# Long lining to re-open in the gulf?



## Tobiwan

http://www.marlinmag.com/species/co...osed-longlining-zones?page=0,1&src=SOC&dom=fb

I certainly hope not. What do you guys think?


----------



## recess

I hope not, if they do the swordfish population will be affected a ton. It is just starting to rebound with larger fish , this will suck.


----------



## Tobiwan

I'm pretty sure it's happening unless we fight it. Our neck of the woods appears to be the prime target. The Desoto Canyon is where most of this is going to go down. Terrible...


----------



## reel sorry

Is the entire Gulf closed to LL? I saw a LL deployed this past summer in the steps area.


----------



## Tobiwan

reel sorry said:


> Is the entire Gulf closed to LL? I saw a LL deployed this past summer in the steps area.


I'm not exactly sure of the regulations...it seems to be a rather hard subject to find info on. Maybe someone on the forum knows more about it.


----------



## Chris V

The LLs you see around the steps and elbow target bottom fish. The last thing we need is a pelagic LL in our waters. Our sword stock is in such good shape now, it would be a huge disappointment from the Feds as usual


----------



## Tobiwan

reel sorry said:


> Is the entire Gulf closed to LL? I saw a LL deployed this past summer in the steps area.


From what ive been reading pelagic long line fishing is prohibited in the desoto canyon area which I think would include the steps but there is a number to call for exact coordinates.


----------



## Tobiwan

I was reading about this amendment 7 on TBF's website, and even they seem to think that in order to maintain our position in the global fishing community we must meet our quotas of bluefin tuna. Which is why they want to reopen the long lining. Saying that if we don't catch our quota we will lose some of our power to regulate the fisheries. In turn other countries will step in and take the part of our quota that we can't meet. That's how I read it. Still seems like your cutting off your hand to spite your face...or however the saying goes lol

They do say that they realize it would be best to have it closed entirely though.


----------



## Scruggspc

I say let them LL all they want in the Atlantic and pacific because that's where the other countries have there impact on populations. Those guys from wicked tuna (northeast) need their qouta raised to meet this qouta we havent met.But for heavens sake don't destroy a flourishing population of pelagics (that was just rebuilt)! Or make them harpoon or rod and reel fish for them eleminating the neglect of other species.


----------



## Subdude

We picked one up last week on our supply boat that was about to wrap around Thunderhorse with miles of hooks on it. Had a rotten sword and blue on it. Very sad.


----------



## Chasin' Tales

Here's a link to the NMFS bulletin in 2001 that made effective the closure:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/1BF0AA76-7...-459F-A46F-DE44C4A29F40/sfa/hms/HMS060801.pdf


----------



## Fish Eye

I would suggest a letter writing campaign to your local congressman. I would think that 1.4 million in revenue is hardly worth the damage that would be done to our fishery.


----------



## makotuna

Since it is only prohibited in Desoto canyon right now, that means long lining currently takes place in mississippi canyon, green canyon, atwater valley, etc? 

Makes you wonder if this is why they want you to report HMS catches... 

Where is the council screaming bloody murder when you need them to?


----------



## Fish Eye

The attached link take you to the Billfish Foundations website. Please take a moment to fill out the petition to block amendment 7. It takes all of about 30 seconds. 

http://takeaction.billfish.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12127&tag=eblast


----------



## JoeyWelch

Fish Eye said:


> The attached link take you to the Billfish Foundations website. Please take a moment to fill out the petition to block amendment 7. It takes all of about 30 seconds.
> 
> http://takeaction.billfish.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12127&tag=eblast



Done...


----------



## Tobiwan

Thank you for posting that link I was going to but hadn't gotten around to it. 

Signed.


----------



## cody&ryand

Also signed don't get out to fish blue water as much as I would like but still understand the effect it will have on it


----------



## sealark

There are more than one type of longlining check out what they are talking about before you panic it is tightly controlled and I would bet it won't effect the sport fishing at all. No I haven't checked it out and have no reason or desire to do it. I think they should allow shark long lining inside the 100 fathom line like it was a few years back. Maybe that's what they are talking about Hopefully.


----------



## Fish Eye

Sea lark when the are talking about opening long lining in DeSoto Canyon they are not talking about long lining for sharks. I do agree that long lining for sharks again wouldn't be a bad idea.


----------



## Fish Eye

Thanks for all that took the time to sign the petition every little bit helps.


----------



## destincabo

Done and sent.


----------



## kiefersdad

Took thirty seconds


----------



## Tobiwan

sealark said:


> There are more than one type of longlining check out what they are talking about before you panic it is tightly controlled and I would bet it won't effect the sport fishing at all. No I haven't checked it out and have no reason or desire to do it. I think they should allow shark long lining inside the 100 fathom line like it was a few years back. Maybe that's what they are talking about Hopefully.


TBF wouldn't be involved if it wasn't a pelagic surface long line.

Bump


----------



## Tim_G

Fish Eye said:


> The attached link take you to the Billfish Foundations website. Please take a moment to fill out the petition to block amendment 7. It takes all of about 30 seconds.
> 
> http://takeaction.billfish.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12127&tag=eblast


done. thanks for posting that.


----------



## Realtor

Done


----------



## RollTider

done


----------



## fairpoint

Done


----------



## Subdude

Done


----------



## jet

*sent petition*

done


----------



## Joraca

done


----------



## aquaholic

done


----------



## Stressless

http://takeaction.billfish.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12127&tag=eblast

Link again for those that want to sign the petition against expanding LL in the Gulf of Mexico.

Stressless - Good to see you Gene...


----------



## Odesign1

Done,

THX for posting the link


----------



## ilander

Done


----------



## MathGeek

It seems that most of the negative commentary here is based on a knee jerk "No, because there is a possibility it might reduce the recreational harvest" rather than a rational inference based on sound science (stock assessments).

In the absence of stock assessments supporting an ongoing closure, why should the government continue to outlaw a reasonable level of commercial harvest? 

If the stocks can be sustained at a healthy level by including a limited commercial harvest, then why not?

Anecdotal observations are not a scientific stock assessment.


----------



## Tobiwan

MathGeek said:


> It seems that most of the negative commentary here is based on a knee jerk "No, because there is a possibility it might reduce the recreational harvest" rather than a rational inference based on sound science (stock assessments).
> 
> In the absence of stock assessments supporting an ongoing closure, why should the government continue to outlaw a reasonable level of commercial harvest?
> 
> If the stocks can be sustained at a healthy level by including a limited commercial harvest, then why not?
> 
> Anecdotal observations are not a scientific stock assessment.


I don't know how knee jerk this is...I hope that an orginazation like The Billfish Foundation has done some scientific research on this matter that makes them think this is a bad idea. I have not done any research myself but then again I'm not a marine biologist. So therefore I have to put my trust in those that do the research.

Maybe TBF is wrong but from what I've read about this on their page they seem to have the marine life's best interest on their minds. 

No offense but it doesn't seem "knee jerk" to me. You saying that this is a "knee jerk" reaction is far more anecdotal than anything that has been posted so far.


----------



## MathGeek

Tobiwan said:


> I don't know how knee jerk this is...I hope that an orginazation like The Billfish Foundation has done some scientific research on this matter that makes them think this is a bad idea. I have not done any research myself but then again I'm not a marine biologist. So therefore I have to put my trust in those that do the research.
> 
> Maybe TBF is wrong but from what I've read about this on their page they seem to have the marine life's best interest on their minds.
> 
> No offense but it doesn't seem "knee jerk" to me. You saying that this is a "knee jerk" reaction is far more anecdotal than anything that has been posted so far.


Not at all. The links essentially support the point that keeping the fisheries closed reduces the bycatch of billfish. Duh!

There is no support for the necessity of keeping the bycatch of billfish low, just the presumption that lower bycatches are better.

Outlawing activities should be based on scientific data justifying the ongoing criminalization of harvest activities. If the stock is healthy enough to support modest harvest and/or bycatch levels, then why should they be criminalized?

The TBF links do not support the presumption that the stocks would be endangered by modest bycatch levels.


----------

