Re: Big ,Small and other storys -- 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: Re: Big ,Small and other storys

Author:
Steve Ross/Bad Dog

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

Date Posted: 936908121PDT
In reply to: Jim Day 's message, "Big ,Small and other storys" on 936870051PDT

> I just posted a pretty lashing post at Allcoast about
> this, I'll edit out the harsh stuff and repost it
> here:
>
> "I'm not trying to encourage anyone to travel
> around the world taking breeder Mako's. I'm not saying
> this is how Mako's should be managed world wide. I'm
> saying Southern California should get it's S#it
> together and place some restrictions on the take of
> baby Mako's in the California bite. READ THE DFG DATA.
> 85% of the sharks taken in California waters are under
> 60 inches or about 75lbs. Let me refresh your memory:
> this is a line from Johns U's (the head of the shark
> program at the DFG) post about recreational catch
> numbers: "The 1997 number of sharks caught by sport
> fishermen was estimated at 5129 animals." Take a good
> look at that number, over 4000 of those sharks were
> small pups under 75 pounds. What does more damage to
> the local shark population. Taking ten large Makos
> (that's all the big breeder catches I've heard about)
> or taking 4000 small ones. That's more than four
> thousand baby Mako's taken in the California Bite in
> the year 1997 alone, a average year."
>
> That said let me add a little more, I'm feeling
> particularly candid tonight, Here I'm going to pour
> myself
> a brandy and really let it all hang out. The reason
> I'm encouraging People to take bigger sharks is there
> are so few big sharks here. If they target bigger
> sharks the take will go down plain and simple. Why
> they are not here well it's one of those mysteries.
> Some people think that shows that sharks are in
> trouble, I'm not to shure about that. Other things
> show sharks are in trouble. I think that the large
> breeders avoid this area. Years ago I read an article
> about shark Nurserys. It said that large sharks leave
> the area imediately after pupping, this is supposed to
> be one of those natural selection things. If they
> stayed they might eat their own pups. The big Mako's
> that come into this area could be considerd rogue
> Mako's. They're not really supposed to be here. I
> think this year they're here because the La Nin~a
> conditions have screwwed everything up. Large Mako's
> that should be chasing Tuna schools way offshore are
> chasing them inshore. In a year or two it should all
> return to normal. My friend Stu in Newzealand says
> that his waters are loaded with 200lb plus Mako's but
> no pups. He respects Mako's but is tired of loosing
> fish to them. He's obviously not in the pupping
> grounds. Who knows how much trouble the Mako is in,
> probably no more or no less than 90% of the rest of
> the non humanoid creatures on this Planet.
> I'm not a scientist, I just like to read their
> literature, the things their finding out today about
> the world are truly amazing, but what really amazes me
> is how little the average person knows about it. For
> instance did you know that in the last fifteen years
> there has been a massive extinction of Amphibians. In
> that short time a full third of the known species
> became extinct. A expert on mass extinction's says
> were in the middle of a huge one. The cause this time
> is not some catastrophic cosmic collision, or
> upheaval, but purely the result of one species. We are
> that species. The world changes slowly, climatic
> changes take thousands of years to run through their
> cycles. We exist outside those cycles, through our use
> of technology we've changed the planet more in a few
> decades then it would naturally change in thousands of
> years. The results of these changes alone will be
> felt for a long time. Tools are great things when
> properly used. I'm afraid we lack the knowledge and or
> wisdom to properly use the tools currently at our
> disposal. I don't know what is going to happen to
> sharks in the long run. I do know the worlds
> population will double in the next fifty years. That
> alone makes me pretty pessimistic.
>
> Tight lines Jim
>
> Ps thanks for coming by Steve

Jim Day--Night and Day
How come you are nice to me here and antagonistic to me on sport-fish-info ? It seems to be the difference between night and day. (smile) Close the mako shark fishery. The whole frickin fishery is juveniles here in SoCal. It wasn't that way 10 years ago. Go look up John Sunada's notes and Bedford's notes from those days, the days of the 10 permitees and the commercial fishery. Most of the makos from right here in SoCal were 150-200 pounds with juveniles being 20% of the catch. DFG showed up at Pacific American Fish Co. in L.A. every other day measuring these sharks and they had observers on 1 boat a week making notes. Read those, THEN you will know. Tred Barta is right and it does apply to our SoCal mako shark fishery. Your history is too recent. I watched the boats come in, all of them. The pile of juvenile carcasses were always separated and in the corner of the deck. The pile was small. The makos were graded. The market didn't want juveniles at all. The main catch were thousands of 100 pounders plus, and DFG's main concern was...THE JUVENILES. Read those notes, they are in Long Beach. Shut it down, or limit to 1 per boat per day. Now, about this catch tag and release deal. The only way to catch and release a fish, is on heavy tackle and a quick, short and brief battle to the boat and the hook dislodged. All this stuff about lite line and cutting the leader, makos caught on bait and gut hooked. You swallow a 9/0 and tell me how it feels and how long you think you are going to live. Gimme a break, I know you think I'm ignorant but how many sportfishermen are really capable of releasing a hot mako in perfect condition? Using bait for tag and release, I don't think so. Get them in the chum line, bait em, what a rush, love it. Then drop the bait back and rip em. Fight the animal to the boat, jam a tag into its flesh, watch it jump all over the place in pain, and cut the leader. Oh yeah, she's fine...another successful release. Gimme a break, check the ocean floor for a dead mako with a heart attack. Oh yeah, tag 1,000 sharks did one....seen 500 tags back....gee, wonder why? I know, I'm stupid. If you want to fish anything for release, go to 130# main line and fish jigs with single hooks, bring em in quick and turn em loose quick. That's my stupid and ignorant opinion.

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Good Dog..... Bad Dog	Jim Day	936937687PDT
Re: Good Dog..... Bad Dog -- Bad Dog, 936989825PDT Re: Good Dog..... Bad Dog -- Jim Day, 937096582PDT