BFT and HMS Letter

[Bob ECT]

Here's a copy of a letter I recently recieved. I agree with it and will be signing and sending it in.

We've got until March to get our opinions in to NMFS on the new HMS proposal. Send in you letters NOW

[Bob ECT]

Karyl Brewster-Geisz
National Marine Fishery Service
Highly Migratory Species Division
1315 East West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Dear Ms. Brewster-Geisz,

As a concerned angling permit holder I feel that I must write this letter in protest to NMFS-HMS and the totally indifferent attitude your agency has displayed in the handling of the recent BFT quota for the angling permit. I never supported the additional bag limit for the charter boats. What the agency arbitrarily allowed was 2 fish under 47 inches and then instead of 1 fish over 47 inches to 73 inches, you then allowed them to take 3 fish over 47 inches to 73 inches if they didn’t take the two under 47 inches. In the mean time you kept the angling category at 1 fish 27 to 73 inches. This in itself put the angling category out of the fishery. The high cost of fuel and bait eliminated the smaller vessels from participating in this fishery, creating an economic down turn for every business that supported this fishery. You allowed a minority of charter boat permits to the majority of the quota.

NMFS violated the National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management
98-623 section 4: conservation and management shall not discriminate between residents of different states. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various U. S. fishermen, such shall be A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen, B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation: and C) carried out in such a manner that NO particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.

Now, not only did you deny my rights in the angling category, NMFS has, for years, denied the angling category a fair and equitable share of the BFT quota. I realize that we our governed by ICCAT and the 8% quota on small school fish, but we should have a greater share in the large school, small medium fishery, where there isn’t a cap on the angling category. NMFS as of Oct.1st 2005 increased the general category from 1 to 2 fish per day over 73 inches. All U. S. fishermen should be considered equal partners in this BFT fishery. Five thousand general category permit holders should not have a lions share of the entire quota when they are compensated by the sale of their fish. The thousand charter boats receive compensation for their efforts. All the members of the angling category get is to spend their own money for fuel, bait, dock fees, and insurance costs. There is something wrong with this picture. For this alone we deserve a greater share of the BFT quota. If we are truly mandated to catch all the allocation, why did you not transfer quota to the angling category, so we would have had an equitable chance and share of this fishery in September 2005.

You can be assured that this practice of unfairness must and will stop. I will continue this quest in the coming months and would expect that NMFS correct this injustice.

The second part of this letter will address NMFS public hearings on the newly proposed FMP for Billfish and FMP on HMS.

I oppose the NMFS preferred alternative to consolidate HMS and Billfish into one FMP.
The reason being the Billfish fishery is a total recreational fishery, which has become the only HMS fishery to practice catch and release. If not for this individual effort by concerned anglers where would this Billfish fishery be? There shouldn’t be any commercial input. Those whose efforts have saved and conserved these species should govern it.

There is no reason to mandate a catch and release rule in the marlin fishery as U.S. flagged fishermen practice this already. This rule would hurt fuel, bait, tackle, and tournaments in our coastal states. Millions of dollars would be lost and many small business, would feel the effects of this archaic rule. Until NMFS applies the correct management procedures in the long line fleet fishery, status quo is the only acceptable alternative.

United States ICCAT representatives should demand the unjustified rule be remanded in the marlin fishery, that U.S. fishermen may take only 250 marlin, when across the oceans, foreign long liners harvest these species for sale, with no thought of conservation.

I have read the federal register 50 CRF 300, 600, and 654, and I believe the solution to the over harvest in the Billfish fishery in a bycatch situation should be time and area closures. NMFS should be commended for following this type of fishery management alternative. It is working. Just notice the increase in size and weight in the deep-water recreational Swordfish fishery.

I would support a time and area closure for the long line vessels from the 35th parallel to the 41st parallel, from the 30 fathom line to the 500 fathom line, from Jun3 15th to Sept 30th. Commercial rod and reel would not be affected.

I support the National Fishing Association’s positions on these matters, and appreciate the opportunity to comment on such important matters.

Sincerely,


Name ________________________________________
Address_______________________________________
City _________________State _____Zip ___________

Signature ___________________________

[Capt-D]

Hey Jer,

Another good reason for the conservation forum

-D