Food for thought......

[TOPPDAWG]

Some Of You Sword Fish Guys Are Just F In Wierd!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Captain Ollie]

Hey RT...... I didn't mean to jump all over what you said.......there's much more behind that venting incident than I'd ever have time to explain here.
Tunaman....I have nothing against ferrets...except for the fact that they stink.
I had read that article in NG some time ago. Yes it's pretty sickening. Large scale industrial fishing of this sort should not be allowed to continue unabated. The harvesting of fish while the are grouped together in large aggregations for spawing is simply ludicrous. It's akin to "shooting fish in a barrel." However, the sad truth is that the only thing that seems to stop it is the utter collapse of the fishery. The only thing that drives this machine is money.....and when the money goes away so does the threat. Hopefully what's left will be able to recover, while the "machine," no doubt, will move on to bigger and better things......and the same thing will no doubt happen again. It's like a never ending viscious circle. Fortunately, it seems that fish populations, even utterly devastated ones, have an amazing ability to recover when left alone for a long enough period of time. If the quotas were adheared to and participation in the fishery was tightly regulated from the start, then there wouldn't be a problem in the first place. BUT, as happens all to often in fisheries.....there's an explosion of participants that end up taking more than the resource can sustain. Of course, the problem with limiting participation in a fishery is that there are numerous people that cry about this limitiation not being fair. Tough shit....if commercial fisheries access were properly limited from the get go you would never have these "gold rushes" that end up wiping everything out because of too many people wanting too many pieces of too small a pie. On the other side of the coin, I do think it's pretty unfair to come in after the fact and tell people with susbstantial interests and investments that they can't fish anymore because the fleet needs to be downsized.
In any given fishery I think the best course of action would be a lottery style issuance of "X" number of permits to go after "Y" quota divided equally amongst the permit holders. It would be much easier to make future rational adjustments from this point, rather than being forced to make the same descisions when faced with an imminent disaster of a fisheries collapse and people losing their livelyhoods. If you didn't get in at the beginning you can wait to buy out someone who wants out at a later time. Unless, it could be shown through research, after a set amount of time, that the fishery could sustain the issuance of more permits and the entry of more participants.
But, this will most likely, never happen becasue we live in a world that is run by the almighty dollar, fueled by greed, and driven by excess.

[Another Grand]

Ollie,

I have never read something posted on here concerning this topic that I agree with every word written to the extent of that post. That is exactly my position on the topic 100%, I couldnt have said it any better.

There are certain areas where certain methods of commercial fishing are just not in the best interest of the overall health of a fishery and will lead to the utter destruction of the fishery. It has nothing to do with equal access......its common sense....like you said shooting fish in a barrell. Fish congregate and when and where they do, over time you can easily wipe them off planet earth if allowed. Snook in the inlets in the summer, Mullet on the beaches in the fall, and even those swordfish when they get congregated at the entrance, while they are moving through, or at the exit of the Straights. I am not saying you cant fish for these species at these places, just simply that they cannot sustain the day in day out hammering of certain types of commercial fishing and still maintain healthy fishery.

[RiskTaker]

Ollie:

Great post that you did! You are indeed cutting into the core of the matter.

My initial post suggesting the preservation of more aquatic habitat around the globe may have been a knee-jerk reaction, after being so moved by a quality National Geographic article. But the concept of more effective conserving must somehow be properly constructed, so that we do not suffer the layers of abuse, as you have so well posted.

This is really the heart of the matter that I am saying we must address; hopefully, as a gang of unified fishermen.

I have also carefully read that intersting article in Florida Sportfishing Magazine (diabolically opposed to preserve areas, but citing other good conservation measures as the better solution) and I can equally agree with that counter-culture to the preserve topic.

So this may not be the perfect solution or even the proper solution but I hope we can agree that we must start clamouring for a still better plan. (The Bluefin tuna tragedy just makes the point in SCREAMING LETTERS.) NMFS, may have its faults, but it is our official domestic management unit, of course on the NATIONAL level, as the namsake states, so we must influence it, from the grassroots foundation of our society, to vigilently petition the right thing to do. And gaining traction at ICCAT at the International level, seems to be a very high priority, if we have any hopes to consserve our planet from those that have those greedy eyes, and the means to achive success at achieving the greed.

I agree that the collapse of a fishery is certainly a great regulating equilizer. But as I see it there are a lot of people out there that still want to eat Bluefin tuna regardless of whether there is a collapsed fishery or not.

So we need to be sure that we protect ourselves from ourselves. At this point, it is clear that the Bluefin tuna do not even have a vote. We simply we to eat them. But I sure would not be to happy to see them go extinct on my watch. (Somehow, I seem to think of Dr. Bill Hogarth saying those exact same words at some point in time within his office.)

So this is great discussion and some good ideas may evolve from them. Perhaps in a twist of words: THOUGHTS FOR SUSTAINED FOOD.

[ReelIntubaiter]

Here we go AGAIN!!
BB pro trying to somehow justify that LLers will not affect the Swordfish populations!
We've had these discussions before. See post: Swordfisherman Alert

Here are some more:
Swordfisherman Alert

Same old BS from the "X" Longliners!

Let them in and say goodbye to our Swordfish "recovering" Population.

I'm only posting here so that newcomers can see the old posts.

I'm not going to get into another debate!

[Broadbill-Pro]

Originally Posted by ReelIntubaiter

Here we go AGAIN!!
BB pro trying to somehow justify that LLers will not affect the Swordfish populations!
We've had these discussions before. See post: Swordfisherman Alert

Here are some more:
Swordfisherman Alert

Same old BS from the "X" Longliners!

Let them in and say goodbye to our Swordfish "recovering" Population.

I'm only posting here so that newcomers can see the old posts.

I'm not going to get into another debate!

Don't remember you ever being much involved in a debate? You know fckall about LL'ing and the effects it has on fish stocks, did not know PLL was a course in Med school. Your information comes from others with the same google knowledge.

This X longliner has more recreational experience than you could ever dream to have. I'm only posting to let the newcomers know that 99% of this forum knows absolutly nothing about swordfish conservation and have had no hand in the recovery process. Thank NMFS and foriegn imports for that.

[TLD-Danny]

wow i missed something

[quack quack]

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

Don't remember you ever being much involved in a debate? You know fckall about LL'ing and the effects it has on fish stocks, did not know PLL was a course in Med school. Your information comes from others with the same google knowledge.

This X longliner has more recreational experience than you could ever dream to have. I'm only posting to let the newcomers know that 99% of this forum knows absolutely nothing about swordfish conservation and have had no hand in the recovery process. Thank NMFS and foreign imports for that.

Every one knows BBPro and I do not see eye to eye on a lot and he still is mad at me about a certain pic.But do not discount his knowledge or experience Do not believe 3/4 of what you read about LLing from conservation groups on the net.Most of it is tree hugging propaganda Managed and run properly LLing does have it's place in commercial fishing.It always amazes me how people find it easy to bash comm fisherman but not the real problem.Most of the decline in fish stocks around the world have a direct relation to pollution But we still buy our stuff from companies that pollute We build our houses on the water and cut down trees and pay the fine to cut down mangroves.The biggest source of run off in to lake O is big sugar and cattle.But I have never seen anyone bash them.No give me my candy and steak please Look what is going on with China.We want every thing cheaper so we import it and now our pet food is poison not to mention toothpaste and about 100 other food items found to contain industrial chemical we have imported from China The pollution is what is killing this world and oceans

We even import children from foreign countries now.There are thousands and thousands of children in need of a good home in this country.But people want babies only and go over seas for them not to mention cheaper. So don't worry I still do not want LLers in the straights. But take a good hard look in the mirror not to mention your closets and drive ways and such.What kind of footprint are you leaving for your kids to follow.

[Captain Juan]

Most of the decline in fish stocks around the world have a direct relation to pollution (Quack Quack)

Oh ma God. Please.

It may be a part but not the main source. The main cause is humans' insatiable appetite for seafood. How is that satisfied, through comericial fishing that accounts for 95%+ of the total worldwide catch. It's longlining, purse netting, fish traps, factory ships. Don't forget the bycatch kill which removes key players from the ecosystem further damaging the environment.

Yes, there is a place for commercial fishing, but for many many years it was out of control and abusive.

A comprehensive marine management plan requires a properly maintained commercial fishing system worldwide (quotas), fair limits on recreational catches, aqua farming, and, yes, environmental controls (a reduction in pollution).

Longlining itself has few redeeming qualities if any.

I am no tree hugger either. Hell, I wouldn't care if restaurants and super markets stopped selling fish. Why, cause I'm gonna catch it, kill it and have lots of fun doing it with my family and friends.

J

[quack quack]

Capt Juan do a little research.Every fishery scientist in the world has said pollution has done as much damage to fish stocks then anything else.Now add over fishing to that then that is a problem.99% of all commercially fished for fish spend some time in near shore waters(within 50 miles)!!Were do you think the mercury in Swords and kings comes from.You would fall over if you knew all the crap and chemical that have been dumped in over the years and is still getting dumped in.Up till a few years ago if you swam around any lighted marker in the ICW or out side inlets you would see used batteries laying all around it.The CG when changing the batteries would just chuck them in the water!!So untill they got busted thats what they did.That was the CG what about all the other people and companies chucking stuff in the water that have not been caught.Hell 100 miles out I think you can dump oil in the water?Dont forget the cruise ships that were shoveling there garbage over the side.Not untill they got put on video did they stop that and now they just dump it off the back out of site!!
SouthCoastToday.com - 2048: The year we lose seafood - November 03, 2006

[Captain Juan]

Quack my good man...do a little resreach too and don't make attempts to stray away from the issue.

Regarding mercury in fish, especially pelagics, it has always been around, believe it or not. 17th, 18th and 19th century writings and research show many pelagic fish already had pretty high concentrations of mercury. Mercury is obviously a naturally occuring liquid (metal) element and for whetever reason has always ended up in fish. Yes, the problem has been made worse by pollution.

I for one can tell the temp sticking out my tongue as I have been a kingfish dip addict for many years.

Cheers and I stick by my email.

J

[quack quack]

Not straying from the issue at all.But lets be real about the fact no one ever goes after the polluters on here like they do comm fisherman.You have been around awhile dont you remember the mullet runs that would black out the beach for weeks!Now even with the net ban it is only a fraction of what it was 15yrs ago!Don't you think pollution and loss of habitat have anything to do with that?

[Captain Juan]

Quack...

Gill netters slaughtered mullet and caused their demise and many continue doing it via loopholes and altered equipment. Again, pollution has had some impact but is not the main culprit.

Anyway, enough of the debate.

Hope we can suck down a cold one soon.

High tides.

J

[quack quack]

It is all good chatting.

You watch if the lake stays low and they do not dump any water into the river.There will be more mullet and tons of bait on the beach all fall and winter.As a result this winters sailfishing will be great.I just believe pollution has a greater roll in hurting the oceans and fish then you do it's all good.I think there were more mullet on the beach before the net ban then after Have you ever seen the crap in the St Lucie river for your self.6ft of foam for 500yds at the outflow.Thousands of dead fish all around.Scum line that you need sand paper to take off It all goes right out the inlet and down the beach.People blamed the commercial fisherman for the decline in Striped bass up north.Then after all the finger pointing at comm guys it was proved that all 14 of the rivers they spawned in were so badly polluted that the scientist were shocked any new bass ever spawned.This is the truth and it applies to more then Striped bass thats for sure.Once those rivers were cleaned up bass numbers increased rapidly.The only overfishing of Stripers came from bad management.They let guys net the in the mouths of the spawning rivers That would be like the snook in the inlets during summer.It is a giant circle of life you know big fish eats little fish and so on.So less little bait less big fish. Then if to many of whats left gets caught we find ourselves in the position we are now.

[Certifiable]

I tend to agree with the polution theory.
Every fish that has hit the deck of my boat appears to have died from a massive concentration of steel polution, usually concentrated near the gill plates....OOOP's.....that was from my gaff. Sorry.

Gent's, its all about greed. Making more money by over harvesting the fish poulation, or using non environmentaly friendly production processes that produce dangerous waste byproducts. Every form of environmental polution or man made environmental damage can be directly attributed to GREED as the cause.

I am in no way a tree hugger, but it is a good idea to step back and look at the big picture once in a while.
Still, I dont see any of us rowing a boat out to the 45 line to hand line our next swordfish while drinking herbal tea and eating tofu and bean sprouts....it just ain't gonna happen.

[tunaman81]

Originally Posted by quack quack

It is all good chatting.

.People blamed the commercial fisherman for the decline in Striped bass up north.Then after all the finger pointing at comm guys it was proved that all 14 of the rivers they spawned in were so badly polluted that the scientist were shocked any new bass ever spawned.This is the truth and it applies to more then Striped bass thats for sure.Once those rivers were cleaned up bass numbers increased rapidly.The only overfishing of Stripers came from bad management.They let guys net the in the mouths of the spawning rivers

Actually the decline in stripers was mostly due to overfishing and poor management, not pollution. As soon as commercial fishing was halted for stripers, the population bounced back enormously and now stripers are everywhere.

Pollution and habitat destruction are huge threats to fisheries, but not all fisheries. They have a much more substantial effect on freshwater, inshore species (snook, tarpon, redfish etc) and species that spend a part of their life cycle inshore (grouper, snapper, etc). Even in some of those species which are valuable commercially, such as redfish, overfishing is a larger factor in their declines than pollution (blackened redfish in the Gulf).

Pollution and habitat destruction have much less of an effect on pelagics such as swordfish, marlin, tunas etc that do not rely heavily on inshore habitat during their life cycle. Overfishing is the reason for the declines in pelagics. Overfishing is the cause for the declines in the bottom fisheries off New England (cod, haddock etc). Capt Juan is right, FOR THE MOST PART, the major cause for declines in most fisheries IS overfishing and a constantly growing world population in need of a source of protein.

Now to the issue of mercury. While mercury has always been present, it is increasing due to pollution. Mercury is not coming from "used batteries" on the bottom. Mercury itself is not the entire problem, it is when it is methylated and becomes methylmercury that it finds its way into the food chain and becomes toxic. Here is what happens:

Mercury from incinerators and other pollution gets into the atmosphere and ends up raining down into shallow waters. The mercury is methylated by bacteria and becomes methylmercury. Small fish ingest the methyl mercury, which in turn are eaten by larger fish and so on. The methylmercury bioaccumulates in the larger fish eating predators.

The issues of overfishing and pollution/habitat destruction are intertwined and are very complex. You cannot make the general statement such as "Most of the decline in fish stocks around the world have a direct relation to pollution (Quack Quack)." It is way too general and neglects important factors in an extremely complex issue. While the above statement may be true for a certain species in one area, it may not be true for the same species in another part of its range. Even if it is true for a single species, it almost certainly is not for others. Overfishing will definately have an effect on commercially valuable species, but pollution may be a bigger issue with species not targeted commercially. In fact, when talking about fisheries you are typically talking about species that have commercial value, not those that don't.

[quack quack]

That gaff line

But really greed is not only on the part of corperations or ceo's but by us consumers want everything bigger better cheaper as well

[quack quack]

Actually the decline in stripers was mostly due to overfishing and poor management, not pollution. As soon as commercial fishing was halted for stripers, the population bounced back enormously and now stripers are everywhere



QQ You are wrong on this one.If not for the pollution and better manegment the bass stocks could have handled the fishing preasure.Go read the book Striper by John Cole.

Now to the issue of mercury. While mercury has always been present, it is increasing due to pollution. Mercury is not coming from "used batteries" on the bottom. Mercury itself is not the entire problem, it is when it is methylated and becomes methylmercury that it finds its way into the food chain and becomes toxic. Here is what happens:


QQ I was using the batt's as an example of pollution in gen not mercury per say.




The issues of overfishing and pollution/habitat destruction are intertwined and are very complex. You cannot make the general statement such as "Most of the decline in fish stocks around the world have a direct relation to pollution (Quack Quack)." It is way too general and neglects important factors in an extremely complex issue. While the above statement may be true for a certain species in one area, it may not be true for the same species in another part of its range. Even if it is true for a single species, it almost certainly is not for others. Overfishing will definately have an effect on commercially valuable species, but pollution may be a bigger issue with species not targeted commercially. In fact, when talking about fisheries you are typically talking about species that have commercial value, not those that don't.


QQ Yes one species in a certain area may only be efeccted directly by a certain polutant but everything in that speices environment gets effected.Just because a fish is not commercialy harvested it does have it's place in the eco system.

[tunaman81]

Originally Posted by quack quack

QQ You are wrong on this one.If not for the pollution and better manegment the bass stocks could have handled the fishing preasure.Go read the book Striper by John Cole.

Not quite. The striper stocks didn't really improve all that much until the commercial fishery was stopped. Then the populations greatly increased. The span of time it took for the stock to rebuild was very quick, and the environmental conditions didn't change all that much.

Originally Posted by quack quack

QQ Yes one species in a certain area may only be efeccted directly by a certain polutant but everything in that speices environment gets effected.Just because a fish is not commercialy harvested it does have it's place in the eco system.

That is true, however, you are neglecting the fact that wile one fish may only be affected by pollutants, the species being commercially fished has to face both the problem of pollution AND fishing pressure. Pollution may only be taking a small toll, but coupled with fishing pressure the problem becomes a lot bigger.

[TeamOceanview]

..................