>
VoyForums
[ 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: 123[4] ]
Subject: Re: Bad News for Atlantic Shark Managment


Author:
Jim Morris
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 930842182PDT
In reply to: Jim Morris 's message, "Bad News for Atlantic Shark Managment" on 930839947PDT

Forwarded:

In a message dated 7/1/99 3:56:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rhueter@mote.org
writes:

<< Now my words: This court action threatens to destroy the shark rebuilding
program that has taken NMFS, independent scientists, the HMS Advisory
Panel, and many others over a year to develop and put into place. Lest
anyone think that Judge Merryday's opinion is based on a lack of
confidence in the stock rebuilding plan, this action strictly revolves
around economic issues in the commercial fishery. Otherwise, the
recreational measures would have been thrown out as well. >>


Hi Bob,

Sorry you feel bad but for the commercial shark user group, this represents
an opportunity to expose the preservationist agenda that has dominated this
management regime since 1994. Sustainable use of a resource is supposed to be
an option.
The human condition must be observed for what it really is...destroyed small
businesses by NMFS without compensation especially since NMFS chose
throughout the 1980s to encourage our participation in "utilizing an
underutilized species" for food. And to top it off, NMFS chose not to gather
mortality information until after 1994 to speak of.
Even though we have had a seat at the table through the recent years we have
always felt like an outcast who has been targeted for total elimination. We
have a right to exist. Management measures that were implemented in 1993 have
worked. Annual mortality was reduced from the 20 to 30 million pounds dressed
weight per year during the peak years of 1988-1993 down to @ 6 million pounds
dw landed each year during 1994 to 1996. After that our landings were reduced
to less than 3 million pounds dw each year since. The latest round of cuts
proposed by NMFS would see about a million pounds dw landed during future
years. Obviously mortality has been reduced and CPUE has skyrocketed. I have
studied Springer's CPUE during the 1930s & 1940s, Branstetter's CPUE in 1986,
etc., and found that 4 to 6 large coastal sharks per 100 hooks was normal.
Many of our directed fishermen routinely see many more sharks than that
currently. I have seen evidence of 30 to 40 sharks per 100 hooks in some
cases. Blacktip, Sandbar, Dusky and Bull sharks seem to bunch up in large
schools that as you know are highly migratory and are NOT closed populations
as some of the modeling at the SEW's tries to promote. And of course, as Jack
Musick said in recent years, the declines in abundance were first the fault
of the recreational user groups during the 1970s to the mid-1980's, as per
his spin in 1994. Add the 30-year Sandbar sexual maturity promoted by certain
academia during the 1994 SEW to justify a 50% gutting to the commercial shark
quota that was originally set in 1993 and you yield lack of trust by the
commercial user groups in the science promoted by the SEW.

When do you wish to engage in tolerance and concern for the commercial
entities who answered the NMFS call to develop this market for sharks? When
will you act like true partners at the table instead of open and secret
enemies bent on our total destruction? You still have time to develop a
working environment but the past several years has seen lip service with no
real desire to truly work with us. It is almost criminal what has taken place
during this regime. Isn't it time to take the target off of our back, we are
tired of the extremist agenda. Point it elsewhere and let the dust settle.
But then in my heart where I can forgive, I feel that others opposing us will
become more intense about eliminating us forever since we represent things
that they abhor.

Rusty

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Russell H. Hudson
Independent Fisheries Consultant
HMS AP member
ALWTRT member
320 Cavanah Drive
Holly Hill, FL 32117

(904) 239-0948 Voice
(904) 253-2843 * 51 Fax

RHudson106@AOL.com

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

Replies:
Subject Author Date
The commercial guys just don't get it!!Jim Day930858131PDT
Re: Bad News for Atlantic Shark ManagmentJim Morris930954721PDT
Re: Bad News for Atlantic Shark ManagmentRussell Hudson AKA Rusty930992866PDT


[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.