Letter from Russell S. Nelson, Ph.D. to Ramon Corral, Sent via email from Costa Rica 24/03/2004

The Billfish Foundation
2161 E. Commercial Blvd.
Second Floor
Fort Lauderdale FL 33309

March 24, 2004

ING Ramon Corral Avila
Comisionado Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca
Municipio Libre No. 377 Piso 4 Ala A
Col. Santa Cruz Atoyac C.P. 03310
Mexico, D.F.

Dear Senador Corral:

I am writing to give The Billfish Foundation’s perspective on the recent controversy over your proposal to eliminate drift gillnets from Mexican waters and to allow longlines on medium and large vessels only beyond 50 miles from shore. We are fully in support of these measures. We find that they are consistent with Mexico’s long standing policy to protect the nation’s resources and sportfishing tourism industry from the excessive harvest historically demonstrated by these gear types.

Currently on a trip to Guatemala and Costa Rica, I have been meeting with fishing interests and government fisheries officials to discuss improvements to current fisheries conservation regulations. I have been particularly impressed by the new commitment to conservation displayed by the administration of President Oscar Berger. We have been asked to work directly with their fisheries and tourism agencies to help craft billfish protections which will encourage the development and expansion of Guatemala’ s sport fishing ecotourism economy. Because I am traveling I do not have direct access to my library and must reference some of the information relayed in this letter informally.

In the early 1980s Mexico realized that the Japanese longline fleets which had been licensed to fish in Mexican waters were having a direct negative impact on the sportfishing fleets of Baja California Sur. Published research by Squires and Au showed that as the catch of the longline fleet increased the catch of the sportfishing fleets went down. In response to this Mexico established the 50 mile conservation zones and the protected core area to provide for a buffer along the coast which would protect and enhance the fishery offered by the growing sportfishing industry in La Paz, East Cape and Los Cabos. In 2000, as you well know, the Congress placed these protections in law. Despite the arguments currently being advanced by the Mexican representative of Defenders of Wildlife, these conservation zones have effectively limited the use of longline gear clearly CONAPESCA and its predecessor agencies have been using experimental fishing permits to allow limited longline fishing in the last decade because of the protection afforded by the 50 mile conservation zones. The conservation zones were based on sound published research. The status of the work of Squires and Au remains unchallenged today. There exists a clear scientific basis for the 50 mile longline exclusion.

Defenders of Wildlife claim that they can find no scientific information which shows that sea turtles need 50 miles of protection from longlines and net gear. Largely this is because of a lack of good observer data from the experimental Mexican longline fishing operations; where the emphasis has been on finfish catch monitoring. The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service has recent observer data which shows significant longline sea turtle interactions from the southern California coast out beyond 400 miles. The distribution of sea turtles of Mexico is unlikely to vary from this pattern.

Please do not be impressed by the status of Defenders of Wildlife in these discussions. While I have in the past been supportive of the organization's efforts in many terrestrial environments, they have not been a major participant in any of the U.S. marine resource issues. The major U.S. NGOs, which have been extremely involved in ocean conservation over the past 20 years of my experience, include, other than The Billfish Foundation, The Ocean Conservancy, National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Oceana, World Wildlife Fund, Coastal Conservation Association, Environmental Defense, SeaWatch, United Anglers of Southern California, and The Audubon Society. These experienced and credible groups have either taken positions against longlining in the Sea of Cortes or have not yet been involved in discussions of the issue. All of the above organizations recently worked successfully to oppose the creation of a longline fishery of the west coast of the United States. Had I been expecting the recent public relations ploy by the Defenders of Wildlife to oppose the actions you supported in December, I can assure you that we would have solicited the involvement of the above groups in what we were considering a matter of Mexican domestic policy.

Ramon, I completely understand the conflicts and pressures of your new position in Mexico. I have experienced the same. I have reviewed the positions taken by Defenders of Wildlife and sectors of your commercial fishing industry and find them to be a recipe for failure. The provisions are almost totally unenforceable. The admission of as many as 190 longline vessels to the Sea of Cortes will be an ecological disaster. Any action you can take now to begin to improve the status of marine fish stocks will pay off with better harvest and economic benefits in the future. To delay needed conservation efforts or delete existing protections will only bring the same problems back to your agency in the future.

We support your position on longlines and drift gillnets as stated in December. We urge you to remain true to these laudable goals and put the regulations in place as soon as possible. Whatever the outcome of these current discussions, I know that you will have a lot of hard work and difficult decisions in the years ahead. As before, I will continue to offer any assistance I can in helping you and your agency address fisheries problems with the full range of management tools available around the world today. Good luck.

Sincerely,

Russell S. Nelson, Ph.D.
Chief Fishery Scientist
The Billfish Foundation

Sent via email from Costa Rica 24/03/2004

Click here to send an e-mail to "Defender" officials