Rosie O'Donnell the Shark murderer. And Mark the Shark charters

[Allison Finch]

Ok, that was a fairly old study, yet viable today. How about a newer one? What makes me think you won't read either study?

The Daily Journal of the United States Government

​

Notice​

​

Stock Status Determination for Atlantic Highly Migratory Scalloped Hammerhead Shark

A Notice by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on 04/28/2011

• EMAIL
• TWITTER
• FACEBOOK

Previous ArticleNext Article
LEGAL DISCLAIMER


Font Controls

• Increase
• Decrease
• Sans
• Serif

PDF XML PRINT
Publication Date:Thursday, April 28, 2011Agencies:Department of CommerceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationAction:Notice.Entry Type:NoticePage:23794-23795 (2 pages)Document Citation:76 FR 23794Agency/Docket Number:RIN 0648-XA196Document Number:2011-10328Shorter URL:Federal Register | Stock Status Determination for Atlantic Highly Migratory Scalloped Hammerhead Shark

SUMMARY


This action serves as a notice that NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), has determined that overfishing is occurring on an Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) scalloped hammerhead shark, and the stock is overfished.

Show citation box​

NMFS notifies the public whenever it determines that: overfishing is occurring, a stock is overfished, or a stock is approaching an overfished condition.

Show citation box​

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Back to Top


Peter Cooper at 301-713-2347 or Jackie Wilson at 240-338-3936.

Show citation box​

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Back to Top


For an Atlantic HMS that has been determined to be overfished or approaching an overfished condition, NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary, must take action to end or prevent overfishing in the fishery and to implement conservation and management measures to rebuild overfished stocks within 2 years of making this determination. This action must include implementing a rebuilding plan, through an FMP amendment or regulations, which ends overfishing immediately and provides for rebuilding the fishery in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(3)-(4) as implemented by 50 CFR 600.310(j)(2)(ii). When developing rebuilding plans, in addition to rebuilding the fishery within the shortest time possible in accordance with 16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4) and 50 CFR 600.310(j)(3), NMFS must ensure that such actions address the requirements to amend the FMP for each affected stock or stock complex to establish a mechanism for specifying and actually specify Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) to prevent overfishing in accordance with16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(15) and 50 CFR 600.310(j)(2)(i).

Show citation box​

In October 2009, Hayes et al. (2009) published in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management a stock assessment of the Atlantic population of scalloped hammerhead sharks in U.S. waters. Based on this paper, in 2005, the population was estimated to be at 45 percent of the biomass that would produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and fishing mortality was estimated to be 129 percent of fishing mortality associated with MSY. The stock is estimated to be depleted by approximately 83 percent of virgin stock size (i.e., the current population is only 17 percent of the virgin stock size). In addition, it was estimated that a total allowable catch (TAC) of 2,853 scalloped hammerhead sharks per year (or 69 percent of 2005 catch) would allow a 70 percent probability of rebuilding within 10 years. NMFS has reviewed this paper and concluded that: the assessment is complete; the assessment is an improvement over a 2008 aggregated species assessment for hammerhead sharks; and the assessment is appropriate for U.S. management decisions.

Show citation box​

Based on the results of this paper, NMFS is making the determination that scalloped hammerhead sharks are overfished and experiencing overfishing. Pending the results of the ongoing sandbar, dusky, and blacknose shark stock assessments, NMFS will publish a Notice of Intent regarding the development of a fishery management plan amendment and implementing regulations to end overfishing and rebuild the scalloped hammerhead shark stock within two years as mandated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In addition, for fisheries experiencing overfishing, NMFS must propose and adopt effective ACLs and AMs to end overfishing.

Show citation box​

Dated: April 25, 2011.
Margo Schulze-Haugen,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

 

[Allison Finch]

If you didn't read the 2011 paper from the Federal Register....the daily journal of the United States Government. They are saying that the "limits" have been set incorrectly and that many sharks have been OVERFISHED and that the fishing laws need to be amended.

 

[Mike]

Awesome posts Allison!

But I'm not sure what point you are trying to make posting research parroting exactly what I've been saying all this time that the problem is shark fining, which has decimated the world's shark populations, but I'm glad you came around.

Maybe you should send copies of those links over to China. Here is a graph to include.

Some great information about the problem

ducation - Shark Finning Facts

What is Shark Finning?

• Shark finning refers to the removal and retention of shark fins and the discard at sea of the carcass. The shark is most often still alive when it is tossed back into the water. Unable to swim, the shark slowly sinks toward the bottom where it is eaten alive by other fish.
• Shark finning takes place at sea so the fishers have only the fins to transport. Shark meat is considered low value and therefore not worth the cost of transporting the bulky shark bodies to market.
• Any shark is taken-regardless of age, size, or species.
• Longlines, used in shark finning operations, are the most significant cause of losses in shark populations worldwide.
• Shark finning is widespread, and largely unmanaged and unmonitored.
• Shark finning has increased over the past decade due to the increasing demand for shark fins (for shark fin soup and traditional cures), improved fishing technology, and improved market economics.
• Shark specialists estimate that 100 million sharks are killed for their fins, annually.
• One pound of dried shark fin can retail for $300 or more. It's a multi-billion dollar industry.

Impacts of Shark Finning

• Loss and devastation of shark populations around the world. Experts estimate that within a decade, most species of sharks will be lost because of longlining.
• Unsustainable fishery. The massive quantity of sharks harvested and lack of selection deplete shark populations faster than their reproductive abilities can replenish populations.
• Threatens the stability of marine ecosystems.
• Loss of sharks as a food staple for many developing countries.
• Local waters are invaded by large industrial, foreign fishing vessels that threaten traditional sustainable fisheries.
• Threatens socio-economically important recreational fisheries.
• Obstructs the collection of species-specific data that are essential for monitoring catches and implementing sustainable fisheries management.
• Wasteful of protein and other shark-based products. Up to 99 per cent of the shark is thrown away.

Are there laws against shark finning?

• Each country with a coastline is responsible for laws and regulations pertaining to fishing in their waters.
• A number of countries have shark-finning legislation. Many stipulate that fins must arrive in a 5 per cent weight ratio of the shark carcasses onboard. Only a few countries demand that sharks arrive in port with fins attached.
• According to the IUCN Shark Specialist group, the easiest way to implement a ban is to require that shark carcasses be landed with fins attached. The possession of fins alone on vessels would thus be illegal.
• Shark finning violates the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
• Shark finning is contrary to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's International Plan for the Conservation and Management of Sharks.
• The United Nations Convention on the Trade of Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna (CITES) lists the whale shark, basking shark, and great white shark as species that could become threatened if trade is not controlled. To date, 169 countries have agreed to be legally bound by CITES.

Good to see you've come around to what the problem is.

I read your posts, did you watch the documentary? If you can't devote 15 minutes to it, start about 4 minutes in and see if you can make it through 5 minutes of it, then come back and tell me what you think. Perhaps you'll get some perspective to the ridiculousness of worrying about Mark the Shark versus these shark finners eradicating sharks faster than you can believe. They should all be shot in the f**k'n heads.

 

[merxlin]

I'm out. This has become pointless.

 

[giantfan]

Again I'm not saying the I agree with Mark the Shark's practices.... but all the reports that were just posted don't even mention the Rec side of it.... they are saying "overfishing" commercial being the biggest problem.

The example that you posted above is talking about the Scallopped Hammerhead. No? I'm not sure how you can say that the recs are doing damage to this species when it it illegal to catch by a rec???? http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Compliance_Guide/Rec/Rec_Compliance_Guide_Total.pdf

See page 16

Believe me.... If Mark the Shark were to bring one of these back to the dock..... given all the publicity this guy gets..... he would be locked up and his boat seized in a NY min.

Sharks are in trouble and need help..... thats for sure. But by us recs tagging and passing along info to the NMFS we are trying to help the situation not hurt it..... I want nephews (don't have kids) and their great grand kids to be able to go out and catch a shortfin mako.... bring it home and consume it just as bad if not more then you.... I think the point that Mike is making is that instead of going after the rec guys..... you really should be directing this to the com guys as they are the ones that are doing the damage.

Rec fishermen are never going to wipe out a species..... NEVER!

 

[Allison Finch]

Mike, you, OBVIOUSLY, did not read the second post made by the Federal Govt. saying sharks in this country have been overfished and the laws need to be changed. It is from 2011, so finning wasn't the issue. Ya shoulda read both before spoutin off!

Giant, the hammerheads are being fished just outside state waters circumventing existing laws. a ban would have to include federal protections, not state.

NMFS will publish a Notice of Intent regarding the development of a fishery management plan amendment and implementing regulations to end overfishing

​

And, charter fishing IS considered commercial fishing.


Merxlin, no one is making you read the beating of the dead horse, are they? it is your decision alone.

 

[giantfan]

Giant, the hammerheads are being fished just outside state waters circumventing existing laws. a ban would have to include federal protections, not state.

Not sure if I understand. NMFS stands for NATIONAL marine fisheries service which is a division of NOAA. It doesn't get any more federal then that.

Charter boat have to abide by the rec laws and not the commercial laws... the only instance that I know of charters having a different set of rules is when it comes to Blue fin tuna..... All must have a HMS permit charters and recs

 

[giantfan]

This comes from page 4 of the link I listed above

Where do the federal regulations apply?​

Federal recreational fishing regulations apply in federal waters, and may alsoapply to recreational fishing in state waters. Fishermen possessing a federalHMS fishing permit who are fishing in state waters should note that thefederal regulations apply, unless the state regulations are more restrictive.Therefore, fishermen who are planning on fishing in state waters shouldfamiliarize themselves with the appropriate state regulations, as the appropriateregulations (federal or state) may be species and situation-specific. A list of​

state agency contacts can be found in Section XV.

 

[merxlin]

..................Merxlin, no one is making you read the beating of the dead horse, are they? it is your decision alone.

You know, we are on the same side don't you?

For me there comes a point where there is nothing left to say. I reached that point in my exchange with Mike. It is obvious he has no interest in changing his perspective, so I am not going to spend any more time with him.

 

[Mike]

You know, we are on the same side don't you?

For me there comes a point where there is nothing left to say. I reached that point in my exchange with Mike. It is obvious he has no interest in changing his perspective, so I am not going to spend any more time with him.

That's just it, you think it's about 'sides'. Allison gave it to you straight, it's not about sides. Maybe if you figured that out, you'd be more inclined to open your eyes, ears and brain about what's being posted here instead of being obstinate to everything but "your side".

Your statements verify everything I said about people who post this garbage, hysterical non-sense. It's all based on emotion and not reality. You ignore all facts unless they are from your 'side'.

And as Alison said, if you're done with the conversation, all you have to do is walk away, you don't need our permission to do so and non of us need to know you're leaving. Just do so, simple as that. Unless of course you're one of those that must announce he's taking his ball and leaving, then you've done so. Adios.

Mike, you, OBVIOUSLY, did not read the second post made by the Federal Govt. saying sharks in this country have been overfished and the laws need to be changed. It is from 2011, so finning wasn't the issue. Ya shoulda read both before spoutin off!

As I already said, I did read it all. There is nothing there except the problems resulting from shark finners. As I said, glad you're on board now.

Did you watch the documentary?

Again I'm not saying the I agree with Mark the Shark's practices.... but all the reports that were just posted don't even mention the Rec side of it.... they are saying "overfishing" commercial being the biggest problem.

The example that you posted above is talking about the Scallopped Hammerhead. No? I'm not sure how you can say that the recs are doing damage to this species when it it illegal to catch by a rec???? http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/Compliance_Guide/Rec/Rec_Compliance_Guide_Total.pdf

See page 16

Believe me.... If Mark the Shark were to bring one of these back to the dock..... given all the publicity this guy gets..... he would be locked up and his boat seized in a NY min.

Sharks are in trouble and need help..... thats for sure. But by us recs tagging and passing along info to the NMFS we are trying to help the situation not hurt it..... I want nephews (don't have kids) and their great grand kids to be able to go out and catch a shortfin mako.... bring it home and consume it just as bad if not more then you.... I think the point that Mike is making is that instead of going after the rec guys..... you really should be directing this to the com guys as they are the ones that are doing the damage.

Rec fishermen are never going to wipe out a species..... NEVER!

Exactly. It's not any more complicated an issue than that. It's simple once you remove the emotion from it and you're not in the "no shark can be killed, ever!" camp.