Facts and fiction on...longline closer -- Archive

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

Subject: Facts and fiction on...longline closer

Author:
Jim Day

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 944705559PST
In reply to: Jim Day 's message, "Central Pacific longline closer" on 944705279PST

I recieved this from Bob Enderson

Attached is an article that appeared in Honolulu's Sunday paper. I feel it is critical that we all take the time to write a letter to the Honolulu Advertiser's editor at Fax.808-525-8037 or email him at 76322.2016@compuserve.com and to the Star Bulletin at Fax. 808-523-8509 or email letters@starbulletin.com in response to this mis-information, because this issue is obviously going to start a tidal wave of fisheries reform here and throughout the US and we should support the judges' actions. I'd also appreciate it if you can pass this along to your friends, other fishermen or just people who are as sick and tired of this mis management of our fisheries as the rest of us are and who want to do something about it.

Longliners have come to Hawaii with total disregard to other commercial fishermen, our fisheries and the recreational fishing industry. Their by-catch of Blue Marlin is abhorrent, while they continue to kill not only turtles, but thousands of sea birds, sharks and other species that are caught as by-catch by them and are species that many have tried to protect and manage over the years or have counted on as income or sport.

Thanks in advance for your help and I've listed some of the facts as I know them from the reports I've obtained from NMFS and I apologize if you receive both this email and a fax as both my lists are a little long.

The Press has failed to get the message across that the economics of this doesn't show losses to the longline fleet as they claim and the catch rates etc. are not the best for the fishing industry, so what are they crying about. If they claim this would put them into bankruptcy by losing a fraction of their tuna catch and areas with some of the worst catch per unit of effort (CPUE) for Swordfish, the ruling obviously wasn't the driving force, but merely the last straw for longliners who should be driving a cab anyway.

FACT #1 According to The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) only 40-45 Blue Fin Tuna were caught by Hawaii longliners in the area that was closed by Judge Ezra and only 6 % of the total tuna landings came from that are as well. However, industry claims this closure will cost Hawaii jobs and revenues because this closure shuts fishermen out of "prime fishing grounds". This area also only produced 5,543 Big Eye tuna out of the total 95,991 caught throughout the fishery. This represented 1.2 million dollars worth of Big Eye out of 21 million total. Big Eye also represented approximately half of the total revenue for the entire longline fleet so obviously this 5.8% that was caught in the closed area can easily be caught somewhere else according to the data.

FACT #2 Only 1/3 of the Swordfish landings occur in this area and this closed area has the lowest CPUE (Catch per Unit of Effort) or efficiency, of all the swordfish grounds around Hawaii. In essence the Judge did the fishermen a favor by telling them don�t fish here, because you�ll catch more to the South or East of the Closures. Closing this area will not cost the State revenue or jobs as the fishermen will simply fish in more productive areas adjacent to the closure and may increase revenues and jobs to the State.

FACT #3 The unsubstantiated claims that fishermen from the West Coast or Alaska will fish these grounds while Hawaii vessels cannot, are also false, as most fishing vessels will not have the ability to travel the 6,000 miles round trip to get to these closed areas. With Swordfish prices as low as they are and so few swordfish and tuna being caught in this area, why would a fishermen travel so far for so little? And why would Hawaii longliners relocate when there are really not gaining anything? They not only couldn�t afford it, the winter weather would prohibit it.

FACT #4 The industry scare tactic, that this closure will raise prices to consumers, is also not true. 98% of the Swordfish and most if not all of the Blue Fin Tuna caught here in Hawaii, is exported and if more boats decide to fish for tuna in stead of swordfish, there would be more tuna available during the Holidays, not less, thus the prices for tuna should be lower, not higher. Looks like the public is being set up for higher than normal prices since it appears industry has someone to blame, however the data clearly shows that any rise in price has nothing to do with the Judge�s ruling.

FACT #5 The area that was closed not only has the highest bycatch of turtles, but also has the highest longline bycatch of Albatross, Sharks and Blue Marlin. Obviously the Judge�s ruling will benefit threaten species and a valuable sportfish fishery (Blue Marlin) by reducing the longline catch of Blue Marlin.

Fishermen and Industry should blame the Western Pacific Fisheries Council not Judge Ezra. The Council has failed to take action on a Section 7 review on this turtle bycatch problem for over 9 years. The argument that it will take 2 years to complete an EIS is probably correct, however after 9 years we think that Judge acted properly in the absence of any action by the Council to mitigate this situation.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]