NMFS hearing today

[AndyP]

Good turnout at today's hearing, but only a few rec anglers there. Looked like about 120 people at today's hearing and mostly commercial, harpoon and charter captains, although there should have been standing room only in the room. Hopefully more rec anglers will show up at the next hearing in Fairhaven, MA. Present were representatives from Sen. Kerry's and Brown's offices as well as Rep. Keating's office. With any luck there were journalists there to report on the hearing. Amazingly, the Pew Charitable Trust opposes the proposed allocation, as Capt. Dom posted earlier today, so maybe the ridiculous proposal will get some heavy duty ink and publicity.

All those who registered their opinions opposed the proposed allocation to the PLL of 160 mt of dead/discards. I have no idea if the big turnout will influence a change in the proposed quotas, but at least we registered our opposition to the inexplicable proposal that does nothing to sustain the fishery. Indeed there is a disincentive for longline participants to minimize dead/discards of bft so next year there may be an even larger dead/discard estimate from NOAA, which would be insulting to those of us who want to sustain this fishery.

[Heli Sports]

Indeed there is a disincentive for longline participants to minimize dead/discards of bft so next year there may be an even larger dead/discard estimate from NOAA...

This is absurd for any number of reasons.

The longline fleet does not benefit from discarding any species.

Why not stick to facts without bashing another user group. This is all about the NMFS mismanaging the fishery. There is nothing more to it than that...

[AndyP]

This is absurd for any number of reasons.

The longline fleet does not benefit from discarding any species.

Why not stick to facts without bashing another user group. This is all about the NMFS mismanaging the fishery. There is nothing more to it than that...

Maybe you can explain what is clearly an inexplicable proposal to a mere recreational angler. On its face the proposal makes no sense. Of course, you may be in possession of facts that have not been disclosed.

[happytuna]

This is absurd for any number of reasons.

The longline fleet does not benefit from discarding any species.

Why not stick to facts without bashing another user group. This is all about the NMFS mismanaging the fishery. There is nothing more to it than that...

the blue water guy's are the ones who started this with this as rich said fired the first shot

you right it nmfs and noaa is at fault and this has been coming for a while and next year could be worse

[happytuna]

andy there was over 150 people there today was a mix with a few more rec's there today
and first timers too i'll let two finn say the rest

[Heli Sports]

Maybe you can explain what is clearly an inexplicable proposal to a mere recreational angler. On its face the proposal makes no sense. Of course, you may be in possession of facts that have not been disclosed.

Infighting between user groups of this fishery is highly counter productive under the current circumstances. The entire fishery is under attack by numerous enviro activist groups who would like nothing more than to close down all ABT fishing for EVERYONE. A pending decision on an ESA listing, several campaigns to boycott Bluefin products at U.S. restaurants, and the current advertising campaign using Photoshopped pictures of deck-loaded Panda Bears should make this painfully obvious.

I don't think any amount of dead-discards are acceptable, but why attack longliners for this? They are only operating within parameters set by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The real culprit is the NMFS and their failure to expand time/area closures in the three areas where the highest ABT longline interaction is taking place. It's inconceiveable to me that this fleet is still being permitted to set in the Gulf of Mexico during the Spring and off of North Carolina during the Winter months, and in a specific area of the Georges Banks during the late fall.

Attacking a group of lawfully operating commercial fishermen, one who have a history of harvesting ABT that pre-dates the existence of the General Category, is misguided. It reminds me of the foolish attempt by the General Category Fishermen's Association to reduce/eliminate the purse seiners during the early 1990's. Another user group that was operating prior to the existance of a commercial rod and reel fishery.

Let the NMFS know that any dead discards of ABT are completely unnaceptable while this species is in the recovery stage of a management plan. Inform them of how unfair it is that these discards are subtracted from the quotas of other user groups. Demand that the U.S. longline fleet be held accountable for their discards. But attacking commercial fishermen who use a different gear-type is a very bad idea and the only group who will benefit from this are the enviros...

[happytuna]

Infighting between user groups of this fishery is highly counter productive under the current circumstances. The entire fishery is under attack by numerous enviro activist groups who would like nothing more than to close down all ABT fishing for EVERYONE. A pending decision on an ESA listing, several campaigns to boycott Bluefin products at U.S. restaurants, and the current advertising campaign using Photoshopped pictures of deck-loaded Panda Bears should make this painfully obvious.

I don't think any amount of dead-discards are acceptable, but why attack longliners for this? They are only operating within parameters set by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The real culprit is the NMFS and their failure to expand time/area closures in the three areas where the highest ABT longline interaction is taking place. It's inconceiveable to me that this fleet is still being permitted to set in the Gulf of Mexico during the Spring and off of North Carolina during the Winter months, and in a specific area of the Georges Banks during the late fall.

Attacking a group of lawfully operating commercial fishermen, one who have a history of harvesting ABT that pre-dates the existence of the General Category, is misguided. It reminds me of the foolish attempt by the General Category Fishermen's Association to reduce/eliminate the purse seiners during the early 1990's. Another user group that was operating prior to the existance of a commercial rod and reel fishery.

Let the NMFS know that any dead discards of ABT are completely unnaceptable while this species is in the recovery stage of a management plan. Inform them of how unfair it is that these discards are subtracted from the quotas of other user groups. Demand that the U.S. longline fleet be held accountable for their discards. But attacking commercial fishermen who use a different gear-type is a very bad idea and the only group who will benefit from this are the enviros...

you see this

http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-r...shermen-329485

[twofinbluna]

Andy there were at least 160 to 200 people there. At one point I asked and the number that had signed in was around 150, but more people came in after and were coming and going throughout. Great turnout.

[twofinbluna]

Heli- I agree that NMFS is main culprit here- on a number of levels- but just know that the main LL group actively pushed NMFS to take the 160mt off the top in advance of the specs being published, knowing full well that it would be coming out of the other categories. And they saw it as a victory when the rule came out. Infighting sucks and NMFS should be the main focus of everyones efforts, but do not make this out to be the bluefin fishery picking a fight with the LL fleet, please.

[Heli Sports]

Heli- I agree that NMFS is main culprit here- on a number of levels- but just know that the main LL group actively pushed NMFS to take the 160mt off the top in advance of the specs being published, knowing full well that it would be coming out of the other categories. And they saw it as a victory when the rule came out. Infighting sucks and NMFS should be the main focus of everyones efforts, but do not make this out to be the bluefin fishery picking a fight with the LL fleet, please.

Thank you for the info, Chris.

I did not know that the BWFA was behind this manouver. Still, its really not a surprise. Their mandate is to do the best they can for the interests of their fleet. Just as it is for the ABTA and the user groups they represent.

I can assure you that no one on these message boards understands the extent that the longline fleet has abused the resource over the past decades better than I do. It just bugs the **** out of me when a rec guy, who has no idea that the angling category has overharvested its quota by 100% over the past few years, takes a shot at the longliners.

Regardless of what transpired behind the scenes, it's NMFS who dropped the ball on this. To such a degree that it's difficult to believe.

Has the NMFS ever provided any explanation for why expanded strategic time/area closures to longlining have not been implemented?