TOP SHOT's blog

Red Snapper: A Way to End the War?

TOP SHOT — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:21:32 -0500

In all the rhetoric surrounding the unbelievably contentious issue of red snapper management these days, with devastating seasonal/bag restrictions and even complete closures haunting the future of major coastal sport fisheries Texas to Georgia, there's been one element glaringly missing: alternative solutions that might manage to satisfy federal law while not obliterating entire fisheries.

Bob Shipp has given me a sneak peak at just that. A "common-sense approach" he's derived could offer hope.

Shipp's an enthusiastic angler, but beyond that, the Ph.D. biologist is chair of the Department of Marine Sciences, University of South Alabama. He's also a veteran Gulf Council member (in fact, currently the council's chairman).

And on the confounding red snapper mess, Shipp says, "It's time to call 'time out'!"

First, he notes that Gulf red snapper stocks are increasing; neither anglers nor scientists can quibble about that, only about the rate of that increase. Moreover, data in recent years shows what fishermen already know: snapper keep getting larger (on average) and more abundant.

That should be great news but the downside is that anglers have regularly and considerably exceeded their annual quotas, even when fisheries managers have tried to reign that in with shorter seasons and reduced bag limits. This also accomplishes the negative result of greater release morality.

Shipp says the current approach isn't working. I don't think he'll get much argument from any side on that.

"It's time to look at a different approach - one that would greatly reduce the waste and at the same time safeguard the stock for the future."

Here's Shipp's approach to red snapper management:

Red snapper in the Gulf occur from depths as shallow as five fathoms to one hundred fathoms. Where structure is present they are naturally abundant at all these depths. In addition, as are most reef associated species, they show high site fidelity. This suggests an areal closure [within a specific area] of a portion of their range could be an effective tool toward maintaining a healthy stock.

I would suggest that this would be a temporary closure, not to be confused with creation of a marine protected area (MPA). Its duration would be determined by the time required to put in place the necessary fishery-independent data to improve the stock assessment for red snapper. Currently the stock assessment suffers from heavy reliance on fishery-dependent data, which reflects bias due to fishing practices (e.g. commercial fishers targeting small snapper which bring higher prices) and lacks credibility due to the current method of gathering recreational catch data.

The scope of the closure would be determined by bathymetric analysis. Certainly closure of a significant percentage of the species range would be required, and logic would dictate this be in the deeper portion, thus reducing release mortality.

If the fishery were conducted in 20 fathoms or less, it appears these criteria could be met.

To further ensure protection of the stocks, bag and size limits could provide additional safeguards, but certainly ones far more liberal than are currently in place. This would greatly reduce the mortality incurred when seasonal closures result in anglers targeting other species but continue catching red snapper which have become so abundant.

The commercial sector must be addressed in a plan such as this, but this would follow the implementation for the recreational sector. Also, compliance with The Magnuson Act would have to be determined, but certainly this system would better address the ten National Standards of that act.

Pew plan a travesty for Australia: Fishermen don't matter

TOP SHOT — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:17:12 -0400

Have you heard about the proposed Gulf of Mexico Heritage Park that will close the entire Gulf from southern Texas to Key West from 20 miles out to all recreational fishing?

Probably not, since I just made that up.

But I'll bet I got your attention.

And your full attention is warranted to understand what our sport-fishing counterparts Down Under are facing right now with a very real Coral Sea Heritage Park proposal.

There's been a great deal of concern in the U.S. recreational fishing community (RFC) that this administration will embark upon a campaign to create a vast network of marine sanctuaries that would be closed to any and all fishing. Recently, a letter from NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco has come to light that suggests her agency has no plans to do so in the near future. While that may offer some relief, I think complacency may be risky. What is happening in Australia is cause for great concern, but even more frightening is the way it is happening, with the world's most powerful international environmental organization sending the message to an estimated five million Australian anglers and their nearly $700 billion economic contribution that you and your sport are not important whatsoever.

As part of its Global Ocean Legacy campaign, the Pew Foundation has launched a very impressive, well-organized and slick campaign to close to all extractive uses a stunningly immense chunk of the Pacific off Australia's fertile northeast coast.

Yes, that means absolutely no one would ever be allowed to wet a line anywhere at any time within this vast area which extends all the way out to the 200 nautical-mile limit of the country's jurisdiction.

A battle of sorts has been raging over there ... though "battle" may be the wrong term because certainly there's little comparing the resources of Queensland's RFC with the power, influence and money behind Pew. Still, the community is attempting to bring some sanity into whatever debate it can rouse.

You'll find below several links to give you a better picture of this fiasco in the making. Starting with another interview where an editor questions a top Pew policymaker. This interview appeared in Fishing World magazine, a leading Australian angling publication, and the director of the Pew's Australia campaign, Imogen Zethoven.

I should emphasize here that this is not simply "an Australian concern." If you love to fish salt water, it is your concern and mine. Pew is a U.S. environmental non-governmental organization which is reaching its long arms around the globe. And yes, if it's successful in this geographically enormous undertaking, it's not unreasonable to worry if Pew may not begin looking to establish more such "heritage parks," much closer to home.

In his interview in Sport Fishing (June 2009), the head of Pew's Environment Group, Josh Reichert, told readers he wants to find ways to work with (vs. against) recreational fishermen. When I pressed him on marine closures, Reichert acknowledged their main efforts are now overseas but added, "That's not to say we might not [in major efforts to create reserves in U.S. coastal waters] in the future."

My sense, after spending an hour chatting with Reichert, was of an honorable, decent and committed man. I still have no doubt of that. On the other hand, I should add that I am increasingly wondering just how much interest Pew really has in working with recreational anglers, afraid Pew's goals may indeed be the juggernaut that rolls over those who love the sport as I do.

Certainly this Coral Sea campaign certainly has me thinking that way.

My friend and colleague Jim Harnwell, publisher of Fishing World, had read the SF/Pew interview with great interest. Recently, he contacted me, hoping I could get Reichert to talk with him directly since he had had absolutely no luck in attempts to find any middle ground on this issue with Zethoven. Like me, Harnwell had the impression from the SF interview that Reichert might be interested in working with recreational fishing community to craft some sort of compromise solution.
Apparently not.

My personal pleas to Reichert and others at Pew HQ (in D.C.) to at least talk to Harnwell proved completely ineffectual.

Harnwell's' frustrations were evident in a subsequent editorial.

I've long tried to give Pew the benefit of many doubts. I'm increasingly finding myself in the ranks of the very, very worried when it comes to what Pew can do and what it very well may do - particularly with the Coral Sea park as an example.

Why? Here's some further food for thought.

1. The proposed Coral Sea Heritage Park (CSHP) is immense. You have to see the map to appreciate its size.
2. The CSHP is not in the middle of the Pacific; it's just off the Australian coast -- and closes waters off the entire northern half of the continent (think: North Carolina to Maine!) out to 200 nautical miles.
3. The CSHP doesn't lock up every possible, fishable inch of coastline only because for its entire length there is already a well-established Australia Great Barrier Reef Marine Park - right up against which the CSHP abuts.
4. A surprising amount of available reef platform and coral bank area in the Coral Sea region is already off-limits to sport fishing. About 30 percent of the multiple-use marine park already is closed to fishing (an area that Pew itself boasts covers more than 115,000 square kilometers). On top of that, more than 60 percent of the available reef and bank area in the proposed CSHP is already off-limits to fishing, with huge areas around Lihou and Coringa-Herald nature reserves completely closed.
5. The Coral Sea is already a surprisingly protected water. Besides so much of the sea already closed to fishing, as noted, recreational fishing is heavily regulated. Since 2003, harvest of a number of reef species is prohibited and other reef fish must be at least 25 centimeters with a combined bag limit of five fish. "Recreational fishing in [these waters] is highly regulated and well managed in comparison to other areas of the world," says Ben Diggles, PhD, an Australian fisheries scientist and Sport Fishing's Western Pacific Fish Facts expert for many years.
6. The CSHP declares that all sport fishing will be illegal in this vast site -- period. We need to spend a bit more time on this one, and I'll come back to it in a bit.

Actually, the idea of any need to close off this entire area to any/all recreational fishing does seem like someone's idea of a lousy joke. As noted, so little sport fishing occurs this far off the coast that even calling it "negligible" attributes more effort than warranted.

But if that's the case, why should anglers be upset about an area hardly any of them fish? I can offer a couple compelling reasons, one of these put forth by Diggles. The thought of ever in a lifetime getting a chance to fish any of these remote, untouched reefs is akin to the idea of a rock-climber's ascending Mount Everest; you may never get the chance for an expedition there, but will always be a pinnacle - that opportunity of a lifetime to take an ultimate adventure for millions of angling enthusiasts around the world.

Beyond this, and more worrisome, is the idea that you'll find if you read through the CSHP proposal.

The Pew literature maintains that the only way to protect the reefs and their resources is to close the entire vast area to any activity that might extract anything whatsoever. In Fishing World's must-read interview with Pew, Ms. Zethoven can't really dispute that recreational fishing would remain infinitesimal in any impact or footprint that a handful of boats (mostly releasing their fish) could possibly make in the CSHP, or that it's completely unfair to lump it in with commercial/industrial trawling or with longliners each dragging miles of hooks. No, she doesn't need to dispute that because it's all completely irrelevant to her.

Zethoven's attitude and that of Pew sure seems to be, no we have no evidence that sport fishing is harming these resources and yes, sport fishing may well be virtually non-extractive in any significant statistical sense, but we don't care. The easiest, quickest route to get what we're after is to just post it "closed to all fishing" and be done with it.

Let fishermen find another sport.

That modus operandi is scary indeed. I am very worried at the ease with which Pew is willing for expedience to de facto lump any/all recreational fishing with large-scale commercial activity. After all, recreational fishing thrives primarily upon the opportunity to try to catch fish; the success of commercial fishing depends upon its actually extracting large quantities of fish over and over. There is a difference, Ms. Zethoven!

Consider what Pew specifically states it aims to protect with this CSHP proposal off the Australian coast:

Sea turtles, whales and seabirds. And making sport fishing illegal would accomplish this how?
Corals from bleaching. And making sport fishing illegal would accomplish this how?
The area's "cultural heritage" (for its role as an arena in pivotal WW II naval battles). And making sport fishing illegal would accomplish this how?
The area's "civic heritage" (where some remarkable shipwrecks have occurred).And making sport fishing illegal would accomplish this how?
"Globally threatened" species such as billfishes, tunas and sharks. And making sport fishing - which keeps few tuna and virtually no marlin or sharks - illegal would accomplish this how?
Australia's status as a global marine leader. And making sport fishing illegal would accomplish this how?
Mammals and large fish from the growing, acknowledged commercial bycatch. And making sport fishing illegal would accomplish this how?
Seamounts from "destructive bottom trawlers." And making sport fishing illegal would accomplish this how?
Spectacular biodiversity of large fishes and coral reefs.
And making sport fishing - of which precious little occurs here and is mostly catch/release - illegal would accomplish this how?
Nursery areas for marine animals.
And making sport fishing illegal would accomplish this how?
"The growth of sustainable tourism industries."
And making sport fishing illegal would accomplish this how?

Reading the Fishing World interview, I was struck by how hard Harnwell works to extract (pardon the expression) even a hint of willingness from Zethoven to work cooperatively with the recreational-fishing community. He keeps referring to some "middle ground" in the difficult dispute, though she'll have none of that.

Yet it occurs to me that recreational interests here have already been forced into that "middle ground." That is, if we were truly talking about a middle ground, then we'd be looking at Pew's goals to close the entire Coral Sea to sport fishing on the one hand, and at recreational fishermen's goal to open the entire sea to sport fishing on the other. Then between those two objectives would lie some middle ground.

However, sport fishermen have already given up any right to fish large areas within the CSHP boundaries (as well as closed areas in the existing Barrier Reef park) and, I think they'd be willing to abide by further closures. They're only asking that this proposal not lock up every square inch of the coral sea and throw away the key.

I feel compelled here to return to this salient thought: this time it's about Australia. Next time it could indeed be about the Gulf of Mexico or Chesapeake Bay or Puget Sound or any place else Pew determines needs to be "protected" from the ravages of anglers. I admit that I've worked hard to avoid jumping on any ostensible alarmist bandwagons. But upon seeing how the Pew effort is wielding its considerable power and influence (and some might maintain, arrogance) like a club when it comes to dealing with Australia's recreational-fishing community, my attitude is changing.

The eyes of millions of sport-fishing enthusiasts should be focused on the Australian situation as indicative of the way Pew may deal with recreational fishing in general, not just in Australia. If that's the case, let's go fishing while we can. We may soon find ourselves in the same metaphorical boat as our Aussie mates - who, in Pew's plan, will be competing to drop lines in suddenly very limited reef areas - crowded into fewer and fewer "fishing-permitted" zones.

You can comment on Doug's blog here

All That Glitters

TOP SHOT — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:50:03 -0400

For decades, sport fishermen from all over the world (particularly, of course, the United States) have converged on the remarkable Sea of Cortez, enjoying the abundance of marine life introduced to the public 60 years ago in John Steinbeck's chronicle, The Log from the Sea of Cortez.

One of the big and enduring draws to anglers: the vast numbers of dorado (dolphin or mahi) that pour into this yawning gulf between Mexico's mainland and its Baja peninsula. Those dorado are also a factor drawing in large numbers of billfish and big yellowfin, which also find them tasty meals.

A starkly revealing and chilling set of three short exposes now on YouTube (below) shows why dorado may soon become merely an occasional catch - and how Baja's coastal sport-fishing industry may lose one of its most compelling motivators for anglers to visit and spend great (by local standards) sums.

"Oro de Cortez" - the gold of Cortez - is about dorado and how Mexico is squandering this resource and perhaps largely the future of its great sea, "a sea of agony" in the words of the videos' narrator. Stark footage and candid interviews with fishermen, scientists and government officials won't give you any feel-good moments but these three reports should be watched. In them may lie some hope for change, while there's still time to save one of the world's most dynamic, beautiful game fish in one of the world's most idyllic settings.

The main culprits? Same old story: greed and longlines. Combine them and it spells devastation for things that eat baited hooks. That includes turtles, by the way. The videos suggest that thousands are dying in the Sea of Cortez on longline hooks.

Perhaps most surprising, for those not aware: Mexican law forbids the sale of dolphin. Yet tons and tons end up processed and shipped in black markets (mostly to the United States - apparently in violation of the Lacey Act). Most of that might be stopped but (1) loopholes permit "phantom fish cooperatives," as "Oro de Cortez" describes them, to easily obtain exceptions to laws forbidding longlining near the coast or the taking of dorado and (2) in any case, CONAPESCA, Mexico's fisheries agency, simple does not enforce laws.

If knowledge is power, perhaps these videos will help increase public awareness in Mexico and in the U.S. of how dire the situation is likely to soon become for Mexico's dorado, and help end the corruption and apathy that seem to keep the Mexican government from enforcing its own fisheries laws.

Sport Fishing Newsmaker Interview with NOAA Chief Lubchenco

TOP SHOT — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:35:39 -0400

More than any time I can recall, federal management of our coastal fisheries by the National Marine Fisheries Service (and fishery management councils) is sending waves of concern and controversy through the recreational-fishing community. Charged with oversight of NMFS and fishery management is the head of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In March, Jane Lubchenco was confirmed as President Obama's pick to head NOAA.

Who is Dr. Lubchenco? And what is her oversight of NMFS likely to mean for coastal sport fishermen around the country?

We wanted to find out - and Sport Fishing secured the very first interview with Jane Lubchenco on topics relevant to recreational fishing and its concerns.

That interview will be published in the September/October issue of Sport Fishing magazine; watch for it.

For now, I want to use this space to give visitors to this editors' blog a glimpse of just a few relevant and/or revealing comments from that interview, and particularly to consider Lubchenco's thoughts on catch shares (a new name for individual transferable quotas, wherein an entity or an individual buys a share of an overall harvest quota which can then be used or sold). I made the dominant focus of the interview catch shares -- two words causing great consternation in the recreational-fishing industry.

On fishing as a leisure activity: "I've greatly enjoyed catch-and-release fishing with friends and colleagues from bonefishing in Cuba to fishing for stripers in Maine. I understand and appreciate the strong attraction of recreational fishing."

On the economic importance of recreational fishing: " ... saltwater recreational fishing pumped $31 billion a year into the U.S. economy and supported half a million jobs. ... the challenge in all of this is to acknowledge that what we need to is protect jobs and grow new jobs ... but with an eye toward doing so in a way that's sustainable through time."

On federal fishery management serving recreational-fishing constituents: "I do think it's likely that NOAA has not given recreational fishing as much attention as is warranted. That's an impression, not grounded in data, but I think it's something that we should pay attention to."

On the issue of "flexibility" in managing recreational fisheries: "Its clear that many of our fisheries are in trouble and rebuilding them is going to bring great benefit. At present, we are bound to uphold the existing laws... ."

On catch shares (individual transferable quotas) as a means to manage recreational fisheries: Catch shares "are not a panacea ... but I am, indeed, enthusiastic about their potential."

"I do see some possibilities for catch shares being a useful tool for recreational fisheries, but I think we have to explore the pro and cons ... relative to, as you said, other innovative strategies."

" ... not all recreational fishing is the same. There may be opportunities for catch shares to be more appropriate for charter boats, for example. I think we have to look at this in a way that is sensitive to the different parts of the country and different parts of the recreational-fishing enterprise at large."

"I would just say that I'm open to a dialogue. I'm open to exploring new ways of working together [with the recreational-fishing community]."

When you read the entire interview in SF, you'll note that I spent the lion's share of time focusing on catch shares. Hanging over the head of many in our sport, like a Damocles sword, is the thought that the government (encouraged by some supposedly anti-fishing green groups) is going to "privatize" our public game-fish resources by forcing catch-share programs on us. So the issue is of the utmost relevance.

Will NMFS try to make catch shares a fundamental approach to managing recreational fisheries as it has done for many commercial fisheries? Of course, I don't know. As I noted when I spoke with Dr. Lubchenco, I have yet to see any plans that specify how catch shares could be applied to the sport side. Her comments to SF suggest, at least, that she wants her agency to work with the recreational side on such issues That would seem to imply we may not be forced to swallow any catch-share programs that would hurt rather than help an industry already in danger of flat-lining in some areas/fisheries (with red snapper but one example).

I certainly hope that go-slow approach to catch shares proves to be the case, and that in near-term actions regarding rec-fish management, NMFS is guided by Lubchenco's comment made here that she is "open to exploring new ways of working together."

I don't think we've ever needed that more than now, particularly because I believe that under Lubchenco, NOAA/NMFS has shown precious little interest in or outreach to a recreational-fishing community and industry already unhappy and suspicious after a widespread sense of neglect or apathy.

There are indications very recently that this NOAA/NMFS has finally begun to reach out and show it does value recreational fishing/fisheries and does intend to work cooperatively to manage our fisheries with (vs. against) us. Again, I certainly hope that proves to be the case. We shall see.

You can comment on Doug's blog in our forums here...

Time For a Little Good News!

TOP SHOT — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:34:33 -0400

And now for something entirely different: a little good news.

The recreational-fishing community has had its share of downbeat developments of late on many fronts, including fisheries-management challenges and restrictions, and slow sales of boats and motors. But if you think folks just aren't motivated to go fishing, think again.

While so many aspects of our lives seem to be heading a bit south of late, sales of fishing tackle and fishing licenses are holding steady overall and, in some cases, increasing, according to the American Sportfishing Association (www.asafishing.org).

"There are strong indications that angling remains one of the largest outdoor recreational activities in the nation as well as one of the most solid industries in the United States," says the ASA, citing 40 million anglers generating more than $45 billion in retails sales and creating employment for more than one million people.

For the first quarter of the year, state fishing-license sales were up 11 percent from last year, a trend that seemed to be continuing into the second quarter as well. In fact, says ASA president and CEO Mike Nussman, "These are the best numbers we've seen in several years," adding, "It's clear that people are going fishing and purchasing tackle."

Tom Mackin heartily agrees. He should, since his company - RapalaUSA (which includes Storm and Williamson brands among others) - enjoyed a double-digit increase in tackle sales over last year, through the first quarter.

The big daddy of domestic tackle conglomerates, Pure Fishing, is similarly upbeat based on strong sales. More families fishing, it says, account for much of that.

I hope this isn't lost on federal and state officials involved in managing our resources. For example, one fisherman's group has recently recommended managing grouper in the Gulf of Mexico strictly for recreational use. The billions and billions of dollars that recreational fishing generates should leave little doubt that the economic value of a single grouper, red snapper and so many other species in the recreational fishery has a value many times over what would be worth if targeted/harvested commercially.

And while we're on the topic of good news, as of June 1, a federal rule raises the daily catch limit of bluefin tuna for recreational fishermen from one to two fish. (Commercial fishermen are still allowed three.)

That is good news for anglers, but should not be taken to mean that Atlantic bluefin are not in serious trouble. They are (hey, the news can't be all good!). However, unlike some European and other nations that routinely exceed their catch quotas, the U.S. has not been achieving its allotted quota. That raises the possibility that ICCAT, the agency governing allocation of high-seas tuna stocks, could start giving away part of our quota to other nations meeting theirs.

While overall (especially in the eastern Atlantic), bluefin quotas remain too high (and perenially higher than ICCAT's own scientists recommend), it seems to me that if these fish are going to be caught anyway, they may as well be caught by us.

In any case, it appears despite -- or very possibly because of -- so much bad news, Americans in increasing numbers are going fishing. Whether you're after bluefin tuna or bluefish, go get 'em!

Pay to play for red snapper?

TOP SHOT — Thu, 21 May 2009 14:50:34 -0400

Managing red snapper recreationally by having anglers purchase a tag for each snapper he/she hopes to catch (within a total of allowable catch) - that's just nuts.

Or is it?

Recently an idea that the Coastal Conservation Association floated before the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council ended up floating itself right out into the public domain. The reaction, which has since died down a bit, was fast and furious.

That's understandable. On its face the idea is radical and seemingly counterintuitive to the idea of a public resource. Of course, as with most things (and new ideas), there's more to the story than meets the eye. But putting aside how the idea may not be as totally off-the-wall as at first blush it seems, in fact it's really a small part of a much bigger issue.

What CCA is apparently trying to do is not push any specific proposal into law but to start fishery managers thinking outside of the box.

Even those most immediately critical of the CCA proposal must agree that management of species like red snapper, gag grouper, fluke and others needs to be different, because our management regime to date sure ain't been working! If it were working, we wouldn't be facing massive closures and restrictions that now threaten a huge economic industry and, of course, threaten to put a big damper on the sport that so many of us pursue passionately.

And for that reason, I think the CCA should be more commended than condemned - that is, not for this proposal per se, but for trying to get top federal fisheries managers to start doing for recreational fisheries what its been doing for commercial fisheries.

What do I mean? Just this. While many of us will be cooling our props at the dock because more and more seasons are closed to protect stocks the feds say are overfished, our brethren on the commercial side will be heading out throughout the year to fish.

That's not because they're suddenly being given larger quotas. That's because they're suddenly being given new management strategies that work (and allocate) better.

Particularly that's the case with ITQs and the like (individual transferable quotas) that allocate a share of the resource (red snapper or whatever it may be) to those holding quota shares. Who gets the shares is another matter and while it's engendered some controversy, the fact remains that it has by and large been working. And by and large, the commercial fishing community and environmentalists actually agree (go figure that) that it's a better way.

That's not to say that ITQs are the answer for recreational fishing; they;'re not. Sport fishing is a very different situation from large commercial enterprises.

But it is to say that something has to be the answer since, again, what we're doing now is not the answer.

More to the point, I think, is that it's time for the government to step up to our plate as it's done for commercials and help! In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service is making a big deal of the funds it's now directing to make commercial ITQs happen in many fisheries, notably at the moment in New England, where NOAA head Jane Lubchenco has pledged another $18.6 million at a meeting of fishery management councils. She sees it as a great opportunity to preserve "the industry."

Don't get me wrong. I'm delighted to see solutions that help achieve management goals. But, Dr. Lubchenco: There's another industry that needs preserving and needs NOAA's help - one which in many fisheries consumes a relatively small amount of the resource while providing a relatively large economic boost to regional economies: recreational fishing.

A longstanding criticism within the recreational-fishing community is that NOAA, within the Department of Commerce, was instituted to help develop commercial fishing and that orientation has never gone away. So far, I'd say we're seeing more evidence of that.

Coming back, then, to the CCA proposal, there are actually means by which something along those lines might be workable, but it's very complex, would ultimately need much work and would probably never actually occur in anything like that "first draft" that the Gulf Council saw. More importantly, keep in mind that a major goal of any such proposals is ultimately to bring stability and opportunity to long-suffering anglers.

So I'd urge all sport fishermen as well as the industry and groups associated with it to be a bit less quick to condemn new ideas and in fact to embrace the notion that new and innovative strategies must be proposed and considered with the assistance and resources from our fishery management officials in Washington - and hopefully soon. This sport and this industry need help.

To comment on Doug's Blog click here

Law Would Intentionally Wipe Out Striped Bass

TOP SHOT — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:48:42 -0400

This is not a joke - but you can (and should) help stop it!

Even fishermen who live on the East Coast are likely aware that for the second year in a row, California's salmon fishery is moribund. One of the main and longstanding reasons for decimation of many of the state's wild-salmon runs - including those historically with the greatest numbers of fish, from the mighty Sacramento River - is water diversion.

Powerful agribusiness interests have for years persuaded state and federal officials to allow the export of massive quantities of fresh water to huge corporate farms. Even after its own scientists warned the Bush Administration that water diversion would leave great numbers of threatened salmon runs dying in low, warm water, the Administration disregarded the advice and gave its thirsty (and powerful) pals in the big-farm biz the diverted water they wanted. Later that year, guess what? Great numbers of threatened salmon runs died in water far too low and warm for spawning success.

Now, as if intending to prove the bounds of their greed are truly without limit or shame, the same agricultural interests have, via a state assemblywoman by the name of Jean Fuller (R-Bakersfield), come up with a bizarre scheme to divert attention from diverted water.

Turns out, it's not years of depriving wild salmon stocks of critical water for spawning and juvenile growth that are to blame for decimation of the species. The real problem? Striped bass that live in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are eating all the salmon.

Accordingly, Fuller has introduced a wacky but dangerous bill into the State Assembly that would end management of stripers and allow unlimited harvest of one of the state's great and valued game fish.

Ms. Fuller's sudden concern for wild salmon is laudable. It's too bad she couldn't revise her bill to force greedy agribusinesses and the politicians they own to share some of the water they take from the public domain - the Sacramento River - with the salmon she loves so much.

You don't have to be a Californian to be outraged at this reprehensible display of avarice. And you don't have to be a Californian to let your voice be heard. In fact, California lawmakers should hear from all of us and realize that Fuller's bill is so egregiously misguided that it has opponents chiming in from around the U.S. That's the kind of message that we should be sending.

The State Assembly's Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife will hear this bill on April 28th. Time is of the essence; if state lawmakers don't hear from anglers, this disastrous bill will pass.

Fortunately, you can register your opposition to Fuller's bill in mere seconds, by going to www.saveourstripers.org where you can read and sign onto a letter (separately, as an individual, business or NGO) instantly. When you have done that, send the link to a friend -- or a few. You may also want to visit a web site of folks who, unlike Fuller, are genuinely concerned with saving salmon and not veggies: www.restorethedelta.org.

If we don't act, and Fuller has her way, California is likely to end up with neither salmon nor striped bass - but plenty of cotton and artichokes.

Comment on Doug's Blog here

Shark Lover?

TOP SHOT — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:38:20 -0400

Recent news reports have showed 13-year-old angler Aidan Medley proudly standing next to a 340-pound bull shark, hanging dead on a dock scale at Sailfish ************************ in Palm Beach, Florida. He cranked the fish in himself, noting to reporters that many anglers lack the skill to do what he did.

(http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story...w.cspx?rss=762)

And he did it last year with a 550-pound bull. And a 461 the year before.

Next in the angler's sights: hammerheads. Presumably we'll be seeing more shots of young Aidan posing proudly next to large, dead hammerheads.

What motivates this young man? According to comments made to the press, he (1) likes doing it and mounts his prizes for display on his wall, and (2) "he's fascinated by the ocean and wants to be a marine biologist" (WPTV.com).

Given that information, I'd like to hear what visitors to this blog think about this young angler's news-making big-shark weigh-ins. Right or wrong and why? Or put another way, what message would YOU like to send to young Aidan?

Comment in our Forums:
http://forums.sportfishingmag.com/sh...506#post379506

Eatin' Permit

TOP SHOT — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:07:41 -0400

Which statement is false?
Tarpon, bonefish and permit are all great game fish.
Tarpon, bonefish and permit caught by one angler in one day constitute a flats slam.
Tarpon, bonefish and permit are all lousy as food fish.

Hint: a permit is essentially a big ol' Florida pompano. True, they're different species, but size is the main difference since the permit grows several times as large. In fact, when permit are as small as a few pounds, distinguishing them from pompano can be difficult.

And if you know anything about Tasty Fishes 101, you'll know that pompano have long been considered one of the most succulent of fishes for the table. Given that permit are basically just large pompano, you might assume that permit are also delicious. You'd be right.

Mentioning that reality might be blasphemous in some circles, notably flats-stalking fly-rodders. For them, permit are an ultimate adversary that merit a careful release. The thought of plopping permit fillets in a frying pan wouldn't sit too well with most of 'em.

That's understandable. But anglers who fish reefs, wrecks and other offshore structure may see permit in a very different light. I've been out off Key West reefs when we'd see literally hundreds in a day and catch and release 'em till our arms grew rubbery.

Well... catch and release most of 'em. Yes indeed: I have kept, cleaned and eaten permit - and loved every bite! And I'd do it again.

Why? Besides the pleasure of its taste, permit are completely legal to retain in Florida (up to six per day, lumped in with pompano, though I've never kept more than one). And no one has ever offered any evidence that I've ever seen or heard suggesting that permit populations are in any respect in trouble.

So why is the venerable Bonefish and Tarpon Trust (formerly Bonefish and Tarpon Unlimited) formally asking the Florida Fish and Wildlife Committee to make it illegal for anglers to keep any permit (except for a $50 trophy tag allowing one fish)?

I can't quite figure it out even after reading and re-reading its online petition to grant game fish status for permit - which is great, in my opinion. That petition seeks to outlaw all commercial sale of this important recreational fish. I think most anglers would agree the species is too valuable as a sport fish to see tonnage sold in seafood markets.

But at this point, I'm not convinced there's a need to make it illegal for an angler to keep a permit for dinner. Perhaps, in a precautionary vein, BTT might push for reducing the recreational bag limits from six to two or whatever, or even (though, again, no one's offered any scientific justification for concern) instituting a slot limit. I suspect most anglers would have absolutely no problem with that.

But removing the right to keep even one permit to eat? The minute fisheries biologists discover there is any reason for concern, I'd say sign me up. In the meantime, let's focus on game fish status - and not throw the recreational baby out with the commercial bathwater.

Comment on Doug's blog here in the forums

Fish Farms: Fortune or Fiasco?

TOP SHOT — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:47:04 -0500

You might not think the words "fish farm" would evoke a great emotional reaction, but let me tell you, some serious sturm und drang went down at last week's Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council meeting with what has proved to be quite a hot-button issue: Should the federal government allow large aquaculture facilities to operate in federal Gulf waters?

A host of environmental NGO's and commercial-fishermen's groups said "No!" Nevertheless, the council fairly resoundingly (in an 11-5 vote, interestingly split along gender lines with guys carrying the issue) said, "Yes!"

Opponents of the concept argued that the government is rushing into this, without sufficient safeguards for the environment as well as existing fisheries, and that it shouldn't be done piecemeal - one region at a time - but as a larger, more well-thought-out national policy. (Though by the time that happened, the Gulf might freeze over; two such bills never made it out of Congressional committee.)

I haven't heard recreational interests weigh in very heavily on the issue. Perhaps many of those aware of it are, like me, of two minds (though some have accuse me of being of no mind, often). Although I realize it's probably a simplistic notion, it would be nice to think large-scale fish farming might take a lot of the pressure off recreationally valuable game fish such as red snapper (one of the prime candidates for farming, incidentally) and ultimately lead to more fish and less restrictive regulations.

On the other hand, what about feeding all these carnivores (cobia and AJ would be likely species to raise as well)? A number of large farms may increase the natural carrying capacity of the Gulf for high-level predators but there must also be an increase in forage. Most likely this would mean even more pressure on Gulf menhaden stocks that already seem to be fished pretty unmercifully. Then are questions of the spread of disease borne of so many fish living packed into small areas as well as escaped fish, and so on.

But the Gulf Council points to a 400-plus-page guide it prepared on aquaculture, addressing most of these concerns in explicit detail. (For example, no species could be raised if not already native to the Gulf.)

In any case, despite the council's strong pro-aquaculture vote, don't start looking for fish farms out in the near future. The council's plan still awaits approve by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Even applying for permits is unlikely before 2010 and that requires environmental impact statements and other bureaucratic hurdles. Also, startup will take big bucks and, at this point, at least, no big-money firms have formed a queue to start huge fish farms.

So it will probably be a couple years or more before the Gulf sees any fish farms. Maybe by then I can make up my mind where I stand on this.

(If you've already made up your mind, I'd be interested: Chime in at http://forums.sportfishingmag.com/showthread.php?t=563276

Administration shows its contempt for America's anglers

TOP SHOT — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:22:15 -0500

Pacific Ocean closures developed in darkness, depriving public of transparent processes and input

In September, the White House made an announcement that seemed to finally give some credence to all those "Sportsmen for Bush" stickers adorning so many truck and car bumpers of fishermen and hunters in 2004. The president signed an order mandating federal agencies to maintain recreational fishing on national lands and waters - including marine protected areas (MPAs).

The recreational community rejoiced, feeling it had won a major battle in its struggle to preserve access to public waters for sport fishermen.

Increasingly pushed against the ropes by the relentless juggernaut of the Pew Environmental Trust and other green NGOs determined to carry out their agenda of closing off large areas of ocean to any and all fishing, spokesmen for angling groups and the recreational industry agreed that this should protect anglers' rights to fish.

It should have.

However, it seems that the executive promises for anglers' rights were as empty as a crab trap in the desert.

On Monday, Jan. 5, I listened to Jim Connaughton - chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality - enthusiastically lead a press teleconference to announce that the next day the president would proclaim nearly 200,000 square miles of Pacific Ocean off limits to all fishing. With a quick pen-stroke, the president would be creating three national marine monuments stretching in pieces from the mid-Pacific west to the Marianas Islands.

Actually, Connaughton seemed to make a point to specify the lockout of "commercial fishermen," avoiding any reference to anglers. But make no mistake: the prohibition includes all fishing - since Connaughton, like the green interests he seems to represent, and apparently the president, could scarcely care less if such laws atrophied sport fishing right into oblivion. To them, you and I and other weekend anglers, with our family or friends, are no different than industrial commercial-fishing vessels that daily extract tonnage. Recreational fishing is not allowed - unless at some future date, after federal studies are completed and federal agencies decide that some angling may be allowed, you apply for and are actually granted a permit for a specific fishing trip.

What's particularly deplorable is this administration's use of something called the Antiquities Act to make such declarations with haste and finality, completely circumventing all the legal processes that are supposed to determine such sweeping actions, including public hearings/input, environmental-impact and Congressional reviews and more. Despite feeble claims made by Connaughton at the press conference of public involvement, the hard truth is that this was all done in the darkness, with little regard for the public or established procedure.

Making that pill all the more bitter is the hypocrisy of Pew and other such environmental groups that have so loudly decried the failure of this administration to respect public processes in environmental decisions. Only weeks before this marine-monument announcement, these groups launched blistering attacks for the administration's end-runs to bypass the Endangered Species Act and National Environment Policy Act.

But in this case, since part of their particular agenda involves closing off large areas of the ocean, public process be damned.

If you understand just how distant and how remote are these areas, you might well be tempted to say, so what? This sure ain't in my backyard, so what does it matter? Good point, but misguided since a real concern here is precedent.

No, this is not in our backyard. But what about, say, great fishing areas in the Gulf of Mexico? Only last year, Connaughton floated an "islands in the stream" concept that would have had the president do exactly this same thing -circumvent the public process and public interest and, using the Antiquities Act, declare much of the Gulf off limits to sport-fishing weekenders and charter boats.

Fortunately, that didn't fly (to the chagrin of many environmental groups) - this time. But next time?

It's that "next time" that accounts for the considerable alarm among the recreational-fishing community, its industry and interests. Quickly putting out post-conference news releases expressing their concern were the Center for Coastal Conservation, the American Sportfishing Association, The Billfish Association, the National Marine Manufacturers Association and others.

This action carries the sting of being deceived by meaningless presidential promises to protect our rights to fish public waters and the fear of more waters being closed without due process.

Pew might say this wasn't done in haste. It has, after all, been working on the inside for years to make this happen. But you can bet Pew did little to engage user groups, notably the many millions of U.S. recreational fishermen, who've been shut out all along.

The way the Bush Administration and Pew have handled these closures is in stark contrast to another announcement of closed areas, very much in our backyard - off the Atlantic Coast from Florida to North Carolina, inclusive. An announcement made the same day as the press conference was mostly lost in the marine-monuments commotion. The National Marine Fisheries Service announced a final rule creating eight marine protected areas. Fishing or at least some fishing will be closed in these areas.

So where's the outcry from the sport-fishing industry on that? There was none.

In fact, the American Sportfishing Association, angry that "no open, transparent process" was used in establishing the Pacific marine monuments, noted that these Atlantic closures were the result of a long, "deliberative and public process where all the known facts were laid on the table," and it became clear that restricting recreational (and commercial) access for snapper and grouper "was in the best interests of the fisheries and communities and industries that depend on them."

Now, we can only hope our new president will have greater respect for the established, legal requisite processes that are the bedrock of our democracy, and avoid end runs that serve the interests of a single group. Even if that group is large, vocal, powerful and arguably well-intentioned, failing to acknowledge the concerns of millions of citizens and whole industries is not in the best interests of this nation.

We must also hope that Mr. Obama can discern as ludicrous notion of organizations like Pew and individuals like Connaughton that all fishing is the same and must be treated equally. It's far easier to lock up the waters and throw away the key than spend years wading through complex but vital usage issues; it's so much more convenient to treat a boy and his dad armed with spinning rods absolutely no differently than a factory trawler designed to freeze 300 tons of fish each day.

It's convenient. But is it fair?

I guess it's about as fair as unilaterally and unnecessarily declaring 200 thousand square miles of ocean and reefs off limits to any and all recreational fishing, even catch and release.

Sailfish: The Wrong Fish for Florida?

TOP SHOT — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:13:27 -0500

The sailfish is a gorgeous creature and one of the world's great game fish. But it's the wrong fish to represent Florida as its state fish.

That's the message just out from veteran fishing writer (and occasional Sport Fishing contributor) Byron Stout, of Fort Myers.

Say what? How could anyone object to the sailfish as the state fish?

To find out exactly how, read Stout's column online (Kids Should Protest State Game Fish). You can get gist of his argument there, and you can get his alternative proposal here: tarpon. (In fact, Stout references SF's December feature that rates the world's great game fish as justification.)

Is he right? Should tarpon be the official Florida state fish? Or sailfish? Or something else? (Hardhead catfish not eligible!) What's your 2-cents'? Click on the link below to chime in or at least read the forum thread on this one.

Go to the Forums

Live from the World Recreational Fishing Conference

TOP SHOT — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 17:49:25 -0500

I'm playing hooky this week - sort of. For three days, i'm attending a pretty amazing event -- the fifth World Recreational Fishing Conference. Held every three years, the WRFC brings together scientists, managers, policy makers and others from all over. This conference, the first held in the United States, has attracted almost 200 serioius players from 22 different countries to the International Game Fish Association HQ in Dania Beach, Florida.

I thought I'd offer some brief highlights from this heavy-duty, unique conference each of the three days, starting here.

The afternoon offered simultaneous 20-minute presentations going on in three different halls all afternoon. The morning was devoted to keynote speakers, one of whom really captivated the audience. Jim Martin, conservation director for Pure Fishing, relied on no PowerPoint presentation, but called upon his own long experience in fisheries management (years as chief of fisheries for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, for one thing), his commitment to conservation of marine resources and his passion as a "maniac angler" to drive home his point: Recreational angling is facing mammoth problems, but they're not insurmountable if we're aware of what we have to do.

Martin, speaking on challenges in recreational fisheries over the next 50 to 100 years, likened our major problems to Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark who suddenly finds himself trying to outrun a house-sized boulder trying to flatten him. Martin says recreational fisheries face four "boulders": population growth, climate change, the "endangered-species mentality" and animal-rights attitudes. The "endangered-species mentality" accounts for the threat of closing huge chunks of the ocean to sport fishing - by a public, says Martin, that really does care about the resource but is inclined to accept the simplistic knee-jerk reaction (put forth by some environmental groups and fisheries managers) that closing off the ocean reduces pressure on the resource - which it does, but at what cost? There are alternatives. And Martin worries about the spread beyond parts of Europe of animal-rights groups who insist that any catch-and-release fishing is cruel and must be made illegal.

Martin warned that rethinking old paradigms (e.g. simply recreational vs. commercial fishermen) won't work. Good science and effective communication are bedrocks of what we must do. "Economics always trumps science," he acknowledges, "and politics trumps both. But science can change economics and politics." That's the challenge for those in the recreational-fishing community in decades to come.

Among other sessions, a couple of them threw into question the use of venting as a means to reduce release mortality of deep-water (depending upon species, 60 to 120 feet or more) game fish with swim bladders such as grouper and snapper. One large, recent study from Western Australia showed that fish lowered - not to deep bottom but just down 30 to 50 feet - and then released survive far better than those which are vented. Makes sense since fish needn't be lowered far to encounter much greater pressure than at the surface which quickly "deflates" swim bladders and allows them to swim back to their benthic habitat.

Venting on the other hand may not be done correctly and, even if it is, clearly leaves a hole in the fish and a site for infection. It seems unfortunate that Gulf of Mexico anglers couldn't be required to employ any of several simple means to lower grouper for release rather than requiring them to be vented, as is now the case. Perhaps on the conference's second day, I'll have a chance to ask a management official why this isn't the case.

Which is the World's Top Game Fish?

TOP SHOT — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:13:50 -0500

If you haven't seen the current issue of Sport Fishing magazine, you're missing the results of a pretty extensive survey conducted of 68 experts in sport fishing salt waters -- largely top skippers from around the U.S. and world -- to evaluate performance of 40 popular/highly sought game fish of offshore, nearshore and inshore waters.

I won't attempt to list all the results here, except to let you know the most highly rated species in each of those three categories: offshore - blue marlin, nearshore - dogtooth tuna, and inshore - tarpon.

You can see all the results for yourself either in the magazine or by checking back soon at Sportfishingmag.com. You're sure to be surprised by some of the results.

If you read the information about how the survey was set up, you'll note that I made a real effort to compare fish of the same size where feasible. In general, it was my intent to compare these fishes' performance pound for pound.

I also asked these experts what they'd like to fish if they could fish for just a single species. I think that's an interesting and challenging question for any enthusiast to ponder. How would you answer it? I'll confess my own preference leans to dolphin (dorado or mahi to those on the Pacific). They have it all for light-tackle fans like me - wild aerial fight; aggressive and willing to hit baits, flies or lures; often travel/feed in schools or groups; gorgeous to look at with brilliant (and ever-changing) colors -- and they're darn tasty. What's not to like?

Now I hope you'll take a bit of time to take the same survey as the experts! I am very curious to compare their opinions with those of SF readers/web site visitors - and to publish those results in the magazine (and on the site) once we accumulate a large enough sample to be meaningful. You voted on Tuesday - now I'm asking you to vote once more. The survey will make you stop and think a bit and offers a fun exercise - let your voice/experience help determine what readers list as the top game fish!
Click here to take the survey.

Science of the Weird

TOP SHOT — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:35:10 -0400

The surging, astronomical leap in fuel prices has meant considerably less fishing effort. I mean -- no brainer, there, right?

Wrong. At least, according to federal fisheries statistics, recreational fishing trips in the Gulf of Mexico in July and August - when fuel prices were peaking at blistering levels and when marinas and charter ops around the Gulf were uniformly decrying the frightening decline in fishermen/effort - actually increased. In fact, the number of fishing trips into the Gulf reached their highest level since 2003 and the fourth highest level since 1981!

That led Bob Zales, a Panama City charter operator - and president of the National Association of Charter Boat Operators, to ask in an e-mail: "If you feel like everyone I have shown these numbers to, there's no way the numbers can come close to reality; start calling your media, start calling your congressmen and senators, your governors, your state resource directors, everyone you can. The madness of this data must stop."

Zales, in fairness, points out that the new Marine Recreational Initiative Program from NOAA Fisheries promises much-improved data. "The problem is that the new system will not be used for several years," he adds, "so we are stuck with the current data."

It's hard to argue with Zales with fisheries managers trying to tell us there's been more effort than ever - yet we all see charter boats tied up at the docks, some launch ramps practically deserted, empty tackle shops. And of course, more fishing effort will be interpreted to mean more fish - in this case, red snapper - caught. So once again, NMFS will likely estimate that anglers exceeded their quota and exact a further price.

"But I challenge anyone to show me where people have fished more this year than any recent year," Zales complains.

It's pretty discouraging and certainly reiterates the critical need to make improved data collection a priority. As Zales says, that's in the works - now that anglers are understanding they will be part of a federal system to have all of us registered, through licensing generally, including states which heretofore eschewed licenses.

A few entities/individuals continue to oppose registration but, as working stiffs in the fishing industry - like Zales - have begun to see, registration can lead to accurate information. And we need that for the sake of the industry and fish stocks.

Otherwise, chances are too likely we end up with more science of the weird, and that's no way to manage any fishery.

You can comment on Doug's blog here

In 60 Seconds You Can Make a Difference!

TOP SHOT — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:03:11 -0400

Several years ago, I wrote an editorial the title of which, if memory serves, was: "Gramps is Not a Factory Trawler." It made a simple point - the willy-nilly push by many environmental NGO's (non-governmental organizations) to simply shut down large areas of the ocean to ALL fishing failed to recognize vast differences between weekend anglers and big commercial fishing operations. That is, all fishing is not created equal.

Earlier this month, it appeared that the concern of closing off even tightly regulated recreational angling along with industrial-level commercial fishing might finally be put to rest thanks to an executive memo from the White House and order stating that recreational fishing should be preserved in marine protected areas.

That's a very reasonable judgment since in most cases, sport fishing often has a relatively minimal impact on marine-fish stocks and, in any case, has generally proven very manageable via science-based regulation.

But some environmental groups aren't getting the message and probably never will. (BTW, Don't fall into the trap of stereotyping every single "green" group as anti-recreational fishing and the "enemy"; some, at least, do get it - but not enough.) They are back, banging at the White House doors and clamoring once again to ban recreational fishing from large areas of the Pacific Ocean. Those areas are currently under consideration for designation as marine protected areas.

If recreational fishing is closed, despite the President's order, the precedent could presage many more closures and much closer to home. There are limited areas where banning all fishing and other consumptive behavior can be justified. The concern here is that closing a big chunk of central Pacific Waters would start a trend that could be disastrous as it spread to more and more regions.

Groups that represent our sport and its interests, such as the American Sportfishing Association (www.asafishing.org) and The Billfish Foundation (www.billfish.org), are pleading with us, as angling enthusiasts, to remind the federal government right away that recreational fishing is generally not part of the problem - and accordingly shouldn't be penalized - but is a major economic force in coastal economies nationally and internationally.

I join those groups in urging all who read this blog to take one minute (I timed myself) of their time right now to help make sure the White House knows that as a group, sport fishermen are a huge force, united and concerned. My inclination is to be moderate in most issues; there are too many shrill voices out there that end up doing little good for anyone. But in this case, I think it's an appropriate time to make our voices heard. I hope you'll join me by simply clicking here and being one of those voices.

What's Your Line...And Do You Care?

TOP SHOT — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:30:22 -0400

If you fish - and if you're reading this, odds are you do - you rely heavily on that wispy piece of string connecting you to every fish you hook. The business of fishing lines is big business here and in Europe as well. But you might be hard pressed to believe the different approaches on measuring fishing lines taken by tackle industries in the two continents.

A reminder of this arrived the other day via email from the European Fishing Tackle Trade Association (EFTTA) announcing that this entity "continues to set the standard when it comes to providing anglers with details on the exact performance of fishing lines."

Say what? No organization in the U.S., including the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), our own EFTTA equivalent, makes any attempt to set or check standards. In fact, you pays your money, etc. And the chances are you get line that is not what it claims to be on the package. That's true of monofilament which (unless it says it's "tournament-" or "IGFA-rated" or the like) will typically be 5 to 15 percent or more stronger than the package says. And it's even more true of braided lines, which often actually test out 20 to 100 percent higher than the stated strength.

Yet interestingly the opposite situation is true in Europe when it comes to line strength. The mislabeling is pandemic there also - very few spools of line are rated correctly. But whereas our lines almost always overtest (the tacit implication is that you get at least what you pay for, so what's the problem?), European lines (at least monofilaments) almost always undertest - though diameters usually run greater than stated.

I find it interesting that EFTTA continues its efforts to let buyers know how lines actually test and, presumably, to encourage line manufacturers to label accurately. "We will continue to carry out our twice-yearly random line tests until the problem of incorrectly labelled strains and diameters is cleaned up in the market place," says an EFTTA official.

Do anglers in Europe care? The association says so, calling the interest "tremendous."

Would angers in this country care? Do you? I admit that I would always like to know exactly what strength line I'm buying/using. But I just don't see any U.S. organization or agency testing lines, so, outside of occasional line-test features like those done by Sport Fishing, you'll have no way of knowing if your 20-pound line is actully 20-, 25- or 40-pound. At least - unless you buy your line from Europe - you can be pretty sure it will test out at least 20 pounds, and for many anglers that's good enough, I guess.
-Doug Olander

A Longline Skipper's Imperfect Storm

TOP SHOT — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:48:43 -0400

I suspect a lot of SF-site visitors will find this of interest. A skipper who has to be the world's most famous longliner ended up in handcuffs on the wrong side of a Canadian judge over the weekend for allegedly breaking (into) and entering that country's waters. Canadian fisheries officials maintain that when a patrol plane spotted her, Greenlaw's boat, Sea Hawk, had gone where no U.S. fishing boat was supposed to be. After that, Greenlaw (made famous in The Perfect Storm and with her own best-selling books including The Hungry Ocean) was summarily treated to an appearance in a St. Johns, Newfoundland, courtroom. The skipper was released on $10,000 bail and is due back in court October 27.

I haven't been able to find any comment from Greenlaw; perhaps keeping her head down is a wise course of action at this point. But the incident hardly went unnoticed. For one thing, the entire incident (including her appearance in handcuffs) was filmed by an American NBC film crew aboard her boat to film an upcoming TV series. Also, the incident got plenty of attention in eastern Canada. While reports on the internet from U.S. news source got little or no reaction, our neighbors to the north seemed to be outraged that a U.S. boat would apparently attempt to flout Canada's exclusive economic zone. "Typical Americans - run roughshod over everyone else and flout the laws of another country," griped one comment, which seemed mild compared to many.

Not sure how most sport fishermen would feel about this celebrity's arrest. As a long-time commercial longliner who has publicly defended what many of us consider to be a particularly destructive, nonselective fishing gear, Greenlaw probably won't be the source of many tears from anglers.

And speaking of longlines and the damage they do, on another matter that could be some very welcome news indeed for Atlantic bluefin tuna, NMFS has recommended that the western stock's only spawning grounds - the Gulf of Mexico - be designated essential habitat for bluefin. That would improve the odds for long-overdue, critical protection from longlines that continue to operate in much of the Gulf. You can take action to let NMFS know you support this designation at www.savethefish.org/action_items_bluefin.htm.

Unwelcome Visitors

TOP SHOT — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:19:40 -0400

I just this afternoon finished writing up an item for the November issue's news pages about an "unwelcome visitor" on a poor guy's boat. Seems he was fishing alongside a jetty in a British Columbia seaport, minding his own business, when a black bear ambled down and then leapt aboard. The angler tossed him a coho salmon, but apparently he wasn't fond of fish. He came after the man and quickly had him pinned to the deck. Then ... well, I can't give it all away, now, can I? You'll find the whole story in the November SF News section.

It did get me thinking about some unwelcome visitors of my own. One of the more distant memories involves my wife - though back then, when we were both undergrads at the University of Florida she had not yet accepted that distinction - who was my angling partner in my Grumman canoe on Orange Lake. The wind had come up and kept pushing the canoe back toward shore after I'd paddle out and we'd make a few casts.

Only this time, we ended up with more than an overhanging branch in the canoe with us. Curled up on the branch just above the water was a fat water moccasin. (No, it wasn't one of the area's many harmless if pugnacious water snakes; it was a cottonmouth with that big ugly pit-viper head.) Long story short, I managed - somehow, without capsizing us - to coax our guest over the side with a paddle before it could show its displeasure by sinking fangs into some body part.

So far I've never had a gator attempt an unauthorized boarding of my kayak, though I do frequently fish among them. Generally they slip quietly beneath the water should my kayak pass their comfort zone; I only fear that I may drift right over a big one (yeah, I've been around 10-footers) in very shallow water. I did encounter one smaller fellow - perhaps 7 feet - in the Banana River a year or so back that insisted on shadowing me, staying within 10 feet or so. That was all it did but after a while the unusual behavior did become disconcerting.

The biggest wild-animal scare I've had in my kayak actually happened twice in the Indian River estuary thanks to a combination of factors, notably that I was fishing pretty murky water about four feet deep - too murky for me to see the bottom or anything over it. And I was fishing my Hobie Outback - among its many paddle-free-propulsion advantages for fishing is total silence. That is, the ingenious blades beneath the kayak that pedals operate make not a sound -- no dip or splash as would a paddle. I recall drifting in a very light breeze while tying a rig and pedaling very slowly on absolutely still waters. Suddenly a depth charge went off beneath my kayak, tossing me up as if I were on a bucking bronco! A huge tail had pushed off when a big normally sedentary manatee suddenly realized something large was moving almost on top of it. My heart was doing the snare-drum thing for several minutes after that.

Still, it could have been worse. Not long ago, a saltwater crocodile leapt into a "tinny," as Australians call their small boats, and helped itself to dinner - pulling the hapless fisherman right over the side. Be glad that you don't fish northern Australia where those big toothy lizards do such things every year. - Doug Olander, Sport Fishing

Have you had an encounter with an unwelcome visitor on your boat? Click here to share your experience!

Beware Impostors

TOP SHOT — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:00:14 -0400

"Top warning! ... we just find out that there are some people in S.E Asia copying our products and trying to sell in the market without go through our authorized agency."

Granted, the king's English may not be perfect, but the gist of this email i found the other day in my inbox, from a Japanese tackle manufacturer, offers a reminder of what has become something of an epidemic in the tackle industry - as has long been the case in many industries where consumer goods are the end product.

Thus, a manufacturer may invest big bucks into R&D for a lure or reel, only to have a much cheaper knockoff flood the market. These may be very difficult to tell from the real thing and could be made anywhere -most, of course, from overseas and often from China.

For example, in the case noted above, the "project development head office" of Patriot Design Japan Ltd., writes that "The fake copied products so far we found are, The BLAST EDGE and The CYBER EDGE, both are Lures(Jigs),they even copied the model type, and the names of products exactly."

Dealing with knockoffs has become a real challenge for a big segment of our (recreational-fishing) industry. Trade laws seem fairly ineffective, especially when dealing with shady international sources of counterfeiters.

So what? you might wonder. Why shouldn't I take advantage of a nice-looking metal jig or a reel that looks as good as the "real thing" for a fraction of the name-brand price?

One reason, for those civic-minded enough to care, is that at best, much less is accrued in tax dollars on such stuff, tax dollars that generate big federal and/or state dollars for fishery resource preservation and enhancement. And while on the civic-minded thing, bear in mind the investment bonafide manufacturers (vs. counterfeiters) often make to develop a product - reasonably expecting a return on that investment (and thereby encouraged to develop more newer/better gear for us).

The other consideration goes back to the more self-serving "you-get-what-you-pay-for" adage. That is, a cheap jig may look nice enough - until the cheap split ring (or hook) straightens out with the first big fish you lose, or the cool-looking finish flakes off after a use or two. Or the reel that looks like the "real thing" proves to have a drag that refuses to operate smoothly (another big fish lost) or a handle that snaps under pressure, and so on. Exacerbating the problem: Often this stuff is purchased online where indeed looks count for everything since there's no chance to pick up and feel a product.

If you'd rather avoid buying counterfeit tackle, you can generally do so by purchasing from large, well-known, reputable tackle dealers either online, or at tackle shops, which generally stand by their gear (so can't afford to be selling knockoffs of high-quality equipment), or in many cases directly from the manufacturer. If you buy from unknown sources online, well, you get what you get. And if what you get sucks, you may find that recourse in this lifetime is not going to happen.

So as in all things, you pays your money and takes your chances. For my part, I think I'll stick to the real thing when I buy tackle and related gear; the amount paid will be more - but those "chances" that I take will be relatively small. Heck, I have enough problem trying to catch big fish, even with good gear; I don't need to handicap myself with counterfeit junk! -Doug Olander, Sport Fishing magazine

Catch and Release at its Best

TOP SHOT — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:40:30 -0400

From Sund's Lodge

Record Breaking Halibut Caught and Released!

On Wednesday Aug 6, 2008 guests Will Haigh, Jim O'Kane, and Don Kennard all took turns landing a 196 pound halibut at Sund's Lodge. The fish took a squid jig and nearly spooled the reel. The team of anglers fought it for over 30 minutes. Said guide Geoff Millar, "this was a dream come true..first to catch a fish that size...but also to release it to ensure we'll be catching halibut out here for years to come!"

196 pounds
6 feet long
approx. 2 million eggs
sent back into the wild!
sales@sundslodge.com

Late Saturday night, while I was pounding away on my 2009 editorial plan and too easily distracted, i opened an email to find the information above. I've visited/fished Sund's Lodge on the southern British Columbia coast, and it's a great place. Now I like it even better - and wanted to share yet another piece of evidence supporting the claim that anglers are true conservationists, and to applaud the actions of the anglers - Will Haigh, Jim O'Kane and Don Kennard - and Sund's guide Geoff Miller for deciding to release this very large, old animal.

As an enthusiastic Pacific halibut angler, I have long maintained (and practiced) a policy of generally releasing barndoors clearly over 100 pounds. That's because, in part, in most cases there are plenty of fine-eating 30- to 100-pounders to be caught (and remember, you get closer to 2/3 the weight of the fish as meat than the 40 percent or so for a grouper). And of course that's because returning such large female spawners to the North Pacific breeding pool is a good thing. It's also pretty easily accomplished - i.e. unlike many bottom dwellers, halibut have no swim bladder and are in general about as tough as a fish gets. I've pulled 200-pounders from over 300 feet and, after some photos, released them just fine. They're always ready and able to swim straight back down.

Still, there's always the appeal of sharing the triumph of a huge fish by bringing it back to the dock to stand next to it at the scale. That can be a hard thing to pass up. Kudos to Sund's Lodge and many other guides/charter operations in the Northwest for encouraging their anglers to release the big ladies. Hopefully there will always be some around to provide the thrill of seeing a diamond shape the size of a Volkswagen and on the end of your line rising next to the boat. It's quite an experience.

-Doug Olander

Sport Fishing Magazine

Monofilament? What's That?

TOP SHOT — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:59:21 -0400

Recently back from the annual ICAST tackle trade show in Vegas, then even more recently packing up rods/reels for a trip to fish northern Gulf in a couple days - jigging, throwing big topwaters, some trolling - those waters often do have it all. Those two events reminded me just how significant braided line has become.

I wonder how many of you now have braid on most of your reels - that used to be filled with mono. That certainly describes my tackle. One exception for most still remains in the area of offshore trolling, though even there, some blue-water big-game guys have gone to braid (albeit with mono topshot).

Despite all its faults, braid does a lot of things very well. And it's changing the way we fish, with most of us using increasingly smaller (but tougher) reels because it's so much thinner at the same strength than mono.

Granted, there are times when I curse the stuff and wish I were fishin' mono - especially with very light braid that loves to sneak a nasty little loop into a spinner's spool. Then it sits there like a time bomb, waiting to - almost literally - explode next cast, when that tiny loop becomes a hopelessly anarchic jumble of fibers as it passes through the rod guides.

Still, when it's good, it's great. And I've learned to be mighty careful, maintaining enough tension during casting and retrieving to minimize loopage (and also keeping a close eye on the spool). I've also continued to find knots to be critical - with all braid but particularly with the more "slippery" woven braids (vs. thermally fused fibers, as in Fireline and its ilk). That means first making a double line with a 10-turn Bimini twist. (So few turns should come as no surprise for regular readers of SPORT FISHING; others may want to find some of our knot-test features online; fact is that hours of testing proved to me that this is the strongest knot and in most braids offers 90-100 percent strength.) I follow that with a Yucatan (aka bristol) knot to connect main (braided) line to a (fairly light) mono or fluoro leader. Tiny knot, tiny footprint, casts easily through the guides and is amazingly durable.

Finally, while offering thoughts on braided line, I see it as something of a conservation tool, especially since I love to fish light tackle. That's because I am fishing little spinning reels that used to hold 200 yards of 6-pound mono but now hold 300 yards of 12-pound braid. So the line is lighter and thinner than 6-pound; I fish it as if it were 6- (or okay, maybe 8-) pound. But in those rare moments when I actually hook a fish that is too big for the tackle, rather than worry about being spooled or about an extended fight that may wear out a fish I want to release, I can simply crank the drag or put a bit more palm on the spool and get the fish to the boat.

So, love it (most of the time) or hate it (now and then), braid will no doubt remain my line of choice for most fishing, inshore and off. What do you prefer -- and why? Put your feedback in the forum on this; I'll be curious to see what others are thinking and why.

Deep Dropping in the Gulf of Mexico

TOP SHOT — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:02:20 -0400

Just back from a couple days waaaay out on the northern Gulf of Mexico and I thought I'd share a few interesting moments and observations. Of course, you'll read and see more in a Sport Fishing feature next year, but in the meantime....

We left Destin about dark on Capt. Gary Jarvis' Back Down 2 and traveled southwest until about 9 a.m. That put us somewhere off Alabama, I guessed, and in about 400 feet. (Yes, much of the Gulf is indeed a pretty shallow body of water.) Our first objective was to do some deep dropping and there, in 400 feet, we did.

In my book, that's on the shallow end of true deep dropping. However, when the current is screaming, as it was this morning (thanks, Murphy!), 400 feet can seem very deep indeed. I foolishly tossed out a 12-ounce Williamson metal jig. Forget that: Half a spool of 50-pound braid later, my line trailed off the stern at a 30-degree angle. No way were we going to get such gear near bottom.

Doing that would take several pounds -- more than our heavy spinning or conventional jigging reels could manage.

That's when we broke out the Daiwa Dendoh electrics. Without them we might never have had the chance to find out what was on Jarvis's lat/lon numbers. But with 6 1/2 pounds, we did get some baited circle hooks to bottom. We pulled in several grouper from a couple spots, not staying too long on either. Notably, we caught three impressive yellowedge grouper of at least 30 pounds or so. Hardly common, the yellowedge surprised even Jarvis.

Also notable, I thought: the fact that even though oil rigs dotted the horizon in pretty much every direction, Jarvis chose to leave that obvious structure to other boats and concentrate on small piles of rock or rubble to find fish.

In the afternoon, we trolled for pelagics, but even a nice weedline that seemed to stretch out infinitely didn't give up a fish. No doubt part of the dilemma lay in the fact that the water far offshore was as green as the Mississippi River. That definitely put a kibosh on our hopes of finding yellowfin.

Just before dark, Jarvis's crew set up to night-drift for swordfish. We ended up catching three, though all were pups and only one legal.

Still, Jarvis made sure to point out that this was some crazy number of swordfish trips in a row - 12, I think - without failing to catch at least one.

That's notable, too, it occurred to me, particularly in the context of another Atlantic big-game pelagic, bluefin tuna. Bluefin are on the skids, big time. Anyone who reads news in Sport Fishing and our editorials (most recently in the June issue), knows that. The Coastal Conservation Association has courageously come out for a total moratorium on catching Atlantic bluefin tuna (commercially or recreationally). If you doubt that could restore bluefin tuna populations and create phenomenal fishing, just look at swordfishing today -- where skippers enjoy the sort of success Jarvis relates, along the Atlantic seaboard and through the Gulf.

Fifteen years ago, so few swordfish remained in these waters that virtually no anglers bothered to target them. Then the feds banned longlining from large areas of our exclusive economic zone where they pup and grow and, bingo! The broadbill are back.

While I also support the idea of a moratorium to address the desperate straits in which bluefin now swim, the swordy's success particularly illustrates why federal fishery managers need to close our Gulf of Mexico waters to longlines where bluefin tuna bycatch occurs because this area is the prime breeding grounds for the entire western stock of north Atlantic bluefin.

Here's hoping those same fishery managers find the will to do for bluefin tuna what they did for swordfish. Granted, the ocean-crossing bluefin's situation is even more complex and confounding, but this is one action the U.S. could do unilaterally that would make a difference.

I'd love to think that maybe in 15 years, we'll be taking Gulf combo trips: catching big bluefin by day and big broadbill by night.

DOUG

http://www.sportfishingmag.com

Beware the Fish-Mount Bait-and-Switch

TOP SHOT — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:02:33 -0500

Just one rotten fish can taint a whole cooler filled with a fresh catch.

An unscrupulous crew on just one charter boat can raise a red flag for other charter operators throughout the area, the vast majority of whom are honest and work hard to engender public trust. That trust can be set back all too quickly when local headlines warn anglers/visitors who would charter an offshore boat to be cautious lest they find themselves ripped off in a taxidermy scam.

No doubt all the ethical, straight-shooting skippers in Florida were chagrined last year to see news reports of a group of Broward County fishing-charter captains and mates who had been doing some serious pocket-lining by cheating and lying to passengers for years. The scam's hardly new though it often remains below public radar, usually (and cleverly) preying upon tourists who haven't the experience to recognize it for what it is. The game works like this:

You're told at the outset of your trip that, by the way, the skipper has a fantastic taxidermist - by far the best in the business and most reasonable, etc. You say, "Thanks, but I don't figure on catching anything I'll want to mount."

Then, you or another angler hooks an "incredible" fish - one that the excited crew hasn't seen the likes of in years, maybe ever. What might such a momentous catch be? From a few online forum rants, I can tell you such catches have included various barracuda (probably the most common "trophy" in these scams, typically 20- to 35-pounders), amberjack, a 6-foot "rare golden hammerhead" shark, various sailfish (they're all "huge" sails, even the 5-footers), a bull dolphin (another "amazingly rare" fish), an African pompano and other species.

As, of course, the crew knows, you're a visitor and probably have little expertise with fishing salt water, and these experts' astonishment at your barracuda seems sincere. They make clear during the rest of the trip that you'd be crazy to not have it mounted; if you balk, they will emphasize how incredibly cheap it really is. If you still aren't sure, the skipper may try other tacks, such as insisting that you took far too long to decide, and now the fish is dead, so (ethically or legally) you have to get it mounted.

None of the crew ever suggested to you, before they eagerly gaffed your trophy, that releasing it alive was an option - as was a cheaper, longer-lasting replica mount (which is what nearly all fish mounts are, today).

Ultimately, as the final step of the hard sell, out comes the paperwork - and your credit card. Only later do you find out you were had, big time, since (a) your fish was a common species, not terribly large and in no sense the trophy it was reputed to be; (b) you needn't have killed it to have a great mount; and (c) the "full price" quoted to you was but a fraction of the true, final, total cost.

The root of the problem is, like most evils, money: The crew members get to keep as their commission whatever down payment they can squeeze out of you.

One of the more reprehensible fish-mount scams recently ended in indictments of four crew members from the 54-foot, North Miami Beach charter boat Therapy IV last fall. For years, according to allegations in the federal indictment, the crew had been convincing many passengers to have sailfish, including those woefully under the legal size limit, mounted. Federal indictments against the four included charges of making false claims (that Gray's Taxidermy required the skin to mount the fish), failure to report billfish killed as required by law and retention of undersized billfish.

As satisfying as it is to see con artists nailed, there will always be those pushing charter-trip rip-offs, scamming the naïve, the trusting, the easy mark. Again, it should be emphasized that we're talking about a very tiny fraction of charter-boat crews, but the unscrupulous are out there.

Do your homework before booking a trip. Know that most game fish do not have to be killed for a great mount. Don’t be in a hurry to sign on any dotted line.

Of course, I may be preaching by and large to the choir since most readers of Sport Fishing are well past the novice stage when it comes to marine angling. Even so, I'd urge you to pass along this advice to friends or relatives who may be headed on vacation to touristy coastal areas where sport-fishing charter boats are part of the scene, around the United States and much of the world.

Let's do what we can to keep bait-and-switch tactics focused on fooling fish, not fishermen.

First Look at a Land of Contradictions

TOP SHOT — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:36:55 -0400

New Caledonia is a land of contradictions. Its very tropical fishing with lush reefs (forming one of the largest encircling lagoons in the world) takes place around an island surprisingly arid and surprisingly moderate in climate. Its placement in the midst of Melanesia (north of New Zealand), suggests dark-skinned natives speaking some local dialect, but in fact it's trés European - French to be specific, since this large island is a French colony. Another contradiction: vast areas of beautiful flats but, so far, rather limited access to it all.

Fishing as a serious sport is still in its infancy here, so it's largely about describing the possible and the potential. And the potential is pretty amazing, both in terms of habitat and the size of bonefish here. Beyond that, I'll ask you to stand by and read the fine print in my feature of visiting/fishing New Caledonia, tentatively scheduled for the May issue of Sport Fishing. But in the meantime, here are a few images from my visit in October, to give you some idea what you'll see in that article.

Rudy Boué-Mandil / Poisson Banane, New Caledonia

You can comment on Doug's Blog here!

What's "Fair" in Fishing?

TOP SHOT — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:49:07 -0400
"Dear Mr. Olander, I need to get something off my chest."

So begins a letter recently from a reader in Wilmette, Illinois. His beef? An item in the IGFA Report (October) that describes the capture of 104-pound blue marlin on 12-pound tippet after a 1 1/2-hour battle as "a fair fight." He suggests the style of fishing is unfair because it's simply a matter of hooking the fish then chasing it relentlessly with a fast boat until, exhausted, "the fish floats to the top."

That letter opens up several worm cans, but it's worth exploring. I'll state here my thoughts on that charge - but of course mine is just one man's opinion; I'd like to read some of yours.

I should start by saying I've written editorials critical of the style of fishing the reader describes. However, I don't think the charge is necessarily fair, here. One can indeed find IGFA line-class records where billfish weighing well into three figures were caught not only on ultra-light lines (e.g. 4- or 6- or 8-pound) but - and this is particularly telling - landed, according to notarized forms, in just a few minutes!

Is that "a fair fight"? Some argue it is -- that doing this is another phase of our sport and requires great equipment and teamwork. But it seems to me to defeat the spirit of the sport.

Another editorial I penned some years ago suggested anglers should really test their skill only from a dead boat, when possible. No chasing. Of course that concept has many caveats, among them:

* It's really relevant only with fish that often fight on the top -- primarily billfishes though it may apply to dolphin (mahi) and wahoo. These are fish that can be chased. A big tuna that heads down requires essentially a dead-boat fight anyway.

* It's not a good idea if the angler is using very light line since that risks (a) being spooled and the last thing anyone should want is a game fish swimming around the ocean dragging hundreds of yards of line or (b) a very long fight time which can leave the fish seriously impaired. (Yes, ironically, the letter writer has backwards, I think: chasing with a boat will usually shorten fight times and increase the odds of a fish being in better shape for release.)

But I do think dead-boat fishing, with line appropriately heavy, combined with good tackle and a skilled angler, is the most sporting way to fish: mano a fino, if you will. Man (or woman) versus fish. Period.

But in any event, back to the letter. I suspect the fight was fair indeed, even if a chase boat saw some use. Had this been one of those light-line-class battles that lasted 4 minutes (from time of hookup until time crew could get gaffs into the surface-swimming fish), I might agree. But if an experienced, skilled angler requires 90 minutes to beat a marlin, that suggests the boat didn't (or couldn't) chase it relentlessly. (Keep in mind, billfish sure don't always cooperate, often sounding, in which case unless the boat is a submersible, it can't help.) Rather, it suggests a long, difficult battle during which time the angler probably earned his bragging rights.

What do you think? Fair or unfair, and why? And what are your thoughts on dead-boat fishing as the most sporting way to take on a fish?

What do you think? Go here to comment:
http://forums.sportfishingmag.com/sh...d.php?p=373969

Light Tackle on the B.C. Coast

TOP SHOT — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:30:06 -0400

If you’ve never fished the wild coast of British Columbia, you’re missing out. Particularly for those who’ve spent years — possibly a lifetime — fishing the East or Gulf coast, it’s simply a completely different world that every serious angler ought to experience. Even when things are slow, they’re pretty darn fast. In most areas, there is no such thing as “slow” bottomfishing, by the way, so no angler need ever lack for action. Salmon runs vary in size and timing, however. The past few years have been red hot for salmon; this year much of the coast had cooled, at least by the time we got there in early September. But even so, we had plenty of action. And we did it all with light spinning and baitcast outfits spooled with 8- to 15-pound braid. Fishing that gear up there is, simply, a riot.

We fished Milbanke Sound on the central coast of the province with West Coast Resorts (www.westcoastresorts.com). Most of B.C.’s fly in trips are based on a pretty complete package, including the flight up from Vancouver at least in part by floatplane. That approach makes things pretty easy since you have little to worry about beyond getting yourself to Vancouver; you pays your money and you takes your fishing trip! You’ll read the whole story with full details in an upcoming issue of SPORT FISHING but, to whet your appetite, here are a few images:

Habitat galore gives anglers almost unlimited opportunity to explore island, channels, passes, rockpiles, reefs and pinnacles, with depths often varying wildly and over short distances. A good GPS with navionics or other software adds safety and also helps find/return to submerged structure.

Though bluebird weather is common in the latter part of summer, best to count on some grey/rainy/windy periods. But it takes more than a little wild weather to stop salmon trollers from working the grounds as here, not far from West Coast Resorts lodge.

Sport Fishing contributor Paul Sharman, with www.fishandfly.com based in the United Kingdom, appreciates a vermilion rockfish taken along a steep, rocky dropoff on a little Penn 260 slammer with light braid and a Raider jig with an extra spinner blade added for flash.

My spousal unit, Jackie, and I were pretty happy with a 55-pound halibut that put up a tough battle on 15-pound braid after it slammed a big Storm Wildeye Shad.

About 20 minutes south of the resort, we found good numbers of 10- to 12-pound bocaccio rockfish like this brace near (but not on) bottom in 120 to 150 feet. They pounded jigs and plastic tails and offered a great fight.

While coho (a.k.a. silver) salmon are the primary target in late summer, some fair chinook (a.k.a. springs, locally) remain a good possibility such as this 25-pounder that struck a trolled herring.

You can comment on Doug's blog here.

Yet Another Study Proves the Value of Circle Hooks

TOP SHOT — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:24:50 -0400

A study just published reaffirms why, anglers ought to be using circle hooks - unless they intend/expect to keep every fish caught.

The North American Journal of Fisheries Management published online in late July a study titled, "Catch-and-Release Mortality in Subadult and Adult Red Drum Captured with Popular Fishing Hook Types." The study looked at redfish release mortality for circle versus J hooks, noting an enormous surge in the numbers of this most-popular inshore game fish being released.

The result leaves absolutely no doubt of far less mortality with circle hooks (particularly with nonoffset circle hooks - that is, with the hook point lining up in the same plane as the rest of the hook; offset circles still showed less mortality than J hooks but greater mortality that nonoffset circles). The proportion of deep-hooked fish with circle hooks was virtually nil versus J-hooks with nearly one out of three reds deep hooked on Js. Circle hooks proved "significantly more successful" at hooking fish, also, so what's not to like?

Bottom line is clear enough: If you haven't made the switch (to circles) when fishing bait, you should, except in specific fisheries where for whatever reason J hooks are essential.

You can comment on Doug's Blog here!

Fish Story? Check Snopes First...

TOP SHOT — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:18:16 -0400

The world of fish offers yet another area ripe for misinformation at the least and hoaxes at the worst. I was reminded of that today when an old buddy of mine - who does some fishing but isn't widely traveled - sent me images of a very large tigerfish, it's frighteningly oversized conical teeth protruding from both jaws. I've seen this several times in the past week or so, in most cases sent wanting to share -per the information so thoughtfully provided by some sender thousands upon thousands of e-mails (but only a matter of days) ago - stating unequivocally that this piranha shows why you sure don't want to go swimming in Brazil!

I can only wonder how many people take emails such as this at face value - and can only guess: many if not most.

Not only is this not a piranha, but: it's a very different species; its teeth are nothing like those of piranha; it gets much, much larger than any species of carnivorous piranha; its shape is long and narrow whereas a pirana is compact like a dinner plate; since it lives in southern African rivers, no tigerfish will ever bother anyone in Brazil; and as far as I know (unlike piranha) it is not considered to be dangerous to swimmers.

Besides setting the record straight, this seems like a good opportunity to remind folks to be skeptical... be very skeptical -- of most things you read or see on the internet (except, of course, in this blog!).

When uncertain, there's no place like www.snopes.com, debunker of a zillion urban legends. Indeed, you'll find this bit of baloney addressed at www.snopes.com/photos/hunting/piranha.asp.

Remember the image of a big shark shadowing an apparently unaware kayaker (the shark dwarfing the kayak!) that, if you're like me, you received from 10 different sources? Well that one is legitimate - and Snopes has the story (at www.snopes.com/photos/animals/sharkkayak.asp).

If Snopes isn't one of your internet "favorites," it ought to be; check it out next time you get an e-mail that seems ... a little fishy!

You can discuss this blog here in our forums!

A Rare Catch

TOP SHOT — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:07:54 -0400

Did you ever catch a marlin or a sailfish at night? If so, I'd like to know. So would billfish scientists.

That's because if you answered "yes" to my question, you're among what is apparently a very exclusive group of anglers to have ever done so.

It would seem that billfish (not counting swordfish here) simply do not feed after dark. After all, these days more than ever and particularly off eastern and southern Florida, there's no shortage of juicy billfish baits swimming around out there in billfish country at night - such as live blue runners and rigged squid - as anglers tempt broadbills. Yet one almost never hears of marlin or sails being caught at night.

While working on a 2008 feature on night fishing offshore, I wondered why this might be and consulted with some world-renown experts before tackling the subject in a sidebar. Their response was just what common sense suggests: Apparently these billfish just don't feed much, if at all, after dark. From all accounts - including satellite tagging data - the billfish are there, at or near the surface at night.

Unless of course they're caught more often than we realize.

That's why, again, scientists and this editor would love to hear any true/honest accounts of marlin or sails being caught at night and the details of such a catch -- with a photo would be even better. If any such accounts exist, click on the link below to add your information to the forum. I'll also forward the information to Eric Prince (in the U.S.) and Kerstin Fritsches (in Australia), both Ph.D. billfish experts. - Doug Olander

Go here to share your experience!