Overfished - What Does it Mean?

[John Brownlee]

Are those the only two options? "Not to worry," and "extinction?" Come on, there are plenty of people worried about the status of billfish, but you use the word extinction too much.

[John Brownlee]

Tom,

I do find it bizarre that you and others constantly cut and paste articles from the Gloucester Times as if the positions advocated within them have anything to do with recreational fishing. Mr. Gaines and his paper are advocates for large-scale commercial fishing fleets and they are not on the same page with the recreational organizations of the world by a long shot.

[Tom Hilton]

Mr. Brownlee,

As I pointed out before, the hijacking of our federal fisheries management process by the Environmental Defense Fund by their CRAFTING AND PASSING the changes to the Magnuson in 2006 has affected the recreational fisheries immensely. I believe it to have probably been illegal undue influence on our fisheries management process and needs a SERIOUS investigation.

I have great respect and admiration for Richard Gaines, as he is right on the mark when discussing the issues of Catch Shares, which are NOT solely a commercial concern Sir.

Do some research of your own regarding what has happened in the commercial IFQ debacle up in Alaska and the NE, how EDF funded organizations such as the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association (Hookers) to help push their Catch Share agenda. John Pappalardo, as head of the NEFMC, voted to give the "Hookers" (aptly named, by the way) an inordinate share of the allocation - nevermind that he was also head of the Hookers at that time. EDF is using the exact same tactics down in the Gulf with fishermen's organizations that they created/funded to give the illusion that there is support from the industry in the Gulf for Catch Shares. Many of the fishermen with shares up in Alaska have quit fishing altogether, preferring to lease their quota for personal gain - adding nothing back to the resource itself, adding an un-needed layer of cost to the product, and doing nothing for America as a whole. I looked through the MSA pretty thoroughly, and I didn't see any requirement to set up a Fishermen's Retirement Program, but that is what Catch Shares eventually becomes. Or it becomes a substantial revenue stream for corporations/private individuals that control the quota.

The commodification of our currently "free" Public Trust Resource through the gifting of Catch Shares to select few, where they can sell, lease, or trade these shares for personal profit, is currently being pushed to expand into the recreational sector by EDF and its EDF-funded organizations such as The Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholder's Alliance, Charter Fisherman's Association, and Gulf Fishermen Association. Have you attended any Gulf Council meetings Mr. Brownlee? If you have, you will these meetings stacked with people from the EDF-funded organizations pushing the EDF party line.

If they are successful in getting the Gulf Council to implement Sector Separation, separating the RECREATIONAL sector into subgroups; Private Recs, Charter For Hire, and Head Boats, then that is the foot in the door to begin Catch Share implementation.

You see, you MUST have Sector Separation in order for it to work - then they can start inter-sector trading where the commercial fishermen can buy our recreational fish further expanding their profits since they are capped on the amount of quota they can own on the commercial side. Or, they can lease some of their quota to CFH captains so that these captains can then start charging for the fish their customers catch..."Hey, do you want to keep that 20 pound red snapper? If you do, that fish is going to cost you $74" Keep in mind that this $74 for one fish charge is on top of the normal charter rates. If the customer does not want it, no problem - the CFH captain simply sells it to the fish house when he gets back to the dock. Either way, he's making more $$ off of what is currently "free".

Catch Shares are also designed to EXCLUDE anglers from the resource, including recreational anglers (your readership). Here is a study funded by the NMFS to do just that - through the use of a Recreational Catch Share Pool; http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/m...omstock_cs.ppt

Note the terms "ANGLER LIMITS" and "THE ABILITY TO EXCLUDE ANGLERS WITHOUT STAMPS".

Nevermind that the Catch Shares program has been unable to sustain the costs of implementation, as the 3% fee charged in no way covers the total cost of the IFQ program - it's more like 20% that needs to be charged. Take into account the $54 million allocated for the implementation of Catch Shares, and you will see that the system is a joke - a joke that the American taxpayer is subsidizing to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. AND THEY WANT TO EXPAND THAT FAILURE INTO OUR RECREATIONAL FISHERIES?

If Mr. Gaines is the enemy of my enemy, then we shall stand shoulder to shoulder in our fight to retain our rights to fish. Mr. Gaines writes for a publication up north and provides solid, factual information regarding what is going regarding Catch Shares, NGOs, and other issues that are directly and negatively impacting our access to the fishery.

You are the editor of a very well-respected magazine Mr. Brownlee - what are you doing to keep us abreast of these issues that WILL affect all recreational fishermen, including your readership? I would certainly like to refer to your publication and how you are fighting for our rights to fish.

All the best,
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

[BigMarineFish.com]

I agree; I have to use the word "extinction" too much.

Marlin
It's because by the end of 1999, Atlantic white marlin were approaching extinction fast (down to 12% of MSY or 6% of its "virgin" abundance and declining at 2% per year) but, according to ICCAT, their abundance declined by an additional two thirds in the next 8 years (by 2007). And at the end of 1999, Atlantic blue marlin were severly overfished (40% of MSY or 20% of its virgin biomass) but not yet really dangerously overfished. But by 2007, it too had become so, and moreover, it was disappearing much faster than white marlin. According to ICCAT's latest stock assessment, both are on trajectories to arrive at zero (= extinction) by about 2017.

Bluefin
Based on ICCAT's data, the spawning stock of western North Atlantic bluefin has now been driven down to approximately 3% of its "virgin" abundance (i.e. pre-1960 biomass). But based on recent tagging results, we now realize that perhaps half of these fish are actually Mediterranean-spawned bluefin, so we really have only about 1.5% of "our" bluefin that existed in 1960 when longlines were introduced. To put this situation in context, the population of South Atlantic bluefin tuna was driven extinct in just 10 years (by 1970) after the Japanese discovered their South Atlantic spwning site which is located off the northeast coast of Brazil and set upon them with longlines until they disappeared. No bluefin have been caught in the entire South Atlantic Ocean in the last 40 years. The Japanese also discovered the western North Atlantic bluefin's spawning site in the northcentral Gulf of Mexico and were busily cutting them down when they were persuaded to permanently abandon the Gulf in the mid-1970s in return for generous catch allocations of bluefin, bigeye and swordfish in the North Atlantic - probably a pretty fair deal for us.

Swordfish
As for North Atlantic swordfish, I don't think we know their status because of the manipulation of Japanese catch data to intentionally "fool" the stock assessment model into "believing" a huge spurt of swordfish reproduction was occurring over a four year period starting in 2000. This stock just could not "miraculously" recover fully to the MSY level in 2 years from an overfished position (65% of MSY according to ICCAT) with no significant change in the total North Atlantic catch or catch per unit effort as reported by all ICCAT member countries (48 currently) fishing for swordfish in the North Atlantic (including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea). I would expect that there has actually been no improvement in its abundance (from 65% of MSY) and it probably has continued its slow decline at the same rate as portrayed by ICCAT as of the end of 1999. This would put its abundance today at somewhere around 55% of MSY (and a total decline of 72% from its 1960 "virgin" abundance) - a big difference from "fully recovered" - but certainly not dangerously low yet. But we really don't know where it stands because of the bogus stock assessment results issued by ICCAT since 2000.

The details for all four of these fish are presented in the earlier posts on this forum.

Jim Chambers
.

[John Brownlee]

Tom:

I don't think NOAA plans to force catch shares on the recreational fishery, but they obviously would like to do it with charter boats, who I've never considered as purely recreational anyway. But I think it should be left up to the charter fleets in question to decide for themselves. If they want it, fine, if not, equally fine. But this notion that all catch shares programs are huge disasters simply is not true. The south Atlantic wreckfish fishery has worked well as an ITQ system for many years, and the Florida stone crab and spiny lobster comercial fisheries are other examples of successful catch shares programs. You're well documented as believing in the conspiracy theory surrounding these management tools. I don't buy into that but do freely acknowledge that groups like EDF are pushing hard for them, and it's their right to do so. I hope that in the end, the fishermen can decide for themselves. But is continuing the derby-style fisheries where it's every man for himself to catch the last fish really the best alternative? That just repeats the Tragedy of the Commons again and again.

[Tom Hilton]

Mr. Brownlee,
It is irrelevant what platform RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN are fishing from, whether it be a pier, a beach, a private boat, a charter boat, or head boat - the fish caught are all part of the recreational allocation to be caught by RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN. And as such, it should be up to the RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN themselves whether or not they want to fish under Catch Shares - not a group of charter captains who can't even keep any recreational fish. Giving the rights to the access of the RECREATIONAL fish to a select few charter captains, to sell, trade, or lease for THEIR personal profit is clearly against the Public Trust Doctrine, as it is not THEIR fish.

You claim that NOAA has no plans to implement Catch Shares in the recreational fishery yet ignore the hundreds of millions of our tax dollars being spent to implement Catch Shares wherever they can, including recreational fisheries - dollars taken AWAY from cooperative research and other badly-needed data collection programs.

You claim that NOAA has no plans to implement Catch Shares in the recreational fishery, yet you ignore this study funded by NOAA itself exploring what? Oh yeah, RECREATIONAL CATCH SHARES. But I guess you have the right to bury your head in the sand and deny, deny deny Mr. Brownlee - this is America after all. It's just disappointing since you, as editor of a large publication that could reach out and inform your readership of what's actually going on, you choose not to. Strange, as it would seem that your livelihood depends on your readership to continue to have access to Saltwater Fishing....
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/m...omstock_cs.ppt
Note the terms: "angler limits", and "ability to exclude anglers without stamps".

You claim that NOAA has no plans to implement Catch Shares in the recreational fishery, so I suppose you haven't had the time to read the Vision2020 document. In September 2006, the Assistant Administrator of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) asked the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC) to prepare a report on the desired future state of U.S. Marine Fisheries. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/documen...20_FINAL-1.pdf
Note the statements contained within;
"Limited access privilege programs (Catch Shares) should be thoroughly analyzed for applicability in ALL fishery management plans for participants in the commercial and RECREATIONAL SECTORS, with the goal of significantly increasing their use by 2020."

"Fishery management plans should include analyses of quota transfer between recreational and commercial sectors, and should incorporate market mechanisms where appropriate." (Translation: Catch Shares in the recreational sector).

"By 2020, angler satisfaction is derived from the recreational fishing experience rather than the take or “kill” fish." In other words, NOAA Fisheries doesn't want the recreational anglers to take home fish, but practice Catch And Release only. If we want any fish to eat, we will have to buy it from the commercial sector.

EDF used to boast on their websites that their Oceans Team was instrumental in crafting and passing the changes to Magnuson in 2006, which introduced what? Oh yeah, Catch Shares. Any reference to this deed has since been wiped clean from EDF's websites. Why? Good question - perhaps you could answer that one Mr. Brownlee please.

EDF's Jane Lubchenco now heads NOAA - what is her main goal? Oh yeah, implement Catch Shares in every fishery in the United States. Is it coincidence that a former EDF officer now heads NOAA? I personally do not believe so.

It's also interesting to note that you choose the term "Conspiracy" when describing my efforts to inform the public (and your readership) of the facts. Yes, your Rip Cunningham has already tried to use the same term (conspiracy theorists) to attempt to use the platform of your magazine to discredit and marginalize those who are also trying to shed light on the enviro hijacking of our fisheries management process. NONE of the information I have presented above are "conspiracies" - they are in fact, a matter of Public Record.

Lastly, as far as your assertion that we recreational fishermen (your readership) want to slaughter every last fish out there, I assert that we are the true conservationists - the first to do the "right" thing for the resource, and have accepted lower bag limits and ever-shortened seasons in order to achieve the goal of helping our fisheries. In fact, here in the Gulf, we led the way in privately funding the deployment of 10's of thousands of artificial reefs that have proven to enhance fishery populations immensely. The small stretch of coastline offshore of Alabama (about 45 miles wide) is where the recreational fishermen invested in enhancing the fishery by placing adequate habitat to provide over 40% of ALL recreationally-caught red snapper in the ENTIRE Gulf of Mexico.

It's a slap in the face of every American recreational fishermen for you to blame us, (your readership) for supposedly wanting to destroy the resource when in fact we are the ones fighting for it.

There is certainly a LOT of money being thrown around by enviro.orgs on these fisheries issues, such as full page color ads in slick, fishing-related magazines. I could theorize that these advertising $$$ could pollute the journalistic integrity of said magazines, but I won't, because I don't deal in "theories".

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

[John Brownlee]

[QUOTE=
Lastly, as far as your assertion that we recreational fishermen (your readership) want to slaughter every last fish out there, I assert that we are the true conservationists - the first to do the "right" thing for the resource, and have accepted lower bag limits and ever-shortened seasons in order to achieve the goal of helping our fisheries. In fact, here in the Gulf, we led the way in privately funding the deployment of 10's of thousands of artificial reefs that have proven to enhance fishery populations immensely. The small stretch of coastline offshore of Alabama (about 45 miles wide) is where the recreational fishermen invested in enhancing the fishery by placing adequate habitat to provide over 40% of ALL recreationally-caught red snapper in the ENTIRE Gulf of Mexico.

It's a slap in the face of every American recreational fishermen for you to blame us, (your readership) for supposedly wanting to destroy the resource when in fact we are the ones fighting for it.
[/QUOTE]

Did you even read what I wrote? I was referring to COMMERCIAL derby fisheries. Recreational fisheries are by and large managed under size and bag limits and are NOT derby fisheries. Please spare me the same tired sanctimonious lecture about how I'm not committed to recreational fishing and preserving access. I've been doing this a lot longer than you.

[Tom Hilton]

"But is continuing the derby-style fisheries where it's every man for himself to catch the last fish really the best alternative? That just repeats the Tragedy of the Commons again and again."

Mr. Brownlee,
No, I believe with your apparent endorsement (by your lack of opposition) of catch shares for the charter/headboats (about 50% of the RECREATIONAL red snapper fishery here in the Gulf) as you mistakenly consider them quasi-commercial", you were in fact referring to RECREATIONAL fisheries.

Catch Shares, if they are to be continued to be used in commercial fisheries, need some changes to be implemented immediately; 1) an increase of the fee to about 20% (from 3%) to cover the actual costs of administering the program, 2) they need to prohibit the sale, lease, or trade of shares between fishermen, and 3) they need to cease and desist on their attack on the recreational sector by pushing to expand Catch Shares into the recreational sector (and yes, charterboats/headboats are purely recreational, as 100% of the fishermen catching fish on their boats are RECREATIONAL fishermen, and 100% of the fish landed on those boats come from the RECREATIONAL ACL).

You again ignore or simply choose not to address all of the documentation provided showing a CLEAR intent by our federal fisheries managers to seek ways to implement Catch Shares in the RECREATIONAL sector, and somehow you still "don't think NOAA plans to force catch shares on the recreational fishery". Wow.

The commercial fishery was managed by seasons/trip limits yet were considered "derby" fisheries and was one of the main arguments by the enviros for conversion to catch shares. Many people at fisheries management level will disagree with you on your assessment that recreational fisheries are not "derby" fisheries, as they are using the same arguments now to push for catch shares in the recreational fishery.

Since you have at this for much longer than me, I am interested in your take on the following (yet somehow I doubt you will address the facts presented);

In the 12 years prior to the 2006 Reauthorization, we caught an average of 4.3 million pounds of snapper each year, UNDERFISHED our quota by an average of 100,000 pounds/year, fished an average of 244 days/season, and enjoyed bag limits of 4 fish per person. Immediately after the 2006 hijacking of our fisheries management process, the NMFS began a vigorous campaign to reduce our access to the red snapper in the Gulf. In 2007, they claimed we overfished our quota by 1 million pounds, supposedly due to Texas' non-compliance with federal regs, and have continually reduced our seasons/bag limits every year since. Fast-forward to 2011, where we had a mere 48 day season (196 LESS DAYS) , 2 fish bag limits (50% LESS FISH/DAY), and 20% LESS charterboats, YET WE WERE STILL ABLE TO SOMEHOW CATCH THAT SAME 4.3 MILLION POUNDS! Was it a miracle? No. It simply was a fabrication designed to justify Catch Share implementation in the RECREATIONAL sector using mafia-style strongarm tactics.

In any other wildlife management regimen, such draconian cuts in access and daily limits would result in a 90% DECREASE in harvest, but not here. You see, it's no longer about the science, or recreational fishermen continuing to endure more restrictions to "help" the resource - it's about driving us (your readership) off the water. Why? The 400% profits as described by EDF's Dave Festa, when they convert our currently "free" Public Trust Resource into commodities that they can then charge us (your readership) to access.

I believe you owe an explanation to your readership, you know, the people buying your magazines and purchasing products from companies who advertise in your magazines, EXACTLY what your position is regarding Catch Share implementation in the recreational sector, because you seem to be in denial.

All the best,
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

[John Brownlee]

Once again, read what I said. I do not favor catch shares for recreational fishermen, or for charter boats. I do think they have some use in small, tightly controlled commercial fisheries, but I also think the fishermen themselves should decide. Not NOAA, and not you. Is that not fair? On red snapper, I'm well aware of what a mess that is, but we support the Fisheries Science Improvement Act which can fix many of the problems we're going through with snapper and other species. The problem isn't catch shares, it's the Accountability Measures put in the MSA in the 2006 reauthorization and then the strict interpretation of them by NMFS. No one saw that coming.

[Tom Hilton]

"The problem isn't catch shares, it's the Accountability Measures put in the MSA in the 2006 reauthorization and then the strict interpretation of them by NMFS. No one saw that coming."

Wrong on both counts Mr. Brownlee.

Catch Shares AND Accountability Measures were BOTH "crafted and implemented into law with the 2006 MSA Reauthorization by the Oceans Team of Environmental Defense", with corroboration by people inside the NMFS.

They certainly "saw it coming" because they were responsible for putting it in there. There needs to be a concerted call by everyone in the fishing community to DEMAND an investigation into the most probably illegal undue influence that the anti-fishing NGOs have exerted on our federal fisheries management process.

Standing by and claiming that you didn't see it coming, then doing nothing about it, is just as bad anything that the extreme anti-fishing enviro.orgs have done.

Although known as the Fishery Science Improvement Act, language in the bill does not actually address the science used for assessments and data collection, but instead pushes deadlines back 2 years for implementing ACL restrictions. Basically, a stall tactic to avoid any subtantial fisheries management reform. there are better bills out there that deserve our support than this one.

There will be more information forthcoming regarding the NMFS' Contempt of Congress and their refusal to comply with the Congressional Mandate to improve the data collection process in a timely manner, which was supposed to have been put into place by January 1, 2009. This was supposed to have been done PRIOR to implementation of your above-referenced Accountability Measures, but lo and behold if the NMFS didn't do that backwards. Another illegal action?

No surprise, since NOAA is being led by EDF's Jane Lubchenco. Lubchenco and her catch Shares scam need to be canned immediately.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton