Introduction

For years, saltwater anglers and other conservationists have called for government action to stop the damaging by-kill and overfishing impacts of commercial pelagic (drift) longlines. Billfish, such as marlin and sailfish, cannot be commercially taken or sold; however, commercial longlines cause the overwhelming majority of fishing mortalities for billfish in U.S. waters: 98% of sailfish, 95% of Atlantic white marlin and 85% of Atlantic blue marlin.

The Coastal Conservation Association became involved in billfish management and protection in the late 1980s when it led the effort that resulted in the federal prohibition on commercial harvest and sale of Atlantic marlins and sailfish in 1988.

In 1998, CCA began to explore various ways to eliminate the significant and damaging by-kill impacts of commercial pelagic (drift) longlines on billfish and other important fisheries. Initial efforts resulted in a September 1999 announcement of an Agreement between CCA, The Billfish Foundation, American Sportfishing Association and the Blue Water Fishermen’s Association (a group representing commercial longliners). The Agreement outlined the parameters for developing and supporting federal legislation which would establish large time/area closures which prohibit pelagic longlining, provide funding for a voluntary buy-out of impacted commercial longliners, and set up a four-year longline by-catch research program. Legislation was developed and sponsors were obtained. The legislation supported by CCA is contained in S 1911 (Senator Breaux – LA) and HR 3390 (Congressman Goss – FL).

In December 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released a proposed regulatory amendment to the Highly Migratory Species – Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks Fishery Management Plan for public comment. The NMFS plan proposes to establish time/area closures very similar to those contained in the Breaux/Goss legislation. However, the NMFS proposal does not prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear in the "closed areas" for species such as dolphin (mahi-mahi). NMFS prepared and published the proposed amendment because of a court order which compelled them to do so by December 15. The court order came as a result of a lawsuit filed by several environmental/conservation groups who asserted that NMFS had done nothing to control by-catch damage from commercial drift longlines.

Many organizations and publications have produced articles and other materials on these measures to control longlines. A number of them contain statements with errors, factual misrepresentations and inaccurate assumptions regarding CCA’s support for the Breaux/Goss legislation (S 1911 and HR 3390) and CCA’s opposition to the NMFS proposal. The following issues, questions and answers are designed to clarify and correct those errors and misrepresentations.

Statement: The time and area closures will not really reduce the longline by-kill and other damage because the longline boats will just move to open areas and/or increase existing longlining effort (i.e., more sets, more hooks) in open areas.

False. The sheer size (more than 162,000 square nautical miles) and duration of the time and area closures make it very difficult, if not impossible, for all the existing longline effort to shift to open areas. Likewise, it would be wrong to assume that none of the effort would shift. The most likely scenario is somewhere between the two extremes. A major positive aspect of the Breaux/Goss legislation is that it also includes a voluntary buy-out provision that encourages longline boats to sell out rather than move to open areas. CCA estimates that nearly one-third (68) of the 210 vessels in the U. S. longline fleet would be eligible for and take advantage of the buy-out₍₁₎. It is estimated that the combined impacts of the area closures and buy-out in the Breaux/Goss proposal would reduce U. S. commercial take of juvenile (undersize) swordfish by 49% and reduce U.S. billfish by-catch mortality by the following amounts; sailfish 47%, blue marlin 32%, spearfish 29%, and white marlin 13%.

(1) The number of vessels in the U.S. longline fleet is currently restricted by a limited entry program which has limited the total number of vessels to 210.

Statement: The NMFS proposal prohibits all pelagic longlining in their proposed time and area closures.

False. The NMFS plan prohibits only pelagic longlining for Atlantic tunas, sharks and swordfish, it does not prohibit longlining for dolphin (mahi-mahi), wahoo or other species. NMFS would have to go to the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Federal Fishery Management Councils and get both of those councils to adopt separate management plans to prohibit longlining for other species in those areas. The Breaux/Goss legislation prohibits pelagic longlining for all species in the designated time and area closures. This complete prohibition is a key element for CCA, which does not want drift longliners to keep fishing in the closed areas by simply shifting to other species. Additionally, the growing directed longline fishery for dolphin, in which some longline boats have taken up to 30,000 lbs. per trip, is a major concern of CCA Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. The Breaux/Goss legislation accomplishes the complete prohibition on pelagic longlining for all species in a single action.

Statement: Linking conservation measures to a buy-out plan is a bad idea that will set a precedent for future regulatory actions.

CCA does not believe that the Breaux/Goss bills establish a precedent for buy-outs or other compensation with fishery regulations. Federal law and numerous court decisions clearly establish wild fish as publicly owned natural resources and taking such fish is a privilege not a right. As to precedent, the federal government has already appropriated tens of millions of dollars for vessel buy-out programs in the New England area where the cod and haddock stocks were collapsed by commercial overfishing. In addition, CCA Florida and CCA Louisiana supported net buy-out programs in conjunction with the net bans in those states. Also, eligibility for the buy-out in the Breaux/Goss legislation is related only to the permanent closure area in the Atlantic not the time and area closures in the Gulf. It is also interesting to note that some longliners are opposed to the legislation because they believe it would establish the precedent for the eventual buy-out of the entire fleet and a prohibition on pelagic longlining in all U.S. waters.

Statement: Recreational fishermen are being asked to foot the bill for the commercial buy-out program.

False. The Breaux/Goss legislation divides the 25 million dollar cost for the buy-out and by-catch research program among three groups: 15 million from the Federal government, 5 million from a 5¢ lb. surcharge on swordfish, and 5 million from recreational interests in the states benefiting from the closed areas (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina).

Statement: Every recreational fisherman who fishes in the areas closed to longlining will have to buy a $25 permit.

False. One of the options for obtaining the 5 million from recreational interests is a $25 permit per vessel (not per person) for vessels greater than 18 ft. in length that fish for tunas, swordfish and sharks in the closed areas. Additionally, at the request of CCA Florida and CCA Texas, the Breaux/Goss legislation contains a second option which allows any state to choose to pay their share out of other recreational license revenues and; therefore, not have a federal fishing permit requirement off of their state. The maximum amount that Florida recreational interests would have to provide is 2 million dollars. CCA Florida believes that if there were sufficient saltwater recreational license revenues for the Florida Legislature to fund a $400,000 baitfish study related to the tarp net program, then there is enough to pay $400,000 for 5 years to completely, and forever, prohibit all pelagic longlining in the entire Gulf Stream off Florida’s East coast.

Statement: The Breaux/Goss legislation would prohibit NMFS from taking any further actions to regulate pelagic longlining.

False. The legislation does prohibit NMFS from expanding or adding additional time and area closures for a period of four years, except under specific emergency situations. However, it does not prevent NMFS from taking any other actions to control longlines such as establishing or reducing quotas for certain species, limiting the amount of longline sets, length of longlines or numbers of hooks. Also, Congress may amend or adopt new laws to control longlining at anytime.

Statement: Under the buy-out eligibility criteria it is possible that a longline vessel, which has not fished for several years, could receive some of the buy-out money.

True. A few of the boats identified in the legislation may be in that category. However; there are two parts to the buy-out program. The first part is a buy-out of every commercial fishing permit that is related to the longline vessel; including snapper/grouper, mackerel or any other such commercial license. Currently, any longliner can sell or transfer the existing permits from a boat that is not fishing at the present time to a newer or bigger boat that can begin fishing immediately. One of the goals of the Breaux/Goss legislation is to reduce the total number of pelagic longliners fishing in U.S. waters. The permits package buy-out addresses that goal. To be eligible for any funds in Part Two of the buy-out (economic impacts), the vessel must have reported commercial landings and documented income from the closed area between 1992-1998. Any vessel, for which any buy-out money is accepted, will be forever prohibited from commercial fishing for any species anywhere in the world.

Statement: Marine enforcement resources are insufficient to enforce a longlining prohibition in huge ocean areas. There is no way to keep track of remaining longline boats and prevent them from illegally fishing in the closed areas.

False. A Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) can be installed on all the pelagic longline vessels that remain in U.S. waters. VMS uses satellite (GPS) technology to track the movements of vessels. Enforcement officials can determine from the vessel movements whether it is fishing or simply passing through an area. VMS technology has already been used to enforce no trawling zones on Georges Bank in New England and pelagic longline closure areas in Hawaii. In those instances, NMFS installed the VMS devices on the commercial vessels. There are penalties for tampering with or disabling the devices that are similar to the penalty for illegally fishing in the closed areas. NMFS has tried to require VMS installation on pelagic longline vessels; however, the longline industry has filed legal action and NMFS has postponed the implementation requirement three times. The Breaux/Goss legislation mandates VMS installation on all pelagic longline vessels in the Atlantic and the Gulf.

Statement: NMFS has the authority and responsibility to reduce by-catch in pelagic longlines. Congress (the Breaux/Goss legislation) should not intervene on this issue and pre-empt NMFS when it is on the verge of doing its job.

We would generally agree with this statement if the agency in question had a history of doing its job. However that is not the case with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which has time after time failed to conserve and manage federal waters fisheries. For many years, NMFS ignored the obvious signs of serious overfishing and continually delayed restrictions on the commercial take of cod and haddock in the New England area. Their inaction and commercial overfishing destroyed fisheries that had existed for four centuries and resulted in the largest fisheries collapse and fisheries disaster in United States history.

In 1980, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council submitted a Shark Fishery Management Plan to NMFS as a precautionary measure to control increasing commercial take of sharks. The plan was rejected by NMFS, who claimed such measures were unnecessary. Twenty years later, NMFS has still not enacted measures needed to control commercial overfishing of sharks. A Florida marine fisheries official stated that, "The United States coastal shark fishery has completed the transformation from a minimal recreational fishery targeting healthy stocks to an exclusive, dedicated commercial fishery sifting through the remains of a collapsed stock in less than twenty years."

It is hard to believe that NMFS would enact final regulations prohibiting 60 commercial longline vessels from fishing in a large portion of the South Atlantic Ocean, when just two weeks before the (court ordered) publishing date of their longline closure proposal, NMFS rejected a South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Sargassum protection plan which would have prohibited just one vessel from commercially harvesting Sargassum vegetation in essentially the same ocean area.