The Difference Between False Albacore and Bonito

Not many anglers in Florida or the Gulf coastal states will go out of their way to target bonito (often pronounced “bonita”). Sure, the small tunas put up a good tussle, but it’s a rare angler indeed who would call up his bros to say, “Hey, let’s go out tomorrow to see if we can catch some bonito!”

It’s a damned shame though that false albacore aren’t available to anglers in Florida. One seldom hears of those small tunas being caught south of the Carolinas. But you know they’re really great game fish because light-tackle and fly anglers go nuts when the false albies are running, and will enthusiastically plan a day to go out and target them. So, I guess the takeaway is: Bonito kind of suck, but false albacore are fabulous little gamesters.

But wait — the two “species” are actually the very same fish, properly called the little tunny, Euthynnus alletteratus. If a rose by any other name still smells as sweet, you’d have to figure a false albacore by any other name fights as hard.

And the fact is, little tunnies fight as hard as bluefin, pound for pound, giving it all they’ve got. When matched to suitable tackle, they’ll make a drag sing and an angler dance to keep up with a fish running this way and that around and under a boat.

Don’t Miss Out on Jacks and Sailcats

Another Rodney Dangerfield is the jack crevalle. They assault plugs and flies with thrilling belligerence and then battle with the stamina of the Energizer bunny. While anglers would likely agree they’re fun to catch, not many go out of their way to find them. These jacks are in fact a smaller version of the giant trevally, yet the GT is revered as an awesome game fish for the very qualities of the undervalued crevalle.

There are lots more examples. One that I feel is decidedly underrated is the gafftopsail catfish. Yeah, they do leave a bit of slime on one’s leader, but they are tremendous fighters and will hit lures (I’ve caught many on topwaters), plus are one of the coolest-looking catfishes. I’ve watched seasoned anglers happily assume they’re fighting a good redfish, only to be disgusted when it turns out to be a sailcat. What? They didn’t just enjoy an exciting battle?

Of course, edibility is often cited as a reason these fish don’t enjoy more respect. I’ve heard it said more than once that if bonito or jacks were good eating, everyone would love ’em. But with so many anglers these days declaring their focus largely on catch-and-release fishing, more for sport than food, that’s a bit hard to figure.

I suspect that anglers who don’t get overly hung up on the prestige of a given species are probably having a lot more fun than those hunting only glamour fish and trophies. I’m fishing not to impress others, but for the sheer pleasure of it. I respect any game fish — including bonito, jacks and sailcats — that can put a tight bend in my light spinning rod and make my drag sing. For that kind of action, I say without shame: Deal me in every time.

The post Three Underrated Sportfish You Should Target appeared first on Sport Fishing Mag.

Disgusted, I watched the brief video on my monitor.

“This is the reality,” says the narrator, Capt. Eric Newman, a top guide out of Venice, Louisiana, with the outrage evident in his voice. “This is what happens when pogy boats come around.”

The camera zooms in to the white belly of a floating redfish.

“Bull red, dead. There’s another out there,” Newman says. The camera sweeps, zooms in. “Another one out there, dead.” The camera moves, zooms in. “Another one out there.” Again the camera zooms in.

“Dead redfish all around us.” The video zooms out to reveal bloated white bellies bobbing at the surface. This is just off a beach in the Mississippi River Delta. “That’s our brood stock,” Newman adds, shaking his head.

He makes clear that this is no isolated phenomenon, but rather a regular event. “It’s because of those guys, over there,” he adds as the camera pans to a big menhaden factory-reduction vessel pushing into the shallows, black smoke pouring from its stacks.

If you suspect any of this is hyperbolic, type “sportfishingmag.com Louisiana menhaden” into your search-engine bar and see for yourself.

How can this be? How can a commercial purse‑seine fishery be allowed to kill so many large red drum in pursuit of pogies?

As with so many aspects of fisheries management and all the politics that convolute the process, it’s complicated.

The first piece of the puzzle is jurisdiction. While there is some regional, inter-jurisdictional regulation, the harvest of Gulf menhaden—which occurs mostly within state waters—is not determined federally. Rather, Louisiana pogy management is up to Louisiana, where well-financed menhaden-reduction-industry lobbyists can heavily influence politicians. In recent years, only two menhaden-reduction firms have fished Louisiana waters: Omega Seafoods (recently declared out of compliance with federal law for overfishing Chesapeake Bay menhaden) and Daybrook Fisheries.

These two companies account for most of the state menhaden catch, and that means for most of the entire Gulf of Mexico catch because 90 percent of all Gulf menhaden swept up by seiners are taken off Louisiana.

That also means that the state is allowing two foreign-owned commercial-fishing firms to kill our redfish: Omega is a Canadian company and Daybrook is South African.

Beyond the dead bull reds that guides like Newman as well as private boaters find floating around menhaden operations, there’s the question of volume. What sort of numbers are we talking about?

Believe it or not, no one knows how many redfish are being killed by pogy boats in Louisiana waters. That’s surprising in a state where redfish are so iconic and as important as gamefish, and in a state that has in many respects done a good job of managing its fisheries.

The only reference to bycatch for this fishery I could find—stated in both federal and state documents—says: “In Louisiana waters, anyone legally taking menhaden shall not have in their possession more than 5 percent by weight, of any species of fish other than menhaden and herring-like species.”

Best-case scenario, that’s still a lot of dead reds and other species of fish, if one figures 5 percent—or even 2 or 3 percent—of three-quarters of a billion pounds, since that’s the volume of pogies that these two foreign operations remove from Louisiana waters each year.

But the actual scenario is much darker in that this “restriction” neither measures nor limits all fish (like those floating bull reds) not retained, but tossed back over, dead, as tons of fish are pumped into the steamer (carrier vessel). So Louisiana allows Omega and Daybrook boats to kill unlimited numbers of redfish, seatrout, croaker and everything else that gets trapped in their huge seine nets.

Perhaps that’s not surprising for a fishery that, unlike almost any other major commercial fishery, has no limits—period. That is, Omega and Daybrook operate here with no harvest quota (TAC, or total allowable catch) on menhaden. There are few fisheries in this country so unrestricted, where the sky’s the limit.

At the same time, there are few other major commercial firms that are also so unaccountable. Under the nation’s fishery law (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act), any commercial fishery with three or fewer harvesters is not required to reveal its harvest data. So fishery managers simply take the word of Daybrook and Omega when it comes to harvest (let alone bycatch) data of menhaden, a forage species and filter feeder critical to the Gulf’s ecology.

Anglers have expressed other concerns as well, including the damage that these 200-foot floating fish factories might do environmentally when they churn up water just a few feet deep up against beaches, as well as the harm done to the state’s recreational fishery, not only from all the gamefish left behind in their wake, but also the wanton disregard for recreational boats already on the grounds, fishing, when these operations chase them away, as happens far too often. How is all this affecting recreational fishing in a state where that sport is worth an estimated $2 billion annually?

Except for Virginia, not a single Atlantic Coast state allows any reduction fishing for menhaden, having recognized it as an ecologically destructive industry. In the Gulf, ditto for Florida; Alabama, Mississippi and Texas have at least some restrictions on the books. But Louisiana imposes few limits on pogy boats.

Hopefully, sportsmen’s organizations will become increasingly engaged with this issue in coming years. It’s certainly on the radar of the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and the Coastal Conservation Association. A very active group that has made a difference in the issue of menhaden-reduction fisheries in the Atlantic, Menhaden Defenders is, at press time, developing a campaign to deal with problems in Gulf reduction fisheries (menhaden​-defenders.org/gulf).

It’s past time to limit foreign commercial netters in the Gulf from getting away with murder. As Newman says, in reference to the menhaden-reduction operations: “We have an amazing sport fishery here in Louisiana. But if this keeps happening, ‘Sportsman’s Paradise’ is gone.”

The post Menhaden Seiners Killing Louisiana Red Drum appeared first on Sport Fishing Mag.

Bluefin Tuna

OPINION

Fact: Decades of overfishing and poor management have reduced the population of western Atlantic bluefin to a mere fraction of its historical levels.

Fact: The Gulf of Mexico is critical to the health of western Atlantic bluefin because it is the one and only known place where these fish spawn.

Fact: The bluefin spawn in the spring, so that’s when they’re most prevalent in the Gulf, and that’s when they need protection.

Fact: Nearly all the mortality to large spawning bluefin in the Gulf comes from longliners.

None of this was lost on the National Marine Fisheries Service (aka NOAA Fisheries) when in 2015 it established two Gear Restricted Areas in the Gulf of Mexico where, for eight weeks, longlining would be prohibited to give spawning bluefin a break.

Despite that restriction pertaining to only two areas (small in relation to the entire Gulf) and only for two months (April and May), it worked. Following NMFS’ creation of these limited GRAs, the number of bluefin hooked on longlines during those months has dropped more than 80 percent.

Before these restrictions, the longline fleet was annually discarding (by law) nearly 70 metric tons of dead Gulf bluefin, exceeding the quota that NMFS allowed it by as much as 218 percent. Today, they no longer exceed that quota.

In other words, this program has been an unqualified success.

So what do you do with a program that is achieving its goals?

Why, you weaken or kill it, of course.

At least that’s what you propose if you’re NMFS.

The agency calls its baffling and toxic proposal the Draft Regulatory Amendment to Modify Pelagic Longline Bluefin Tuna Area-Based and Weak-Hook-Management Measures.

I call it nuts.

A coalition of most leading marine-industry and environmental groups feels similarly.

In a letter to the Highly Migratory Species division of NMFS in September (during a public-comment period), leaders of the American Sportfishing Association, BoatU.S., the Center for Sportfishing Policy, the Coastal Conservation Association, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, the Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, the International Game Fish Association and the National Marine Manufacturers Association said “Now is not the time to consider removing measures that protect spawning western Atlantic bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico.” In a separate letter, environmental powerhouse Pew shared similar concerns.

So what in the world would prompt NMFS to reverse its own successful strategy to protect bluefin tuna? In an agency-scoping document that explains the reasoning behind proposals that would lessen or end bluefin protections, the phrase potential swordfish landings comes up again and again. That’s because (a) the United States is not meeting its internationally allotted quota for swordfish and (b) longliners have said they’d like to be able to catch more (i.e. they want no part of the Gulf off limits at any time). But there’s a flaw the size of Texas in that thinking: The Gulf longline fleet targets yellowfin tuna and not swordfish, which are caught only secondarily.

Read Next: An Illustrated Guide to Types of Tuna

Perhaps NMFS will come to its senses: At press time, no proposed alternative had been selected to become law, though from the outset, the agency has indicated its “preferred alternative” is C3, which would reduce the areas off-limits to longlining and/or diminish two closed months to an even shorter period. Doing that would serve only to help longliners take more yellowfin and kill more bluefin (and billfish).

NMFS insists it’s no longer an agency concerned mainly with promoting only commercial fishing. Let’s see if in this case it acts to protect bluefin or to sacrifice the tuna for the interests of longliners

The post NMFS: Rolling Back Longline Protections for Bluefin Tuna appeared first on Sport Fishing Mag.

OPINION

Schools of good-size bluefin tuna crashing bait off Washington State. Anglers up there hooking California yellowtail, finding packs feeding around flotsam. Mahi, Sierra mackerel and croakers in the Pacific Northwest too. Hordes of blacktip sharks invading Long Island Sound. On and on it goes, around the world.

As Buffalo Springfield sang in the ’60s: There’s something happening here.

And, the long-haired rock trio added prophetically, what it is ain’t exactly clear.

But the point remains: It is happening, and while the ocean has been heating up for decades, the pace of warming has begun accelerating dramatically.

The “it” here refers to migrations of fishes worldwide moving toward the poles, expanding their historic ranges, in order to continue living in their respective comfort zones.

Those comfort zones refer to the narrow range of water temperatures in which most marine species must exist in order to thrive. Heating up the ambient water by a few degrees can put entire populations at risk.

So they move, at least those that can do so.

And make no mistake: Many species of fish and even invertebrates (including corals) are moving.

As noted, gamefish normally found in Southern California were encountered in numbers off Washington state, and large schools of blacktip sharks now summer as far north as New York.

Widely labeled the poster child for relocating fishes, the center of black sea bass populations has in a few years shifted from North Carolina some 200 miles north to New Jersey (and is projected to continue shifting north in coming decades). Summer flounder have made a similar shift.

Sockeye salmon, suffering in warming Alaska waters, have been moving into Arctic waters, where they’ve never been seen previously.

Divers report tropical fishes such as butterflyfish and seahorses along the coast of Nova Scotia.

Ditto in the southern hemisphere. For example, a tropical sea snake turned up recently for the first time off Australia’s once-chilly southern coast.

Corals also appear to be relocating, ­particularly where torrid tropical waters are leading to bleaching events and dying reefs. Larvae, moved by ocean currents, are setting up shop in what had been subtropical coastal waters. For example, for the first time ever, elkhorn corals have lately shown up off Texas. (Unfortunately, rates of colonies establishing in new waters more favorable to development don’t begin to keep up with the rate of decline among historic reefs.)

However, not all species of marine fishes are capable of relocating long distances; many have begun to suffer declining populations.

There are still people for whom terms such as “global warming” or “climate change” remain politically explosive and who vehemently deny that ocean waters are warming. But the behavior of fish, which don’t understand nuances of politics, leaves no doubt of the oceans’ rising temperatures.

Where such trends historically might have occurred over many centuries or longer, our global greenhouse means these changes are now taking place in mere decades. And this raises profound questions such as, how will this affect the ecology and ecological balance of our coasts and oceans? And what will be the effect on fisheries and coastal communities where vital fisheries are changing?

Read Next: Invisible Threat to Billfish

Unfortunately, nothing in our history has really prepared scientists to answer such questions. There is no baseline against which to measure or plan. Making predictions is difficult and uncertain; scientists’ opinions vary not in whether the world—including our oceans—is getting warmer, but in forecasting the speed and extent of that trend.

What all this means for us, as avid sport-fishing enthusiasts, remains to be seen. While the upshot for coastal communities and commercial fisheries might spell significant and painful long-term disruption, for anglers, there are likely to be short-term winners and losers—the former in previously cooler coastal waters as more new species of ­gamefish show up. But the long term appears to be coming much quicker than we ever expected, so find a grab rail and hold on for the confused seas ahead.

The post Game Fish Migrations in a Changing Climate appeared first on Sport Fishing Mag.

In several areas of the world, recreational fisheries for bonefish contribute vitally to local economies. Certainly, bonefish are important in Miami’s Biscayne Bay, where anglers spend big bucks to fish shallow water for trophy bones—see “Miami’s Biscayne Bay: Still a Fisherman’s Paradise.” And it’s certainly true in the Bahamas, where the recreational bonefish fishery exceeds an estimated $140 million and supports thousands of jobs.

Yet beyond a fairly basic understanding, ­relatively little is known of bonefish populations or their life history, but a recent report from Bonefish & Tarpon Trust, posted on the Fisheries Research Foundation website (fisheries​research­foundation.org), offers fascinating insight into these popular gamefish. Entitled “Bonefish Spawning in the Bahamas,” the report was written by Aaron Adams, Ph.D., BTT director of science and conservation, and senior scientist at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute.

Scientists had been aware that adult bonefish at certain times migrate to sites where they form pre-spawning aggregations (PSAs), but they lacked extensive data about the formation of those PSAs, and where bonefish actually moved for nocturnal spawning. Researchers wanted to learn more, noting that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature classifies bonefish as “near threatened” due to habitat loss (particularly mangroves and sea grasses), water-quality ­deterioration and coastal development. Threats to PSA sites are, according the report, “especially worrisome [with] individuals from a large geographic area highly concentrated” at such sites.

Read Next: Group Succeeds in Spawning Wild Bonefish

Better identification of bonefish pre-spawning and spawning areas in the Bahamas can help to protect the species there.

In part toward that end, BTT researchers set out to learn more via research cruises aboard its research vessel, M/Y Albula. The information gained from that research offers new understanding about one of the world’s iconic ­saltwater gamefishes.

In mid-November 2018, these researchers encountered bonefish in a large pre-spawning aggregation exceeding 5,000 fish in the Abacos. Just before spawning, bonefish here, as in other observed PSAs, gathered in a compact school in a nonflats habitat where they could be observed in the very unbonefishlike behavior of porpoising at the surface.

The scientists implanted three bonefish from that aggregation with acoustic tags and tracked the school as it moved offshore for spawning.

The distance the fish moved offshore—about 8 miles from where they formed their nearshore PSA—was farther and, in water 5,000 feet deep, deeper than previously documented.

At dusk, the fish moved offshore; at about 5 a.m., they descended to about 200 feet deep to spawn. That too was deeper than previously known.

Based on reports from local fishermen, researchers located bonefish PSAs in other areas as well, such as near Long Island.

Given that thousands of adult bonefish can convene in one small area before spawning, it’s likely that most will have traveled long distances from their home flats. Fish tagged with dart (“spaghetti”) tags in 2018 will help tell the story, but one early recapture on a flat in Abaco Marls revealed that fish had traveled 65 miles from the pre-spawning aggregation where it was tagged.

Not surprisingly, commercially valuable food fishes get most of the attention (and funds) from managing agencies. But establishing the existence and location of bones’ annual pre-spawning aggregations is critical if such sites are to be safeguarded. PSAs tend to occur in protected bays near deep water, bays that are attractive to developers. Bonefish need protection when and where they spawn: Stocks of species that are aggregation spawners can be particularly susceptible to disruption.

Studies like this one will go a long way toward helping scientists piece together the puzzle of bonefishes’ lives in the Bahamas so these peerless “gray ghosts” can endure on the flats, even in the face of increasing development.

The post Spawning Bonefish Need Protection appeared first on Sport Fishing Mag.

OPINION: Sport Fishing welcomes opportunities to share a variety of perspectives from prominent or influential participants in issues related to recreational fishing and fisheries.

As the largest marine park in the National Park system, Biscayne National Park spans across 173,000 acres in Miami-Dade County, of which more than 95 percent are covered by water. What makes this location even more unique is that it is home to a one-of-a-kind living coral reef system and more than 500 different species of fish—a dream come true for outdoor enthusiasts and anglers. It is no wonder that this watery wonderland is enjoyed by more than 500,000 visitors each year.

Over the past decade, a contentious debate over the best way to conserve the park’s resources has generated lots of different ideas, the most extreme of which was closing more than 10,000 acres of the park’s most popular fishing areas to all fishing. Thankfully, managers are now working together on more reasonable, science-based proposals, but they need your input.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has been working with Biscayne National Park (BNP) on a science plan to achieve the park’s management goals. Florida anglers need to immediately share their general support for the plan with FWC, which avoids fishing closures, and provide their input on the specifics of the plan including transit, baitfish, and crab provisions.

The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is very appreciative of the collaborative efforts by FWC and BNP to incorporate anglers in the planning process. The proposed science plan is a ground-breaking management approach that will allow for continued access to public resources while increasing the size and number of fish within the park.

While the current plan isn’t perfect (it is a draft), it is a vast improvement from the park’s original general management plan, which – without scientific-basis or state support – would have designated a large section of the park as a marine reserve, ultimately closing the waters to fishing. ASA has long supported science-based regulations including those that impact the fishing community, and this is especially important to remember when one considers the annual $11.5 billion economic impact of recreational fishing on Florida’s economy.

Read Next: Miami’s Biscayne Bay: Still a Fisherman’s Paradise

While marine reserves can be effective management tools in certain situations, less restrictive options that still allow for public access should be tried first. Thankfully, the new plan takes that approach. It is science-based, avoids closed zones and proposes park-specific bag and size limits to achieve the goal of increasing the average size and abundance of popular species like snappers, groupers, hogfish, grunt, triggerfish, baitfishes, and stone and blue crabs by at least 20 percent. In addition, the science plan also recommends changes to reduce fishing-related impacts on habitat.

Overall, ASA is very supportive of the plan but recognizes there are some adjustments to consider, such as how boats traveling through the park will adhere to park-specific bag limits. Options for such transit need to be provided, especially considering that the park is accessible from four public marinas and boat ramps. Baitfish bag limits and changes in stone crab and lobster rules also need angler input.

Because of FWC’s inclusive decision-making process and the backing of BNP, we are optimistic that this science plan will result in a final product that is not only supported by recreational anglers, but also by the science and environmental communities. We are committed to preserving our marine ecosystems so that anglers can pass down their love of fishing for generations to come and to make sure Florida retains its title as “The Fishing Capital of the World.”

Help us keep Biscayne National Park open to recreational fishing by telling FWC you support its plan in general, along with some minor modifications. Please go to our website at KeepAmericaFishing.org/Action-Center to view the current draft plan and to complete and send today the email to “Support FWC’s Plan for Biscayne National Park.”

About the Author: Kellie Ralston is the Southeast Fisheries Policy Director for the American Sportfishing Association (ASA). The ASA is the sportfishing industry’s trade association committed to representing the interests of the sportfishing and boating industries as well as the entire sportfishing community. Florida is home to more than four million licensed anglers, supporting 106,296 jobs, providing $11.5 billion in economic activity and contributing more than $56.7 million for fisheries conservation.

The post Biscayne National Park — Fishing Access in the Balance appeared first on Sport Fishing Mag.

Restoring the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is one of the great conservation achievements of recent times. Bringing that fishery back from severe decline has not been without controversy. Intense acrimony over harvest and allocation policies have sadly been the norm. Just as we have embarked on a new and promising approach to correct past mistakes in managing the recreational fishery, the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GOMFMC) has taken a disappointing step backwards. A step that, in short order, will wipe out years of restoration effort by allowing the commercial shrimp fleet to set aside what once required a court order to achieve.

As a marine scientist and one-time fisheries manager, I am very familiar with the destruction caused by shrimp trawls. To catch one pound of shrimp roughly seven pounds of bycatch come up in the nets. That bycatch can be anything in the ocean that cannot outswim, dodge or duck the nets. All this valuable biomass is culled and thrown back, mostly dead. The toll of this bycatch from tens of thousands of shrimp trawl tows every year is a devastating, hidden impact on our ocean ecosystems.

Red snapper is also a victim of offshore shrimping. One of the most significant achievements in the history of red snapper management was reducing the impact of shrimp trawls on juvenile red snapper. It was not an easy victory and took the action of a federal judge to force NOAA Fisheries to acknowledge the massive impact of shrimp trawl bycatch. The judge ordered the agency to reduce juvenile red snapper bycatch in shrimp trawls by 74 percent. At long last, the shrimp industry was identified as a significant harvester of red snapper and was forced to shoulder its share of the red snapper recovery.

How important was that judge’s decision? No measure taken before 2005 had even begun to reverse the downward spiral of red snapper. That decision coupled with a reduction of shrimping effort by some 80% after the 2005 hurricane season devastated the Gulf shrimp fleet, saw the snapper population in the Gulf of Mexico explode. It is abundantly clear that reductions in shrimp trawl bycatch is critical to a healthy red snapper population.

That is what makes recent management action taken by the GOMFMC so disturbing. In April, the Council approved a rollback of the red snapper bycatch reduction to 60 percent, down from the court-ordered 74 percent. It could be rolled back even further in the future. The analysis used to support the rollback sheds a stark light on the overall devastation caused by shrimp trawls. It showed that red snapper bycatch is seemingly small, 0.3 percent of all the finfish bycatch in shrimp trawls by weight. Don’t be fooled. It is critical to management of that species. Bycatch loss to shrimping equates to about 60,000 pounds of one to three-inch-long red snapper, annually. What does that mean to the fishery? Six years after this rollback is enacted, it will result in the loss of 3.1 million pounds of red snapper every year. The total allowable catch for both recreational anglers and commercial harvesters is about 14 million pounds per year, so the impact from allowing shrimp trawls to kill 14 percent more juvenile red snapper equates to wasting more than 20 percent of the entire harvest of this valuable fish.

As sobering as those numbers are, remember that red snapper makes up only 0.3 percent of the finfish bycatch from shrimp trawls. The obvious question is “What is in the other 99.7 percent and what does that loss mean?” NOAA Fisheries did not analyze the composition of the bycatch, but it certainly includes species prized by anglers, both forage and sportfish, like croaker, trout and red drum. What is the ecosystem impacts of the rollback? Simple calculations would indicate the loss of 300 million pounds of finfish in the first year and 11.8 billion pounds over the 14-year forecast used in the analysis. You do not have to know anything about fish or ecosystems to realize, that is a lot of fish.

Read Next: Shrimp Boats May Threaten Red Snapper Gains in Gulf

Our Gulf is amazingly productive and resilient, bouncing back from hurricanes and even oil spills, but these numbers are appalling and unnecessary. If this dead bycatch were piled on the docks every day, the public would never allow such destruction, nor tolerate management decisions that did so. Commercial fisheries are valuable and worthwhile enterprises, but they should not be pursued to the detriment of other, equally worthy goals.

Bycatch mortality in all its forms is a constant, silent drain on our marine ecosystems and it should be analyzed, recognized and reduced to the greatest extent possible. This unnecessary loss to the forage base for economically important sportfish and support of the underpinnings of ecosystem health and resilience should not be tolerated. By allowing the shrimp industry to knowingly increase its already significant bycatch destruction, the federal government is moving in exactly the wrong direction.

About the Author:

Dr. Larry McKinney is the Director of the Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.

The post Bycatch Is a Hidden Threat to Gulf of Mexico’s Fisheries appeared first on Sport Fishing Mag.

I’ve just received certification as One of the United States’ Truly Outstanding Editors. Sure am proud of that!

This certification came about after I contracted with an independent (can you see my air quotes?) certification body, for a cut of my annual salary going forward, to do a study assessing my suitability for certification. As part of that process, this body had to request public input. Unfortunately, that was largely negative, with many respected organizations and individuals offering solid reasons to hold off on my certification, it being well-known that I’ve actually diminished editorial standards over the years.

Fortunately, the independent (air quotes again) body, ignored all that and called me conditionally certified, provided I don’t screw up too badly, editorially, for a few years.

So, I guess I’m not really certified, it being ­provisional and all, but I’m letting people know I’ve been approved to be one of those Outstanding Editors.

I figure, hey, if Omega Protein can get away with it, why can’t I?

Omega Protein, in short, is the only reduction fishery — using spotter planes and purse-seining 200,000 tons (2017 data) of menhaden along the mid-Atlantic and, more recently, also the Northeast — remaining on our Atlantic coast. Other such reduction fisheries have been banned.

But other such fisheries — that reduce forage fish to meal to feed farmed fish in pens and our pets — lacked the power and influence that Omega (which recently became Canadian owned) has amassed over the years.

Its most recent efforts to wrap itself in a cloak of respectability by claiming it’s a certified sustainable fishery came after it paid a company called SAI Global for a study assessing its qualification for certification by the Marine Stewardship Council. In March, these independent ­auditors officially recommended that the MSC label Omega’s operation as sustainable. (I don’t know exactly how much this independent body was paid, but their analysis for Omega, at more than 500 pages, sure didn’t come cheap.)

And that MSC label, responded Whit Fosburgh, president of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, will simply “put a blue ribbon on the last holdout of an antiquated and harmful reduction-fishing industry.” All the more ironic since Omega has consistently worked against any conservation measures to protect menhaden. (Speaking of irony, Fosburgh learned that to formally contest this certification, TRCP must pay about $6,500 for the privilege.)

In The Most Important Fish in the Sea, author H. Bruce Franklin offers substantial evidence to justify that title for his book. In brief, the millions of menhaden (aka bunker, aka pogies) that live along our coast from the Gulf to Maine are ecologically vital. Millions and millions of these filter feeders tirelessly clean our bays and coastal waters, and offer absolutely critical food to fish, seabirds and marine mammals, including whales.

Read Next: Atlantic Menhaden — In Jeopardy Again

One of the myriad of species relying on menhaden to maintain healthy numbers is striped bass. Many recreational-fishing and conservation organizations feel that increasing concerns over striped bass are directly tied to the industrial menhaden-reduction fishery. Yet — until the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission completes an ecosystem-based management model that would assess menhaden’s role on the ecosystem — it’s impossible to say that Omega’s “certified-sustainable” fishery isn’t doing ­ecological harm.

At one time, I would have been outraged at Omega Protein buying its way to public respectability.

But that was before I became certified as an Outstanding Editor.

Doug Olander is editor-in-chief of Sport Fishing magazine.

The post Commercial Menhaden Operation Buys Respectability appeared first on Sport Fishing Mag.

When it comes to hooks on lures, a growing number of saltwater anglers have joined the ­less-is-more school of thinking.

That is, having more hook points doesn’t necessarily translate into more fish or better fishing.

That might seem counterintuitive. A hard-body lure with two trebles means six sharp points, any number of which might find their way into the mouth of a fish. The same lure with two in-line single hooks has, obviously, 67 percent fewer hook points.

And experience suggests some truth to the idea that an angler might enjoy more initial hookups with trebles. But what happens after a fish is hooked provides some advantages to singles.

First, hooked fish are more likely to stay hooked with singles. Once seated, a single is much larger than the three small hooks on a treble, which often lose purchase in a fight. Where a treble point might poke into a jaw, a single can go completely through, making it much less likely to be thrown.

Second, singles, being not only larger but also thicker, won’t bend or straighten nearly as easily as most trebles.

Third — and these days, this is a big one — singles are vastly better for releasing fish undamaged. Anyone who has ever bloodied a deck while trying to dislodge a bunch of treble-hook points from the mouth and gills of a fish understands that one large hook can be backed out much more easily and quickly.

Finally, single hooks are great for anglers but bad for emergency-room business. Plenty of enthusiasts reading this — like the one writing it — have had a barb lodged in a hand at one time or another, most often from treble hooks. Keeping tabs on all those treble-hook hook points while a fish is thrashing around can be tough. It’s much easier with two singles, at least one of which is presumably in the fish.

Read Next: A Hook For Every Scenario

The practice of swapping out trebles for singles is catching on as most hook manufacturers are now, finally, offering high-quality in-line single hooks in a range of sizes.

But anglers also now benefit from lures armed with in-line singles right out of the box. For that, big kudos to Rapala and Williamson for ­equipping many of their saltwater models with in-line VMC singles. Rapala has been in the vanguard on this, despite lure-makers’ concerns that consumers would balk at baits without trebles.

Other manufacturers at least venturing onto the bandwagon by arming some models with single hooks include Halco and Shimano. And Savage Gear is packaging some models with ­size-appropriate in-line singles with which anglers can replace the stock trebles.

I look for this trend to continue, for all the reasons cited above, at least for saltwater lures. (One industry insider tells me that while interest in single hooks grows among saltwater anglers, for most freshwater fishermen, the more treble points on their plugs the better.)

Sure, there are times when I’m happy to use treble-equipped hard baits right out of the box, and even times when using them makes the most sense. But with lures in general, particularly for larger fish, I’m glad to see both anglers and (acceding to that interest) industry becoming more single-minded.

The post Single Hooks Versus Trebles appeared first on Sport Fishing Mag.

Puerto Rico is on the cusp of approving new law governing fishing in the country, and it threatens to spell the end of recreational fishing.

Senate Bill 1014, recently approved by the Puerto Rico Senate will replace current fishing law, known as Law 278, with provisions antithetical to the commonwealth’s sport fishermen and its significant recreational-fishing industry.

The legislation, if approved by the Puerto Rico House of Representatives, will offer greater latitude to the island’s 900 commercial fishermen, while severely and unreasonably restricting roughly 200,000 recreational anglers, effectively ending a sport estimated to contribute $100 million to the country annually.

The bill would:

• Create a Fisheries Advisory Board with a super majority of eight commercial fishermen (selected from within their own ranks) and just three recreational fishermen (two marine, one freshwater, selected by government authorities). The board could reach a quorum without any recreational-fishery representation whatsoever.

• Limit recreational anglers harvest no more than 30 pounds of fish per month. (This will eliminate valuable fishing tournaments, and could mean keeping a single tuna or dolphinfish would be breaking the law.)

• Allow commercial fishermen to keep most of a catch when found in violation, the government confiscating only that portion of a catch deemed not in compliance.

• Allow commercial fishermen to keep their vessels; no matter how serious an infraction, confiscated would be proscribed. The same sort of protection would not be extended to recreational anglers, whose vessels could be confiscated.

• Allow fisheries-management measures not based in science, but requires scientific studies to classify any species as “vulnerable.” (This could take years, during which time fishing could continue

• Grant commercial fishermen a free pass by overlooking the first violation of any fishing regulation, however egregious;

• Grant commercial fishermen another free pass for initial infringement of by-catch regulations;

• Eliminate seasonal fisheries closures.

Senate Bill 1014 offers no justification for almost completely disregarding the growing and economically important recreational-fishing sector, nor in fact justifies the need to repeal current Fisheries Law 278 (which offers equal treatment for both sectors)

In summary, this approved senate bill (on the way to the House for voting) is highly biased towards the minority commercial fishing sector, and almost completely ignores the growing and economically important recreational fishing sector. No justification is given for the unequal treatment of the sectors, and no justification is given for repealing the current Fisheries Law 278, which treats the sectors equally, or for the repeal of Law 115, which was created to promote recreational fishing in our reservoirs. Approval of the Senate Bill and repealing these laws could result also in a loss of federal Sport Fish Restoration Funds.

Those who share our outrage can help us to fight approval of this dangerously detrimental and anti-democratic senate bill by signing a petition; also, letters of support can be emailed to pescaplayaambiente@hotmail.com or via Facebook at Pesca, Playa y Ambiente.

Dr. Craig Lilyestrom earned his B.S. in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology from U. Mass at Amherst and an M.S. and (in 1989) a Ph.D. in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology from LSU at Baton Rouge. He studied river fish for 11 years in Venezuela, then moved to San Juan, Puerto Rico, in 1990 where he worked in fisheries research and management for the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. Lilyestrom served as the department’s Director of Marine Resources Division from 1993 until retirement his in 2018. Lilyestrom currently volunteers his services to the Fishing, Beaches and Environment/Pesca, Playa y Ambiente a Puerto Rico-based non-profit NGO.

The post Outrageous New Law Would End Most Sport Fishing in Puerto Rico appeared first on Sport Fishing Mag.