Making Waves - Winter 2017

waves

M A K I N G

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page Page

The Official Publication of the Recreational Fishing Alliance

ICCAT SPECIAL SECTION GET TO KNOW RFA PAC MAKO SEASON SAVED BLUEFIN ECONOMICS

Interview with Raymond Bogan US Recreational Commission to ICCAT

Winter 2017

Page

Making Waves Winter 2017

waves

M A K I N G

Page 33 Page

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

The Official Publication of the Recreational Fishing Alliance

FROM THE PUBLISHER’S DESK

By Gary Caputi MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR to all our members, supporters and friends and welcome to the last issue of Making Waves for 2017. There's lots to read so sit back with your computer or tablet and spend a little time with this important issue.

INSIDE THIS ISSUE From the Publisher’s Desk

3

Exec. Director's Report: MSA Reform & Menhaden Management

5

Inside you'll find a fascinating interview with Raymond Bogan, the recreational commissioner for the United States to ICCAT. In addition to over 20 years experience representing anglers on the domestic and international state, Ray is also the RFA's chief councel and a member of one of the Northeast's most famous fishing families and we are pleased to have the opportunity to let you get to know him a little better. Also in our ICCAT Special Section you'll find a piece on the socio-economic benefits of the recreational bluefin tuna fishery that includes a little history lesson, written by RFA's New England Director and long time scribe and editor, Capt. Barry Gibson. There are reports from the latest ICCAT meeting in Morocco, too.

RFA PAC Explained

9

Ever wonder about the workings of RFA's Political Action Committee? This is the issue to learn more about it and why you should consider donating to help all our voices be heard and to help elect representatives sympathetic to our cause.

Check out the breaking news from the Pacific Northwest where our Oregon chapter accomplished what was deemed by many to be impossible and much more in our holiday issue and we'll see you all next year. It promises to be a doozy.

RFA PAC Annual Report

12

Breaking News: RFA-Oregon Wins 10 Year Battle

18

ICCAT Special Section

19

Banking on Bluefin - A Look at the Economics

21

Report from Morocco 2017 ICCAT Meeting

31

2018 Mako Season Saved

32

Interview: Ray Bogan Commissioner to ICCAT

34

Great White eats Giant Bluefin

42

RFA News & Views

44

On the Cover:

Long time RFA member Capt. Jim Freda shows off a nice bluefin caught jigging the middle grounds off New Jersey.

Page 4

Making Waves Winter 2017

Page 55 Page

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Executive Executive Director’s Director’s Report Report By

By Jim Jim Donofrio Donofrio

Step Step Forward Forward on on MSA MSA Reform Reform & & Comments Comments on on Menhaden Menhaden Management Management

O

n December 13, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources approved H.R. 200, a bill sponsored by Congressman Don Young (RAlaska) that amends the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen. The RFA has been a driving force within the coalition of organizations representing the saltwater recreational fishing and boating community and wholeheartedly endorsed H.R. 200.

This legislation addresses many of the challenges faced by recreational anglers, including allowing alternative management tools for recreational fishing, reexamining fisheries allocations and improving recreational data collection. The bill will provide management agencies with the much needed flexibility it needs to balance the needs of recreational

fishermen and the recreational fishing industry with common sense conservation goals expanding access to rebuilt and rebuilding fisheries.

The next step in the process is a floor vote by the House and inclusion in the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act so that it can be moved to the Senate where coalition representatives have been at work to have companion legislation drawn up and voted on.

During the committee hearings I was pleased to see a group of 135 marine recreational fishing and boating industry executives signed on to a letter in support of the tenants of the Modern Fish Act and its inclusion in the final reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Fixing the MSA has always been a jobs issue and this was exactly the kind of pressure the industry needed to bring to bear on Congress.

Their involvement in the process going forward will

be invaluable.

Balancing conservation with access and smart utilization of our marine fisheries resources go hand-inhand, but that balance has been eroded for recreational fishing since the last reauthorization. Recreational fishermen are first and foremost conservationists and have always pushed for healthy and abundant marine fish stocks, but the litany of draconian regulations that have been put in place as a result of the wording used in the last reauthorization has been destroying the sport and damaging a once vibrant segment of the economy. Thom Dammrich, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association said it best in his comments.

"The need to revise the onesize-fits-all approach of the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been abundantly clear in recent years as anglers face unreasonably limited access to public marine resources,"

Page 6

Making Waves Winter 2017

Page 77 Page

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Executive Director's Report continued he wrote. "Stakeholders of the recreational boating industry, a uniquely Americanmade industry with an economic footprint of more than $121 billion annually and more than 650,000 American jobs, are encouraged by the Committee's action today, and we hope to see final passage by the House very soon."

With industry and anglers united behind the common cause of passing meaningful reform of the MSA it will be very difficult for the Senate and Administration to ignore our concerns and get it right this time.

A

ccording to Pew and many of their brainwashed followers, striped bass fishing in the Northeast is over. They claim that the sky is falling and the stocks are in the dumper even though the most recent data tracking stock size, SSB, YOY and recruitment indicates they are at a high level of abundance. It amazes me how even some people in our own industry and sector have bought into the negative hype. Now they’re claiming that the recent modest increase of menhaden quota for the commercial industry approved in November will make it that much more difficult to expand the stock and even catch striped bass. Un-

fortunately, this is very misleading and patently false. In fact, there were changes made to the menhaden FMP that addressed one of the problems with the plan— regional depletion as evidenced by overharvesting in Chesapeake Bay. The coastwide menhaden stock is actually in very good shape and that is making it very difficult to support the argument to reduce the overall commercial quota. We’re simply not going to beat the commercial industry with the current scientific data because the science says the stock, when considered as a whole from one end of its range to the other, is healthy.

What we have to take into consideration is the regional depletion that occurs when there is a tremendous amount of effort concentrated in specific areas. Such concentrated effort affects the predator/prey relationship in that area and not just with striped bass, but with other predators like weakfish and bluefish. We proved that regional depletion can be fixed off the coast of New Jersey after we won a legislative victory that forced the reduction boats out of State waters. That resulted in years of greatly improved striped bass fishing as the menhaden schools remain unmolested by the industrial purse seiner fleet. One area of major concern for regional depletion

has been the Chesapeake Bay complex, which is a critical spawning area and nursery for a major portion of the coastal striped bass population. But at the same meeting that the ASMFC increased the coastwide quote of menhaden they reduced the cap on allowable annual harvest from Chesapeake Bay by 40%.

Going forward we have to take a broader look at how we manage menhaden with more consideration of potential regional depletions by concentrated commercial effort. I believe the way we can do that is to put on our thinking caps, bring disparate groups together, and move menhaden management out of the ASMFC where the State of Virginia, home to Omega Protein, the largest harvester of menhaden by far, has too much influence on the management process.

With the extensive range of the stocks and their expanded presence in the EEZ, federal management under the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council would afford more workable options. It would give us a better way to manage the fishery, deal with regional depletions, and come up with more creative solutions to help us in the future so that we can improve predator-prey relationships and reduce regionalize effort on the stock of these important forage fish.

Page 8

Making Waves Winter 2017

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

RFA

Page 99 Page

PAC

A look at the Recreational Fishing Alliance Political Action Committee, how it is structured, operated, what it means to you, and why you should consider donating.

F

rom the beginning, the RFA has served as a watchdog and advocate for causes which affect recreational anglers. The formation of the RFA PAC allowed us to strengthen the foundation of our political influence by helping to elect legislators who are willing to address our concerns while being vigilant in upholding our rights as recreational fishermen.

politically active, unified group that will constantly be keeping score on the voting record of those we choose to support.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance is a 501 (c) 4 political action organization and has been since its inception. That distinction under IRA tax regulations provides us the latitude needed to allow us to lobby on your behalf on issues that fall within our well deSimply put the RFA PAC works on the princi- fined mission statement. It has made it posple that the whole is greater than the sum sible to accomplish goals and win battles of its parts. It depends solely on personal, using political strategies that conservation voluntary contributions from fishermen like groups chartered under the charity-related you and pools those contributions so they 501 (c) 3 designation simply are not permitwill have far greater political influence than ted to use under the law. individual donations. Through the support of the RFA PAC, its members serve as a con- “The RFA was created and structured using the NRA model,� says Jim Donofrio, execustant reminder to lawmakers that we are a

Page 10

tive director. “It is registered and performs in essence exactly like the National Rifle Association, but it represents and champions the causes of saltwater anglers.”

This year, as in years past, the U.S. Congress will consider legislation that will have a profound impact on your rights as a recreational fishermen. Unfortunately, far too few anglers are aware that such bills are pending, and as individuals, there is little they can do to alter the course of those proposals. However, there is a way to have your voice and the voices of fellow fishermen heard – through the RFA PAC. One of the freedoms we enjoy in the United States is the ability to support political candidates who believe in our cause and who pledge to defend the principles which we hold important. The vehicle that enables us to support the candidates of our choice is the Political Action Committee. It allows people with common interests to pool their resources to gain a greater impact when donating to the political entities they feel are most apt to represent them.

The RFA PAC is a qualified, non-party political action committee and is designated as a separate segregated fund (SSF). Under this designation, RFA resources can be used for the administration of the RFA PAC but the Federal Election Commission (FEC) limits the scope of who can be solicited for individual contributions to the PAC. Under this designation, only RFA members, current or expired, or individuals with an association with the RFA can be solicited. This limits who we can ask for money, but the advantage is that the RFA PAC can share service and personnel costs with the RFA. However, separate banking accounts must be in place to ensure that the parent organization’s operating and PAC funds do not mix. This type of PAC is the one most commonly used with membership organizations, trade organizations and corporations.

Making Waves Winter 2017

The RFA PAC evaluates candidates it considers supporting using this following criteria: Are RFA members or recreational industry activities in the candidate’s constituency base?

Does the candidate serve on a Congressional committee that considers legislation relevant to marine fisheries?

Does the candidate’s voting record reflect an understanding of our community’s concerns?

Is the candidate in a leadership position in Congress?

Is the candidate in a competitive race with likely success?

Does the candidate need financial support from RFA PAC? The RFA PAC is managed by the PAC director at its headquarters in the RFA offices. All activities related to the distribution of contributions are decided by the RFA PAC committee, comprised of the Committee Chair and PAC members who serve on the committee. The PAC committee is responsible for reviewing and selecting candidates seeking any state and federal offices to receive the RFA PAC’s support. The PAC committee also oversees the management of fund raising efforts and communication activities of the PAC. We wholehearted encourage RFA members to contribute to the RFA PAC. All contributions are voluntary and the amount you contribute is your decision alone, however you may not contribute more than the $5000 annual maximum allowed under federal election campaign finance laws. If you have questions about the PAC or contributing please call 1-888-JOIN-RFA (1-888-564 -6732) or email JDonofrio@JOINRFA.org.

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 1111 Page

Page 12

Making Waves Winter 2017

RFA

PAC

ANNUAL REPORT

RECREATIONAL FISHING ALLIANCE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE REPORT SUMMARY The Recreational Fishing Alliance Political Action Committee (RFA PAC) is a qualified, non-party political action committee. The RFA PAC is designated as a separate segregated fund (SSF). Under this designation, RFA resources can be used for the administration of the RFA PAC but the Federal Election Commission (FEC) limits who can be solicited for individual contributions to the PAC. Under this designation, only members, current or expired, or individuals with an association with the RFA can be solicited. This limits the scope of people we can ask for money, but the advantage is that the RFA PAC can share service and personnel costs with the RFA. However, separate banking accounts must be in place to ensure that the parent organization’s operating and PAC funds do not mix. This type of PAC is the one most commonly used with membership organizations, trade organizations and corporations.

FEC rules limit the amount an individual can contribute to the RFA PAC at $5,000 per year. The RFA PAC can contribute up to $5,000 per election to an individual candidate committee whereas an individual is limited to $2,750 per election.

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 1313 Page

RECEIPTS The RFA PAC conducts on average, two mailings per year. Mailings are conducted by Kirkwood Direct which maintains the RFA data base. Two mailings were conducted in both 2016 and 2017. The four mailings resulted in 622 individual contributions which collectively total $43,780. The average monetary contribution amount received in response to those mailings was $71.

Individual contributions from the state of New Jersey accounted for the largest percentage at 23.5% of the $43,780. PAC donations on the state level seem to be positively correlated to the number of RFA members in each corresponding state. Louisiana appears to be an expectation where the state accounts for roughly 10% of total PAC contributions but represents less than 1% of RFA total membership in 2017.

Page 14

Making Waves Winter 2017

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 1515 Page

DISBURSEMENTS RFA PAC disbursed a total of $30,664 over the course of the last year. Those disbursements were made to 14 different federal candidate campaigns. Weighted by dollar amount, federal candidate campaigns in the states of New Jersey, Alaska, Montana, Georgia, and California received the over 90% of the political contributions.

RFA PAC also contributed $2,850 to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump during this period.

Reprinted with permission of

Of the total contributions to federal candidate campaigns, 58% was spent on candidates in the House of Representatives, 33.6% was spent on Senate candidates and 9.3% was spent on the presidential election of 2016.

Of the total contributions made to federal candidate campaigns, $25,664 or 73% were made to members of the Republican party. During the same period of time, RFA PAC contributed $5,000 or 16% of total disbursements to members of the Democratic party.

Page 16

Making Waves Winter 2017

DISCUSSION The RFA PAC is a critical component of RFA’s effectiveness in regard to carrying out the mission of the organization. A strong PAC provides RFA with access to legislators that hold jurisdiction over legislation that impacts fishing and issues important to the recreational marine industry. Many of the legislators in receipt of RFA PAC contributions hold leadership seats on committees and subcommittees that handle fishery and marine industry issues. The RFA PAC also gives the RFA an opportunity to support legislators who will challenge NOAA Fisheries when needed, support industry supported candidates for regional fishery management councils and weigh-in on international fishery and environmental matters. Contributions to the RFA PAC have remained relatively stable while RFA membership has declined on an annual basis.

RFA continues to look for opportunities to bolster the RFA PAC and secure more individual contributions.

RFA also looks to its Board of Directors for ideas and opportunities to increase contributions to the PAC.

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 1717 Page

Page 18

Making Waves Winter 2017

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 1919 Page

Page 20

Making Waves Winter 2017

BREAKING NEWS RFA-Oregon Chapter Successfully Completes 10-year Project to Expand Recreational Rockfish Access. Big Win for Northwestern Anglers!

O

n December 20, 2017, NOAA Fisheries published a proposed rule in the federal register authorizing the use of long-leader gear for recreational fishing in waters deeper than 40 fathoms off the coast of Oregon. The proposed regulations would allow recreational anglers to target and harvest abundant mid-water species such as yellowtail and widow rockfish while avoiding some of the bottom dwelling rockfish species deemed to be overfished such as yelloweye. These measures represent a practical solution that allows for recreational fishing opportunities on healthy stocks of fish and at the same time attending to conservation objectives for overfished stocks. The recreational groundfish fisheries off the coast of Oregon are a significant source of income for coastal communities, but since 2004, anglers have been restricted to shallower waters to reduce interactions with deeper water species, especially yelloweye rockfish. The proposed measures, based on gear modifications, would allow anglers back into productive fishing grounds and increase fishing opportunities.

“This has taken ten years of hard work and heavy lifting by RFA-OR and the Oregon state wildlife agency,” stated John Holloway. “It will be the first recreational EFP to go to regulation in the history of the Pacific Council” Under the proposed rule, anglers will be permitted to fish seaward of the 40 fathom depth curve off of Oregon from April through September. The gear used in this area and time period must consist of a single line with no more than 3 hooks with a minimum of 30 feet between the sinker and the lowest hook. A noncompressible float must also be attached above the hooks. This configuration will keep the baits or lure up off the bottom and out of reach of yelloweye. Following a 30-day public comment period, the measures are expected to be in place in time for the spring fishery.

This effort lead by John Holloway and the state of Oregon represents a creative way of dealing with one of the most pressing regulatory requirements under Magnuson which limits recreational fishing opportunities in order to comply with extremely low annual The proposed measures are the result of ten years of catch limits with overfished stocks. This problem is work spearheaded by John Holloway, Chairman of not unique to Oregon but is also a significant concern the Oregon chapter of the RFA. An experimental fish- in the South Atlantic and New England regions. ery was initiated in 2009 under a federally issued exThese measures also put into practice the use of alterempted fishing permit. The objective was to evaluate native management measures in the recreational secwhat gear modifications could be made to recreation- tor. RFA has been supporting amendments to Magal hook and line gear that would allow the harvest of nuson to specifically allow for the use of alternative healthy mid-water species while avoiding the deeper- management measures and to ensure a speedier apwater species. The results of that experimental fishery proval process when these much needed measures were positive and proved that long-leader gear was are put forward by the regional councils and supportan effective tool in achieving the above objective. ed by the industry.

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 2121 Page

ICCAT SPECIAL SECTION

Mike Pierdinock and Ray Bogan at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas in Morocco.

The Economics of the Recreational Bluefin Fishery Interview with Ray Bogan, US Recreational Commissioner Hutchinson on Saving US Recreational Mako Fishing Mike Pierdinock Reports from Morocco

Page 22

Making Waves Winter 2017

BANKING ON BLUEFINS

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 2323 Page

By Capt. Barry Gibson

A look at the history of the recreational bluefin tuna fishery in the United States and its impact on the fishing industry.

I

always find it amusing when some well-meaning representative of the harpoon and general category “rod-andreel” commercial giant bluefin tuna fishery steps up to the microphone at a meeting and speaks passionately about their “historic” participation. Apparently, you would think, the bluefin tuna fishery only dates back to around 1980.

Page 24

In reality, that’s not quite true.

The historic or “traditional” fishery for bluefin tuna off the East Coast of the U.S. was almost purely recreational. Back in the 1920s and 30s, well-to-do anglers wielding stout split bamboo rods and heavy Tycoon FinNor reels trolled up giants from rudimentary wooden cruisers powered by automobile engines. Fish as heavy as 800 pounds were routinely landed, yet few were sold since a steady market for tuna flesh would not develop for another halfcentury. After the obligatory photos were taken back at the dock, the big bluefins were often given away for pet food or fertilizer, or simply towed back out to sea and unceremoniously cut loose.

But even back then, the fledgling recreational giant tuna fishery began to grow as an economic entity.

Affordable reels from makers such as Penn and Ocean City, and the advent of fiberglass rods such as those produced by Conolon and Harnell in the1950s, allowed folks of more modest means to break into the sport. Boats became more comfortable, reliable, and moderately priced, and tackle companies worked overtime to develop stronger and more efficient reels, rods, lines, lures, and terminal gear. To catch a giant bluefin became the Holy Grail of offshore saltwater angling.

Making Waves Winter 2017

School Tuna-Mania

them is that they give you Tracking the same timeline was weight, action, and underwater the recreational school tuna fish- acrobatics – a package of finned dynamite – in just the right ery, most of which took place amount,” wrote author Bill Wisfrom Cape Cod down through ner in How to Catch Salt Water New Jersey. Pursued primarily by charter and head boats in the Fish, published in 1955. He was early days of the 1930s, school right on. bluefins were caught in staggering numbers by hundreds of for- And the school bluefin’s popuhire vessels out of Rhode Island, larity continued unabated. More and more anglers jumped into Long Island, and ports in New the sport, and 30- and 50-pound Jersey such as Brielle and Maoutfits flew off the shelves, as nasquan. The years clicked by, did “Japanese” feathers, hex-heads, and cedar plugs, the standards of the day for these smaller fish.

Since school bluefins could often be taken just a few miles from shore, outboard boats were pressed into service by the late 1960s, and by the dawn of the 1980s, a dozen builders including Mako, SeaCraft, Grady-White and Pro -Line were producing purposebut the pace never slowed. designed center consoles exSchool bluefins meant money and due to the simple fact that pressly for offshore fishing that they were readily available close owners equipped with electronics from the likes of Raytheon, to shore, it was a lucrative fishUnimetrics, Gemtronics, and Ray ery.

Jefferson, and powered with engines from Evinrude, Chrysler, By the mid-1950s, a growing flotilla of private boats routinely Johnson, and Mercury. Owning a craft capable of working the worked alongside the charter fleet, targeting the vast schools tuna grounds out to 30 miles or of bluefins that ranged from just more was no longer the domain of the wealthy and elite, and it a few pounds on up to 100 or wasn’t uncommon to see a 24more. foot center-console parked in “Pound for pound, they’re the driveway alongside the famiamong the gamest, fightingist ly Chevrolet. fish in the sea. What I like about

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Tackle evolved as well. Tried-and -true 4/0 and 6/0 Penn Senators, the traditional go-to reel for school tuna, began to see competition from newcomers Shimano and Daiwa in the late 1970s.

Rod and reel technology progressed at breakneck speed as anglers thirsted for smaller, lighter, and more powerful outfits to tame these fish. The advent of Frank Johnson’s Mold Craft softplastic squids, rigged on stainless spreader bars, would herald a new era in trolling for both giant and school fish, and other lure companies quickly jumped on the tuna bandwagon.

reached fever pitch, it was soon discovered that not all was well with the bluefins themselves. By the late 1970s, U.S. bluefin tuna flesh, primarily destined for the sashimi/sushi market in Japan, reached $1 per pound and kept on rocketing skyward. Industriallevel tuna seiners, longliners, and hundreds of small hook-and -line boats poured into the fishery. In 1980 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) enacted new regulations to limit the larger commercial boats and to reduce the number of fish caught, but by 1982 the stock of school bluefins had dropped to 19% of what it had been in 1970, and Stocks Start to Decline the population of giants, which But as the frenzy of design, man- made up most of the spawning ufacturing, and marketing fish, had been reduced to 26%.

Page 2525 Page

The U.S. at this time was a member of the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), a multination organization founded in 1969 charged with managing tuna and billfish in the Atlantic Ocean (see accompanying articles). ICCAT sets an overall quota for bluefins every few years, and parcels it out to the various member nations. But by the late 1970s, ICCAT had begun to urge members to cut back on catches.

Finally, in 1982 when stocks of bluefins were at their lowest, ICCAT recommended a moratorium and the U.S. quota dropped from 2393 metric tons (MT) to 667 mi. an amount that was believed to be needed to

Page 26

Making Waves Winter 2017

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 2727 Page

Fish ranging from 20 to 300 pounds have attracted thousands of ardent followers, many in center console boats as small as 18 feet since school tuna often venture within just a few miles of shore.

harvest in order to monitor the stock. However, it was felt that this tonnage was actually insufficient for this scientific purpose, so in 1983 the quota was raised to 1,520 MT, enough so that the big commercial boats got back into the fishery.

ICCAT continued to wrestle with bluefin management in the ensuing years. The scientific advice was for the U.S. to fish “as close to a zero catch as possible” yet there was always resistance from the commercial fleet. The U.S. quota crept up, but the stocks of bluefins trended slowly upwards as well thanks to continued restrictions and strong compliance by U.S. fishermen, and today the stock of western Atlantic bluefins is at 69% of what it was in 1974, a healthy statistic, and the U.S. quota has increased to 2,350 MT per year through 2020.

Brighter Outlook The prospects for the bluefin fishery, therefore, continue to

And, the angling techniques have evolved remarkably since the old days of trolling feather jigs. Midwater vertical jigging with small but incredibly strong, high-tech reels designed for just this purpose from established makers such as Penn, Shimano, Daiwa, and Abu Garcia as well as newer companies including look bright, and this is extremely Accurate, Okuma, Avet and Maxel, allow anglers to land 100 important for the recreational -pound bluefins on reels not fishing businesses that have a much larger than traditional vested interest in these tuna. freshwater bass models. The The small-boat, rod-and-reel commercial fleet, located primarily in New England, continues to fuel the giant-tuna side of the tackle market with their need for 12/0 two-speed reels and matching rods, line, terminal tackle, rod holders, and all the other required gear, and with the productive fishing of the past couple of seasons, this fleet shows little sign of shrinking.

But some of the biggest corporate investments in tackle and accessories have been made in large part as a response to the burgeoning “Angling Category” bluefin sport fishery that took off some 20 years ago.

Page 28

new “butterfly” style jigs worked on super-braid lines from Spiderwire, Seaguar, P-Line and Sufix make it all happen, as diameters have been reduced to the point where 60-pound braid is no thicker than 12-pound mono, providing tremendous capacity in these micro-size reel spools.

Making Waves Winter 2017

lines, and have spurred untold millions of investment dollars in R&D and tooling for new rods, reels, lures and countless accessories specifically aimed at this fishery. Boat and engine manufacturers continue to upgrade and

Spinning reels, too, have reevolved as the exciting “run and fine gun” topwater fishery for school their tuna has exploded. New, superstrong models from Shimano, Daiwa, Van Staal, ZeeBaaS, and others are specifically designed for tossing lures to tuna boiling on the surface. Heavy-duty spin rods have been designed just for this fishery, as have hundreds of lures from soft plastic jigs to topwater poppers offered by dozens of companies.

Big Business At a Price Bluefin tuna are, in short, big business, even with recreational bag limits restricted to one or two fish per boat per day.

The catch and release component of the fishery is sheer excitement and continues to fuel an expansion in overall participation. Bluefin represent a significant component of many tackle manufacturers’ product

products as well to better accommodate offshore anglers and to make their trips to and from the fishing grounds faster, safer, and more comfortable.

Marine electronics producers

have followed suit, as have the retailers who provide all this to a fishing public that can’t seem to get enough of bluefin tuna.

But all the welcome economic activity comes with a price – vigilance in the management of this iconic species. Hardnosed “environmental” groups push relentlessly to drastically reduce ICCAT quotas granted to the U.S. and other nations, even in light of the bluefin’s steady stock rebuilding success. Yet on the flip side, commercial interests in some countries push to increase these same quotas in order to increase their fishery profits. It’s all a balancing act between responsible conservation and wise utilization of a shared and eminently invaluable resource. Responsible management has, and will, require people of vision who possess the courage of their convictions and who are willing to put in the time and effort necessary to make it happen.

Bluefin tuna deserve no less.

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 2929 Page

Page 30

Making Waves Winter 2017

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 3131 Page

Page 32

Making Waves Winter 2017

Page 3333 Page

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

REPORT FROM MOROCCO The Annual Meeting of the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

by Capt. Mike Pierdinock, U.S. Recreational Advisor

I

just returned from the 2017 annual meeting of International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) in Marrakech, Morocco. I was part of the U.S. delegation representing recreational anglers at the meeting. This was my first time attending ICCAT and needless to say it was eye opening. It is difficult enough in the U.S to achieve consensus on fishery management issues but at ICCAT one needs unanimous consensus of the 47 member nations that includes the U.S as well as the European Union (28 nations) and more that 700 delegates on all fishery management matters.

This was not fun and games the preparation and level of effort to prepare for and attend the meetings and to respond to and prepare proposed fishery management measures with subsequent meetings with ICCAT members resulted in few available hours to sleep and recharge daily. Between the jet lag and long days with no break through the final meeting date a grateful word of thanks to the U.S. team. A brief summary of major measures that impact our U.S. anglers is summarized below.

The Western Atlantic bluefin tuna quota increased to 2,350 tons (previously 2,000 tons per year) resulting in an increase of 214 metric tons and/or a 17% quota increase over the next three years for U.S. fishermen.

The assumed level of bluefin tuna landings has a high probability of avoiding overfishing in the next three years and provides for sustainability and stability of the bluefin tuna fishery.

ICCAT is an inter-governmental fisheries organization responsible for the conservation of tunas, billfish, swordfish and sharks and/ or highly migratory species (HMS) in the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean. By treaty the U.S. is bound by the decisions of ICCAT with the subsequent management and imWith the early giant bluefin closures this plementation of measures in our federal wa- past year observed from North Carolina to ters by NOAAs NMFS Atlantic HMS Division. Maine the increase in quota will hopefully I was impressed by the professionalism and keep us all fishing for giant bluefin the enhard work 24/7 by the U.S. delegation led tire year in 2018. PEW had a difference of by our head delegate John Henderschedt opinion and requested a decrease to 1,000 that included a team from the State Depart- tons that contradicted the recommendation ment and various individuals from NOAA, by the ICCAT scientific committee (SCRS) NMFS, and the Atlantic NMFS HMS office. that recommended an increase as high as

Page 34

2,500 metric tons as well as our observations of fruitful numbers of bluefin in our waters.

Making Waves Winter 2017

mercial fleet fishing primarily from Europe and Northern Africa and/or beyond U.S. waters that are primarily responsible for the poor status of the shortfin mako fishery.

There are significant conservation measures that have already been implemented by the U.S. recreational and commercial fleet to address shortfin makos. Needless to say the U.S averted a complete zero retention of shortfin makos with new larger shortfin mako minimum size limits pending in 2018. Zero retention would have had a significant impact on the recreational community and tournaments.

The ICCAT scientific committee (SCRS) concluded that the shortfin mako stock is over fished and over fishing is occurring. Select ICCAT members and NGOs recommended zero retention of shortfin makos and/or a complete shutdown of the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark fishery. The U.S. introduced a proposal to end shortfin mako overfishing in 2018 and begin rebuilding the stock with a time horizon that takes inSouth Africa as well as to account the biolothe U.S. and several othgy of this lateer member nations recmaturing species. The ommended the developfinal agreement foment of stronger cused on measures to measures to protect yelreduce fishing mortallowfin and bigeye juveity and efforts to furnile breading grounds ther strengthen data located in the Gulf of collection, while pro- Mike is a U.S. Recreational Advisor and part of the Guinea. This is an area tecting opportunities of juvenile recruitment team sent to the annual ICCAT meeting this past for U.S. recreational for the yellowfin and November. He is an RFA member and heads up and commercial fishbigeye tuna that miermen to retain small our Massachusetts chapter. grate to our U.S. waters. amounts of shortfin mako sharks. According Management measures for these species to NOAA Fisheries, the agreement also calls will be assessed by ICCAT as a priority in for additional scientific advice on biological- 2018. ly important areas and the effectiveness of Whether is it bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye or various mitigation measures in increasing makos these decisions not only impact the the survivability of shortfin mako sharks, in- U.S. anglers but all of those that rely on cluding circle hooks. such to make a living. I couldn't be happier There are significant measures that will be implemented that impact the foreign com-

with the outcome of the bluefin and mako measures.

Page 3535 Page

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

2018 MAKO SEASON SAVED!

By Jim Hutchinson Reprinted with Courtesy of The Fisherman With the potential of a complete shutdown of the mako shark fishery looming, local recreational fishing advocates head to Morocco for the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

T

he United States and other nations recently finished up a week of tuna, swordfish and shark management discussions at the 2017 annual meeting of International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) in Marrakech, Morocco.

The good news from overseas is that there’s a bluefin tuna quota increase coming for U.S. fishermen; perhaps even better news is that motions by some ICCAT delegates to shut down the North Atlantic mako shark fishery failed (though an increase in harvest size is forthcoming.)

ICCAT, of which the United States is a member, is an intergovernmental fisheries organization responsible for the conservation of tunas and other highly migratory species in the Atlantic Ocean. In a recent press release from NOAA Fisheries, it was reported that more than 700 delegates representing 47 members gathered to discuss a number of important measures.

One potential measure pushed by hardline environmental

groups resulted in a motion made by the Japanese delegation which could’ve completely shut down the shortfin mako fishery along the Atlantic Coast.

That initiative was met by strong resistance by the United States.

with a time horizon that takes into account the biology of this late-maturing species.

The final agreement focuses on measures to reduce fishing mortality and efforts to further strengthen data collection, “The U.S. delegation advocated while protecting opportunities for measures that conserve for U.S. recreational and comshortfin mako, but will also almercial fishermen to retain small low for the continuation of amounts of shortfin mako shark tournaments and the rec- sharks. According to NOAA Fishreational mako shark fishery,” eries, the agreement also calls said Ray Bogan who has been for additional scientific advice the U.S. Recreational Commison biologically important areas sioner at ICCAT since 2016. “The and the effectiveness of various U.S. delegation argued hard for mitigation measures in increasmanagement measures which ing the survivability of shortfin will actually result in significant mako sharks, including circle conservation gains, and end hooks. overfishing of shortfin mako, “There are significant measures while allowing industry to surcontained in the recommendavive.” tion that will impact the foreign Advice received in October from fleets that are largely responsia new stock assessment conble for the present stock status,” ducted by ICCAT’s scientific com- Bogan said. “The U.S. already mittee (SCRS) concluded that has significant regulations on the North Atlantic shortfin mako shortfin mako and other species, stock is overfished and overfish- so the other measures will not ing is occurring. In response, the be as consequential for U.S. recUnited States introduced a pro- reational fishermen as they will posal to end overfishing in 2018 be for commercial fishermen, and begin rebuilding the stock particularly those from Europe

Page 36

Making Waves Winter 2017

“With the seasonal and early giant bluefin closures this past Bogan did say that a new larger year observed from North Carominimum size limit coming for lina to Maine the increase in the 2018 shark season will be quota will hopefully keep us all “tough on our fishermen,” and fishing for giant bluefin the ensaid additional requirements for tire year in 2018,” said Pierdioffshore fishermen will need to nock,. be adopted in the U.S. Capt. Pierdinock, a frequent con“The mako decision averted tributor to The Fisherman's New complete zero retention for our anglers,” said Capt.

Mike Pierdinock, a charter boat captain (CPF Charters "Perseverance") from Massachusetts and a member of the U.S. ICCAT Advisory Committee. “There will be a size increase for our recreational anglers to retain makos” he said. and Northern Africa.

“The larger minimum size will be another sacrifice for U.S. recreational anglers, but it was the only measure available to help assure the survival of tournaments and the instance where a recreational angler lands a large mako,” Bogan added.

ICCAT also adopted a measure for western Atlantic bluefin tuna with a catch limit of 2,350 metric tons, which results in a 17% quota increase for U.S. fishermen. This level of catch has a high probability of avoiding overfishing in the next three years and provides for the sustainability and stability of the fishery. For North Atlantic albacore, the U.S. quota will increase by 20% in 2018.

The United States and several other parties also urged the development of stronger measures to protect juvenile yellowfin and bigeye that recruit to U.S. recreational and commercial fisheries.

The management of tropical tunas will be revisited by ICCAT as a priority in 2018.

“Whether is it bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye or makos these decisions not only impact the U.S. anglers but all of those that rely on such to make a living,” Pierdinock said after the meetings. “I couldn't be happier with the outcome of the bluefin and mako measures.”

Bogan credited the work of fellow ICCAT Commissioners, particularly our head delegate John Henderschedt, along with NOAA/ NMFS and State Department representatives, and the other delegation members who worked hard for U.S. fishermen.

“We worked hard for flexible management measures to address the realities of the various fisheries that target England Edition, said environshortfin mako, or catch them as mental groups like Pew Charita- bycatch,” Bogan said, while addble Trusts “had a difference of ing “our recreational delegation opinion and requested a demembers, Mike Pierdinock and crease to 1,000 tons that contra- Rick Weber, worked tirelessly to dicted the recommendation by support the U.S. positions and the ICCAT SCRS that recomour fishermen. mended an increase as high as 2,500 metric tons as well as our observations of fruitful numbers of bluefin in our waters.”

Page 3737 Page

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

An In Depth Interview with

Raymond Bogan

U.S. Recreational Commission to ICCAT

by Gary Caputi

RFA: Thank you for meeting with us to discuss ICCAT and tell us a little about your recent trip to Morocco where you, along with Capt. Mike Pierdenock did a superb job of representing this nation’s recreational fishermen.

Bogan: I appreciate the opportunity.

RFA: Many of our readers will recognize your last name as being associated with one of the most famous families in the recreational fishing industry dating back over 100 years running party and charter boats. Bogan’s Brielle Basin is still a mecca for patrons of for-hire boats. You are also a licensed captain with a 100-ton Master’s certification. But can you tell our readers a little more about yourself and your background?

lowfin, skipjack) and I was the original convener of that committee at NMFS. I have always felt it important to represent what could be called the “little guy” in fishery management.

That is why protecting fisheries like the school bluefin tuna fishery and the work I do on domestic fisheries is so important to me.

RFA: For our readers who are not familiar with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and how it works, can you walk us through how it fits into the process of managing pelagic species?

Bogan: ICCAT is comprised of 52 contracting parties that include the United States and the European Union, which is considered a single entity. In addition there are five noncontracting parties, which includes Chinese TaiBogan: I am an attorney with offices in Point pei, better known to most Americans as TaiPleasant, New Jersey and have been practicing wan. The Peoples Republic of China, which is a for the past 30 years. I deal with all phases of contracting nation, does not recognize Taiwan general practice, but my specialties are marias a nation, so it is treated more like a company time and fisheries law. I am the legal counsel involved in the fishery than a political entity, for the Recreational Fishing Alliance and have but their involvement in the ICCAT process is been since it was incorporated; the United important because they conduct very signifiBoatman (an association of party and charter- cant fishing operations in the Atlantic. boats in the New York/New Jersey area); and the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey. I ICCAT is charged with managing and regulatbecame involved in highly migratory species ing international fishing efforts on highly mimanagement at the request of Dick Stone, who gratory species including tunas, swordfish, billoversaw the HMS division of the National Ma- fish and some species of sharks and the actions rine Fisheries Service and was appointed as an they debate, vote on and pass set harvest quoadvisor to ICCAT shortly thereafter. Early on I tas for member nations. Member nations must helped form the BAYS (Bigeye, albacore, yelthen act to put in place regulations for their

Page 38

Making Waves Winter 2017

fishermen that reflect compliance with ICCAT mandates.

ed, trans-shipped, sold, traded under some markets that are not recognized or others that until recently were not even known of. In order One of the reasons nations are encouraged to to bring an end to what could be termed black join ICCAT is they are then required to comply market practices all entities involved in pelagic with the ICCAT mandates like adhering to quo- fisheries are strongly encouraged to join ICCAT tas and being involved in data collection and so that all landings can be tracked on a global research efforts. ICCAT scientific efforts and da- level. A good example of why this is so imta collection programs have become quite so- portant occurred in the Eastern BFT fishery phisticated electronic systems used to track cer- where some years ago it was thought that tain types of fish over the years. Bluefin tuna landings were in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 (BFT) is one of the most studied of those spe-thousand metric tons while the ICCAT quota cies and programs like the Eastern Catch Blue- was significantly lower than that and there fin Tuna Documents (ECBD) are provided by was an assumption that there was even more contracting nations and sent to the ICCAT sec- landings that were not being reported. Today retariat in Madrid to help develop a broad pic- the assessment of the fishery due to the memture of stocks and landings. That data is used bership of almost all the nations involved in the to better manage the species on an oceaneastern bluefin fishery is far more accurate. wide basis.

They even take into account the latest trends in bluefin aquaculture.

RFA: How long have you been involved in ICCAT? RFA: The so-called aquaculture of bluefin is pretty new on the scene. How does that work?

Bogan: In the neighborhood of 25 years in one capacity or another. I have been an advisor, a Bogan: In relative terms it is a new developtechnical advisor and most recently serve as ment, but not true aquaculture. The fish are the U.S. Recreational Commissioner working in caught when young and grown to larger size close contact our Commercial Fishing Commis- in pens to increase their market value and then sioner, our advisors and representatives from harvested for eventual sale. So they still reprethe State Department, which heads up the del- sent landings of wild fish. egation and handles the actual negotiating with other nations and the EU at ICCAT meet- RFA: Do you think that process is helping the ings. conservation of wild tuna?

RFA: That’s a lot of years dedicated to representing U.S. fishermen on the international stage. What kind of changes have you seen in the years since you first started doing this?

Bogan: Yes, it is helping a lot by virtue of helping us better control landings by providing data on just how much is being caught. Better landings data helps ICCAT set more realistic quotas for all nations. Note that we are talking Bogan: One of the biggest changes has been about eastern BFT here. The western BFT the sophistication of collecting and disseminat- stocks are a whole different situation. ing of data to improve the monitoring process and also to improve the stock assessment pro- RFA: Please explain the difference for our readcess. From a scientific standpoint, the more da- ers. ta the better in order to track fishing pressure Bogan: Western BFT have had an accurate and its impacts to prevent species from being depleted. It’s quite a task to identify and quanti- landings tracking system in place through the fy landings and trade in fish that are transport- U.S., Japan and Canada for many years that

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

requires a very strict accounting of fish caught in all commercial fisheries. In this case it is not an estimate of landings, we actually know the exact amount of fish being harvested with a relatively small amount of unreported fish. In the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, on the other hand, where landings were almost ten times the amount harvested in the western Atlantic, there were far more nations involved in the fishery. The efforts of ICCAT in gaining control over all the nations that have access to eastern BFT has had an enormous benefit to the conservation of the stocks. By being better able to track the landings and markets of the species we are better able to exert control over conservation efforts, which brings us to the other major improvement I’ve seen in the ICCAT process in recent years, compliance.

Page 3939 Page

est examples I have seen of enforcing compliance through trade was what was done to pressure Chinese Taipei into towing the ICCAT line on specific fisheries. Those measures resulted in the decommissioning and eventual destruction of boats in their long line fleet to reduce their effort and their ability to circumvent ICCAT mandates. Japan was instrumental in putting trade measures in place punishing Taipei and when all was said and done I believe they actually scrapped over 40 major fishing vessels.

Basically once an ICCAT member is identified as being out of compliance, once you’re caught, the trade implications can be so stiff that you either come into compliance or bad things will happen.

RFA: Please explain how the U.S. recreational fishery is impacted by the ICCAT process. I know you, along with others have put a significant amount of effort into protecting recreational fishing on the international stage in an Bogan: One of the most important developorganization that’s main concern has been ments has been the institution and elevation of commercial fishing. the Compliance Committee. The U.S. has been the primary nation that has pushed for the de- Bogan: Let’s look at bluefin tuna as an examvelopment that committee and stronger imple- ple. There was a regulatory decision by ICCAT mentation of compliance monitoring and sanc- that BFT would be managed as a western and tions against nations that do not comply with eastern stock. The U.S. is a significant particiICCAT mandates. The U.S. has chaired the com- pant in the western BFT fishery and is assigned 54% of the total western quota. Within that mittees associated with compliance and basiquota there is what ICCAT calls a “tolerance” cally driven the process through the involvefor the harvest of immature fish, the ones we ment of people like Chris Rogers, who is still catch the most as recreational fishermen. Our with international affairs and seafood inspection. The U.S. puts an extraordinary amount of historical fishery has always been BFT between 25 and 150 pounds. The assigned tolerance for effort into compliance issues and it has had a the angling category is 10% of the U.S. quota. major impact on conservation.

U.S. recreational representatives have put an RFA: What avenues does ICCAT have as an in- extraordinary amount of effort over the years into protecting that fishery, while most other ternational body to enforce compliance? countries either do not even recognize a recreBogan: ICCAT enforcement is all handled ational fishery or actually frown upon our harthrough trade between nations. Pressure is vest of smaller fish. brought to bear on nations not in compliance through trade agreements and sanctions on It has been a battle to preserve the U.S. recreafish or other forms of trade. One of the strong- tional fishery, even within our own country beRFA: Some of us remember the days when trying to gain compliance from member and nonmember nations was almost impossible. What has changed?

Page 40

Making Waves Winter 2017

cause commercial fishermen frequently view it as taking away from the quota that they feel should all be theirs. However, the recreational fishery far predates any significant U.S. commercial fishery for BFT, but history has a way of rewriting itself regardless of the facts. The true tradition BFT fishery in this country was the recreational fishery for small BFT dating back into the 1920s and 30s. Small bluefin made up the most significant charter and private boat fishery in those days, even larger than the recreational fisheries for such popular species as summer flounder and striped bass.

ties and NMFS finally acquiesced. Their explanation for the unilateral move to drastically restrict harvest in U.S. was to show other nations that it was prudent to reduce billfish landings, but that really hasn’t happened. Sometime after the regulations were put in place, Ghana reported landing of close to 500 metric tons of marlin in a single year. The EU reported an overage of 40 MT of marlin on top of their ICCAT quota. For so many other nations billfish are still just a protein source and the idea of catch and release fishing is totally foreign to them.

So the U.S. total quota is determined by ICCAT and gets passed down to the National Marine Fisheries Service. That quota is then divided into the commercial and recreational allotments and NMFS sets seasons, size limits and daily possession limits in addition to reporting requirements. So our recreational fishery starts with the international treaty organization setting the total harvest and we are bound by those measures, unless they fall short of the restrictions called for under our own domestic fisheries law. If NMFS, operating under the Magnuson-Steven Act, determines that a highly migratory species is overfished and overfishing is occurring but ICCAT fails to take action, then NMFS can take unilateral action to control fishing in U.S. waters and institute regulations to be in accordance with U.S. fisheries laws.

RFA: Is the U.S. well represented at ICCAT?

Bogan: The U.S. is better represented in the process than ever before and it exerts more pressure on the system that is helping gain more conservation initiatives than ever before.

The commissioners and advisors work hand-inhand with negotiators from the State Department and those negotiators do a laudable job on behalf of U.S. fishermen. Still one area where we have not had the impact we would have liked is in the yellowfin and bigeye tuna fisheries and stopping the proliferation of FADs and the massive harvest of immature tunas taking place along the west coast of Africa. Right now there is a limit of 500 FADs per vessel and we can’t even conceive of what kind of damage the super seiners are doing in that area of the world! That fishery is heavily prosecuted by RFA: The U.S. has instituted self-imposed Spain, but now Japan and even El Salvador is measures on the harvest of billfish in an effort active in this fishery in the Gulf of Guinea. Unto encourage other nations to reduce their har- fortunately, our impact is limited by the fact vest of marlin. How has that worked out? that the U.S. is not a major harvesting nation in those specific fisheries, but the damage being Bogan: Some years ago the NMFS tried to imdone by that fishery is having an effect on pose a total moratorium on the recreational stocks throughout the Atlantic. Keep in mind harvest of marlin in the U.S., a proposal we that tropical tunas, yellowfin and bigeye, is the fought vehemently. Eventually we settle at 250 biggest pelagic fishery off the U.S. coast recreabillfish allowed to be harvested annually by rec- tionally. reational fishermen, a truly extraordinary unilateral move. Our argument was that there had We’ve had a very strong effect on some speto be at least a reasonable allowance to sustain cies, but not on others. Work done by the U.S. major billfish tournaments, which have major is the major reason that sharks are not manpositive economic benefit to coastal communi- aged under ICCAT and that conservation ef-

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

forts are underway. We are a major nation in BFT and swordfish and when it comes to billfish we have taken the leadership role. How effectively is arguable but we at least now have a framework for management.

Page 4141 Page

fits recreational fishing brings to our nation.

The cultural history of recreational fishing is a much stronger argument with other ICCAT nations than just the economic impact we generate. The impact of bluefin tuna on recreational fishing in this country cannot be underestimatThere was an extraordinary amount of effort ed and it is a story more easily understood than put into gaining some recognition for the U.S. just spouting economics in developing nations. recreational fishery for yellowfin and bigeye by You can try and impress delegates from devela few recreational advisors dating back 20 oping nations with the economic impact of the years. purchase of a multi-million dollar sportfishing boat, but it is difficult for them to understand. If RFA: Who were those recreational advisors? you tell them about the cultural heritage a parBogan: I was one, and Jimmy Donofrio, who at ticular fishery has had to your country, and weave in mentions of the present day economthe time was in the process of growing the ic benefits, it is something they can relate to RFA., was another. We were also among a more readily. handful of fishermen who fought at ICCAT to maintain the recreational bluefin tuna fishery.

If, in conversation with delegates from say RFA: What do you see as our major challenges Equatorial Guinea where the typical annual inas recreational fishermen with regard to ICCAT come is something less than $2000, about the importance of recreational fishing in the U.S., I going forward? tell them, “do you know how much we’re Bogan: Yellowfin and bigeye without a doubt. worth, do you know how much big recreationRight now, those important pelagic species are al boats cost?” it simply doesn’t resonate with considered a bycatch of the skipjack fishery in them. But if I tell them, “do you know how the Gulf of Guinea by ICCAT. I argue that you many people in my country participate in this don’t catch 30,000 MT of yellowfin and bigeye fishery and it’s a means by access to these reas a bycatch, it is a directed fishery and has to sources and it’s a means for them to bring be managed as one. These countries want to some home, a source of fresh protein,” they get find, catch and keep those fish and that is why that. They can relate to that explanation and they are so unwilling to see those FAD landunderstand why recreational fisheries are imings restricted. At the same time, those small portant to U.S. citizens, just like fisheries are imyellowfin and bigeye they are decimating are portant to their hard-working fishermen who the very fish that we catch as mature fish in the work with very little resources. So that’s why I western Atlantic and are critical to our recrea- tend to take a different tack on things. tional fisheries. It’s recreational fishing’s greatest challenge in the coming year. An ICCAT as- RFA: Thank you Ray, for taking time from your sessment will be coming out this year, but how busy schedule to discuss these issues for our reader’s benefit. There are a lot of people who that will impact the regulations remains to be understand the commitment you’ve made to seen. There are no effective management measures from ICCAT to restrict the harvest of representing recreational fishermen, both on the international stage and here at home, and small yellowfin and bigeye and that is the doappreciate it more than you know. From this ings of pressure on the process from the EU. interview we hope many more will get to I feel the U.S. should be recognizing and proknow you and what you have done on our bemoting the positive social and economic bene- half.

Page 42

Making Waves Winter 2017

Page 4343 Page

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Corporate Profile: Libby Yranski, RFA Board of Directors Libby Yranski was recently appointed to a position on the RFA Board of Directors after a vote by sitting members. She is a key member of the National Marine Manufacturers Association government relations team with extensive experience working in Washington.

She is originally from Massachusetts where she earned a BS in Biology and Marine Biology from Northeastern University in Boston and a Masters of Science in Environmental Science and Policy from Johns Hopkins University.

Prior to receiving her Masters, she worked in the molecular biology field.

The NMMA is the trade association for the U.S. recreational marine industry, a critically important organization in the process of fighting for representation of recreational fishermen and a key ally of the RFA. "As a member of NMMA’s government relations team, I focus on working closely with federal and state governments to ensure we build an environment that supports our industry’s 650,000 workers and the 142 million Americans who go boating in our

nation’s waterways each year" Libby said. "There are countless issues we face that put our members businesses in jeopardy and at the same time there are numerous opportunities to help their businesses grow. Being able to identify these issues and opportunities and work together with our members to tackle them on their behalf is an incredibly rewarding and meaningful experience I’m proud to be part of every day."

Prior to joining NMMA, Libby worked for a recreational angling trade association and became acutely aware of the strong connection between boating and fishing.

"Working alongside the Recreational Fishing Alliance team, I enjoy the opportunity to make meaningful changes to better recreation marine fisheries and support the growing sportfishing boat sector," she added.

"The RFA is an important partner and ally on marine fisheries issues and I look forward to the ongoing government relations collaboration and successful partnership."

Page 44

Making Waves Winter 2017

Page 4545 Page

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Great White Attacks Hooked Giant Tuna!

By Capt. Barry Gibson, RFA New England Regional Director

“We saw the shark, and we were certain it was a great white. It was about 15 feet long. It had almost severed the tuna’s tail.”

E

very so often I’ll get a phone call from low the boat as they often do when they get someone who has a good fish “tale” to tell tired, but suddenly it streaked off with a sudden burst of energy. “But then we simply that’s worth passing on.

The most recent came one evening this past couldn’t budge it,” said Steve. “It fought excepJuly from my good friends John and Judy Shos- tionally hard. Then the tuna came to the surtak in Augusta, Maine. John runs the tuna boat face, and suddenly a great white came up beLion’s Den out of Brown’s Wharf Marina in tween the fish and the boat. Then the tuna Boothbay Harbor where I also keep my boat. broke off and we lost it.”

I’ve known John for 25 years or more, and be- Round Two sides being a straight shooter he’s a heckuva Fast-forward to July 9, 2017. “Again, we were tuna fisherman. set up and fishing, this time on the northern tip “I just spoke with my friend Steve Getto from of Jeffreys Ledge,” Steve told me, “and we ran Massachusetts,” John reported. “He hooked a into the same situation.” The northern part of tuna a few days ago and it was attacked by Jeffreys is off southern Maine. what we all believe was a great white shark. I’ll “We caught a keeper tuna and had it hanging email you a photo, and you might want to call over the side,” Steve recalled. “Then we hooked Steve to get the details. It would make a good another one, and Eric worked it for a while, but magazine story!” after about 45 minutes it really started to put The photo arrived minutes later, and I rang Steve up. He’s another ardent tuna fisherman who operates out of Green Harbor on Boston’s South Shore, and he told me what happened.

up a fight. Then it just wouldn’t give up. It moved back and forth for a short period, and then Eric started to gain some line. Then the fish started going in small circles below the boat, but suddenly stopped. Eric said he felt a ‘bump.’ It behaved much like the tuna we had caught on Stellwagen the year before, but at the time we didn’t make the connection that it could again be the result of a shark.

Steve prefaced his story by recounting an event that took place in July of 2016. He was fishing on Stellwagen Bank off Massachusetts from his 35-foot Duffy tuna boat Hannah G when he and his crewman, Eric d’Hedouville, hooked a giant tuna. Everything went normally “Eric reeled in about 100 feet of line fairly easiduring the fight, and the fish was circling be- ly, and there was the tuna, its tail attached by

Page 46

Making Waves Winter 2017

just a thread. We saw the shark, and we were certain is was a great white. It was about 15 feet long. It had almost severed the tuna’s tail, and also left a number of distinct bite marks on its torso. We knew the shark would stay in the area, so we quickly winched the tuna head-first through the transom door with a meat hook.

There was no way we could tailtope it.”

“We immediately became concerned about the other tuna hanging over the side and figured the shark was now eyeballing that one, so we steamed off about a halfmile and h au le d it aboard.”

Great ID’d

White

Steve and Eric landed their fish in Kennebunkport, where they d o c u m e nt e d the damage to the tuna inflicted by the shark (see accompanying photo). Steve then transmitted the photo to Bill Chapralis of Cape Cod, a longtime, high-line tuna fisherman and shark expert who has years of experience tagging great whites.

“I asked Bill whether a porbeagle or mako shark could have left those bite marks on the tuna’s torso,” Steve explained. “He said ‘no way, no other shark could grow large enough to have jaws that big. That was a great white!’”

Steve believes that there are more great whites swimming in the waters off New England than people may realize. “A lot of guys down off Cape Cod, fishing near shore, have had 40pound striped bass bitten in two,” he says.

“So they’re here. A few weeks back, off Chatham, I was towing a giant tuna behind the boat on a rope in order to bleed it, when I suddenly realized I was basically trolling for great whites with a nice juicy tuna hors d’oeuvre. I got the fish in the boat in a hurry.”

Steve hopes he won’t have any more encounters with great whites snacking on his hooked tuna. “I’ve had two episodes of Jaws, and hopefully that’s my lifetime quota,” he chuckled.

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 4747 Page

RFA NEWS & VIEWS (it was 12 fish per person in 2017) will go away.

The haddock bag limit is tied to the bycatch of cod -- the lower the bag limit, the less likelihood Fishery managers have increased the overall quo- people will stay out longer and catch and release more cod as they continue to fish on the hadta of Gulf of Maine cod that can be caught in dock. It gets complicated.

2018, and for the recreational sector that will mean a bump-up from 157 metric tons (MT) in The New England Fishery Management 2017 to 220 MT for the Council’s Recreational Advisory Panel (on coming season. It’s not which I serve as vice-chair) will meet in Janumuch, but we’ll take it. ary to go over the final numbers and make recommendations for the 2018 regulations.

As New England’s saltwater anglers well know, Halibut, however, may require further rethere was no retention of striction. Generally regarded as a “trophy” fish cod at all for 2017. The for anglers targeting cod and haddock, halientire recreational quota but are commercially caught as well, with was calculated to be most taken in a spring state-waters fishery reached just through the prosecuted off the Maine coast. dead discards (15%) of cod caught and released The problem is that most of the overall Gulf of while fishermen targeted Maine halibut quota is caught in this state other species such as polcommercial fishery. Maine is working to tightlock and haddock. en its state-waters catch, but federal fishery

Gulf of Maine Groundfish Ups and Downs

Whether the additional 63 MT of cod quota will be enough so that anglers might be able to keep one cod per trip in 2018 remains to be seen. The numbers are still being crunched as of this writing, and hopefully we’ll get some answers by the end of January.

managers are looking at reducing the overall catch as well, and a no-possession regulation is one of the options.

This would be a real shame for the recreational and party/charter fishery. Few legal-size (41”) halibut are caught by sport fishermen, but this oversized flounder remains the “dream” catch for The Gulf of Maine haddock stock, on the other hand, is going through the roof. The recreational New England’s offshore bottom bouncers, the quota for 2018 has been increased nearly 200% fish of a lifetime, and it would be a real travesty to over the 2017 quota, from 1,160 MT to 3,358 mi. have to toss a 50- or 100-pounder back.

That’s a huge amount of haddock, and it’s doubt- I’ll be tracking this issue closely. I’ve only caught ful that recreational fishermen in New England one legal-size halibut in my charter fishing career, could ever catch that many fish in a single year. and I’d sure like the opportunity to put another However, that does not mean that the bag limit

Page 48

one in the fish box! –Capt. Barry Gibson, RFA

New England Regional Director

Recreational Advisors Weigh In on Groundfish Management The New England Fishery Management Council’s 14-member Recreational Advisory Panel (RAP, on which I serve as vice-chair) met on November 14th to address a number of issues. The RAP discusses and makes recommendations to the Council’s Groundfish Committee, which in turn transmits them to the full Council. The Groundfish Committee can present the RAP’s recommendations as-is, modify them in any way they see fit, or even refuse to forward one or more if it disagrees with the RAP. First off, the RAP recommended that if any restrictions are placed on taking halibut, those restrictions apply only to the commercial sector.

The RAP reasoned that since catching a halibut, considered a “trophy” fish, was a once-in-alifetime event for a recreational fishermen, and that so few are caught each year by this sector, that there was little to be gained by prohibiting possession or applying any other restrictive measure. The RAP reached this conclusion by consensus.

Making Waves Winter 2017

the recreational catch (15% for cod and 30% for haddock), the allocations need to be adjusted upwards to reflect this. This particular issue may be a bit thorny for the Groundfish Committee and Council, since any percentage increase will have to come from the commercial allocation.

The RFA will be watching this one closely.

The RAP also voted to recommend that the Council develop a limited access program for the party/charter groundfish fleet. Again, this issue is hardly a slam-dunk, as it has generated quite a bit of controversy within the P/C sector itself in the last few years. However, there is a push by some to at least explore the possibility of separate P/C and private recreational regulations, and perhaps separate allocations as well. Again, we’ll be tracking this issue.

Finally, the RAP recommended that the Council set as a 2018 priority a procedure to solicit input in managing the recreational sector in light of the highly variable catch estimates for GOM cod and haddock. The recreational sector has been plagued by poor data for years now, with percent standard errors (PSE’s) as high as 114%. The RAP feels strongly that this simply cannot continue.

Go to the RFA

As of this writing the Groundfish Committee had not reviewed the RAP’s recommendations and presented them to the Council. Stay tuned. –

Website to keep up with Breaking Fisheries News!

The RAP then voted unanimously to accept the Capt. Barry Gibson, RFA New England Regional upwardly-revised overall catch limits for Gulf of Director Maine cod and haddock for 2018 (see accompanying news item). Following that vote, the advisors agreed to use the five-year average of 138.5 metric tons as a catch target for recreationallycaught Georges Bank cod during the period 2018 – 2020.

The next issue was perhaps the most important of the meeting. The RAP agreed by consensus that the Council should re-visit the recreational allocations of Gulf of Maine cod and haddock, which were initially made a number of years back without any consideration of release mortality. Now that release mortality is calculated into

waves

M A K I N G

MakingWaves Waves Winter Summer 2016 Making 2017

Page 4949 Page

The Official Publication of the Recreational Fishing Alliance

The RFA Mission Safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers Protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs Ensure the long-term sustainability of our nation’s fisheries.

Anti-fishing groups and radical environmentalists are pushing their agenda on marine fisheries issues affecting you. The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is in the trenches too, lobbying, educating decision makers and ensuring that the interests of America’s coastal fishermen are being heard loud and clear. Incorporated in 1996 as a 501c4 national, grassroots political action organization, RFA represents recreational fishermen and the recreational fishing industry on marine fisheries issues on every coast, with state chapters established to spearhead the regional issues while building local support.

“The biggest challenge we face is the fight to reform and bring common sense and sound science into the fisheries management process, says James Donofrio, RFA founder and Executive Director.

“Anti-fishing and extreme environmental groups are working everyday to get us off the water.” Despite the threats to diminish access to our nation’s resources, Donofrio says that RFA offers members hope in an organization that’s designed from the ground up to fight back. “As individuals, our concerns will simply not be heard; but as a united group, we can and do stand up to anyone who threatens the sport we enjoy so much – fishing!”

After nearly 20 years working inside the Beltway and within state capitols along the coast, RFA has become known as one of the nation’s most respected lobbying organizations, and our members have a lot to celebrate.

The Recreational Fishing Alliance Headquarters P.O. Box 3080 New Gretna, New Jersey 08224 Phone: 1-888-JOIN RFA toll free Fax: (609) 294-3812

Jim Donofrio Executive Director

John DePersenaire Managing Director

Gary Caputi Corp. Relations Director

Barry Gibson New England Director

Jim Martin West Coast Director

Sharon Scaltrito Office Manager