tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post7345972242734700993..comments2024-03-15T08:52:03.058-04:00Comments on ONE ANGLER'S VOYAGE: CONSERVATIONISTS DON'T OVERFISHCharles Witekhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-32934324182111601022018-03-12T08:40:26.822-04:002018-03-12T08:40:26.822-04:00I can't disagree with anything you wrote.
As ...I can't disagree with anything you wrote.<br /><br />As far as the big fish go, NMFS HMS survey isn't too bad, as it's based on HMS permits and reaches the folks who are fishing. W; e've got mandatory reporting on bluefin tuna but it doesn't work very well; only about 20% of anglers are following the rules from what the folks at NMFS say, the rest just ignore the requirement. It needs to be updated to a requirement that anglers call in BEFORE landing the fish; that way, an enforcement agent can check for compliance as soon as the boat touches the dock. Allowing reporting after landing just makes it easy for anglers to do nothing.Charles Witekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16752632941300366580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4896836091935734799.post-75630710351932316732018-03-12T08:22:02.912-04:002018-03-12T08:22:02.912-04:00If Magnusson is trashed to allow more flexibility ...If Magnusson is trashed to allow more flexibility and dampen the impacts of ACL's, resource first management will take a very big hit. I believe that support of the Modern Fish Act will do little to rebuild stocks and at best keep stocks hovering at current levels. That "shifting baseline", and as important, modern anglers woeful lack of understanding of existing fish stock levels and historical declines, can only be understood by those who have been around a while. <br /><br />I have seen how flexibility in management, which always results in compromise at the expense of the resource, has slowly but surely eroded away at so many populations of fish. It’s the slowly but surely part that has allowed fishermen from all sectors to remove too many fish. It’s the slowly but surely part that allows excessive harvest to go largely unnoticed or addressed until reaching unsustainable conditions. And by then it becomes very hard to clearly see how things got so bad and harder yet to gain control much less rebuild. <br /><br />I always thought that the first quotas (todays ACLs) were a sign of failed fishery management. When managers failed to otherwise do what was <br />necessary to protect fish populations (regulations on size, season, and bag limits). I still believe this, which speaks to how well I believe todays managers are doing in maintaining sustainable fisheries resources.<br /><br />When ACL’s were first established I was worried about the sometimes great variability in the estimates of recreational catch and how it would dealt with but more importantly if it would be used as a weapon to criticize or ignore an ACL. For those peddling these concerns they need to understand that the reason the variability associated with recreational estimates of catch are so high for some species has to do with the frequency these species are observed in surveys to monitor and provide recreational catch estimates (MRIP, other). The species observed the least will always have the poorest (not really a good way to describe) or most variable (better way to describe) estimates of catch. In most cases it is these same species that are in the most trouble, as evidenced by rare observations that need aggressive management. <br /><br />NOTE: There are some species that are rarely seen dockside (billfish, tunas, sharks, etc.). Random surveys don’t work for these species. But we don’t need flexibility in ACLs for these fish rather different methods of monitoring catch that don’t rely on intercepts to create reliable estimates. We need a national “Big Fish” survey where all landed must be reported. It has been working with great success for big terrestrial game all over the nation for years. And by the way, it works in some states rare event fish with very, very little support. <br /><br />The “Modern Fish Act” needs to be renamed the “More For Me Act”, after all, folks aren’t trying to further restrict catches rather loosen the requirements and increase access. It would be different if they were seeking more restrictions but that’s just not the case. <br /><br />I worked for a fisheries management agency for 40 years. I watched stock after stock “slowly but surely” slip away through resource compromising fishery management strategies. Bottomline, ACL’s WORK! <br />Been Aroundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00185384430298815956noreply@blogger.com