Based on What???

[tekkydiver]

I would love to see the data for this. How did they come up with the numbers??

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishery_b.../fb15-060_sa_recreational_hogfish_closure.pdf

 

[spoolin01]

You can look up which committee makes the recommendations to NMFS and ask them what their methodology is. It may or may not make any sense to a rational person. Sportsmen's groups are eternally involved with pushing wildlife management assessments towards gathering of valid data.

The notice mentions permitted vessels in a recreational fishery. I've been out for tasty hogfish a few times in the Keys and permits didn't seem to be a feature - where and to whom does this apply?

 

[EL Pistoffo]

Well that sucks. It seems more and more often fishing is being restricted.

 

[Johnoly]

.... How did they come up with the numbers??

The numbers are in SEDAR 37. The problem is much of the older data is so whacked they should have only used the most recent years which showed a more consistent relationship. As an example, they only have one single data point for 10 years from NC. And of course you know the famous line "Use the best AVAILABLE data" even if it's crud.

where and to whom does this apply?

Southeast atlantic FEDERAL WATERS, not state waters.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

Based on my 40 years of "observational" data, this should not be a surprise to anyone. There are almost no hogs, especially big ones, in any real numbers compared to the 80s.

I had thought this fish was off the radar because they are not a sport fish or hook-and-line fish. Glad to see that some moderate protective steps are being taken.

If we give nature a rest, species can rebound with surprising speed and numbers. Best example--real world--in the 80s I helped uphold the winter closure of the Atlantic kingfish once a certain amount were caught. Within a few years the population had recovered to such an extent that the closures mostly fell away and populations are healthy with size and bag limits in place. So, let's try to give NOAA a break and let them do their best for the hogfish.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Comparing kingfish to Hogfish is ridiculous. NOAA has essentially zero data on recreational harvest of hogfish. The kingfish fishery was decimated by wholeslae commercial destruction with fleets of airplanes coordinating with purse seiners to take a huge proportion of the migrating schools of fish.

Why again should we trust this agency?

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

Well, the comparison is more apt than you think. The opponents of the kingfish closures said basically the same thing at the time. Not enough data, no reliable data, hidden agendas. I found the NMFS scientists involved to be conscientious, the data to be diligently calculated and supportive of the closure, but not perfect (is it ever, in any endeavor?), and their motives solely the welfare and sustainability of the fish. Yes, the economic impact on the fishing industry was not in their calculus, but it was not supposed to be. Those interests were heard in court, which ruled for the NMFS in the end. Full disclosure, I was the assistant U.S. Attorney who represented the agency against commercial and sportfishing suits to enjoin the closure.

I am not surprised that data on harvest of hogfish is not extensive. For kingfish, the NMFS had observers on commercial vessels and some decent real-time tracking of a large part of the harvest and its decline over the years. Spearing of hogfish is much more diffused. Who is going to monitor every private dock, public boat ramp, marina, dive boat, snorkeler, etc. looking for hogfish? You are just not going to have as extensive a data set. So, I agree that calculating protective measures for hogfish are significantly more subject to estimation as opposed to "precise" calculation. That being said, if they are acting on the best data available then I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Anti-government passion is often shown on this board. I offer you a real-world example based on direct observation of the agency in action, and it was an example of conscientious people, using the information at their disposal (which, by the way, is far more information than their critics can bring to bear), attempting to protect a fishery for the continued and future enjoyment of all. More important, it was a success in every objective term, ultimately for all users of the resource.

You ask, why should we "trust" them. I might ask, why should we not? You claim they don't have much date, but they have more data and a bigger picture than any individual or interest group. Their actions and data are public and subject to review and public comment. No one has pointed out some agenda on their part other than sustaining the species.

Finally, I believe anyone diving since the 70s, being objective, cannot doubt that hogfish are much less numerous and much smaller than ever around South Florida. Is this "scientific?", Well, I don't know (but observation is part of science, too). In any case, my observation of the situation supports protective measures and I am willing to rely on people who do this full time and have much more data than I to determine the degree of protection needed, expecially when their actions are open to the public.

 

[dumpsterDiver]

Well, the comparison is more apt than you think. The opponents of the kingfish closures said basically the same thing at the time. Not enough data, no reliable data, hidden agendas. I found the NMFS scientists involved to be conscientious, the data to be diligently calculated and supportive of the closure, but not perfect (is it ever, in any endeavor?), and their motives solely the welfare and sustainability of the fish. Yes, the economic impact on the fishing industry was not in their calculus, but it was not supposed to be. Those interests were heard in court, which ruled for the NMFS in the end. Full disclosure, I was the assistant U.S. Attorney who represented the agency against commercial and sportfishing suits to enjoin the closure.

I am not surprised that data on harvest of hogfish is not extensive. For kingfish, the NMFS had observers on commercial vessels and some decent real-time tracking of a large part of the harvest and its decline over the years. Spearing of hogfish is much more diffused. Who is going to monitor every private dock, public boat ramp, marina, dive boat, snorkeler, etc. looking for hogfish? You are just not going to have as extensive a data set. So, I agree that calculating protective measures for hogfish are significantly more subject to estimation as opposed to "precise" calculation. That being said, if they are acting on the best data available then I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Anti-government passion is often shown on this board. I offer you a real-world example based on direct observation of the agency in action, and it was an example of conscientious people, using the information at their disposal (which, by the way, is far more information than their critics can bring to bear), attempting to protect a fishery for the continued and future enjoyment of all. More important, it was a success in every objective term, ultimately for all users of the resource.

You ask, why should we "trust" them. I might ask, why should we not? You claim they don't have much date, but they have more data and a bigger picture than any individual or interest group. Their actions and data are public and subject to review and public comment. No one has pointed out some agenda on their part other than sustaining the species.

Finally, I believe anyone diving since the 70s, being objective, cannot doubt that hogfish are much less numerous and much smaller than ever around South Florida. Is this "scientific?", Well, I don't know (but observation is part of science, too). In any case, my observation of the situation supports protective measures and I am willing to rely on people who do this full time and have much more data than I to determine the degree of protection needed, expecially when their actions are open to the public.

South Florida observations are not necessarily representative of the entire South Atlantic. Most spearfisherman would have supported a much more logical increase in minimum size, reduced bag limit and better data collection efforts, rather than such a drastic closure.

All we have to do is look at the total idiocy of red snapper regulations to know that the fishery management science is exceptionally weak and we should NEVER trust the government. In fact it is our responsibility as citizens to question their decisions and actions at every conceivable opportunity - or they will have even less accountability for their actions.

 

[Johnoly]

Finally, I believe anyone diving since the 70s, being objective, cannot doubt that hogfish are much less numerous and much smaller than ever around South Florida.

Although I may disagree with you on many other points, I'm pretty much on your side with this statement.

I just think we can provide a better long term solution by increasing the size limit rather than a closure.

 

[guyharrisonphoto]

I don't disagree with anyone who has different ideas for protection. Mostly, I am just glad that people see the need.

My best idea: eat more lionfish!!

There have been lots of studies on the beneficial effects of temporary closures (which I know from experience) or no-fish zones as actually accelerating the recovery of fisheries, so I don't quarrel with the NOAA decision to try that.

Bag and size limits are good also but not panaceas. The current bag limit is 5. Based on what I see, anyone would be very hard pressed to actually bag 5 legal hogs in most places I dive so I am not sure it is doing much. AS for size limits, for many fish it is actually the bigger specimens that are the prime "breeders" so increasing size limits emphasizes taking of these, and can actually be detrimental.

Whatever management is put in place, it needs to allow enough small fish to grow to breeding size and continue living long enough once they get there to replenish the take.