Rick Weber

In case that question is to me Jaffa, I'll quickly comment on the three sections you bolded. 1) Unlike most delagations to ICCAT, the US delagation includes recreational fishermen. They are an active part of forming the official US policy. Russ Nelson is on the delagation because of his affiliation with TBF (The Billfish Foundation) but his responsibilities while at ICCAT include representing the interests of all US anglers. 2) ICCAT is a body that likes to function on concensus rather than votes, so if one nation strongly opposes some language they can usually get it struck or changed. The US and Brazil have prohibited the sale of marlins in order to eliminate their commercial value and thus reduce the fishing pressure. Brazil floated the idea of all nations following this example and was quickly shot down by Japan, who wants to continue selling it. Russ' comments about the camel's nose, mean that Japan has been put on notice that this topic has now been broached on the floor of ICCAT and it is something that they are likely to see again, especially if Brazil can find more support for the idea in other nations. 3) Part of the ICCAT organization is an independant group of fisheries biologists who make TAC recommendations, the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). In 2002 SCRS recommended lower the TAC quota from 29,000 tons to 24,000 tons of Eastern Bluefin Tuna. Instead, ICCAT led by the EU RAISED the TAC to 32,000 for the last 4 years. The year SCRS observed that the 32,000 ton TAC had been well overfished (closer to 50,000 tons was landed). They made a clear and unambiguous recommendation that, to recover the Eastern Bluefin Tuna, a TAC of no more than 15,000 tons must be set and strictly adhered to. The EU offered no reductions at first, then finally conceded to reduce the TAC to 25,000 over then next four years. A final TAC that is 66% OVER the scientifically supported catch. A few nations, including the US, objected, but a majority of member nations supported this overharvest. Rick

Thanks for the explanations Leon. I've tried the EAA website, but its under construction. I'll watch it for changes. Rick

As is absolutely your right, if not responsibility. The release ethic would never gotten as strong a foothold if it weren't for the evangelical conservationists. They (and you) are to be praised for keeping anglers true to their conservation principles and continually raising the bar. These values hold true regardless of the health of the stock. However, the issue you trailblazers confront is how to threat those who aren't following, or simply disagree. Jack is on target with the fact that we all agree about C&R its just a function of degree. And I would prefer that that was the take-away message to the press, greens, and governments. "This is a good conservationist who could be better", would be far superior to some of the rhetoric that starts flying when recs disagree. As for governments chasing the mighty $, its kinda their job to improve the national economy. However, US anglers have had real effects by convincing our government that the resource can produce equal to superior $ by increasing spending on recreational fishing or creating tourism dollars, if it is left to swim. Rick

Thanks for the reply and supporting my points, Bob. 1. The commercial sector learned decades ago, you suggest more than 30 years ago, that there is nothing good to come from publicly airing their dirty laundry. Intra-fishery problems are discussed far away from the ears of recs or governments. In the face of controversy, the commercials bond more tightly together, supporting each other. I admire them. I think the recs worldwide could learn from this example. 2. Staggering numbers, but would the numbers feel dramatically different if they were 100 fish higher or lower? That was my exactly my point, that this one fish is irrelevant in the face of such wanton slaughter. 3. I didn't know much about the history of the bison, so I read the linked you referenced, and found this : "For a decade from 1873 on there were several hundred, perhaps over a thousand, such commercial hide hunting outfits harvesting bison at any one time, vastly exceeding the take by American Indians or individual meat hunters. The commercial take arguably was anywhere from 2000 to 100,000 animals per day depending on the season, though there are no statistics available." - So it seems that shooting the odd one is not blamed at all for the near extinction of the bison, rather it was, again, irresponsible commercial overharvest. As for when and where to start conserving present day stocks; your statistics imply the Japanese longline fleet is a primary source of Black Marlin mortality in Australian waters. I would suggest starting there, and as soon as possible. Rick

Pardon my ignorance, Leon, but when the EU agrees to things that would flow through to all UK anglers as well, right? For example, one of the points in the bluefin plan is "25. (Countries) shall take the necessary measures to regulate the sport fishing notably by fishing authorisations." I think they are going to accept memberships into national clubs as 'authorisations', but I have no idea how they are ever going to enforce it. --- Another thing - is it common in Europe to separate 'Sport' fish from 'Recreational' fishing? They included two definitions: j) "Sport fishery" means a non-commercial fishery whose members adhere to a national sportive organization or are issued with a national sportive licence. k) "Recreational fishery" means a non-commercial fishery whose members do not adhere to a national sportive organisation or are not issued with a national sport license. Here is the US, we consider clubs and tournaments (sport fishing) to be a subset of the larger whole of recreational fishing. I'm not saying that if its different over there its wrong, but it would help me understand the differences better. Rick

I see that Recs bashing Recs is not just a US phenomenon. Could someone please steer me to the public forum where one commercial fisherman vilifies another for their fishing practices? That would be a refreshing change of pace. It's no wonder we have such difficulty getting the respect of our governments when we are absolutely incapable of speaking with one voice. The simple fact is we all kill fish. Who amongst us hasn't accidently gut-hooked a fish, or foul hooked a fish, fought one to exaustion, or had one snag on something during the fight? Do you really believe all these fish lived? Even in the picture perfect C & R, you have at least tired the fish to the point it is more susceptible to predation. Post-Release Mortality is a hot topic in big game fisheries, and I would expect it to spread to other fisheries in time. If you want to experience fish without risking killing them I suggest you give SCUBA another look. That said, there is no group on Earth I would rather have monitoring the health of the world fish stocks than the recreational angler. Someone wants to enjoy the fish today as well as ensuring that there is enough to enjoy in the future. I have watched as recreational anglers have _voluntarily_ changed their fishing practices in favor of conservation, because it was the right thing to do. We do not practice C & R because of government edict, but rather because of moral compass. In those instances where one of us does not do things exactly as you may have liked, remember how far we have come. Think of the days when people brought in racks of fish just to show them off. We need to keep our eyes on the big picture, that one fish or even one hundred doesn't mean a thing to the biomass. To put it into perspective, in 2005 Ghana alone reported killing over 750 metric tonnes of Blue Marlin, and the world yawned. If we truly have a passion for saving the worlds great fishes, I suggest there are better uses of our time then self-flagellating about the choices a single angler made about a single fish.

Hi Folks! As a matter of introduction, I am a US recreational fisherman and also in the business. My family owns a couple of marinas here and we run some sportfishing tournaments in the summer. For both personal and business reasons then, I am very concerned for the health of big game stocks. I have been involved with a US organization for a number of years now, the National Coalition for Marine Conservation. It is an environmental group with an understanding of the economic benefits and limited impact of recreational fishing. I am just back from the annual meeting of ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas). NCMC coordinated an observers seat for me, so I could see how the process works and keep an eye on the US delagation. IGFA was also there. This was a particularly contentious year with both Bluefin Tuna and Swordfish stock levels being discussed, and allocations being set. What really struck me was how little concern the EU delagation appeared to have for the EU recreational angler, more of a menace to be controlled than an economic engine to be nurtured. I got to wondering, is the EU angler even aware of ICCAT? You need a bigger voice in your delagation. I can tell you more about the meeting and what was decided if you are interested. Rick Weber