Commercial Fishing in Mexico Video

Moderators: primo808, bluefinmod, 96743

Palolo Fisherman
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: Oahu

Post by Palolo Fisherman » Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:43 am

From what I've heard, it takes years for recruitment to occur on new artificial reefs. No sense to make one only to have it raped by the netters and trappers. And artificial reefs are usually smaller then natural reefs so it is easier to wipe out the fish.
If I remember correctly, years ago in the 60s, it was not legal to sell speared fish. What happened?

fishyfishy
Mega poster
Mega poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Post by fishyfishy » Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:20 pm

\"Problem is, when you get to that second part, it becomes very hard to do when it means someone is going to lose billions of dollars.\"
_________________
Brian,
And there in lies an almost insurmontable problem...my comment about sit back and do nothing refers to this particular obstacle as well.....I'll explain.....it's not necessarily that the fishermen are literally not doing anything as my comment suggests....but that many of us are not in a position to tackle such huge obstacles such as the ones you mention and it takes so much effort to do tackle them without any guarantees of a positive outcome after all the hard work.....so what I'm saying is one can try really hard but if they don't succeed, it is the equivelent of doing nothing because nothing was accomplished.....I on the other hand pick and choose battles that I know I have hope in succeeding in, at the outset it may seem difficult but it is realistic, such as the lay net ban for Maui.....the art. reef thing is quite a big thing to tackle, so my target here is to get one barge worth of deployed material.....that's the initial goal....which I consider a measurable outcome of my effort...many small victories will equal a big difference in the end.......and lets not forget that there are some fishermen out there that just like to shift blame and point fingers at others, when what they should be doing is pointing a finger while standing in front of a mirror....those are the sit back and do nothing guys.

\"Sure, netting mullet with nehu is not good, but if you stop that and don't give the mullet back their nurseries, you still don't get more mullet.\".....Brian, gotta point this out, and I'm not making fun of you or nothing but this statement is contradictive....cause the mullet would have already been there, in an apparent nursery, before being netted.

\"So far it has been very reactive and management efforts have been target specific, based on public emotion. Very true, reducing fishing pressure is a component, but a method that includes a battery of tools will help tremendously: like spreading us out, reducing our keep, adding more habitat, making techniques less efficient\"
I'm glad we can agree on something.

\"I think the point is: Once we our attention is diverted form the big picture, many will say fishing is the problem and that one form of fishing is \"the worst\". Problem is, there will always be another \"worst after one form is eliminated. \"

This may happen like you say no matter what we do, but the gurarantee here is if we continue on like how we have been, this scenario will come true....we cannot give in to our fears, fishermen can always remain on the defensive but sometimes the best defense is a good offense (not like HB1848 either).

An offense refers to doing something positive to bring fish back, whether it's accepting a new regulation like the lay net ban, or being pro-active and making artificial reefs, either way it's a move to bring back the fish......or we can continue paying much attention to other contributing factors like habitat degredation...and continue to defend fishing.... and eventually watch it get shut down, one method after another........I choose offense.
"No Resource, No Fisherman"
A post by Darrell Tanaka

fishyfishy
Mega poster
Mega poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Post by fishyfishy » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:30 pm

Palolo, yes it takes awhile for recruitment, but that is subject to perspective, a scientist may consider a reef established once coral grows....whereas a fishermen may consider a reef established once they start catching big ukus on it, which does'nt take that long....and as far as not wanting the art. reef to get wiped out.....yes that is a concern, but still we must trudge on, if the state ventures to do something like an art. reef, they will say that it is for everybody and no one should be excluded.....bag limits would control overfishing of an art. reef.
"No Resource, No Fisherman"
A post by Darrell Tanaka

Brian F.
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm

Post by Brian F. » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:58 pm

Big Picture: 1. Restore, create or improve habitat 2. take care of it by \"managing\" it with a battery of tools that would not let it become overfished (ie. net rules, bag limits, slot sizes, etc. etc.).

....cause the mullet would have already been there, in an apparent nursery, before being netted.
I think you have the chicken before the egg, literally - if there is no nursery/spawning ground because it is taken away, they will not simply up and find somewhere else to do their thing with the same success. And therefore little to net, therefore less to spawn, therefore even less to net, etc. etc.
Aloha,
Brian F.

"No House, No Fish"
"Hypocrisy is not a fault these days - it is a lifestyle"
http://fishtoday.org (the views expressed above are my own and do not specifically represent that of PIFG)

fishyfishy
Mega poster
Mega poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Post by fishyfishy » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:33 pm

Brian, not all the nurseries are gone first of all......and as far as your analogy of chicken before the egg......well I say, nature will find a way, cause it usually does.......so where did the first chicken come from???????
"No Resource, No Fisherman"
A post by Darrell Tanaka

BaitKasta
Big Time Poster
Big Time Poster
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: Mililani, Oahu

Post by BaitKasta » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:47 pm

Fishyfishy - I have my doubts about bag limits because people will find there way around it. I know of someone who would catch 250 Oama in one day. So I told him, eh, the bag limit is 50. His reply was, yeah, I have my 3 kids and my wife with me so 50 each.

Also, I'm not doubting that artificial reefs would work but I'm just curious. Does anyone know if the artificial reefs off Waikiki have helped increase the number of fish near the shoreline? I don't know if there have been any studies done. Maybe they should to see how effective the artificial reefs have been. Again, not doubting you, but just curious.

fishyfishy
Mega poster
Mega poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Post by fishyfishy » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:31 pm

baitkasta, again, like I've said before, we cannot give in to our fears or in this case, doubts.....not everyone will \"find\" their way around the bag limits, not everyone will take their entire family to the beach....there is a bigger picture than the one you presented with the Oama...Not every bag limit will be as high as 50.......we cannot sit back and hope the lay net ban was good enough to bring back the fish, cause it's not, did'nt you see the video I posted from Mexico????????????

Now as far as the artificial reef off of Waikiki, I don't know how large it is, but I know this, there is no way to measure how much of an effect an art. reef has for the shoreline near it....again, an art. reef spreads out fishing effort, every day a diver or boater decides to fish an art. reef is one less day he fishes a natural reef.....But to this day we still don't know the full potential of any art. reef, we don't know how big they gotta be to have a real impact on the shoreline, we don't know many things cause really, the art. reefs we have right now are inadequate, too small....Maui has a site designated that is 52 acres large, right now only about 1 acre has stuff on it....big difference if all 52 acres was full.......getting back to fishing effort, Oahu has a million people on it, the carrying capacity of Oahu's reefs have been exceeded for a long time now, perhaps the current art. reefs are still not enough on Oahu to catch up to a proper carrying capacity.....I'm talking about a ratio of people to sqaure acre of reef.....something like they do for cattle, normally the ratio is 1 cow for every two acres of grazing area.....maybe since Oahu has so many people the reefs will never catch up.....maybe that's true for Maui as well.....look at big island and even Molokai, they still get plenty fish...lots of reef for the amount of people, so carrying capacity has not been exceeded there.............so that's where the bag limits come in, limiting extraction will bring us closer to the carrying capacity..........

this is why the State has bag limits for game birds for instance, Forestry division manages the game stock really well so each year we still have game birds to hunt.....the bag limit insures the carrying capacity of the hunting area is not exceeded to the point the area cannot sustain itself.....The number of hunters over the years have pretty much remained constant, no big changes from what I've seen, but let's say the number of hunters were to increase 5 times....given the same amount of area to hunt the bag limit would need to be lowered to ensure sustainability.......bottomline, resource comes first....no resource, no hunter.....and the same goes for fishing.
"No Resource, No Fisherman"
A post by Darrell Tanaka

fisherman
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 1109
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: waipahu

Post by fisherman » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:47 pm

What about the AR that was once Water World? That thing was huge. Didn't they sink that outside of Kawaihae?

Creating habitat is one thing. Bringing to life is another. If you build it they will come. :lol:

tightlines-808
Member
Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Oahu

Post by tightlines-808 » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:28 pm

I like the hunting analogy, they have permits, registered equipment, and enforcement. Why cant the State step it up for the ocean resources?

BaitKasta
Big Time Poster
Big Time Poster
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: Mililani, Oahu

Post by BaitKasta » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:58 pm

Fishyfishy - Your explanations make a lot of sense. If you were on the committee to come up with bag limits, what would be your suggestions? Which would only apply to your island of course. We wouldn't want to stir up that conversation again. :D

landkumu
Member 50+
Member 50+
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:25 pm
Location: Oahu

Post by landkumu » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:13 pm

What about building artificial reefs in mid level water to serve as offshore MPA's. Needs to be an area fairly substantial in size and easy to observe and enforce. Maybe clearly mark the area with buoys and restrict all trapping and netting in the surrounding vicinity. For example from Diamond Head point to Sand Island Channel. It is an easily observable area with lots of observers, lower fishing pressure area, will not restrict anyone from shore fishing (more than it already is) and provide some overflow of stock to the surrouding areas. Not likely to do much for Mullet or even Moi but other species could benefit. I think if enough structure was placed out there carefully to serve as AR then it could have a substantial effect. Just a passing thought and example...
Catch and release some, take only what you need, be safe and stop the laynet reef rapers.

Brian F.
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm

Post by Brian F. » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:58 pm

If the objective were to create an MPA, it should be off limits to everyone, including divers, submarine tours, etc.
Aloha,
Brian F.

"No House, No Fish"
"Hypocrisy is not a fault these days - it is a lifestyle"
http://fishtoday.org (the views expressed above are my own and do not specifically represent that of PIFG)

fishyfishy
Mega poster
Mega poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Post by fishyfishy » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:51 pm

If you were on the committee to come up with bag limits, what would be your suggestions?

Baitkasta...that's a good but touchy question, the state can make separate bag limits for each island, I don't think they want to do that to avoid confusion, but that would be the correct thing to do...for instance, places like Molokai, Kauai, Big Island have limited amount of people for their shorelines, unlike maui and oahu, so if the state created one bag limit good for maui, it would'nt be fair to those on the other islands with more fish and vice versa....

.my personal suggestion for Maui, after seeing how bad the situation has gotten, for fish like Uhu, Mullet, Moi and Kumu would be one/person/day....commercial and recreational the same (cause it should'nt matter who you are or what permit you hold, taking too much is taking too much, resource first). Now some might say \"how did you come to that conclusion, do you have any science to back it up\"....this kind of decision cannot be based on any science because none exists, besides commercial catch data, but that's about dead fish, what we would need is data on live fish still on the reef.....we would also need to know how many fishermen there are.......bottomline to answer the question is that we know for sure the numbers have severely declined (as much as 90% in some places) so the initial bag limit would be low in order to give the fish the best chance to make a come back while still allowing fishing....bag limits can always be changed once the fish rebound, I heard that California just raised the bag limit on Perch cause the fishery was so healthy. Not everyone on my island would agree with me, but again this is just my personal opinion based on my experience over the years.

Oh, and here's a good one, what to take into consideration when deciding a bag limit?????? A bag limit should never be the amount one wants to catch, neither should it be an average amount one catches, but a number well below. One must remember that the initial idea of a bag limit is not necessarily to maintain the current fish stocks, but to help the fish stocks improve back to what they once was 20 years ago, thus they need to start out very low...

Again, this bag limit would be unfair to other islands with more fish cause they have not yet exceeded their carrying capacity......A strict bag limit is far superior to any other form of regulation, better than size limits, seasonal closures, slot limits, regulating fishing methods, etc.......but if the bag limit is looser, then the pshychology of management changes as well.

Brian, I think what landkumu was getting at when he said MPA was more like a MMA.....landkumu was somewhat correct in terms as the state has several levels of MPAs.....but as a fisherman, when I hear the word MPA, all I hear is \"closed completely to fishing\" ......which is why I say MMA, marine managed area, proper management to address a specific problem.....but landkumu, just FYI, to create an area for AR there is a bunch of enviornmental permits the state gotta go get first and it's not easy.....also, it's not only about traps and nets or scuba spearing for that matter, ban any of those and the commercial guys will adapt another type of method of mass destruction that none of us thought of yet or will find a loophole like the ones in the lay net ban to continue the slaughter......also, it is unfair to prohibit use on an AR as it was built with public funds.......and all this is why I promote bag limits, enough with the banning, we cannot continue to ban one form of fishing after another, not because it's bad for the future of fishing, but bad because we are not addressing the real problem which is taking too much, the rapers will jump from one method to another after each ban, ban traps and nets, they go to scuba spearing, ban that they go to scuba with scoop net, ban that they go to freediving, ban that they go to hook and line, then what????? ....With lay nets so severely restricted because it is the most indiscriminate form of fishing besides dynamiting.....it is not the methods of fishing remaining that are bad, it is the amounts of fish being taken........and that is what some people fail to understand.
"No Resource, No Fisherman"
A post by Darrell Tanaka

fishyfishy
Mega poster
Mega poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Post by fishyfishy » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:57 pm

cont'd. ....With lay nets so severely restricted because it is the most indiscriminate form of fishing besides dynamiting.....it is not the methods of fishing remaining that are bad, it is the amounts of fish being taken........and that is what some people fail to understand.
"No Resource, No Fisherman"
A post by Darrell Tanaka

Brian F.
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm

Post by Brian F. » Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:27 pm

fishyfishy wrote:.....it is not the methods of fishing remaining that are bad, it is the amounts of fish being taken........and that is what some people fail to understand.
Yes, and there are many reasons for that, as you point out, because 1. it is legal at this point 2. people will do it anyway because the perception is enforcement and penalty is not very likely. And I also agree with what you have to say about alternative managment tools that should be implemented way before even considering a closure. I would, however, be very careful about saying "things are so bad". I do not think that is a naive statement either as I truly believe that in some places, there are severe problems. But at the same time, I think a lot of times it is a case of "If I don't see it/catch it anymore, there must not be any fish" without considering reasons other than overfishing for fish disappearing from an area.
Aloha,
Brian F.

"No House, No Fish"
"Hypocrisy is not a fault these days - it is a lifestyle"
http://fishtoday.org (the views expressed above are my own and do not specifically represent that of PIFG)

Post Reply