No method of commercial fishing has come under more intense fire in recent years in all oceans than longlining. And with good reason.

These "curtains of death," with literally thousands of hooks stretched over 40 or more miles, are indiscriminate killers that rapidly, demonstrably, decimate the ocean's large predators. In the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, longlines have reduced marlin stocks to just 12 percent (for whites) and 15 percent (blues) of historic abundance. Swordfish, which used to be common from 100 to 200 and more pounds, now average a mere 30 to 50 pounds. As a result, Congress is considering various legislative approaches to limiting or even ending the practice. Meanwhile, the National Marine Fisheries Service has initiated its own plan to severely curtail longlining in the Atlantic and Gulf. Still, lawsuits by some conservation groups proceed because, they insist, the government is not going far enough fast enough to limit longlines. And still more waters around the Grand Banks may be closed to longlines to protect sea turtles. In the central Pacific, a federal judge has put a huge chunk of ocean off-limits to longline fishermen because of the bycatch of endangered leatherback turtles.

One of the few places where populations of billfish, large tunas and sharks are not being wiped out by longlines is off Southern California. Why? Because longlines are forbidden in these waters.

In fact, the federal government has allowed the state of California to manage both coastal and U.S. waters (out to 200 miles). In 1992, the California Fish and Game Commission, faced with a decision about whether or not to grant permits for longline fishing off the state's coast, heard all the evidence, pro and con, from all sides regarding longlines. Their decision was unequivocal - and unanimous: There would be no longlines. Many in the recreational fishing community - some who were there during the hearings - say this decision was clearly based on an exhaustive report by California Department of Fish and Game biologist Greg Walls. That report offered information on longlining from 53 studies/sources.

Now, eight years later, you'd figure state and federal managers must be reveling in that shrewd decision, seeing how longlines are laying waste to pelagics elsewhere, and how much litigation, legislation and general controversies have resulted wherever longlining is permitted. You might think that. You'd be wrong.

Amazingly, astoundingly, the federal agency responsible for approving the Pacific Coast's first Highly Migratory Species management plan has agreed with an advisory panel to consider longlining as an acceptable form of harvest in the Pacific off California. That panel-specifically, the Highly Migratory Species Advisory Subpanel first entertained a suggestion by some commercial fishermen to swap their drift-gill-net permits for longline permits. Of course, the court rulings expected to curtail or end gill-netting in the near future weren't a factor. No, the rationale was: Longlines are more environmentally friendly (less harmful to marine mammals) than gill nets.

Why didn't the advisory subpanel immediately table such a clearly outrageous suggestion to permit at least 80 active gill-netters (or perhaps 138 gill-net-permit holders) to start operating longlines here? For starters, consider the makeup of 11 of 13 members: 9 from the commercial fishing industry, one from the recreational fishing industry and one a private recreational angler! I've been assured there's no bias on the panel.

For some reason, I have a very hard time believing that.

At a mid-September meeting, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) saw enough merit in this longline proposal to ask its Plan Development Team to study it further. That's the same team that gets advice from a nine-to-two/commercial-to-recreational advisory panel. And this is the same panel that convinced the PFMC that "further study" is needed to show longlines are harmful and that "the need for a scientific evaluation" remains. But the panel has yet to cite the Walls Report, which its proponents insist is one of the most thorough reports on longlining.

Of course, just about anyone familiar with basic marine issues who hasn't been away from the planet lately shouldn't need any study to just say no to longlines. Yet fishery managers, whose salaries are paid by taxes of all citizens and not by the commercial-fishing industry, seem to want to just say yes.
If you have an opinion and want to make it heard - public pressure can be a powerful motivator for public officials-do it NOW. Over coming weeks, the longline issue will be in play.

Contact:

Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, executive director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 503-326-6352, fax 326-6831, e-mail pfmc.comments@noaa.gov

Tom Raftican, United Anglers of Southern California, 714-840-0227, fax 840-3146.

Jim Donofrio, Recreational Fishing Alliance, 888-564-6732, www.savefish.com.

Also, visit www.envirowatch.org to see how "friendly" longlines are to marine mammals