 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
by John T. Koegler
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association July 2002 Newsletter)
White Marlin Endangered Species Act Meeting
Last September, NMFS received a petition from James R. Chambers and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation of Colorado to list Atlantic white marlin as threatened or endangered throughout its known range and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). After a review, NMFS determined that the petition presented substantial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. This public hearing is the next step required by law before NMFS is required to make a finding about the petition for a threatened or endangered species listing.
ESA criteria for a listing include:
1-Present or threatened destruction, modification or curtailment of habitat or range.
2-Over-utlization for commercial , recreational scientific or educational purposes.
3-Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
4-Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
NMFS will hold a meeting locally on Thursday, June 27 at The Atlantic City Center, 1535 Bacharach Blvd., Atlantic City, NJ. The meeting is scheduled to start at 7PM and end around 9PM.
First and foremost, white marlin are not threatened nor endangered through its known range. There are areas in the Atlantic where white marlin have strong populations and
are in no danger of being threatened nor endangered. There is some problem within the US EEZ because NMFS has failed to follow their management laws. The Billfish law is very clear, white marlin in US waters are for the exclusive use of recreational fishermen.
NMFS has totally failed to observe the Billfish law. They have not done anything to reduce bycatch of white marlin by longline fishing gear. The problem of the drop in population can be directly linked to the longline fishing gear bycatch. If the bycatch issue had been addressed properly there would be no need for even considering this petition.
The Magnuson Act requires NMFS to address this issue of bycatch which has been ignored and is the prime cause of the drop in marlin population.
The simplest solution would be to ban longline fishing when the Northeast Atlantic ocean water temperature is over 68 degrees F. White marlins are warm water fish. They do not stay in water less than 68 degrees F. Limiting longline fishing gear by temperature solves the problem that NMFS has failed to address.
NMFS Opens Angler 2002 Bluefin Tuna Season
Effective June 15 through October 15, 2002 NMFS adjusts the Bluefin Tuna (BFT) angling category daily retention limit in all areas to 4 fish per vessel measuring 27 to less than 73 inches in curved fork length.
Landing any tuna in the Atlantic requires a federal permit. BFT landed under the angling category quota must be reported within 24 hours of landing to the NMFS automated catch reporting system by calling 1-888-872-8862. If landed in either North Carolina or Maryland, go to a reporting station prior to offloading and do their paperwork.
Tuna Permits are easily available from the system by calling 1-888-872-8862. Have your last year permit number and a credit card available since the permit costs $27.00. They will send you the permit by fax or by mail. A fax transmitted permit takes less than 2 hours to obtain. Your must choose either recreational angler or general category permit classification. If you choose general category you can sell bluefin tuna only if they are over 73 inches. Bluefin tuna less than 73 inches down to 27 inches can only be kept by angler category boats.
If angler landings are high NMFS will close the fishery to stay within the US ICCAT quota. The angler part of this quota is about 250 Mt. Over the last two years anglers have not met their quota primarily because the school fish they target moved to New England waters before North Jersey and New York anglers got an opportunity to fish for them. This has occurred over the last several years.
NMFS Objectives vs. Stated and Achieved Numbers
The Magnuson Act was last renewed in 1996. That new law was much tougher than prior versions. The new law for the first time contained requirements that specified in hard numbers what NMFS was expected to accomplish and when. NMFS was given a 10 year stated time limit to achieve their planned objectives in each fishery management plan.
Congress expected the new law would totally change NMFS response to their duties. When this did not occur several conservation groups confronted NMFS on its failure to follow the rules that were specified in hard numbers by the new Magnuson Act. The result has been a large number of lawsuits. These have forced NMFS to observe the law. The number of lawsuits now active is around 100. Many were brought by conservation groups. Some have been settled out of court, and the fish management plan involved was always toughened because NMFS was not following the law. It will be most interesting to see if the renewal of the 1996 Magnuson Law is accomplished in this session of Congress without totally gutting the tough new rules of the 1996 Act or is delayed until after the fall elections.