|
Steelhead
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wilsonville, OR
Posts: 268
|
Banning all bottom fishing
The following was written by my good friend and fishing buddy. His Ifish name (and boat name) is Serious Fun. It is very long but he is a good writer and I thought some of you might enjoy reading it. Best regards, Hook-up.
May 30, 2002
Dear Fellow Sportsmen,
As you may already be aware, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the outfit that regulates our off shore fishing, is proposing eliminating all fishing for any bottom fish for an indefinite number of years (- upwards of 75 years). This would include halibut, ling cod, sea bass, all types of rock fish, etc. I believe this is a terrible solution to a perceived problem and a problem with an unknown cause. Sportfishermen are being lumped in with the commercial fishermen as one of the primary culprits for the alleged decline in bottom fish populations. I strongly believe we need to voice our concerns to our legislators and act quickly before the legislation is done and reversing it much more difficult than preventing the action in the first place. I believe each state should regulate their own bottom fish within their own state boundaries. Give this some thought and please take some time to e-mail/write/call/visit with legislators and others who can help influence the Pacific Fishery Management Council to stop this decision to eliminate our rights to bottom fish in Oregon waters.
Below is a letter I sent to my good friend, Jeurgen Turner, the Captain of the Tacklebuster, out of Depoe Bay, OR. The Charter boats are sportsfishermen, not commercial fisherman. Charter services are simply boats for hire for sportsman to use so they can fish, exactly like any other sportsmen. Please don't confuse charter/guide services with the commercial fishermen.
May 27, 2002
Jeurgen Turner
Tacklebuster
Re: Commission to stop all bottom fishing for sportsman
Dear Jeurgen:
Thanks for calling me with the news about the possible changes in the bottom fishing regulations. Sounds serious if it passes through unaltered. I jotted down a few thoughts that I would consider as “talking points” that we should bring to the attention of the state and federal commissions. In general, I feel we should ask to be considered separately from the commercial fisherman and, like all the other regulations, be regulated separately. I think the economic impact of this decision must be balanced with any concern for the fish. There must be better science behind such a decision, one that has such sweeping results. This should be better thought out and more gradually implemented.
Do you remember back in 1992, President Clinton was elected and shortly after assuming office, he reversed the decision of the Pacific Fisheries Council in two major ways? First, he increased the amount of fish that could be taken, and second, he eliminated any requirement for “on-shore” processing. It wasn’t too surprising to learn that this political mandate by the President created a huge windfall profit for his close friend and business backer, Mr. Tyson of Tyson Foods. Tyson owned most of the larger offshore Pacific fleet and now he could harvest more fish, eliminate the on shore processing (cut out the middle man) and increase his profits exponentially. Some noise was made but basically the President’s mandate stuck and Tyson got his political payback. This had a very negative effect on some local Oregon economies. My wife has pointed out to me there is probably a “Tyson” behind this new proposal, i.e. follow the money. In fact, it may still be Tyson. Big business can hide behind environmental crazies who have their own agendas to stop fishing. So all the big fleet guys have to do is get the environmentalists convinced there are less fish and they will do the rest. When the fishing is restricted to only deep off shore fisheries, then only the really big guys can do it, thus eliminating all the smaller competition, decreasing the total catch but increasing the price for all the fish the big guys bring in. Thus the “Tyson” types eliminate competition, increase profits and do so with the blessing of the government and environmentalists, who are just ignorant pawns in their plan. Is it a coincidence that the fish we are trying to protect are the prettiest fish on our coast? Or, are the Yellow-eye and Canary Rock fish another “Spotted Owl Poster Child”? The Spotted Owl, a species of bird everyone loves, thinks is wise, knows all, loves us too, etc. was a very effective “spokesman” for the environmentalist’s cause, never mind the true facts about it’s real population levels, habitat, etc. Is it possible the environmentalist’s have searched for just such an icon for their fight for the restriction of fishing? Is it coincidence that the ugly ling cod or grotesque halibut (which everyone likes to eat) were not singled out for poster status? Well, enough of the conspiracy theory.
Kindest Regards, Terry
Talking Points:
1. Sportsmen make a huge contribution to the local economy. Depending on the area, we are talking about millions and millions of dollars, from gas stations, to shopping malls, to hotels and restaurants, etc.
2. Sportsmen catch only 3-4% of the total catch, statistically insignificant. This is way less than the margin of error that the researchers use for guessing the numbers of total fish and their alleged decline. In other words, the impact of sport fishing could not even be measured! They are swatting a fly with a sledgehammer, and then want to measure the impact of the fly on reducing the speed of the sledgehammer as it comes to a stop. Whether there was inshore sport fishing or not would have no statistical impact on the total population of bottom fish, either up or down.
3. Sportsmen generate 40 times as much money per pound of fish caught than commercially caught fish for the economy. Thus it would be fiscally irresponsibly to eliminate millions of dollars from the economy without any proven benefit. The commercial boats catch 97% of the fish but contribute only 2.5%, per pound of fish caught, as much to the economy as the sport fisherman. Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to have your cake and eat it too, i.e. cut the commercial fisherman, thus reducing fish catch by 97%, and retain the sport fishing with it’s millions and millions of dollars in the economy.
4. Sportsman practice targeted fishing techniques, not indiscriminate, non-selective methods, like the commercial fisherman. Sport fishing uses simple hooks and bait targeted toward a specific species. If the wrong fish is caught it can generally be released unharmed. Generally fish are caught one at a time, therefore reducing to total damage, worst-case scenario, to one fish! Commercial fisherman’s techniques will kill all the fish caught, regardless of their species or desirability, and this may be thousands of fish by a single boat. The by catch/incidental catch of non-target fish can sometimes be greater than the targeted species. The incidental catch fish are generally not allowed to be kept, thus a double problem; not only were they needlessly killed, they will not even be eaten. Generally the unwanted fish are simply pitch forked over the side. To put this into perspective, every year the incidental catch of halibut by commercial fisherman fishing for other species, is greater than the total amount of halibut caught by sport fishermen! This can also be true for salmon and other fish depending on the commercial fishery and location.
5. Sportsman’s fishing techniques do not harm the fish’s habitat, like can happen with some commercial harvesting. There is no impact to the fish habitat by sport fishing. Some types of commercial fishing can cause irreparable damage to the bottom structure that can totally wreck the habitat and seriously disrupt the food chain. The indiscriminant harvesting of “everything” on the bottom can totally devastate the populations of some species to the point of complete extinction in that location.
6. Sportsmen have proven they will follow conservationist regulations. These regulations do not need to be all or none. If there are target fish needing help with survival, let the sportsman be an educated conservationist and make those species catch and release only. Sportsmen have been doing this successfully for many years with numerous other species.
7. Sportsmen are willing to team-up with the Fish and Wildlife agencies to help with the rehabilitation of bottom fish habitat and populations. They are willing to contribute time and money to help. This new regulation will not make them a team member but will make them an enemy. There will be no money, time or cooperation when such fact less and groundless regulations are put into effect.
8. The continued sport fishing for bottom fish enhances public awareness of the problem. As long as people are still fishing for bottom fish, even with catch and release regulations, there will be an increased public awareness of the problem. Out of sight and out of mind will take place if there is no bottom fishing.
9. The government should not have a “knee jerk” reaction to limited and potentially flawed science.
a. Perhaps the same El Nino climatic changes, which produced a huge reduction in the salmon populations for a decade, may be responsible for a similar cyclic low in the bottom fish population. (El Nino’s change in winds and currents reduced the near shore upwelling of nutrient rich deep water. This in turn diminished the food for plankton, which diminished the food for herring and other baitfish, which diminished the food for salmon.) Since it is known that bottom fish, in general, mature slower and live longer than salmon, and since they are effected by the very same food chain changes, perhaps it is simply the same cyclic change in their population that was observed for salmon, but delayed in observance because of their slower growth and reproduction. This would be a naturally occurring cycle, not one completely caused by over fishing. Likewise, it will self-resolve with the return of normal ocean conditions more conducive to providing the necessary food chain for all the bottom fish involved; and until the ocean conditions favor the reproduction of bottom fish populations, sport fishing restrictions will have zero positive effect.
b. Perhaps, since the only real research on bottom fishing populations is on fish inside 250 fathoms, the cause of a decline in fish populations is related to chemical pollutants and other toxins. If we focus on fishing as the only cause of the decline, more time and money will be senselessly lost. The focus of regulations should be as specific as possible to target and control the most likely causes of the bottom fish decline. Sport fishing is not one of the principle causes and restricting it will cause more harm than good. The money generated by the sport fisherman can be used to fund more research and find effective solutions to the fisheries problems. Eliminating the sportsmen’s revenues will reduce the amount of funding to find the true causes and solutions.
10. The regulations should relate to actual local conditions, not global, sweeping regulations that treat every area with the same restrictions, regardless of the local fish populations and conditions. They should have accurate estimates of past fish populations and be able to show conclusively there is a decline, (not a natural cyclic adjustment to fish populations) and then do this for each area they wish to regulate. Since the fish are not migratory, it is not acceptable to generalize conditions and populations and assume that in area X it is the same as in area Y. It would be criminal to damage people and economies in areas where it is not needed; where restricting fishing in healthy areas would have no positive benefit for the areas where the problems exist, and would cause great harm to the people and economy where there isn’t even a problem.
11. The Federal Government has no constitutional right to regulate Oregon State waters, i.e. inside three miles of our coast. It regulates salmon because the fish are migratory and extend their range beyond state boundaries; halibut because it is impacted by commercial fisherman from all west coast states in waters generally outside the state’s three mile boundary, and other fisheries that are primarily outside the state’s boundary, i.e. shrimp, haddock, cod, etc. However, bottom fish are not migratory and the part of this new regulation that would impact inside the three-mile state’s constitutional boundary is outside the federal government’s jurisdiction. It would be tantamount to the federal government regulating crappie fishing. It is the states sovereign right to control it’s own boundary waters. The state of Oregon should vigorously oppose any federal regulations inside it’s own boundaries. The best minds and best science surrounding Oregon’s bottom fish are in Oregon, not with some Californians appointed to a federal commission.
|
Linear Mode
