 |
 |
|
|
||
Highly Migratory Species Reportby John T. Koegler (from Jersey Coast Anglers Association February 2005 Newsletter) Pyretic Fishery Numbers In all fishery management plans anglers expect a reward at the end of the process. Anglers have always believed that their present conservation would be rewarded with a future filled with glorious fishing opportunities. Anglers have always expected that “The best is yet to come.” Anglers believed that “buckling their conservation seat belts would enable them to enjoy a ride to a great fishing future.” However, for one obscure unfathomable reason or another their expected future rewards always end up in the ditch. This accounts for the vague uneasiness that gnaws at anglers’ trust in the system. Every year their rules gets tighter, despite a larger quota allocation. None of the fishery management plans have been more abhorrent to anglers as NMFS HMS division’s management of tuna and marlins. The most recent shocking revelation was last fall when HMS put forth their estimate of anglers landing of bluefin tuna in 2002 and 2003. Angler’s base quota was 273.4 MT for those years. HMS divisions estimate for 2002 was over 600 MT and over 400 MT in 2003.What was more shocking was for the previous four years anglers landings were estimated to be well below their quota! A review of what happened to create these unbelievable numbers for 2002 landings found that the HMS division had changed their rules for the (Large Pelagic Survey) LPS survey contractor that counts anglers landings. 1- HMS decided that because they were getting few positive landings reports from the LPS contractors that they must change the system. They then proceeded to pay the LPS contractor ONLY when a survey resulted in a report. 2- Before 2002 to keep the system statistically valid the LPS contractors had gone to a specified location and stayed there for a prescribed time, counting all the HMS species landed at that specific location. HMS new 2002 rules allowed the counter to follow the flags and to go to any marina or dock and count the HMS that were landed. No public explanation was ever issued that explained how these changes would not greatly increase reported angler’s landings. However, that estimated 2002 angler’s landings exploded to new highs cannot be denied. 3-Now a newer review of angler’s bluefin tuna landings found another major discrepancy. A committee was formed to review the weight data system being used by NMFS to estimate the weight of angler’s landings. Their report stated: “The committee discovered a problem in the way the mean measured lengths of landed bluefin sampled by the LPS were converted in mean weights for the purpose of estimating the total weights of 2002 recreational landings by size category. The program used for this conversion assumed that measured lengths were curved lengths rather than straight lengths. The committee confirmed that fish lengths were measured in straight lengths in the dockside intercept survey and modified the program to take that into account. This change resulted in a 17% increase in the estimate mean weight of school and small medium bluefin tuna landed.” In a letter from East Coast Tuna Association to Dr. Bill Hogarth they explain the problem: “In simple terms, NMFS takes what is actually a curved measured bluefin angling catch, increases the length under the Ad Hoc Committee’s assumption of straight length and converting the larger curved fork length (i.e. adding 17% weight) then proceeds to a length/weight table that further overestimates (by 25 .98%) the actual weight to produce a grossly inflated estimate of the weight of Angler category caught fish.” 4- In 1995 NMFS changed the math formula used to estimate angler’s bluefin tuna landings. It was explained to anglers that the old formula had a low bias and that the new math formula had a high bias. NMFS believed this better represented actual angler landings. However, in September of 1995 when NMFS applied their new formula to angler’s landings up to that time anglers landing increased by 100% in a single week. Chose a number from one to four. Add them, multiply them, square them or just plain throw them into a pile and choose a handful. Is it not fascinating that all four items above increase anglers estimated landings by large amounts? Naturally, you can refer to past US major accomplishments at ICCAT. Since 1976, US negotiators have been unable to get European and African countries to observe their commitments to ICCAT to control their country’s fishermen’s landings of all HMS especially bluefin tuna. Also consider that all other ICCAT member nations have refused to count angler landings of HMS. What are we waiting for “Hell to freeze over”? Observe these European and African countries totally ignoring all their conservation commitments to ICCAT. Don’t you have to do more than wonder? These countries are in effect selling US conserved fish, keeping the profits, and then throwing the ashes of their legal ICCAT commitment in our faces. You can, of course, do nothing and react in shock as HMS division closes all your offshore fisheries. Or you might just call your federal congressman/senator before this becomes law and ask him to do something about the above four items. Or you might find time to write to: Dr. Bill Hogarth Failing to react with a letter or phone call will get you what you earned - “NOTHING”
|