and potential scope of vessel
upgrades, NMFS seeks comments from the public on the current market
costs of upgrading PLL and swordfish Handgear vessels.
Alternative 2b would waive HMS limited access vessel upgrading and
permit transfer upgrading restrictions for all vessels that are
authorized to fish with pelagic longline gear for swordfish and tunas
for 10 years, after which a new vessel baseline would be established
and the current 10 percent LOA, GRT, NT; and 20 percent HP restrictions
would go back into effect. A ten-year sunset provision was selected for
this alternative because it provides a reasonable amount of time for
owners to purchase or upgrade vessels, but establishes a deadline to
account for any unanticipated future changes in the fishery or status
of stocks.
This alternative would likely have positive economic benefits for
PLL vessel owners because it could provide increased operational
flexibility for business owners to modify their vessels. However, it is
not possible to predict how many vessels would be upgraded under this
alternative, as any estimate is predicated upon the decisions of many
different owners. Waiving vessel upgrade restrictions for PLL vessels
could produce secondary and regional economic impacts. Shoreside
support businesses such as shipyards, marine architects, and other
commercial vessel suppliers could receive increased business from
owners wanting to upgrade their vessels. Fish dealers may need to
expand their operations to handle any greater supplies of swordfish
that could result from increased fleet capacity. It is also possible
that there could be reductions in the value of limited access permits
from waiving the upgrade restrictions. The supply of usable permits for
vessel owners that want to upgrade under the current limited access
regulations is restricted, because permits have to meet certain
characteristics in order to be transferred to a different vessel.
Removing the upgrading restrictions would give a potential new entrant
into the fishery a larger selection of permits to choose from, since
they would be able to select from a larger pool of potential permits
for sale. This increased supply could reduce the value of limited
access permits. However, any improvements in the profitability of the
fishery might increase demand for permits and could potentially offset
any decrease in permit value.

[tunaman81]

Originally Posted by Another Grand

rewarding our long line boats for not caring about the fishery. If they cared, they would target the swordfish, realizing what they have on the plate to lose.

I don't think it really has to do with whether or not longline fisherman care about the fishery. Commercial fishing, like most jobs, is driven by the all mighty dollar. These guys have families to feed, mortgages to pay, etc. They have to fish for what will get them the most money (or at least enough to make a living). Remember, there are huge costs to cover, especially with the high cost of fuel. Many boats in the Northeast have to run hundreds and hundreds of miles to reach areas such as the Grand Banks.

Now, I honestly do not think that the answer to filling the quota is going to come JUST from the small section of water off the East coast of Florida that we fish. It is going to have to come from an effort of commercial fisherman off the entire Atlantic Coast of the US. Since we will probably not see a ban on swordfish imports, and with the competition with Pacific Caught fish, we will likely not see a huge increase in the price of swordfish (enough to make it worthwhile for longliners to begin to target swordfish again). So, since we cannot increase the profits, the other option is to decrease costs. One option is to have the government subsidize longline vessels fishing for swordfish in the Atlantic. Subsidizing things such as fuel, repairs, and power upgrades will increase the amount of money going to the longliners pockets, hopefully enough to make swordfishing worthwhile for a lot of vessels. More vessels able to fish for swordfish will increase the landings.

[Another Grand]

Thats funny, I actually would take that comment back if I had a chance after the reading I have done today. I agree with you. It is an interesting perspective to cut cost as well.

I was also wondering on the way home tonight, if it would be beneficial to split the directed quotas and indirect quotas up, in a sense creating competition amongst ourselves to catch each "subquota".

[reel life]

i am not sure about the best way to keep our quota, but i do believe that opening any closed area to a user group that turned its back on swords to chase tuna is just wrong. i have and will continue to state my position that "i would rather see a closed season for part of the year, than to lose the ability to actually catch and release her."
there have been some good ideas brought up here but opening any closed zone is just wrong

[snapper6]

If everyone reported their catch instead of just heading to the docks and coring without any reporting. It would help the numbers but who knows how much. Otherwise theyre gonna give the water back to longliners sooner than later

[Ron.38 Special]

All great ideas here, but time is up!

September ICCAT will publish the new swordfish stock assesment and then in November we are up for re-allocation of quota.

There is no one on the US delegation that believes we can get out of November meeting in Brazil with our quota intact.

This years ICCAT is the bloodbath we have been warned about.

As a new ICCAT advisor, I will keep you as up to date as I am allowed to.

Ron