NMFS considering petition to protect thresher

[newsman]

National Marine Fisheries Service is considering a petition to list the common thresher shark as endangered or threatened. Public comments sought. See http://www.examiner.com/article/shou...-or-endangered

[shrimpman steve]

Are they kidding

[tautog]

everything is endangered other than whiting and ling....

[JDTuna]

This petition seems to be largely driven by emotion, and lacks actual data. The six distinct populations referenced in the petition have no biological basis. In addition, there is no formal population assessment data on common thresher sharks. The only population "data" referenced here is the IUCN listing, which is outdated and doesn't provide species-specific information for the thresher sharks complex. In addition, the IUCN only relied on pelagic long line logbooks, and common thresher sharks in many areas (especially the northwest Atlantic), have a coastal distribution and there is little overlap with commerial long line gear, which is usually fished much further offshore. It is likely most caught in the pelagic long line fishery are bigeye threshers. Catch Per Unit Effort from logbooks should also not be relied upon solely to assess population status, especially in non-target species.

Also, the assertion that there isn't much protection from regulations is ludacris. There extremely conservative size and bag limits in both the recreational and commercial shark fisheries, as well as time-area closures.

Lastly, current information suggests that common thresher populations are stable or increasing in several areas.

[Joey Dah Fish]

I don't fish for them but it doesn't matter we are taking it up the a** every time you look

[TAGGED FISH]

Too many pictures posted on the internet last few years. Im just as guilty as the next guy .
I wish we all would stop half the pictures & stop talking about limit catches or numbers.

[Fin Reaper]

When is the middle class tax payer going to be consider over harvested and endangered?

Sorry, I got off topic

[Dino]

i kind of disagree that 54" fork length is "extremely conservative." taking a 54" fork thresher or mako back to the dock .. its like the equivalent of shooting a week old fawn deer from you're tree stand.. you're taking the resource before its had a chance to grow and become that trophy buck. protect it while its small, and then you will have more big bucks roaming the woods to shoot and harvest. we have these species we know can achieve 700+ lbs, they should introduce a alternative minimum Fork length for them. to me that is far preferable to a complete ban

[JDTuna]

Originally Posted by Dino

i kind of disagree that 54" fork length is "extremely conservative." taking a 54" fork thresher or mako back to the dock .. its like the equivalent of shooting a week old fawn deer from you're tree stand.. you're taking the resource before its had a chance to grow and become that trophy buck. protect it while its small, and then you will have more big bucks roaming the woods to shoot and harvest. we have these species we know can achieve 700+ lbs, they should introduce a alternative minimum Fork length for them. to me that is far preferable to a complete ban

I was speaking about the one fish per vessel per day as "extremely conservative," and the way the commercial fishery is managed. In any case, from an ecological perspective, it is better the harvest a smaller individual than it is to take a large, mature shark. Trying to compare management regimes and biology of sharks and deer are, well like comparing apples and oranges.

[BigBull]

Originally Posted by TAGGED FISH

Too many pictures posted on the internet last few years. Im just as guilty as the next guy .
I wish we all would stop half the pictures & stop talking about limit catches or numbers.

Your right Chad. The best numbers are no numbers.