Comment from Christopher Daughtry

Document ID: NOAA-NMFS-2012-0161-0005
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration
Received Date: December 12 2012, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Date Posted: December 13 2012, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: December 11 2012, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: February 12 2013, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 1jw-82hz-qs9b
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

I would like to comment on the plan to raise the recreational size limit of sharks to 96". I believe this is a bad idea due to the unattended consequences that may occur. By making the size limit 96" it will force people to take large sharks that are currently under the most commercial fishing pressure and then they will end up with more meat than they can consume. In addition, most of these sharks tend to take longer to reach sexual maturity than small coastal species which also tend to have less fishing pressure. A slot limit might be a better solution in the 30-54" range. This would allow larger small coastals to be taken for food and at the same time allow the large breeders of the large sharks would be protected. This along with tight daily bag limits as we have here in Florida would assure to keep recreational fishing pressure at a minimum on these important predators.

Related Comments

   
Total: 4
Comment from Christopher Daughtry
Public Submission    Posted: 12/13/2012     ID: NOAA-NMFS-2012-0161-0005

Feb 12,2013 11:59 PM ET
Comment from David Crain
Public Submission    Posted: 12/27/2012     ID: NOAA-NMFS-2012-0161-0008

Feb 12,2013 11:59 PM ET
Comment from Jeffrey Weakley
Public Submission    Posted: 01/07/2013     ID: NOAA-NMFS-2012-0161-0015

Feb 12,2013 11:59 PM ET
Comment from andrew cantrell
Public Submission    Posted: 02/12/2013     ID: NOAA-NMFS-2012-0161-0081

Feb 12,2013 11:59 PM ET