Does the IGFA cause the deaths of large fish?

[Nick_Fuegi]

The IGFA was founded to promote a code of angling ethics.

These days it is widely believed by most anglers and operators that the ethical stance is that billfish should be released and not killed.

However, there is a contradiction. The IGFA only accepts records for fish that have been weighed. This means that the fish needs to die.

So, the question is this: Does the requirement to weigh billfish for record claims result in the deaths of any billfish?

Clearly the answer is yes. So, would it be a good idea to find another way that records can be claimed without needing to weigh (kill) the fish? Should records for weighed billfish be superseded and/or ended?
That way more large marlin will be around to breed and be caught again. This means more billfish and more bigger billfish.

Once again the answer seems to be yes.

So the ultimate question is: How can this be accomplished?

I expect there are a lot of ideas about this. Some utterly ridiculous and hopefully some less so. ;)

Please post your idea.

There is a way to do it that is currently available and virtually free.

Use a standardised photographic method for claiming ethical records.

Modern digital cameras embed and record info about camera settings into each image in the form of “EXIF data”. The info recorded includes focal length and on many models, focal distance. These figures allow you to know the angular field of view provided at the time of image-capture. The distance to the subject allows via basic trigonometry the size of anything in the uncropped frame to be calculated very simply and accurately.

If there was also a way to work out the size of a fish by the length of its gill-slit, the diameter of the eye, the height of the dorsal etc, this would help a lot. Surely also, if you know the height of the dorsal and the depth of the body vertically, you can get a pretty accurate girth estimate.

One last consideration is the angle of the camera to the subject. I suggest the angle be perpendicular AND that a standard IGFA target (a grid of crossed parallel lines) be held in front of the subject. This would allow the angle of the camera relative to the subject to be worked out, and would also provide a verifiable scale within the image with which to compare to the results of any calculations as a means of double-checking the size.

Before anyone says it, holding a target in front of a billfish and taking a photo of its head and shoulders is actually going to be a lot easier than gaffing the fish, dragging it aboard and weighing it!
And if anyone thinks nobody will have a (digital) camera… Already and increasingly, any operator capable of beating world-record billfish will have a digital camera and almost invariably the client will have one with them. If they needed one to claim any record, the client would definitely bring one!

Then all you do is send the memory card with the original unedited photo and the target in the image on it to the IGFA who work out the dimensions, estimate the weight and award whatever the angler is due. Each boat has a target with the name of the boat on it.

No it wouldn’t work with video because that doesn’t record EXIF data so there would be no way to know the focal length and/or distance for any given frame. Modern digi-cams take up to 8 frames/sec anyway and the auto-exposure is foolproof so getting the shot would be a snap.

Let’s hear any other ideas on what can be done to avoid any requirement to kill large billfish.

[Linwood]

I have thoughts about IGFA responsibility for promoting killing fish. My conclusion on the matter is that all fishing methods that employ hook and line are responsible for a whole lot of mortality in fish period.
IGFA stay.Anyone who does not want to kill fish,quit fishing.

[Anonymous]

nick,
Seems to me that you have way too much idle time on your hands.

[Nick_Fuegi]

People ARE quitting fishing upon realising that some of the species we target are becoming endangered. People are wondering whether it's acceptable anymore.

Whether the IGFA should 'stay' or go anywhere is not the point. The question is: Do they cause the deaths of large fish?
On that point you seem to agree that they do. If they do; would it be a good idea to look at finding a way of claiming records that doesn't kill the fish?

A large female marlin can release tens of millions of eggs/year. All large marlin are female.

A method of claiming records that does not involve killing the fish, would be good for the species and therefore good for anglers and therefore good for the IGFA.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

For certain species, the IGFA could adopt a new way of claiming records. Whatever this new method is, it will surely be easier than boating a 1500lb fish. It will also allow more big fish to release their tens of millions of eggs/year for a few more years each. Let's say that 0.001% of eggs reach maturity (one in 10k). If each large female that is weighed could have lived another five years, then for every large female you kill, you kill at least 500 potential marlin and all their progeny with them. It's a no-brainer.

I also suggest that long-lines will probably kill relatively few really large marlin, as really large fish will break free. Maybe this is an area where recreational fishermen do as much damage as commercials? Anyone got detailed data on the commercials' bycatch so this can be verified?

[Anonymous]

Atlantic blue marlin, Makaira nigricans, and white marlin, Tetrapterus albidus, bycatch of the Japanese pelagic longline fishery, 1960-2000

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3089/is_2_66/ai_n15787003/pg_2

[Nick_Fuegi]

Synopsis:
Currently 82m+ longline hooks/year in Atlantic between 30N and 30S.

"We found no patterns consistent with the contention of Uozumi (2003) that [increased] targeting bigeye tuna [with deeper lines] has resulted in reduced blue marlin bycatch..."

"...the possibility exists that white marlin catchability may have decreased [due to changes in methods], [HOWEVER] any benefits to its stock appear to have been eclipsed by the general increase in fishing effort on a population that shows evidence of consistent decline."

This article does not contain any data about specific sizes of individuals comprising bycatch. So, whilst informative in a general sense, it doesn't help get an idea of whether recreational anglers kill a relatively large proportion of the really big blues.

Anyone know of data breaking down the commercial bycatch by species and then sizes of individuals comprising said bycatch?

If it can be shown that longlines do not catch fish over say 850lbs as bycatch (they break off), then it could be argued that by killing a lot of granders and most really big fish caught, recreational anglers may be having a greater impact* than commercials on stocks of the largest blue marlin - the most reproductively important blue marlin.
*Relatively speaking.

Anyone got any data on what proportion of blue marlin achieve a weight of over 1000lbs?

Regardless of whether rec anglers do, or do not, definitively have a relatively high impact on stocks of the largest fish; clearly not killing these few largest fish would help the species disproportionately. If the IGFA changes the way records are claimed, this would remove the need to kill large fish.

I appreciate that it's hard for a recreational angler to agree not to kill large fish if that is what's required to claim a local/world record and/or if one believes that these fish will be killed by longliners otherwise.

Removing another reason to kill billfish would be good.

Proving what relative proportion of really large marlin are killed by longlines and/or working to ensure that really large marlin are not taken by longlines, would also be good.

Anglers and/or the IGFA can do something about the former. The latter is in the hands of politicians/corporations although we all have votes and wallets...

N.B. Some large marlin fisheries (Azores) even release most granders unless they are potential world records. This is admirable. Would be good if they didn't have to kill the potential world records either...

[George_Woodward]

I've been a Conservationist practically all my life. I've belonged to all the major conservation councils and committees. And, I was there long before the "enviro wackos" hijacked the system for their own benefit.

What's always been curious to me, is why IGFA exists if not for the tax deductible contributions of the wealthy who make up it's inner circle.

F&S had their own set of all tackle records, based on killed fish; another outfit in Wisconsin had another set of records including ice fishing - again based on killed fish. IGFA's high and mighty merged all those records into one major catastrophe - going to line classes and creating a huge headache and more dead fish, so people (I know a few personally) could see their names in the record books. It's sorta like the Guiness Book.

Releasing a fish, is of the utmost importance to keep the gene pool alive and well. When you kill a grander and there aren't that many of them, that gene pool is dead. It's gone and it's not coming back. If you kill a four hundred pounder, of which there are tens of thousands - the gene pool is still alive and well and thriving.

Does releasing a fish make a world record less valuable than killing that fish? We have a tape measure painted on the side of the boat, that we can easily see the length of the fish and release them safely, without pulling it over the gunwale and damaging inerds. Record keepers should keep that in mind.

Unless you're eating the fish for subsistance, I can see no valid reason to kill.


About tagging - does it really work? I don't think so, because commercial fisherman who catch so many fish aren't concerned about reporting. I believe that would give away vital information to other commercials and govts about where they were caught. Putting RFID's on fish is another major waste of time.
How many freqs do you think there are out there and who is gonna monitor all that and, at what cost?

[AL]

Hi George,

I see you're up and around today. I know you...I've fished with you many times...I feel your pain about this subject, of which we've had a great many discussions over the past twenty five years.

IGFA has done a lot of good work over the past 50 years and has saved a lot of pelagics. Where I have a problem with them is the FW record keeping. Their iron fisted rules are contrary to what occured in the past. It's strange they put so many roadblocks on anglers seeking records that they confuse the issue of why people do it.
There should be no question about released fish, providing they were measured and weighed properly.

Line classes changed also to the EU metric system and that has brought about discrepancies. In the old days 50# class line needed to break 10% under the stated to qualify (ie 45lbs). 24kg replaced it (ie 24kg = 52.8lbs); old 80# class needed to break at 72lbs. 37kg = 81.4lbs; 130# class needed to break at 117lbs. 60kg = 132lbs. There's is virtually no reason on this planet to use 24kg line for bluefish, black drum, red drum, madai, meagre and a host of freshwater species including buffalo, grass carp, freshwater drum, musky, northern pike or atlantic salmon. It's strictly for piling up records.

The correct and only answer to your question about whether or not IGFA promotes the killing of fish for record purposes is YES.

Have more fish been killed since line classes were established? I'd have to say YES again.

[Nick_Fuegi]

Great comments George and Marlinhuntertoo.

Many thanks both. V informative.

So that's it then. The current IGFA rules do cause deaths of large Marlin which would otherwise spawn millions.

There are alternative ways to measure records.

So, how does the system get changed?

Someone at the IGFA needs agree it and sign it off right? Then they do a press release, update the online forms and that's it job done.

Who would sign this off and what's holding it up?

Nick

[Linwood]

The only reliable way to stop the takeing of these fish would be for the UN to step in and declare a moratorium on HMS fisheries.IGFA does not kill fish.Fishermen and fishing kill fish.

[Linwood]

[Linwood]

Longline vessels are most responsible for the steady decline in Billfish numbers worldwide.While the US is limiting landings of Blue Marlin to under 300 fish per year,open ocean longline ships are overfishing the Billfish. Most of these vessels are not targeting Billfish either.These guys are after Thuna. Marlin are bycatch species that are tossed over dead or sold for around a buck and a half a #.IGFA stays even if they do enjoy a little killing from time to time.

[George]

Linwood: Most all marlin are caught by longliners targeting marlin. Whether they are in pangas in Ecuador or Costa Rican nationals running five miles of hooks - it's 20 cents a pound at the dock. Then you find Sedanos in Miami selling it for $3.99/lb.

Tuna is sold in Tokyo for $800 +

[Linwood]

I grew up in Miami and we bought smoked Marlin at Pier 5 on a frequently. Marlin were never super abundant off Miami but a big one would glut the local fish market for a while.
The great problem as I see it is that it would be awful hard to accept regulations restricting a developing nation from exploiting their fish stocks when many of these same countries are responsible for overfishing.People need to eat.People need to make a living.I did not realize that the smaller countries like Cuba,Venezuela and Ecuador had surpassed the bycatch rate of opean ocean longline fleets.