Newly Published Post-release Shark Survivability Study

[floating doc]

good discussion. We need to continue to look at this issue.

[Dominick]

You are right Salty.  There is no balance between commercial fishing and sport fishing.  I would bet that if the powers that be would close fishing to commercial fishermen and allow them to fish every other year the fish schools would regenerate quickly.  Keep sport fishing open and see how the schools replenish themselves.  I don't think allowing sport fishermen to take one or two fish would hurt.  Dominick

[saltydog]

On that front if you look at where they close fisheries to commercial harvest it does work, but we on the other hand do have another issue at hand, the climate is changing to. And this also has an effect of the oceans. Also the effect of pollution and the development of our coastal areas to human habitation, and the list goes on. All of the factors need to be looked at, at a whole and not peacemeal as they always have been and in the near future probably always will be. It will probably take a whole ecosystem crash before they take notice but by then the fat lady has sung and it's all over.

[Ron Jones]

We try to keep this an unpolitical place but the bottom line to the question of why is politics. Be an elected official of the party in power that allows long lining to go by by, even in a specific area, and try to get reelected. The sport fishing lobby is just nowhere near as important to the election campaigns of politicians as the commercial fishing lobby. Until something as powerful as the NRA developes for sport fisherman we just don't matter and so we are easy targets.
Ron

[saltydog]

True, now look at how much money is made with sportfishing worldwide! It will boggle the mind.

[Ron Jones]

True,
But look at the money the long-liners create. Include the boat maintainers, the gear dealers. Don't forget the processors and packing houses and possibly some long shore man belonging to a union or two. Then the trucks to move the product (my dad runs 1-2 loads of fish from Seattle to LA a month.) You are talking about a lot of voters to get disinterested in your message.
Ron

[Tightlines667]

It is not surprising to me that this discussion has turned to the age old commercial vs. Sport fishing debate.  I grew up with a strong bias against large scale industrialized fishing due in part to be an avid reader of sportsfishing mags, and due in part to the pleathera of examples world-wide of mismanaged fisheries, and examples of over exploitation leading to degradation of valuable resources, and in many cases the collapse of key populations, and fisheries, and due in part to witnessing, first hand, negative effects of overfishing, and due to other reasons.  But the more interested and passionate I became about fish and natural resource management and conservation and the more knowledge I gained on said topics...I found my strong biasis and opinions were tempered by the reality of all of the factors involved. 

Unfortunately, it is far easier to draw battle lines, point fingers, and assign blame then it is to work within a system to gain knowledge needed, and utilize available tools to enact positive change or to actually develop and implement solutions that work.  As anyone knows most workable solutions always require a certain degree of compromise, and need to attempt to weigh all of the factors and interests involved.  That being said, you can not make everyone happy all of the time, and some factors within a given system will tend to exert a stronger influence (politco-economic, special interests, cultural/societal values, maintainance of power structures, and the list goes on) or others.  Inevitably one, more, or all of the interests involved will be left feeling disenchantized.  With regards to marine resource conservation, I never used to understood why there is such a seemingly great rift between the commercial, recreational, scientific research, and management sectors...as well as the divisions within the groups. 

I mean everyone wants the same thing right?  Why can't everyone just get along?  If a given resource is at risk of over exploitation, or a given habitat is exhibiting signs of unsustainable degradation then it is the managers job to work within the system (or modify it accordingly) to use the 'best available science', and best available tools available, while weighing impacts and interests, and accounting for/attempting to predict both short and long-term impacts to ensure the resource and it's associated intrinsic and economic values are conserved and that the Activities utilizing said resource are sustainable.  In this day and age we have more tools, knowledge, and history to draw upon then ever to accomplish this simple goal.  At the same time the inherent pressures on said natural resources are probably greater (on the world-wide stage) then anytime in history.  Unfortunately, as was often the case in the past, the most cripling of the challenges involve the ability of the system to actually enact needed change or measures, even when it is widely understood what should and in some cases, needs to be done. 

On the other hand it is not just all bad news, there are many instances where management (whether from top- down, or bottom-up), has been successful.  I am a firm believer that the resource users (whether hunters, farmers, sports or commercial fishermen) are the key, they are 'where the rubber meets the road' they are the ones who care the most (or truely have a tangable stake in) ensuring proper resource conservation.  Thsee concepts which seem so simple to many are actually hard for many to understand.  For instance why are the more pheasants, waterfowl, or deer in North America right now then anytime in history?(past 100 years anyways)?  Simple, its because we as americans value them.  So the fact that hunting and killing an animal is popular, means we will work to sustain the resource that we enjoy.  Likewise, farmers will work to conserve those factors that promote and sustain their land's productivity because it is important (an necessary) to them. I often times like to draw parallels between land use management practices and marine systems because I am an avid hunter who has historical ties to the farming community.  In a simplified way, the same thing happens with fishermen.  If you realize that catch and release fishing of medium size trophy fish will result in more trophy fish available down the road, or releasing large/mature fish will result in increased production and better fishing later, or even that removing individuals that are detrimental to the health of a system, or improving stream side habitate, increasing structure or any number of other things are good for conservation of the resource then many individuals will put them into practice.  On the other hand, there are many factors that might inhibit conservation from the bottom-up...competition for a limited resource, being forced to do something that does not fit with your values, or has an unwanted (or unsustainable) consequence, or that simply seems unfair.  If resource users are to make changes (especially those that involve sacrifice) they had better believe the will see some sort of ROI (Return on their investment), or they will not do them unless forced to through the use of negative consequences.  There are not always easy answers, and actual applicable solutions in light of ever present challenges are even tougher to come by... but on the other hand sometimes things actually work themselves out by-and-by. 

Sorry bout the exceedingly long diatribe here, I just like to share my point of view on the things I care about from time-to-time.

Also, I apologize in advance for getting off of the topic, and am not sure this forum dedicated to reels is really the best forum for discussing resource conservation, management, and allocation issues? 

[Tightlines667]

By the way guys...

Thanks for your input!

Jerri-I can tell you've got some valuable experience in these matters, and you definitely brought up some valid points.   

Noyb72 is right to point out that the economic impact of commercial fisheries is often far greater and more encompassing then what is counterintuitive to most

Saltydog- I've been reading sportsfishing mags every month since I could read, and agree that unfortunately the total overall, and far reaching economic value of sportsfishing is often underestimated, and would add that sports fisheries often recieve less positive credit, end up being under represented in the data, and often bear the brunt of outside scrutiny...unduly I might add

Also, I agree that on the world-wide stage commercial shark harvest, and finning remains a huge concern...but strongly disagree with the other part.  I may be a bit biased (since I work for NMFS), but I think the United States has (and is continuing to do) done a commendable job at addressing the shark finning issue at home, and we have been instrumental (from a westerner's point of view) at helping foreign nations to truly address this issue as well.  We have all but eliminated the practice in all the transparent (the lion share) domestic commercial fisheries, through legislation, enforcement, and domestic market control measures.  There may still be a demand for shark fins, and a smallish domestic black market, but by in large this has been a great success (in recent years).  Internationally challenges are much greater, but huge strides have been made... For instance, our region (Pacific Islands) has helped the parties to the Naru agreement (S.Pac nations) clamp down and all but eliminate the practice througout their territorial waters (this is ine of the largest centers of industrialized fishing world-wide), and we are working to continue increased reporting and associated enforcement of the practice and trade for all US flagged vessels oppersting throughout the entire Pacific, and for all foreign industrialized vessels that transport catches at sea within IATTC waters (most of the Pacific).  Africa, the EU, Some South American counties, and others have had similar results in much of the S and N Atlantic,  Carrabean, and the Gulf.  Unfortunately, the practice (fed by strong demand) continues throughout parts of the Atlantic, much of the Indian Ocean, the western pacific, and eastern pacific on a large commercial scale, and is largely unregulated in a Mirade of smaller commercial and artisanal fisheries worldwide.  This issue is a good one in terms of pointing out many of the challenges, and inadequacies inherent in truly world-wide international fisheries management.  Supposedly it's up to the UN?  Which has no means, will, or ability to recommendations and such..but no real action or teeth involved.

Dominick and Salty...with regards to shutting down longline or other commercial fisheries..I would say this is a tool and can be effective along with time area closures, or dare I say..MPAs (when/if actually managed properly).  It may not always be as effective at enacting stock recovery as one might think, and it generally will have a significant and far-reaching economic impact as well.  I also happen to believe (again probably biased a bit here) that commercial longline fisheries day gives us one of the 'best' available tools for conducting stock assessments and assessing overall trends (especially over time), due in part to the wide spread distribution, and in part to the somewhat passive, shotgun style it employes (as well as it's reproducible and replicable nature.  Again this data has some limitations as well and is only one of many tools available.  I also believe (again prob a bit biased here) that it can be properly managed.  At least here in the Pacific, I would much rather have a domestic fleet sustainably harvesting fish, and providing valuable data, then do away with it and allow the largely unregulated foreign fleets to fish unsustainably, and fail to collect and share good data.  effectively manage, enforce or regulate (for the most part). 

Admittedly there are many instances of mismanagement of our domestic fisheries, and there certainly are many pressing issues that should (need to be) addressed, but we should also recognize the successes that exist (Atlantic Billfish recovery plan, protected species take reduction measures, bi catch reduction measures accriss the board, some effective time area closures, the halibut population recovery, the by and large effectively managed Pac crab, and pollack fisheries, Devil's Lake, ND walleye and pike Rex fishery...had to throw that one in and others).  Depending on one's view a case might be made against some measures as having actually been successful, but regardless there are successes and we should acknowledge that.

Ok..I think I'm done for now...
Sorry for the characteristic long-winded post.

[Dominick]

You are right Salty.  There is no balance between commercial fishing and sport fishing.  I would bet that if the powers that be would close fishing to commercial fishermen and allow them to fish every other year the fish schools would regenerate quickly.  Keep sport fishing open and see how the schools replenish themselves.  I don't think allowing sport fishermen to take one or two fish would hurt.  Dominick

Tightlines, I get your point. However, I do not see the commercial fishermen as interested in conservation as hunters.  Also I quoted myself (see underlined portion) in this post to re-emphasize that I don't know if it will work by allowing commercial fishermen to fish every other year.  I am curious to see if the fish stock would improve given a year to recuperate.  BTW if commercial fishermen are interested in conservation I would like to see where and what they are doing.  All I hear about is that commercial trawlers with mile long nets wipe out an area and move to the next area.  In areas of Baja this is going on all the time.  The netters come through and take whole schools of tuna and dorado and it takes many weeks for the area to become fishable again.  Dominick

[Tightlines667]

We actually have a number of historical time/area closures in our longline fisheries, and some in the bottomfish, and lobster fisheries that have taken place, and there is data to pour over on this topic. I'm sure it won't be long (next stock assessment?) before someone looks at real-world data on population abundance and disposition (size/age-class structure), there may be immediate and noticeable effects to a given species 'recovery' when longline fishing pressure is removed.  A paper recently came out, following a change in N. Pacific Swordfish population status, that suggests that there was a link to longline fishing pressure (effort) and measurable decreases in large size/age class individuals, and overall CPU (suggesting a movement towards overfishing status).  In the history of this relatively young fishery there have been some lengthy total closures of the fishery, a stock assessment or some other analysis might be able to more clearly demonstrate an immediate positive response to localized removal of longline fishing effort.  This isn't my specialty but if there is a pattern there it should be clearly recognizable by those whose job it is to deal with this stuff.  

I can say that removing fishing pressure is not always good for a given species, as conventional wisdom might suggest.  For instance, when the bottomfish fishery was suddenly halted in parts of the NWHI these same areas saw a tremendous and rapid growth of 'predator' type species, which may likely lead to severely retarding the recovery of other targeted fish stocks well into the future.  The whole area is now a national monument (thanks Mr. President), so it may take decades for the ecosystems to find a truly healthy and sustainable balance, whereas properly managed fishing could in theory have reduced this recovery time significantly.  Another case might be the Miriad of other fisheries that have in essence created ecosystem level shifts for specific species niches.  If pressure is simply removed, a more short-term competitive species might fill the niche quickly and severely limit the ability if the system to recover to a healthy level in a timely fashion.  I'm not necessarily saying this would be the case with longline fishery closures though.  

[Tightlines667]

Speaking if NOAA/NMFS  and recreational fishing...
There is an upcoming summit

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/recreational/

[Tightlines667]

Also, with regards to commercial fishermen not being as interested in a species recovery as hunters, this prob depends on the fishery and fishermen himself, but it's likely that their values differ significantly.  My point was if we can't depend in bottom-up type management practices to work effectively, top-down or a blend are needed to get the job done.  For instance... you might have an unethical hunter with total disregard for the sport who wantonly kills for all the wrong reasons (or something of the sort), but if he is doing so while buying a license, and following all the other established regs, his kill and money supports the management if the species (at least to some extent), if he is poaching and grossly disregarding management practices he will likely get punished at some point, or enough of these type guys would, where the overall management strategy still works.   Bottom up stuff helps to ensure there arn't too many of these guys around too.  I mean what landowner would standby and let someone come in and commercially harvest all of his waterfowl when they are on their nests in the spring, burn his crops or some other unethical type thing.  I guess I believe that effective management with the blend of individual responsibility and group responsibility, along with top down 'guidance' is possible regardless of the bad attitudes or conflicting interests of a few individuals.  Ideally everyone would behave responsibly and we wouldn't need all these laws.  It's funny how many resource management sucess stories come from those areas with few laws (and top-down stuff), and also happen to coincide with there being fewer people and their localized pressures.  The areas with greater people also tend to have more laws rules, and 'procedural' regulations.  It can be frustrating when your freedoms are restricted and results of sacrifice are not forthcoming.  I mean I don't need someone telling me not to shoot myself accidentally because its illegal...I think I can manage that one on my own by simply employing some common sense gun safety practices while afield.

I might be getting a bit list in the tall grasses here?

[saltydog]

Well I am one of the ones that got put out of the commercial fishing business when they decided to ban netting and now at this moment how many remember all the squealing people made about all the disruption of peoples lives it made. Not one mention is in the news now, nobody probably remembers how many of us got a check and were told to have a nice day, but the world is still turning and people still fish but in a different way and for different fish.
And no matter what you do you can never keep politics out of fishing because everything that has to do with the sport has laws and bylaws that control everything that is done. How many you can catch and size. When and where you fish. How you fish with tackle and gear restrictions and the list goes on and on. The legislature and misinformed politicians make decisions that aren't always the best for either the fish populations or the ones who rely on those fish.
But if you want a way to replenish fish stocks worldwide then the world as a whole should instead of fighting over territory or oil it should use all that energy in producing food for the billions on the planet. Take it or leave it the worlds populations are growing by leaps and bounds and the food production is not keeping up. When I was a child the population of the world was 3.6 billion people now it is 7 billion, so if we follow the math of the last 45 years there will be 10 to 11 billion people on this planet by 2060. Where is the food going to come from?
The more you look at the problems we face in the future the deeper it rises on the boots, or in our case now we are in chest waders looking for a raft. Isn't it funny how the talk about sustainable fishing practice meters out into world hunger. The reason for fisheries instability is the insatiable need to feed ourselves and that is what is all about, the need to feed ones family. Next time you pick up some Long John Silvers fish or eat at Red Lobster just think about how much longer we can keep this up. I used to be a commercial fisherman and so did most of my family, and I am the end of that long tradition because it is no longer feasible to do it on the scale needed to feed the planets insatiable hunger unless some real changes are made not just in the USA but all over the world. We are the unbalancing influence in the ecosystem and we need to learn that we have already done irreparable harm to the world we live in, we just need to start trying to fix it now not later. And giving us restrictions as to what we do and the other countries not being bound to those restrictions does not solve anything.

[Tightlines667]

I know a few people that were bought out of other fisheries that were shut down as well.  I think the move..starting in the early 80s towards capitalization and industrialization of many of the Nation's commercial fisheries (though subsudies, low interest rates, management measures and other factors) was one if the darkest moves in our Nation's past.  Short-term gains, and consolidation of wealth in commercial fisheries, as well as that in farming and general land use practices lead to a loss of many community-based commercial fisheries, as well as the family farm.  Capitalism can provide opportunity, but it can also be vicious.

As far as the politicians go...there are very few good examples out there (maybe that fisheries minister in Mexico that actually promoted fish conservation, and sportsfishing?) and one only needs to read the latest recommendations from our federal fisheries committee on the hill to realize most with power are not acting in the best interest of their consituents, and often times base their decisions on misinformation, reactivity, or short-term political agendas. 

As far as world food demands go...I wish it was is simple as getting food to those that need it.  We and other countries have massive surpluses, and it is possible to meet the world's food demands with existing production capabilities...but there are much larger world-wide economic forces at play.  Increasing commodity prices, transportation/distribution costs, and others.  I really think the consolidation of wealth and power and artificial inflation on a world-wide scale and other economic changes are to blame.  Alas there are never any easy answers. 

Ok, that's prob enough on politics for the evening eh?

[saltydog]

Now back to sharkin, good release practices are the most viable way to preserve the resource. At least at our end.