Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
This area is for Shark'in Reports from all over, These reports must be catch and Release if you've gone shark'in put them here. All photos of sharks must be alive, there will be no tolerance for Photos of Dead Sharks.
these guys have found a loop hole it seems in the law for state waters and have been pounding these sharks now for about two months, if in Fed waters it would be a violation beacause you cant use Bouy gear for sharks ...period, only swordfish ....
look at the Shark text at 635.21 (e) (3). Buoy gear is not listed
as an authorized gear for sharks.
ive contacted many people during this time getting many diffrent .."well i dont know's " about this...expecialy FWC with my last responce was.." we dont like tattlers" ...i gave him my WTF? face and left in major disgust and the officer wouldnt give me his name or card, i told him also that the boat didnt have visible numbers on the side of the boat so at least board him for that, but i was bothering him it seemed....ive been on fire over this untill Junochris brought it up in the thread under this one.....they are sinking the boats with blacktips and that spieces can endure some presure but the many small bulls that seem to come to this place its a wintertime nursery and may take years to recover being hit this hard....thats my beef...they need to stop or someone needs to stop them before they wipeout these sharks and it wont take long
heres some pics that i sent them, NOAA, NMF and FWC via e-mail and many phone calls when this first started...i havent heard a word back in the last two weeks,since then but they wanted the 10" Fl# off the boat....i cant see them beacause they are not on the boat...Hmmm well?.... but there is now 4-6 boats working the surfline now in our area. i highly dout that these small coverted net boats have the shark permit that costs about $25k per vessel per my conversations with these Org that are supost to protect us from overfishing/ violations with the laws they make.....the laws need to be iron clad but seem to have more loop hole's that a gill net....please i have one word...incompetent...oh, by the way your fired.. anyone else would be for that...So?...
these guys are fishing about 12 buoys each vessel, some are orange but the smaller vessels are fishing white ones painted grey to not be seen...i call it ghost gear...hmmm?
this boat just pulled in a 250# bull in between our lines during the tourney a few weeks ago...
this is grey areas that they are fishing beacause i still dont know if its legal to buoy gear sharks in state waters....i havent got a yes they can from FWC...beacause they dont know...but the boat doesnt have visible Fl vessel numbers...stop them for that at least and check there shark permit if they have one....
please calll like i did :
Lisa Greg at FWC.....850-487-0554
email...lisa.gregg@myfwc.com
or conatct "
Mark Fields at NOAA....321-269-0004
email...mark.fields@noaa.gov
Is it better to be feared or respected or is it two much to ask for both......
Terry called the FWC last weekend and got no response from them either. Its an f-ing joke that the FWC knows what is going on and yet does nothing to stop it. From the Keys bridges to the piers and this mess on the beach the FWC is freaking USELESS. I dont want to hear this BS about there not being enough of them when people are telling them exactly where the violaters are and what they are doing and still nothing happens.
If the FWC really reads these boards then get out there and do your job. If they were killing turtles or manatees FWC would be all over it cause the turtle people have lots of money and free time to light a fire under FWC's ass and get them moving.
USCG.......they handle some things with longliners and other commercial fishermen that pouch the bahamas and such maybe you cant contact them about something....they are alot more professional too then fwc ya know
from the look of it they are handlineing the gear right ? and if so they are useing the floats as markers for the lines and is well within the regs as hand gear ...
There is a lot of things in play other then whether its a legal method or not. First how does FWC not no the law or whether what they are doing is legal or not? No one from FWC will even show up to see if they have the necessary permits.
If you have a shark permit, which I doubt these clowns do, how many sharks or pounds of sharks does that allow you to take in a day?
VIII. COMMERCIAL SHARK FISHING
PERMITS
Any fishermen who fishes for, retains, possesses, sells, or intends to sell, Atlantic sharks needs a Federal Atlantic Directed or Incidental shark limited access permit. Generally, directed shark permits allow fishermen to target sharks while incidental permits allow fishermen who normally fish for other species to land a limited number of sharks. These permits are administered under a limited access program and NMFS is no longer issuing new shark permits. To obtain a permit,fishermen must transfer a permit, within the upgrading restrictions, from a permit holder who is leaving the fishery.
A Directed shark permit allows fishermen to retain 33 non-sandbar large coastal sharks
(LCS) per vessel per trip. There is no directed retention limit for pelagic sharks or small
coastal sharks. Additionally, no prohibited species may be retained.
An Incidental permit allows fishermen to retain up to 3 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per
trip. Fishermen may also keep up to a total of 16 pelagic or small coastal sharks (all species
combined) per vessel per trip. Additionally, no prohibited species may be retained.
COMMERCIALLY PROHIBITED SHARK SPECIES
The following sharks cannot be possessed or retained in any form in the commercial shark
fishery. If one of these species is caught, it must be released immediately into the water with
minimal injury and in a manner that maximizes its chances of survival.
Atlantic angel
Basking
Bigeye sand tiger
Bigeye sixgill
Bigeye thresher
Bignose
Caribbean reef
Caribbean sharpnose
Dusky
Galapagos
Longfin mako
Narrowtooth
Night
Sandbar*
Sand tiger
Sevengill
Sixgill S
malltail
Whale
White
* Only vessels selected to participate in the shark research fishery are able to harvest sandbar sharks when a NMFSapproved
observer is onboard. Possession of sandbar sharks and other shark species are subject to the modified
retention limits for this research fishery.
AUTHORIZED SHARK SPECIES
Large Coastal Sharks
Blacktip
Blue
Lemon
Nurse
Spinner
Silky
Tiger
Great hammerhead
Smooth hammerhead
Scalloped hammerhead
Small Coastal Sharks
Atlantic sharpnose
Blacknose
Bonnethead
Finetooth
Pelagic Sharks
Blue
Common thresher
Oceanic whitetip
Porbeagle
Shortfin mako
V. GENERAL RESTRICTIONS
GEAR MARKING
Fishermen deploying handline, buoy gear, harpoon, longline, and gillnet gear must mark their
floats with their vessel identification number, vessel name, and Atlantic tunas or limited access
permit number.
U.S. federal government in 1993 began managing the country's commercial shark fishery. It also launched an aggressive campaign to rebuild allegedly depleted shark stocks, mainly by making life untenable for commercial shark fishermen. This marked a dramatic reversal from a decade earlier, when the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), recognizing sharks as an underused resource, was actively encouraging Americans to enter an industry it now seems hell-bent on shutting down.
Since 1993, strict limits have been placed on the number of sharks that can be taken from U.S. waters by both commercial and sport fishers. The commercial shark-fishing season has been shortened accordingly. "Trip limits" of 1,800 kg made it a losing business proposition for the largest U.S. shark boats, ensuring that sharking became a small-boat industry. Commercial shark permits issued by the feds were cut tenfold, from around 2,000 before 1999 to around 200 today. And nearly 20 types of sharks -- including Whites, some types of Makos, and Caribbean Reef sharks -- have been declared off-limits to commercial harvest.
Also jumping on the shark-protection bandwagon, Florida in 1992 instituted a strict 1-shark-per-person (or 2-shark-per-boat, maximum) bag limit on sharks in state waters. Gill netting and long lining, two common techniques for snaring sharks, were also banned. Though sharks are still caught in state waters, these restrictions severely reduce the number taken closest to shore. This has effectively created a sanctuary in the area where human-animal interactions are most prone to occur, and which at least one type of shark famous for its attacks upon humans -- the Bull shark -- is known to frequent.
All of these tactics have resulted in a steep drop in the number of sharks caught in U.S. coastal waters: from 7.8 million kg in 1989, at the apogee of the shark fishing boom (spurred on, in large part, by the high prices paid for shark fin soup), to 3.8 million kg in 1999 -- or a 49% cut. Translating those weights into actual numbers, one government report indicates that shark kills fell from an estimated 350,000 fish (in 1989) to 113,100 fish (in 1999). Comparable reductions have occurred in recreational shark fishing.
In Florida, where the vast majority of shark fishing (and U.S. shark attacks) occurs, more than 3.3 million kg of shark was hooked or netted off the coast in 1990, according to U.S. fishery statistics. By 1999, due to government regulation, the total catch had plummeted by more than 86%, to just over 450,000 kg. In recent years, the NMFS has pushed for even deeper cuts, but has been blocked in court by what remains of the commercial shark fishing industry.
Sharkers question the validity of the science behind the regulations, contending that a government economic impact assessment grossly underestimated their financial hit on the industry. The government's most recent shark-stock assessment -- the product of a controversial 1998 workshop which some fishers say was hijacked by advocacy groups -- is currently undergoing an independent scientific review, as part of a court-ordered settlement between fishing interests and the government. According to fishing people, the review shows the government's shark-population estimates to be based on insufficient data and flawed modelling. According to proponents of shark rebuilding, the industry is engaged in a stalling tactic, and must be curbed for its own long-term good.
Though ichthyophiles understandably deny a correlation, the number of shark attacks in U.S. and Floridian waters has risen steadily as shark-catch totals have fallen. In 1993, when the federal government began managing the fishery, there were 8 documented shark attacks in Florida, according to the International Shark Attack File. Last year, there were a record-high 34 -- including one known fatality -- in state waters, representing a more than threefold jump in cases. Nationally, attacks rose from 21 in 1993 to 51 last year.
In the four years immediately preceding federal intervention, Florida averaged 10.7 documented shark attacks per year; the national average was 17. In the seven full years following institution of the shark-stock rebuilding program, Florida has averaged 25 shark attacks per year (a 150% increase since the early '90s) -- the nation, 35.3.
Meanwhile, word among fishermen working the waters off Florida this summer is that there is no shortage of sharks; in fact, despite government claims of scarcity, they seem to be in surplus. Some shrimp boats are reporting mounting problems with sharks tearing up nets. One fisheries management official in the Florida Keys says sharks are especially prevalent this summer. And an unusually high number of Makos have been reported in the Dry Tortugas, desert islands about 96 kilometres west of Key West. Several shark fishermen interviewed indicated that sharks are plentiful: They're having no trouble catching their 1,800 kg "trip limit" in a single night, rather than the usual two or three.
Do statistics and anecdotes indicate that federal policy may be leading to an increase in attacks? "Absolutely," says Bob Spaeth, a fish house owner from Madeira Beach, Florida, and spokesman for Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., an industry group. "In fact, we in the industry years ago predicted this was going to happen."
Other factors could be contributing to the phenomenon, however. These include increased human activities on the water, weather patterns and ocean currents, and shark migratory and mating activities only vaguely understood by scientists. Some experts say overfishing elsewhere in the oceans may drive sharks closer to shore. Others blame the phenomenon on shark-feeding scuba divers, and are pushing to ban these popular excursions.
All of the alternative explanations have adherents in government and in the academy -- many of them "scientists" for whom the decline of sharks, and the need to rebuild their numbers, seems to have become unshakeable dogma. George Burgess (perhaps the most widely quoted of the shark apologists, and a key player in instituting federal shark fishing regulations) believes the record number of attacks is directly attributable to increases in population and human water sports activities. But the increase in Florida shark attacks has far outpaced the state's 23.5% growth rate in the 1990s. And besides, not everyone who moves to Florida goes for the beaches and water sports.
Mr. Burgess is a leading critic of shark-feeding dives, arguing that they may somehow be altering the shark's "basic behaviour and respect for human beings." But divers account for less than 20% of shark attack victims -- a proportion that has held steady for the last 30 years. Increases have come largely at the expense of swimmers and surfers closer to shore. And in the grand scheme of things, the number of sharks likely to participate in such feedings is infinitesimally small.
Another vocal supporter of the government's shark program is Dr. Merry Camhi of the National Audubon Society's Living Oceans Program. Dr. Camhi served as observer at the 1998 workshop at which the most recent stock assessment was done. "I'm not out on the water and I'm not collecting the data to say myself, but based on the projected numbers from the [1998] workshop, and based on the fact that we're still fishing under the same quotas as we were in 1997, my guess is that the shark stocks are not recovering," says Dr. Camhi. "You're never going to get perfect information" on shark-stock sizes, according to Dr. Camhi, "but you must err on the side of precaution, and err on the side of recovery."
When asked whether state regulation might have something to do with increases in attacks, Lee Shlessinger, a spokesman for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, was adamant in his denials. "We're in the business of rebuilding the shark population, our job is the protection of these animals," declared Mr. Shlessinger, obviously appalled by the suggestion. "Sharks are overfished. We are killing too many sharks."
What can or should be done for the protection of people if "rebuilding" current shark stocks leads to a future increase in attacks? "We have no evidence that our management of sharks has anything to do with this," Mr. Shlessinger said. "But if our commission sees this as a problem, we'll just have to deal with it then. Right now, we're looking at it in terms of the shark."
One staunch proponent of shark decline who nonetheless seems willing to consider a link with increasing attacks is Dr. Ellen Pikitch, director of marine conservation programs at the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). Though she stands behind the 1998 assessment that shark stocks remain in deficit, and calls the chance that they could be in surplus "minuscule," Ms. Pikitch at least seemed intrigued with the data to the contrary. "I think people should probably take a closer look at shark species most responsible for attacks," Ms. Pikitch said. "It could be that, with certain species, they could be rebounding near shore. It's certainly something people should look at."
And what of the likelihood that federal shark-stock rebuilding efforts will lead to a further increase in shark encounters? "I think shark attacks are unpleasant and not something we want to see increasing, but the first step is to understand what is happening," she said. "We shouldn't jump to conclusions, but we shouldn't behave like ostriches either."
A more proactive approach to the shark question is suggested by fish house owner Bob Spaeth, who urges wider national adoption of what he calls the shark fisher's unofficial motto. And that is?
Good overall line of cow poop and high end mumbo jumbo,,,,,,,the fact remains the shark stocks are being depleted like every other natural resource of this world by developing nations starting with the chinese and there growing populations.I've been shark fishing for close to 40 years and I can tell you the sharks are now where close to where they used to be.That sharks bite people will not change and should not be used as an excuse to endanger the apex predators of the seas,,,,,,,,,,if they fail the entire food chain will be affected.
Let the commercial fisherman target a different species to make a living and this hits close to home as both of my brothers were commercial fisherman but this country is the guiding light for the rest of the world and should continue to be the leader in protecting what is worth protecting.Save the political jargon for the local town hall meetings on wednesday nights and for representing a magnificent creature that can't represent itself.You can't shade the truth with a bunch of statistics that are biased to represent big money fish houses and sold to the highest bidders in Tallahassee.CANDELA for your A$$
diggin4grouper wrote:from the look of it they are handlineing the gear right ? and if so they are useing the floats as markers for the lines and is well within the regs as hand gear ...
[
V. GENERAL RESTRICTIONS
GEAR MARKING
Fishermen deploying handline, buoy gear, harpoon, longline, and gillnet gear must mark their
floats with their vessel identification number, vessel name, and Atlantic tunas or limited access
permit number.[/quote] Can anybody photoshop the ballons to see if they are marked?
Those boats dont mark their bouy's with their boat number, the boats themselves dont have visable numbers on them. They dont have the required permits, so they hide their boat numbers and hope FWC wont do anything (which is what is happening). They wouldn't get away with doing it to the Tip school when its off of Singer Island, only at a more remote location like that could they get away with it. They are just a bunch of local scumbag commercial guys taking advantage of a remote location and an FWC office with no backbone.
Dont doubt that what they are doing is against the law. Not having their numbers visable is against the law from the start, harvesting more then one shark without a commercial shark permit is against the law, and apparently using bouy gear that isnt labeled is against the law. Now we just have to find some law enforcement to stop them.
Diggin - Your on a one man island when it comes to this site. I get that your singular purpose on here is to spew your garbage in hopes of swaying people on commercial fishing but trust me you are wasting your time.
JunoChris wrote:
Diggin - Your on a one man island when it comes to this site. I get that your singular purpose on here is to spew your garbage in hopes of swaying people on commercial fishing but trust me you are wasting your time.
chris you need a life , all i did was post the rules for you . weather or not they are leagal doing there i dont know , so you need to back off and leave me alone , attack me again and i will report you , this is your frist and last warning , but for you to come on here and start blameing some one of doing something illeagal you better have your facts together befor you do . people like you that wine cuz there there and you cant catch a fish is pothetic learn to fish and stop your frigin wineing , more than likely they were at that spot befor you were and you butted in trying to catch a fish , and you are the type to follow and harass a commerical guy for making a living ,
LEARN TO FISH AND SHUT THE HELL UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sharkmn42/JunoChris! According to fishnfool73 they are permitted and legal. However if you see something shady in the future call USCG Ft Pierce 561-464-6100 or USCG Jupiter 561-844-4470. If they are legal no harm no foul. I don't know how often you see these kinds of things from shore. But you may want to consider getting a cheap set of binoculars. At least you would know for sure if the boat and float are legal. Also along with the reg# on the side of the boat they also are supposed have there buoys #s on the front of the cutty cabin for the USCG choppers to identify during normal patrol. I'm told that is Federal law. I do know the crab boats I worked in the keys 30 odd years ago had to have the #s and matching buoy colors somewhere on the top-front and sides of every crab boat. Basically the same thing here...........
There are several commercial fishermen that are licensed to take sharks on the East Coast during several months of the year whether this is them or not don't know. They found a loop hole and got goverment grants and permits in order to do so . I don't agree with it one way or the other but definetly call and get them checked out to be sure.
Dreaming the dream that one day I can be as good as some of the boatless pros and catch some 12 inch mangrove snapper.
Fishnfool73 I'm with you! That's why I posted the info after reading your post in the heads up thread. Sharks are not only the oceans health care plan but they are also mankind's best hope to cure certain diseases. I have no problem with commercial fishing. In fact I worked two commercial stone crab boats in Marathon in the early 80s. The SeaW and El Boss. When I wasn't Commercial diving I would crew one of them of and on as needed. But I have also seen long line boats cut the Finn's off shark after shark and through the live animal back. This happens all over the Pacific. I have been diving all over the world for 35 years. I can tell you from personal experience in the late 70s and early 80s you could not do a dive here with out seeing at least a few sharks. now you are lucky to see one if you spend a week diving the east coast. It's the same in the Caribbean and the pacific. It's a shame......
All I want is for FWC to take an active role and make sure that these guys are doing everything by the books, which the chances are they arent since they arent even displaying their numbers on their boats.
Diggin - You will report me to who, Tommy? Do you really think that he doesnt read this site everyday and isnt plenty aware of everything that has been said on this thread? I will say it again you spew nothing but pro-commercial fishing garbage and you are wasting your time. As far as commercial fisherman making a living thats fine but killing sharks for the fins when the rest doesnt get you a quarter a pound makes you a piece of crap.
As far as me coming in on their spot, get a clue, I rarely go to that spot. Thats Mike's spot and some other people on here frequent it and there is no way they were there before Mike since he has been fishing that spot for many years.
As far as me learning how to fish, I dont do too bad for myself in the tourney's on here but you wouldnt be interested in that since they are all catch and release. Just keep killing everything you find and trying to convince everyone else its ok, goodluck.
JunoChris wrote:All I want is for FWC to take an active role and make sure that these guys are doing everything by the books, which the chances are they arent since they arent even displaying their numbers on their boats.
Diggin - You will report me to who, Tommy? Do you really think that he doesnt read this site everyday and isnt plenty aware of everything that has been said on this thread? I will say it again you spew nothing but pro-commercial fishing garbage and you are wasting your time. As far as commercial fisherman making a living thats fine but killing sharks for the fins when the rest doesnt get you a quarter a pound makes you a piece of crap.
As far as me coming in on their spot, get a clue, I rarely go to that spot. Thats Mike's spot and some other people on here frequent it and there is no way they were there before Mike since he has been fishing that spot for many years.
As far as me learning how to fish, I dont do too bad for myself in the tourney's on here but you wouldnt be interested in that since they are all catch and release. Just keep killing everything you find and trying to convince everyone else its ok, goodluck.
the only piece of crap i see here is you . if you are so concerned for the well fair of the shark quit f--king fishing for them , untill then shut your trap . as far as this post is concerned i havent said the frist dam thing trying to convince anyone all i did was post the regs for yall to see and your the one that has taken all this out of context . and by attacking me , tells me that you have no common sense and dont have an f--king clue . and yes i do support both rec and commerical fishing . why i myself have done it and have family that is still doing it .
and stupid ass people like you that dont know any better and belive the grabage people like you put out saying that commerical fishing is to blame for all your problems . get real !!
commerical fishing has to report what they catch !!! do you ? oh wait thats comeing ...
"If it weren’t for commercial fishing there would be more than enough fish for the rest of us." That line, or any one of a thousand variants, is the main battle cry of anti-fishing groups and individuals. Whether they are used in support of decreased commercial quotas, areas closed to particular types of fishing (so-called Marine Protected Areas), or all-out net bans, they all are based on the supposed fact that a few thousand commercial harvesters, using superefficient gear and techniques, consistently catch and kill significantly more fish than the millions of recreational anglers catching fish one or two at a time. It seems reasonable, particularly when coupled with catch-phrases involving "corporate fishing fleets on search and destroy missions" and similar cynical appeals aimed at the emotion rather than the intellect. And, not too surprisingly in these days when hype has triumphed over substance in many media markets and what passes for research tends to extend no farther than cutting and pasting from the latest electronically delivered press release, the anti-fishing arguments are circulated, embellished, and finally accepted by the mass media and by the public.
As we showed in the last edition of FishNet USA, the commercial harvesters don’t have anywhere near the potential impact on the offshore fish stocks that the recreational fishing fleets do. But what about the other fisheries, those that are pursued ("persecuted" in the anti-fishing vocabulary that has been adopted by the supposedly objective National Marine Fisheries Service - but that’s another story) by both commercial harvesters and recreational anglers in our estuarine and near-shore waters?
We went to the commercial and recreational fishing statistics sections of the National Marine Fisheries Service website ( ) and retrieved 1999 recreational harvest and commercial landings data for the Atlantic and Gulf for the thirteen species that support the largest commercial and recreational fisheries. The results, which are detailed in the box below, might be somewhat surprising to all those folks who have fully bought into the "blame it on (commercial) overfishing" arguments. In seven of the thirteen fisheries the recreational harvest is greater than the commercial. But probably even more surprising to the uninformed, the total recreational fishing mortality (exclusive of catch and release mortality, which we’ll get to a little later) is over 90% of the commercial mortality. The members of the so-called "conservation" groups and their angling colleagues are actually killing more bluefish, more striped bass, more red drum, more red snapper, more dolphin, more yellowfin tuna and more spotted sea trout than those "netters" that they have been trying for years to turn into the scourge of the seas. And, when the total poundage caught is considered, they are in the same ball park as the netters as well.
Of course there are fisheries where commercial harvesters take far more fish than recreational anglers. Considering the zeal with which recreational anglers pursue any suitable quarry, this seems to be much more a matter of their choice than anything else. The primarily or solely commercial species are either beyond the reach of or for various reasons unappealing to recreational anglers. But for those species that can be caught from shore or from a small boat with recreational tackle that are reasonably edible, there’s unquestionably a large and most probably growing recreational fishery.
Then There’s Catch And Release
What’s the impact of catch and release? We’ve written about the growing trend of catch and release fishing in a previous FishNet ( ). Apparently, the belief of the devotees of this form of fishing is that all of the fish that are released "live to fight another day." This obviously isn’t the case. Being punctured by one or several hooks, struggling against the pull of the line, being hauled into a boat or dragged through the breakers and up on the beach, all take a toll on the fish being caught. Available research shows that from 10% to over 50% of all of those fish caught and released by recreational anglers subsequently perish. But, in spite of this high level of mortality, recreational fishermen will catch tens or hundreds of a particular species of fish during a trip, release them all, and assume that in pursuing their sport in this way they’ve had no impact on the resource.
It would be reasonable to assume, particularly if you weren’t one of its devotees, that the whole point of recreational angling was to catch and to keep fish, and that catch and release fishing would only be practiced by a few really hard core hobbyists. Were that the case, the catch and release mortality, whether at the 10% or the 50% level, would be negligible. Unfortunately, it isn’t.
If we look at the charts on the next page, we see that in the recreational striped bass, summer flounder (fluke), red snapper and channel bass (redfish) fisheries, four of the species most popular with East and Gulf coast recreational anglers (and, we might add, with seafood lovers as well), we see that as many as eight times the number of fish that are caught and kept in a year are caught and released. Is this a display of fisheries conservation, as catch and release proponents would like us to think? Not hardly.
Typifying the "catch and release is ok ‘cause it doesn’t kill fish" mindset, John Geiser, a New Jersey fishing columnist wrote on April 30, 1997 "Capt. Phil Sciortino Jr. fished the Shrewsbury River with a party Tuesday morning and they caught over 30 striped bass of which three were keepers. He was out the other day and two anglers caught over 50 bass and no keepers.... These were not stripers in their second year. They were 6- and 7-year-old fish that measured from 24 to just under the legal 28-inch minimum, and weighed up to 12 pounds."
Last year, thanks to stringent possession limits, just under a million and a half striped bass were caught and kept by anglers and almost 13 million were caught and released. If we assume a 10% mortality of released striped bass - a low estimate, considering the conditions they are caught under - then as many die after being released as are kept by the anglers. In spite of releasing their entire catch, the two fishermen Mr. Geiser reported on above who caught "over 50 bass and no keepers" were still killing fish, and almost certainly killing more fish than they would have had they caught and kept their limit and then gone home. And thousands of anglers are catching and releasing millions of striped bass and other fish, are inadvertently and unknowingly killing large numbers of those fish, and are mistakenly assuming that they are actually conservationists.
In the Mid-Atlantic and Southern New England we are in the process of seeing a vivid example of the impact of recreational angling, and how recreational fisheries are managed, on an important fishery. Historically the summer flounder (also called fluke) fishery harvest has been about equally divided between the recreational and commercial fisheries. Last year, however, due to the settlement of a lawsuit brought by several environmental organizations, the recreational harvest was supposed to be held to 7 million pounds, this to be done by a combination of closed seasons and minimum size limits. However, preliminary estimates are that the recreational harvest of summer flounder will surpass the court ordered limit by about 9 million pounds.
As the chart below shows, the number of summer flounder "caught and released" by recreational anglers is about four times the number harvested. If we assume an average weight of two pounds for the summer flounder that are caught and kept, then about 8 million summer flounder will have been caught and kept by recreational anglers and, accordingly, 32 million caught and released this year. Considering that this is a warm weather/warm water fishery and that almost all summer flounder are caught using bait - which it’s agreed causes more damage to the quarry than artificial lures - it’s hard to imagine that the mortality of the released fish is at the low end of the catch and release range. But even assuming that it is, at 15% mortality another 5+ million fish will have been killed by recreational anglers. So a supposedly court-mandated management regime allowing a recreational harvest of 3 1/2 million fish (at the 2 pound average size) could result, rather, in a mortality of perhaps 13 million, almost four times the court-mandated catch.
Note that the commercial summer flounder harvest is closely monitored and stringently controlled and has been within 10% of the total allowable catch for the past five years. Note also that if there was any indication that the quota was going to be exceeded by anything approaching 100% in any commercial fishery, immediate and severe measures would be implemented to prevent it.
Why Doesn’t Recreational Management Work?
The best way to get at this question is to first discuss how recreational fishing is managed. The primary management tools are creel and size limits and closed seasons. Creel limits regulate the number of a particular species of fish an angler may have in his or her possession. Size limits regulate the size of fish of a particular species an angler may possess. Generally, minimum size limits are used, but sometimes minimum and maximum size or "slot" limits are put in place. During closed seasons, the angler can’t possess a particular species. It’s critically important to note here that these are all controls on possession. An angler can catch any number of fish of a particular species out of season. An angler can catch any number of fish smaller (or larger, if a slot limit is in place) than the size limit for that particular species. And an angler can catch any number of fish of a particular species, regardless of the creel limit. It should go without saying, though it unfortunately doesn’t, that catching fish, no matter how careful the angler is and no matter how optimal other conditions are, involves killing fish. So there are effective - or at least as effective as the good will of millions of recreational anglers and the policing efforts of a handful of enforcement agents can make them - controls on the possession of particular species of fish, but none whatsoever on the catching or killing of those same species.
Some recreational anglers are undoubtedly "expert" enough to target particular species of fish. But when a hunk of bait or a lure is dangled in front of a hungry fish, if that fish is big enough to eat it, it’s going to give it a go, and it’s going to do so regardless of whether it’s in season or not, whether it’s large (or small) enough to be legal, and regardless of how many other fish of that species the angler already has in possession. And anglers tend to keep on fishing, particularly because as a group they are mistakenly convinced that they can "catch and release" fish forever with no negative consequences for the fish. Recreational fishing regulations manage the number of fish an angler can possess, they have absolutely no effect in regulating the number of fish an angler can catch or the number of fish an angler can kill.
Exacerbating what seems to be an already dismal situation is the fact that there is no limit on the number of recreational anglers who are allowed to fish. One of the major tools used in managing commercial fisheries is limited entry. This means that the number of participants in a particular fishery is determined based on the productive capacity of that fishery and subsequently it isn’t exceeded. New entrants are not permitted into the fishery unless others leave or the stock improves. While limited entry was, and in many instances still is, a particularly contentious issue, in one form or another it is in effect in all of the commercial fisheries under federal regulation. But it’s not used in any recreational fisheries (although the number of permitted "for hire" recreational vessels is limited in a few). Some states have instituted recreational fishing licenses at nominal cost, but when their cost is considered relative to the total expense of salt water angling, they can hardly serve as an effective disincentive. So one question seems unavoidable. When it comes to recreational fishing management, what is being restricted?
Fisheries managers - and recreational anglers - argue that creel and season limits are effective in managing recreational fisheries because they provide disincentives to the fishermen and women whose interest is bringing home a bucket or ice chest filled with fish. They are partially right. But the present summer flounder situation seems a good indication of exactly how "partially" right they are. There are stringent size, creel and season limits in this fishery, and as far as we know there isn’t any significant catch and release of this species. Yet the recreational fishing mortality is far beyond the court mandated level.
No one in the commercial fishing industry would argue that catching fish for pleasure or for personal consumption isn’t a valid use of our fisheries resources. In fact, we look forward to the day when we can join with the recreational fishing industry in supporting sound, science-based fisheries and marine ecosystem management that benefits every U.S. citizen, including commercial and recreational fishermen and seafood consumers. However, recreational angling is a large and increasing source of fishing mortality, particularly considering the growing popularity of catch and release, that at this time is virtually unrecognized by the public and woefully uncontrolled by the managers.* And the loudest voices clamoring for increasing restrictions on commercial harvesters are the so-called "conservationists" who are in reality recreational anglers or their spokesmen looking for a larger slice of the fishing pie. The commercial fishing industry has been carrying the burden of conservation for years while the recreational angling "conservationists" have been hiding behind their catch and release, we’re only catching ‘em one at a time smokescreen. It’s about time that we start seriously looking at the impacts of recreational angling on our fish stocks and designing management techniques that address recreational fishing mortality as well as commercial.
*Confounding the problem of uncontrolled recreational fishing pressure is the growing reliance of the professional managers on federal Wallop-Breaux funding provided by taxes on recreational fishing and yachting supplies and equipment. Any decrease in the amount of recreational fishing and yachting expenditures would be reflected in a decrease in the Wallop-Breaux accounts that the management agencies depend on ( )
I called commercial shark fisherman pieces of crap, are you a commercial shark fisherman?
Do you really think that people read a single word of these posts that you spend hours writing? I have a job to go to I cant spend hours going back and forth with you. You dont care about anything on this site other then discussions on commercial fishing, you never show up on any other thread and never provide any reports.
So keep getting red in the face and spewing jargon, the people on this site are wise to your game and once again I will say you are wasting your time. If there was a button I could push to end all commercial I would have pushed it five minutes ago and you will never change my view.
D4G you basically said its recreational fishermens fault to loss of fish stocks and that the commercial fishery has nothing to do with it.....to me that makes almost no sense and it sounds like a bunch of bs to favor the commercial idustry.......i worked at a seafood market here in south fla for about 1 year and the amount of flounder that the commercial fisherery brings through there in 2 weeks is more then i see caught in the whole idian river year round....i dont see how catch and release could effect loss of fish
You would need two hands to point all the fingers for the collapse or overfishing of most stocks. Commercial fishermen, poaching recs/illegal commercial fishermen, habitat destruction, and pollution all have their place in it. Regulation and enforcement of all of the above is the only answer IMHO . I worked in a seafood market for 13 years so have seen both sides of the argument. I have also watched '' illegal commercial fishermen'' ie unregulated recreational fishermen castnet everything that swims with 12 - 14 ft nets in Jensen beach and cooler everything in order to sell it. Throw in the recreational poachers that hammer the 5 - 8 inch mangroves and everything else with fins in the Keys on a daily basis . Compounded by destruction of mangrove nurseries and breeding grounds as well as overfishing of breeding grounds by commercial dragnetters and longliners and you have the situation we have today. The commercial guys are smart and have organizations and lobbyists to protect their intrests while most recs just whine online about the issues. I keep preaching that ''we'' recreational fishermen need to unite inorder to make any difference in our fisheries .
Dreaming the dream that one day I can be as good as some of the boatless pros and catch some 12 inch mangrove snapper.
Diggin The article you posted in response assumes a great deal of it's info. not to mention the website it came from Fishnet.com is supported buy the following groups. New Jersey FishNet is supported by Atlantic Capes Fisheries, the Fishermen’s Dock Cooperative, Lund’s Fisheries, the National Fisheries Institute and Viking Village dock. Hardly what I call an unbiased bunch. Since sharks are the subject that started this thread I will only address the shark subject. The article from 15 March 1998 Is suppose to be about the NMFS spinning Information about shark stocks. Instead there is no data on shark #s. It's more a complaint that the NMFS cut the overall shark harvest by 1/2 from 4500 metric tons to just over 200 metric tonnes. It further complains that small business needs were not addressed. Again no mention of shark stocks. My point here is your sources are no less biased than the environmentalist's. But to try and convince anyone that catch and release is as damaging or in some cases as your source states worse. Is an irresponsible and unfounded. In short an out right LIE.......................
JunoChris wrote:I called commercial shark fisherman pieces of crap, are you a commercial shark fisherman?
Do you really think that people read a single word of these posts that you spend hours writing? I have a job to go to I cant spend hours going back and forth with you. You dont care about anything on this site other then discussions on commercial fishing, you never show up on any other thread and never provide any reports.
So keep getting red in the face and spewing jargon, the people on this site are wise to your game and once again I will say you are wasting your time. If there was a button I could push to end all commercial I would have pushed it five minutes ago and you will never change my view.
well it seems that some do read it ! and im not the one who wrote them , and i do other things on the site besides commerical fishing , but close minded people like you that give the commerical fishing a bad name to get your point across is pothetic , and i have provided reports for sebastian if you care to look for them . and that right there is what i mean you dont have all the facts befor you start spewing jargon you know nothing about . get your facts straight befor you put your foot in your mouth again . and that dumb ass comment about pushing the button , the reason the goverment is comeing down on rec fishing is becouse the rec fishiermen have cryied wolf long enough blameing the commerical guys for there problems when the rec fishiermen are part of the problem . a few thousand commerical guys against millions in the state of florida do far more damage to the fish stock that the commerical guy ever could .
diggin4grouper, FYI diggin4grouper OWNS OR RUNS a supply store for commercial fishermen/company's.
again get your facts straight befor you put your foot in your mouth .
i do not own or run a supply store for commerical fishermen i just buy my tackle there becouse im smarter than you , its cheaper than haveing to buy it for the L<B<S or basspro ect ...
yall need to be open minded and look at all the facts , there will be a lot of stuff in the next few years proveing what im saying now , becouse the is going to be more rules and more stricter laws comeing for both commerical and rec guys alike plus its in the work to where the rec guys have to report there catch just like the commerical guys do weather you fish from a boat or land .
I am not going to get into an argument with you over who causes more damage to the fisheries cause that has already been done on here several times. Everytime this argument comes up you post the same bias article. Just make sure you ignore the Redfish and Swordfish resurgence.
"a few thousand commerical guys against millions in the state of florida do far more damage to the fish stock that the commerical guy ever could ." Do you really wonder why you are always alone on your side of the argument when you post comments like this?
Lets just take the spot that this thread is about. About 15 to 20 devoted shark fishermen fish that spot from shore and release every single shark they get. Compared to the commercial guys out there that kill 5 to 15 or more sharks a day out there per boat, of which there is several boats on the same day sometimes. Half of what they are killing are small Bulls and that havent even reached maturity yet. I want to see how you can explain that the commercial guys arent the ones damaging that fishery.
Not to be a Oscar mayer but if you want me to keep reading your posts ask your mom to proof read them for you before you hit submit.
not to get into this argument...but the quote
"Eat the shark before the shark eats you" is ridiculous...we as humans have entered their habitat, if we don't want to run the risk of getting bit then don't go in the frigging water. To even think that this quote is remotely amusing is asinine.
you just dont get it do you , all yalls bitchin put more regs on the commerical guys and it hasnt helped they catch less and yall still Birds and the Bees wine and wine and wine . the goverment knows what the problem is and there trying to fix it . but if your so dead set on saveing the shark quit Birds and the Bees fishing for them !!!!!!!! plain and Birds and the Bees simple . look at all the dam pictures yall have posted with yall sitting on the back of the shark with the jaws open and or hanging from a scale . so dont give me i here to protect the shark your just as much a hipacrit as the rest of them ... your close minded asd set in what you belive which is off of wrong data . and you and the rest of your followers yall need to get up to date info and get with the real world . and to think all this Birds and the Bees started with your mouth on this . yall were asking what the regs were . and i posted them for ya and you blast me . so this is it ...
you can kiss my white azz junochris ............
you and all the others will see that im telling the truth here in a year or two about this and hopefully you and your followers will finaly come to your dam sences ...
this is the last post i will be makeing on this thread due to the fact you arent worth the dam effort
