For those who might be interested...
There is a Newly Published Post-release Shark Survivability Study that suggests that many (10-25%+) sharks that are released following catch and release fishing may suffer from delayed mortality.
This study was performed by one of our nations top warm-water marine biological research institutes and published in a reputable scientific journal. Keep in mind that it is only one if many that have been done over the last 3 decades or so.
Here's the abstract:
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v496/p207-218/
And a related article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140130141315.htm
I think that story is a little bogus, as I have read it myself. IMO Catch and release has worked for many years. And as for the sharks I have not seen an issue with it here in our area and believe me there are AAAALLLLOOOOTTTTTT of sharkers here in my area. Heck My friend LP caught 98 this past year from Land and then another one of my friends runs a shark fishing charted service out of Pensacola and lets not even consider the rest of us guys that do it.
I understand the changes that happen within the sharks body, but believe that with the use of proper catch and release techniques that they all stand a better chance of surviving. Like with us here we let the shark pull away from us when releasing them instead of just tossing or dragging them back in the waterand we try not to have them out of the water longer for 1 1/2 minutes. We make sure our team has everything ready and at to go so we can release them asap.
With the amount of beach goers, fishermen, and boaters here in our area we would be seeing evidence of these high mortality rates. But it yas yet to be seen here. Our fish kills come from lack of oxygen in the water in the dead of summer or from extreme temperature drops. Again this is just my opinion from what I have seen from across the 250 miles of coastline I have fished over the years.
Admittedly that was my reaction as well.
The scientific and management community needs to make sure to continue to be highly skepticle and questioning when examining this stuff. These studies are just one of many things that need to be taken into account when looking at the overall picture. I think the actual post-release survivability rates can vary widely depending on many factors. To me the important thing to be gleaned from this type of data is what physiological factors contribute to stress-induced mortality, and the clear differences that exist between different species (due in part to measurable physiological differences). Managers need to have 'hard data' and studies that they can point to in order to ensure these types of factors are taken into consideration when developing policy and practices. They should typically er on the side of caution and never take just a single set of results at face value.
Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the results these type of targeted studies, typically address a perceived issue that either may not have been adeqetly enumerated, or to add to a body of work. Conflicting results, or discrepancies often times point out inadequacies in methodology or data sets. Many of the modern tools available to fisheries research biologist (in this case PSAT tags) are expensive and as such will limit limit overall sample size. These sophisticated tools can tell us a great deal about a few individuals, but we need to keep in mind that these are just a few individuals... any actual application of mortality rates into the analysis of say population assesments or bycatch models can only be made if it is based on studies that have adequete sample sizes, have stood the test of time and scrutany, and are proven to be directly applicable to a given population, species, or methodology. Unfortunately, many decisions are based, in part, on 'best available' scientific data for which it may not end up being very good at all. I think this study and others like it simply point out that post-release mortality can occur (there may be differences between species), and should be considered.
I have always felt that managers can learn slit from the fishermen themselves that are actually in a position to bring direct experience to bear.
Fishermen and the shift in attitudes in recent years need to be highly commended. They are the ones that are actually making a day to day difference in the conservation if the resources they value.
When I was a kid we used to kill all sharks that we caught since they were considered a nusance, which drove away our target species, competed with us for the resource we were targeting, and often times stoll or damaged the fish we worked so hard to catch. But over time, our attitude shifted and we started to respect these predators, and developed means of removing our gear before releasing them. At the time, we would actually put a nose around their neck, pull their head outta the water to control them, and their mouth, and remove our hook with a pliers.
Anyways I just thought I'd share the fact that this most recent study was performed, and published. The management implications surrounding it are yet to be determined.
I have to agree with Chris on this one. These kind of reports are bad for our sport. Look at the Apex Predator tagging program. There are many sharks caught again over and over. Especially Lemons. I realize some fish do die, It the nature of the sport, bur as far as being endangered, I really think this is a myth as well. If you have ever seen an aerial view of Florida's beaches during the Migration in May. It is astonishing! ::) Shark Fishing is a sport that most people are just plain scared of. I really think that's why Shark Attacks are on the rise as well. Where Shark Fishing is Banned, their only population control is cannibalism.
As a side note...
My personal experiences with shark fishing indicate that they are very hearty, resultant animals that can 'take a lickin and keep on tickin'. On commercial gear, I have seen sharks survive what would be considered 'horrific' injuries and come back to be recaptured from 1 to severel days later. Also, I've seen a number of sharks caught withassive wounds that have healed over. Like I said everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Grain of Salt taken. ;D You are a smart Man John! ;)
I do know that research in and of itself is driven by funders and colleagues, to either bolster an opinion or a position in which one stands. In todays times of corporate and personal agendas a lot of so called scientific research is corrupted to fit where the person funding it wants it to stand. Now with that said, I did attend university studies in the marine biology field so I do know a little about the agendas pushed by not only governments and corporate entities but also by individuals bent on making everyone bend to there way of thinking.
Now with that out of the way the one thing in the report I do agree with is that Hammerheads do die more often when captured due to there willpower not to come in until almost dead from exhaustion. They are one shark that bulldogs to the end. And some of it has to do with the way they are treated when landed. A good way to decrease mortality of sharks is to not fully drag them onto the beach out of the water, I know it makes a great pic but it can on a large animal put undo stress on the internal organs of the fish causing irreparable damage and death. Have your landing bag near, tag in the tag stick, tape in your pocket and cameraman ready. Get that fish de-hooked, tagged, measurements, pic taken as fast as humanly possible then walk the fish out until it swims away. This should all be done within one minute. Then backslap, brag, fill out tag card and do all your other things you would have normally done while the fish is on the beach waiting for you to get your act together.
Now I am one of those guys that does on occasion take a shark home for the grill but those are mostly 3 to 6 foot BT, the rest go on there merry way with a tag in there back to get caught by someone else a few years down the line. I have tagged several Hammerheads and all of them swam on there merry way with no sign of stress but handling at the end has a lot to do with that.
Quote from: Chris Gatorfan on February 05, 2014, 02:45:49 PM
with the use of proper catch and release techniques
I think this is an important point, and it would be really hard to convince me that their isn't a large percentage of people catching sharks who don't even realize that such techniques have been developed, much less care to use them. It would be unreasonable to believe that the energy invested in developing these techniques don't decrease the mortality rate, but at the same time it is unreasonable to believe that inproper release methods aren't detrimental to the mortality rate. I remember in the 70s we were told (by jauk cousteau no less) that catching sharks causes internal damage so severe that it wasn't reasonable to expect survival. Based on the three points I've presented a scientific organization proposing a mortality rate of 10-25% does not seem unreasonable. I certainatly don't have the education background to question the concept of delayed mortality.
Ron
Knowing nothing about the subject I am going out on a limb to comment here. I do not know if the study that was done looked at the delayed mortality of the sharks that were cannibalized. Here's my thinking. It seems to me that the study said the delayed mortality was mostly caused by the physical stress on the fish. In other words its wounds and buildup of lactic acid. I want to posit that when an exhausted fish is released it will emanate the electric current of a wounded fish. Indeed it may be trailing some blood from the unhooking. This leaves the released shark vulnerable as prey for its brethren. Whereupon the shark is attacked and eaten by other sharks. Am I wrong here? Dominick
I would say yes and no Dominic. yes the blood is an attractant for the sharks and does cause the to want to attack the blood source, but thats not always so. I have been on the pier with bloodied up water from Bonito, King Mack, and Spanish Mack, with fish still coming over the rail and anywhere from 3-15 sharks cruising around us and not a single one tried to attack any of our incoming fish. Heck We normally have to worry about the Dolphins eating our King and Spanish Macks more than we do the sharks.
Post release survivability of fishes and sharks is in many cases affected by predation effects on tired, weakened, or injured animals (that may have resulted from capture), and most times these are accounted for in the mortality estimates. However, It is important to look at how the researchers accounted for this. If PSATS are utilized as the primary instrument (as is the case here) these tags can not, pop off of the animal, and float to the surface if they have been swallowed by another animal (so it could produce false positive mortality), or conversely they may pop off prematurely as a result of a predation event (though its difficult to determine if this resulted from poor tag placement/retention/natural shedding, tag malfunction, or some other factor in all cases this 'type' data must be accounted for during analysis. Other typically problematic Post-release research tools include the use of active radio transmitters to track a given animal following release. Sometimes a predation event may lead to researchers tracking the animal that did the predating, rather then the target individual since he has now acquired the active tag. Other times there are clear behavioral changes that indicate different phases following release (I.e. recovery period, transition to 'normal' expected movement/dive patterns), and other times mortality events are clear..the animal stops moving and sinks to predetermined release depth or bottom. Researchers will outline whether data anomalies are excluded from sample analysis, or assigned a mortality factor (based on probability), or are treated in some other fashion. The point is Natural tag shedding, and predation events must be accounted for or they can skew the results, ESP. W/small sample sizes. Some species are particularly prone to these issues w/ tag-recapture, and post release behavioral studies, locality and temporal characteristics can also come into play. For instance, a post-release survivability study on GTs caught on sportsfishing gear within a refuge where there were significantly high levels of aggressive sharks and other predators in the immediate vicinity during release showed high post-release mortality due to predation events. The sharks targeted the recently released fish in their 'weakened state, and became more adept at cuing in to them. Other times surprising results, like a negative feed response from sharks in the immediate vicinity of their breathern being released (or killed) are observed. Studies which take place over a larger area and time, along with greater sample sizes tend to parse out these relatively rare outliers and produce better results.
Either way it's a good point.
Hi Guys,
A little background to put my opinion into perspective. I spent 12 years involved in shark conservation in the UK, and part of that time developed and then ran the UK shark tagging programme. I attended symposiums all round the world, and even eventually presented a paper at one of those concerning fisheries in the North Atlantic.
Running a tagging program, post-release shark mortality was of huge interest, and something that we studies hard from all the available papers and figures available at the time. We were especially considered with some scepticism by the 'scientific community', as we solely used recreational anglers as our sources of information and taggers – in their minds 'dirty data', but with appropriate formulae, we could tune out all suspect data, and void their concerns.
This brings to the point that scientists are resistant to those who are not scientists, and anything that they say, as you aren't a member of their 'castle in the sky club'. Added to that we soon learned to listen to all the papers presented at various symposiums with an ear towards what are their background agendas. There is a huge reserve of monies out there for anyone looking to discredit recreational angling, and promote tree hugging.
Back to this particular paper, the point that lactate poisoning occurs is not new, the longer the fight the higher the potential levels, the longer the recovery period – this is old new, even 15 years ago, this was proven. In some species, and this study only covered 5 coastal species, there are another 400 species to look at for this particular scientist – before he can make any real assumptions on post-release mortality.
They used recreational anglers for their sampling method, and did use either their own long lines or commercial fisheries, so the sampling is 'skew'. They come out with global statements about the vulnerability of sharks globally, but fail to highlight that the contribution to that threat by anglers is infinitesimally small, as by far the greatest predation on sharks is by commercial fishermen, who rarely release sharks.
The fact that recreational anglers over the past 30-40 years have started to rapidly increase the proportions of their catch that they release is obviously ignored – for it would 'skew' their assumptions of blame.
Like all these 'scientific papers', they need to be read with interest, for they might have something that we can all learn, but that tiny gem stone is buried way too deep in their information, as it might actually detract from the outlandish assumptions that they are proposing.
What shark anglers do need to encourage and develop across the globe, is better shark handling when they have caught their quarry, the mere fact that we are all going down the road to wanting to release is a good first step in a very long road – but the following steps of handling and revival are equally essential. Even here in Namibia and southern Africa, we need huge advances in our shark handling, and something that I will be taking to a meeting this coming weekend.
If the scientists wanted to do something useful, rather than shoot from the sidelines, they should come on board with the angling community and help us develop better handling practices – but then we probably don't pay as well as tree huggers???????
Just my thoughts!
Cheers from sunny Africa
Jeri
Jeri brings up a great area of discussion yet to be broached here.
I've caught maybe a dozen or more species of sharks in my life. One thing I can say with certainty about them is that they are different. A spoon tail sand shark is not a mako. A thresher is totally different to a tiger. If someone came to me with anything less than the word of God that they all recover the same from being caught I'd call that man a liar. The species and habitats are just to varied. The size of gear and methods used are all over the map. A big bull pulled in fast with a 12/0 bolted to a broomstick has experienced a totally different level of trauma then a 100 pound mako caught on a surfmaster and fought for hours with a fern stem (my preferred method, by the way). The release method varies...etc.
While the percentages quotes still seem reasonable to me I do not agree with their science.
Ron
Hi Guys,
Post-release predation is potentially an issue, especially where smaller sharks are released, or smaller species, as obviously some of the smaller species are 'on the menu' for larger species – sharks do eat sharks.
There are literally thousands of variables that may or may not come into the equation of this whole issue, water temperature, depth, oxygen levels, turbidity, local terrain, etc, etc, the list goes on as well as the obvious potential problems of lactic acid issues as well as possible minor things like methods caught, and the whole host of handling issues.
There are studies that offer a time of recover as little as 20 minutes for some pelagic species, where high oxygen levels are apparent – though in that study those variables were not taken into consideration – basically available oxygen to offset the effect of lactic acid in the blood make up. As all the sample species in this particular exercise were large coastal, where oxygen levels would have been as much as half as when considering pelagic species.
This all starts to tend towards the fact that while some of the results obtained by this researcher may well be accurate, they have to be expressed in seriously the right context, not some précis of the actual results.
On the other issues of 'blood' from wounds, this is conceivable, but more importantly is the actual issue of scent. Here in southern Africa, we do still get a lot of anglers using whole fish as bait for sharks, but recent developments have found that smaller – high scent baits work equally as well, and are by far easier to use.
A typical example is when fishing for one of our smaller species (Spotted Gully shark) we find that a bait made up of gills frame and the liver of a smaller edible species is by far more effective than any whole bait. There is this overwhelming fantasy about 'sharks and blood', which in reality has more to do with scent, rather than blood, hence the liver content to the bait. Blood soon washes out, but a punctured liver section, will ooze oils out for a lot longer period. This 'scent trail' is what the sharks follow down to get to the source, and then eat the bait.
Sure there are issues like smaller fish pecking at a cut bait, but they wouldn't be doing it in the case of a whole bait, if the sharks were soon on the bait, due to the 'scent trail' drawing them in quicker.
It would be interesting to see the difference in performance between a whole bait and a slab bait (with liver), when fished side by side, which would attract the attention of sharks quicker? - Something for you guys down Florida way???
Back to the 'dodgy scientists' and their grand statements – someone suggested a serious pinch of salt – this is probably the right way to approach this sort of global statement, as the guy obviously has another agenda. The tree huggers have identified that it is easier to discredit anglers than try to discredit commercial factors, as obviously their attempts at dealing with one of the biggest global issues surrounding sharks – finning, has had little effect, so now switch to something that is easier to challenge, and left finning carry on beyond the horizon.
Just my thoughts!
Cheers from sunny Africa
Jeri
It would be nice if NMFS would get on the issue at hand and start to really look at the real issue of shark mortality, commercial shark fishing. Finning is the #1 reason for mortality issue in the shark fishery today, and governments seem to turn a blind eye towards it. It is time for the world community to take a hard stance on this issue instead of dancing around it but I know it will never go away. Heck look at whaling, they are still killing them for there meat, and the world just stands by and lets it happen.
It is all great to talk about the issues but it would be nice if the real issues would be handled, commercial fishing. You want to save the Bluefin tuna, stop all commercial fishing for 10 years and see what happens. Just like snapper fishing for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, they give us some short restrictive seasons for recreational limits but millions of pound are caught for the commercial industry, who is the real problem? Yes I used to be a commercial fisherman and I do see where it would put some people out of work, but hey that's what they did to my way of life when they decided to ban the nets in the gulf, so it can be done, why don't they do it. Those are the questions that need to be asked.
good discussion. We need to continue to look at this issue.
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
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.
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
True, now look at how much money is made with sportfishing worldwide! It will boggle the mind. ;)
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
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?
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.
Quote from: Dominick on February 07, 2014, 12:47:45 AM
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
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.
Speaking if NOAA/NMFS and recreational fishing...
There is an upcoming summit
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/recreational/
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?
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.
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?
Now back to sharkin, good release practices are the most viable way to preserve the resource. At least at our end.