An Email from NOAA Recreational Fisheries Coordinator
 

I just got this Email and thought to share it.
April 21, 2015

Good evening,

Based on a recommendation of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service is proposing to modify the existing Pacific bluefin tuna (PBF) recreational daily bag limit in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off California, and to establish filleting-at-sea requirements for any tuna species in the U.S. EEZ south of Point Conception, Santa Barbara County.

The proposed regulations would reduce the existing bag limit of 10 PBF per day to 2 PBF per day and the maximum multiday possession limit (i.e., for trips of 3 days or more) from 30 PBF to 6 PBF.

In addition, the proposed regulations would establish requirements for filleting tuna at-sea (e.g., each fish must be cut into six pieces placed in an individual bag so that certain diagnostic characteristics are left intact), which will assist law enforcement personnel in accurately identifying different tuna species. These requirements would apply to any tuna species caught south of Santa Barbara (i.e., south of a line running west true from Point Conception, Santa Barbara County).

To view the proposed regulations and to submit comments, please visit: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2015-0029-0001

Comments are due by May 6 2015, at 11:59 PM ET.
Regards,
Craig Heberer
Recreational Fisheries Coordinator
NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region
WCR Recreational Fisheries Homepage West Coast Region, NMFS, NOAA | westcoast.recfish@noaa.gov | http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/
7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98115

Freaking jerks...regulate, regulate, regulate! I love the "sound" science behind this one. Comment submitted to NOAA, but I can assure you my comments will fall on deaf ears.

First the inshore, now the off shore.
And what the hells up with filleting tuna
In to 6 piece and all meat from one fish
has to go in to one bag? Thats worse than the
Reg on filleting hslibut at sea. Mike

And Mexico says the bag limit is ZERO unit further notice. :bandit:

Here is the major problem I see with this entire scenario, BFT are highly migratory, and they move across international borders without impediment. The VAST majority of these fish are picked off by international fishing vessels, that scoop up the BFT and countless other species of "bycatch" . Until something is done to prevent the over harvesting of BFT by these entities we must bear the brunt of the regulations. Is it fair, no, is it something...yes. It is like carbon emissions, we here in California are driving more and more energy efficient vehicles, and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but developing countries continue to burn coal and oil at an alarming rate. We cannot control them and we will have to do our part to help regardless of how much it sucks. We have an obligation to the natural world to help if we can, decades of unchecked fishing across the globe have decimated BFT and if we impose lower catch limits we at least will be doing something to stem the tide of collapse of this fishery. By some estimates over 90% of the fish being caught are too young to have even spawned one time, that is just ridiculous. I for one love tuna, and I love sport fishing, I am willing to reduce my daily catch from 10 to 2 for the hope that maybe, just maybe my kids will have the some opportunity that I have been afforded, to catch a BFT. Join the CCA and let your voice be heard, contact your congressman and tell him to have the USA put sanctions on countires who overfish BFT and the like. We only have one ocean, and we are doing a really good job at decimating the fish stocks, once they are gone, we as humans are going to be witness to a ecosystem collapse on par with the ice-age extinctions, and our health and livelyhood depend on the health of the oceans, if the oceans die...we die...Simple as that.

I'm all for it. Close down mex, and regulate that shit in the US. Believe it or not, the folks over at NOAA Southwest Fisheries actually know a thing or two about our marine ecosystem. Try asking Dos Ballenas about the YT fishery. Ever stop to think, "wow the YT and WSB fishing has been really good the last few years" Hmm, i'm sure that has nothing to do with MLPAs...:rolleyes:

Let's be honest... when's that last time any of you caught more than 2 BFT on a trip in US waters? Very few of us have, and even then probably only last year or in '98. If you think sport fishermen don't have an impact on the local fish populations, you've probably never seen a cattle boat on a good tuna bite. Those captains will rape the ocean in a heartbeat to get their counts up.

If the regs work as they are intended, you should only need to catch ONE bluefin each... like this 60 pound beast we caught THIS MONTH!!! :eek:

Saddle up boys! These monsters are in kayak range!

http://i.imgur.com/oMUUnon.jpg

yeah im sure it has nothing to do with the warm water...

The fish have to actually make it to socal waters for you to catch one...

I for one am glad they are regulating the fishery. We used to have an epic schoolie bluefin fishery in new england and it's all but gone. Most of this is related to foreign fisheries the rest is the lack of inshore forage due to midwater trawlers and factory fishing vessels and guys going out and taking every fish they could.

The attitude that you can't overfish with a recreational fishery is bunk as well. Striped bass on the east coast went from epic to mediocre at best within 10 years after they lowered the minimum size and raised the bag to 2 fish. Spawning has been a major issue but I think this is mostly related to pollution and the allowance of taking barely spawning size fish. Most of these fish are taken by six pack charters keeping full limits every trip. Say each boat goes out 100 times a year with six guys that was 1,200 fish a year which is on the low side cause a lot of boats did 2 trips a day and fish more than 100 days. Now add that up with at least 1,000 six packs and cattle boats up and down the striper coast and you're talking some serious decimation. The ocean is not a never ending supply of food and we have to be responsible for how much and what we take from it.

I often wonder what the yellowtail fishery would look like after a few years of a one or two fish limit. My guess would be epic. You won't see it happen with the current attitudes and if it does decline, like what happened with stripers, you'll see people block any action until it's too late.

The filleting regs are so that people don't cut up their BFT and try to say that it's YFT. All the pieces go into seperate bags, one piece per bag. But if you're catching bluefin, please don't commit the sin of filleting on the water. Gut and gill them, take them home whole and brine them for at least 12 hours prior to filleting.

I had to fillet that big one OTW in the sun... at the request of the crew. A damn shame.

Statistically speaking, the recreational fishing take is not significant. What needs to be regulated is the commercial take. What really needs to happen is that Our fishery need to be managed with recreational fishermen being a priority, rather than the commercial industry like as it is now.

Good point and One can only hope... The biggest issue seems to be the non oversight on international take by commercial.. Don't see that ever happening in my lifetime but who knows..

Yep, my whole gripe here is that our fish are a state public resource that is being totally abused by the vast majority being shipped out of the country. Our political system bears the responsibility for this clear mismanagement. Yet we recreational anglers are bearing the brunt; and when the fishery id depleted, we will continue to bear the brunt of this mismanagement. Obviously this issue, as I see it, is not limited to BFT. As you, I don't see this being fixed in my lifetime, unfortunately.

I'd say most people share your feeling of hopelessness.

Politically speaking... Recreational fisherman have no money and therefore no lobbying power in congress. The only chance WE have is to align ourselves with the scientific and conservationist movement, and promote our sport as responsible and sustainable. If it doesn't happen in your lifetime, it will never happen as the resource will be gone forever.

I don't see us gaining any traction in the scientific community as long as you have anglers griping and complaining about every regulation and marine reserve. Not to mention the cruelty to the sealions. All you sea lion haters need to shut up and quit giving us a bad name.

You take 20 minutes to reel in a 15 lb yellowtail, then complain about how a sea lion "stole" it from you?! Ha... That sea lion is just smarter than you! At least you can now claim that it was a 40lber lol

Coastal Conservation Association!!! This organization gives a voice to the average recreational fisherman. It is by no means the "end-all-be-all" but it is a great organization that can give us average joes a voice in regulations that affect us. Contact your congressional representative, they can be extremely helpful and responsive! Best advice is to get involved, dont sit back and complain, get out and do something, if we all do a littleour voices can turn from a whisper into a giant megaphone!!

You couldn't say it any better Chris!


Your two posts in this thread are right on the money.


The attitude of:
Yeah I need to keep my 10 fish limit, it's my right, it's in the constitution! I won't do anything to conserve until the commercial guys do.......




Just because someone else (the tuna pros) do bad things does not make it ok for you to do it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that most people that are "for" this type of new legislation live on or near the coast. Please keep in mind, that some people do not live on the coast and get to fish in with any regularity. Therefore the once a year angler gets "screwed" and the folks with free time and boats.....well they have it a different way. I have a proposal that should "level" the playing field for all involved, this being the sport boats and commercials as well as the private anglers.
IF we truly believe that reducing the catch will ensure that the overall stocks go up, then why not have a tag system for keeping BFT. Price per fish, min and max size limits. YOU pay to play.
Please I hope that NOAA has "earned" your trust. They sure haven't earned mine. Our Deputy Directory in the Northwest has no Environmental Experience or training/education....she is a trained politician....PHd in political science.
The Director of the Southwest.....25 + years in academics......no real world experience, university funded studies. There is some old saying around that goes something like this..." those that don't know much......teach". And nothing against teachers, in my experience, they tend to be the ones who couldn't hang in the business/private sector world.
NOAA has been playing a Climate Change game manipulating past temperature datasets to make the present climate seem more warm that past temperatures.
There is well documented evidence of this, cached NOAA pages have shown this as well as the raw datasets.
Why would I be inclined to believe their stock assessments. Unless they can convince the public they are solving "problems" they will loose funding. I'm not saying the stocks have not dropped. Please consider the "rights" you are willing to sacrifice for yourself, and force on others all in the name of environmentalism. Unfortunately most good environmental groups have been high jacked for political purposes, thus it's very hard to find good studies on the subject. Just check the background of the sitting board members......should give you lots' of confidence in the studies they produce.

Hmmm....you might have a point...
Who's a teacher round' here...?

1. Matt (Stinkymatt) Teacher
2. Roby (Roby) Teacher
3. Chuck (ChuckD) Teacher
4. Josh (Darkhorse) Teacher
5. Jim (Deamon) Teacher
6. Yani (Kayakfisherman) Teacher

:eek:

Too funny.....BS in Environmental Resource Management with a concentration in Geo-Spatial modeling......I'll take the science based approach, including uncertainties, and statistical/spatial modeling over "feelings" any day. But feelings are holding up in court much more than they used to.....so there's something to be said there.
Mom was a teacher for 30+ years. There are lot's of good ones out there. I just believe my mom would be horrible in proposing/setting environmental policy and all of her coworkers as well.

Your Mom was a teacher and you are saying teachers could not hang in the real world?


Show your post to your Mom, see if you get invited to Thanksgiving this year?

:D

MUM
 

She is well aware of this statement....I learned this one from dad. In their age, they come to my house now. And they are both still happily married for 40 some years. It's not hanging in the real world that I am talking about. It's the private sector. I just don't know of many teachers/professors that moved into the private sector non teaching world and were successful in it. It could be that it was too hard to give up 3 months of vacation a year:D One of my Environmental Law professors was active law partner but his excuse was that he was getting to old to litigate.

Just curious, but do you have any evidence on this? I would love to see it :cheers1:

If your mother was a teacher than you should be well aware that those 3 months are NOT vacation, that is unpaid time off.

I'm guessing that most people who are against this type of legislation are the same rednecks who get most of their data from Facebook and claim that global climate change is part of the liberal media's political agenda.

But I do kinda like the tag system for tuna. interesting idea.

Lol, to funny, you totally missed it; as in a swing and a strike times 3.

The links and Graphs are still good
 

Take your time on this one. Please check out the links, and the data on the links. Please compare the dates on the data, and the dates on the graphs.
Please read the articles quoted, at GISS, EPA, and NOAA.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...tipping-point/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...low-temps.html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-at-ushcngiss/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/2...a-quality-act/

In the Science World, data integrity is everything. I'm not aiming to change your opinions, just please be aware that just because it has a government label behind it does not mean it does not have an agenda.

This is straight from the GISS:
Q. Do the raw data ever change?
A. The raw data always stays the same, except for occasional reported corrections or replacements of preliminary data from one source by reports obtained later from a more trusted source.

So why did the raw data change? It will take a good day to sift through the datasets and overlay them, but let me know if you come up with a different conclusion.

I'm sorry I shouldn't call names or make harsh comments. I just feel passionate about this issue...

Once would be ignorant to believe
 

That climate change does not exist. The fossil record proves that the climate changes. The weather is not the same year to year. It only snowed twice in the redneck town I grew up in. The difference in the train of thought is did "we" cause this climate change, or is this a "normal" part of the natural cycles we know little about.
No need for name calling, I may be a redneck but I take offense at you assuming I have a facebook account. BWE and BD is my social media.
May I ask who you trust for you data sources? Rest assured I do not get my datasets from facebook, the above links might give you clues as to what sites a carouse. ( sorry I didn't include mother jones in there, but I do check it out) A healthy debate is necessary, but let us please stick to what we perceive as facts, until properly corrected.
Hope you get an opportunity to get that "solo" kayak BFT this summer, and if not this summer, the next, or the next, or the next.

No worries my friend
 

I have a feeling we could have a healthy debate anytime.
No sweat, it's good to be passionate about something rather than nothing.
And you can't go wrong with being passionate about fishing. It's in my blood, probably in yours, most likely fighting for the same things, just possibly different avenues of attack.

Lip ripper,

The very first link you provided starts with two negative comments about Obama......it took no more than 3 seconds to establish the credibility of your link. It was bustin on the president and not talking science. Never made it to the second link.


I got to get going now....FOX NEWS is running a special on global warming myths....( but you already knew that)

:D


Tight lines my scientist friend.

Why smear? Can't refute the data?
 

Great tactic my friend!!!!! You learn well. (Rules for radicals?)
Please highlight the word Obama in the below article. Unless I am having some eyesight issues, I don't see him mentioned at all.
NOAA Data Tampering Reaches A Tipping Point

Posted on November 3, 2013 by stevengoddard
<!-- .entry-meta --> NOAA reported that September was the warmest ever on Earth, even though satellites showed September as being close to the median.
This tipped me off that they have gone into full cheating, damn the torpedoes mode. Check out the level of tampering they achieved for September US temperatures. NCDC shows a strong warming trend for September in the US.
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpres...pg?w=640&h=467
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/
But the actual thermometer data which they use shows a cooling trend.
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpres...pg?w=640&h=496
Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/
I immediately knew that we were looking at a record data tampering event. They have now passed two degrees of cheating in the US record. The graph below shows the difference between NCDC measured and reported data. As you can see, they are basically reducing temperatures from the past linearly with age.
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpres...pg?w=640&h=442
NOAA has degenerated into a spectacularly immoral state, where their primary purpose seems to be to generate climate propaganda. Last week they were lying again about the 1,000 year rainfall in Colorado. It is pathetic.



Where does it say anything about Obama in this article? If you don't believe the data, you are more than free to do so. That is your right. But you did not refute the data. You smeared my sources by adding something that was not there.
Heavy tactic you have there my friend.

So because there are small discrepancies in temperature data which may have been "modified" by NOAA, then we should dismiss the entire organization, and indeed the 100 years plus of collective scientific knowledge generated by NOAA researchers?

If there was a CAT 5 hurricane bearing down on your family's home and NOAA, who is the only reputable marine weather service we have, predicted landfall nearby, would you call mom up and say "I dunno mom... These kooks over at NWS often falsify their data and are likely exaggerating the danger"? I think not.

I trust NOAA wholeheartedly, with my life. So do you, and you don't even realize it. Where do you think all the marine weather data comes from? Magic seaweed?? They have been directly responsible for saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars worth of property, and that's only in the last couple decades. I have many friends who work at fisheries and my girlfriend works at Scripps. Of course, they have an agenda like any other well funded organization. 2012 was a cold year water wise. I'm not surprised there were discrepancies in their data set.

But saying human induced global climate change isn't real, now that is pseudo-science. Sure the geologic record shows climate change, even dramatic in scale. The current patterns we are experiencing are UNPRECEDENTED in the geologic record... Like 1000x faster than we have any record of. Does it mean global warming or ice age? I don't know and won't venture to guess... But assuming some rightwing internet trolls knows more about global climate than the ARMY of PhDs from NOAA is a real shame. You are asserting that there is some conspiracy and that scientists are purposefully misinforming the public? These scientists argue with each other more than they would ever debate with a outside entity. All they do is try to prove each other wrong. Do you realize the amount of proof and peer defense that a team has to go through to even present an idea as a HYPOTHESIS, let alone a theory? Please give them a little more credit.

These are the same guys who have completely shut down the commercial sardine fishery this year. Why would they do something silly like that? Maybe it's because they are the only ones preventing man from completely decimating what is left of our ocean?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think.

How they go from 10 to 2 in one change kinda tells me that they aren't paying attention and just had another "Oh Shit" moment.

I hate government regulation but it's a necessary evil, like government itself.

Gawd, at least with Facebook I would not have to keep seeing posts by zealots using Hyperbole and Metaphor to argue their "facts". I delete any "friends" that do that for anything but a joke (on either side of issues). If a raindrop falls on your head, does that really mean that the sky is falling?

Does this paper explain who is changing the data and why?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...o-DC_Brief.pdf

Hardly seems like a conspiracy to me. If anything, seems to me, at worst making poor conclusions on faulty data.

My graph
 

Attachment 15333Attachment 15334

Sent from the Future