E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Stephanie Rafael via AP
Carlos Rafael shows off the 881-pound tuna on Nov. 12 in New Bedford, Mass.
It's a part of fishing lore to talk about the one that got away, but the true life story for a fisherman is about the one that got taken away -- an 881-pound tuna that his commercial fishing boat hauled in. Unfortunately for him, the tuna was illegally caught with a net instead of sanctioned gear.
That difference led to confiscation by federal authorities, and on Tuesday, a federal agency told msnbc.com that the behemoth had been sold for just under $5,000.
The saga began Nov. 12, when the boat and crew, which had been using nets to catch other fish, returned to port in New Bedford, Mass.
"They didn't catch that fish on the bottom," the boat's owner, Carlos Rafael, told southcoasttoday.com. "They probably got it in the mid-water when they were setting out and it just got corralled in the net. That only happens once in a blue moon."
Rafael, who was not aboard at the time, even had permits to catch tuna and figured he'd be able to cash in -- a 754-pound tuna sold for a record $396,000 last January in Japan.
But the catch was illegal, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, since the bluefin tuna, a highly regulated species that has been overfished, was caught with a net.
"The vessel that caught this bluefin tuna has a general category permit for bluefin tuna, which allows for bluefin tuna to be caught with handgear (such as rod and reel, handline, and harpoon)," the agency said in a statement. "This particular tuna was caught in a trawl net. There is no permit that allows bluefin tuna to be caught with trawl net, even accidentally."
"The amount of bluefin tuna U.S. fishermen can catch is divided up among gear types," it added, "and there is not enough bluefin tuna left to allow for incidental landings by all the gears that have the potential to catch bluefin on occasion."
So what should Rafael's crew have done with an accidentally caught bluefin tuna? Toss it back into the sea, dead or alive, fisheries service spokeswoman Monica Allen told msnbc.com.
As for the big discrepancy in tuna prices, it turns out the bluefin was damaged by the net and thus not valued as highly by buyers. "It wasn't in the best condition," Allen said.
The service on Tuesday also posted a reminder for fishermen about tuna regulations at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2011/11/bluefin.htm.
Leave a Comment:
Why is this story titled to imply the law is wrong? The guy hauled in a species he knew was illegal to catch with a net, posed for the picture and was expecting a big pay day - no wonder the oceans are being depleted! Gear restrictions, catch limits and quotas are some of the few tools we have to bring back fish populations yet this article seems to be glorifying (or at least pitying) the lawbreaker...
He didn't do it on porpoise.
Thought he could get away with it so brought it in just for the halibut.
How is it glorifying the catch? The guy caught it on accident. If you can develop a net to where only one species of fish will swim into it, and any fish on a certain list will avoid it............... please let the fishing community know.
DD, if it was you, you might be whistling a different tuna.
You wouldn't be taking this so lightly if you knew sushi like I know sushi.
what piss me off is the feds probably let it rot!!!
the guy caught it illeagly, but by accident.
i hope the feds didnt waste time and took the fish to a food house and let the poor eat it before it spoils.
BUTTTTT......
chances are its all rotted away, or someone in the fed office took a part of it and trashed the rest.
there was no saving this fish, not its just wasted!!!
Read the article again OMG. It says that the fish was sold. Apparently at a low price but it was not wasted. Have to admit I thought the same thing might have happened.
Sucks but there it is.
Stupid sob shoulda placed a big ol'hook in its mouth...duh!
trawl nets can damage fish, a hook wouldnt do much because the fish and game warden would see the net damage to the tunas body and know it wasnt caught on a rod. The article said as much.
Rules are rules, if you can't use a net then you can't use a net. Why they only sold it for 5k is retarded though.
The big bucks are when it's fresh. If they froze it while they haggled it's worthless as sushi
Could have been a hell of a book written by Ernst Hemingway.
There should be a clause for accidental catches. One fish,one time,and he hid nothing.
If they let this guy go, then many more "accidental" catches and kills will occur.
It's very loosely related, but I have heard stories from co-workers that hunt. They have told me numerous times that on the way back from a normal, off-season trip to the mountains they accidentally hit a doe on the road. They then go into the woods and bag themselves a stag. Again, off-season. They get away with it. How? Well, law states if you hit an animal with your car, you can keep it if you wish. He just tells the authorities that it was the stag he hit.
Um, unless the guy brought the stag unwounded and actually hit it with his car a game authority warden will know that they guy didnt kill it with his car. How exactly will he bag a stag without using a gun or a bow? You kill a stag with a bow or Gun there will be a wound which to a Game warden is a neon sign saying I was shot!
He used a gun to kill the stag and tied it to his truck, bullet wound in. Wardens note the damage on the vehicle, but they don't make you untie your catch.
That's how he got away with it.
I realize why they say to throw it back if it's illegally caught but a better idea would be to donate it given the need especially if the crew caught the fish without intent.
That would work once or twice before the collusion started. Then we'd have the Cub Scouts selling tuna on Ebay.
Half a dozen phone calls could have been made to get this thing sliced up and delivered to food pantries to help feed some hungry people. Oh, nevermind, McDonalds tastes better.
How do we know that it was caught on accident? Perhaps he was illegally net fishing. If he had just put a fish hook in its mouth would he have gotten away with his prize? I guess the government would have to implement the policy of performing fish autopsies to determine exact cause of death. (Drowning in a net or lack of water on the boat.) :o)
so this guy paid his crew. hauled around this monster fish. used space on his boat and because our govt thinks they can do what ever the h%&l they want... we stole his fish and screwed ourselves on the profit at $5000.00 This has OBAMA ADMIN written all over it. If the guy does not have a record of doing this kind of thing... it is absolutely pointless to throw 881 pounds of fish back into the ocean. I bet if that b*&$h at the national marine fisheries was starving or knew someone who was she woulnt say stupi things like " dead or alive, throw it back in the sea". We should have let this hard working commercial fisherman make his money on the fish HE CAUGHT!!!
Wow. So many words, yet nothing said.
It was all Bush's fault! Obama is just trying to clean up his mess
gabriel time to brush on on your laws because this law has been around way before Obama came into office. And it was never his fish, sorry but someone that uses a trawl net to fish know about all the laws and if they dont they should because the statement "I didnt know" it a load of crap.
We should have let this hard working commercial fisherman make his money on the fish HE CAUGHT!!!
...on the fish he caught using a method that would ensure the demise of the species should he be let off the hood this once. Suddenly, everyone would be out ACCIDENTALLY netting them. Not that you tea people give two craps for trying to ensure the preservation of the species...
Gabe...
During the Nixon years I was fishing on the Kenai in Alaska. I snagged the hugest salmon you could imagine. 15 pound test line and a little over an hour and I had a silver that anyone would be proud of. Had to toss it back because the game warden was there. He told me that if I took 1 step away from the river after I removed the hook I would lose my tackle, my car, and have to pay a fine. Red salmon was ok, but not the silver, that day. I wasn't fishing for silver, it was an accident. I've hated republicans since then. D*mn fish & game wardens with their political agenda.
Obama or not, friggin government. The guy did nothing wrong and as usual the "Man" screwed him.
We do need less government and more common sense. It seems we have to much of the former and to little of the latter.
Did you read the article? If so you need to read slower because he clearly did violate the law.
Yep, Bill.
Common sense is lacking here. The fish is over harvested. Need to limit the catch. If it weren't the man enforcing international agreements on limits, who will? You? I kinda doubt you know enough to care.
Someone should put him in the net and troll with him for 30 minutes or so and see how he likes it. His catch has destroyed one of the last great giant tunas capable of breeding and restoring his species to its former glory. I say stick a hook through the fisherman's gonads and troll for shark. Hope he reads this but doubts that he will. killing that magnificient creature is nothing to be proud of.
That's the reason we don't see any large sharks anymore.
Any man that feels like he has "shortcomings" thinks they need to "prove their manhood" by killing the alpha predator of the seas.
When I vacationed in New Zealand I always made it a point to leave a note on boats that had shark flags. The notes read "Congratulations about the catch! Sorry about your small penis though."
If I were standing next to an endangered species I was responsible for killing, I wouldn't have that disgusting smile on my face like this guy does. This is nothing to be proud of.
That's biggest tuna I ever see in my life, unfortunately it dead.
First off, the licensee, Mr. Rafael, wasn't even on the boat. Second, this was unintentional "by-catch." They weren't trying to catch Bluefin Tuna with nets, it just sort of happened. By-catch is inevitable when fishing with a net. Third, throwing it back "dead or alive" is pretty darn stupid. If alive, I can see a release situation. If dead, throwing it back is a waste.
The U.S. has some of the most, if not the most, stringent fisheries laws in the world. The Asians are the worst. Stomping on a U.S. fisherman who makes an honest mistake is a great way to ensure that Americans eat more imported seafood from already-depleted foreign fisheries.
Oh, wait, that is already happening.
actually in truth it wouldnt be a waste if it were thrown overboard as it would become food for scavengers even if it sinks to the deep ocean hag fish and other scavengers of the deep would eat its remains. Its only perceived waste is to us humans and out possible use for its meat.
There is something fishey about this story ! He certainly did notcatch it just for the halibut, it had to be on porpoise. $375000 for a fish ? Thats a lot of clams !
The story leaves out more than it puts in. It's a waste of newspaper space or covering a sick agenda to overfish the seas. FYI for anyone unclear on the bottom line here. Tuna, and swordfish and many others are at risk for extinction. That why the law is trying to save them in its' blunt handed way. Fisheries just collapse but sometimes when a fish is worth much more dead than alive, fisherman, lured by the profit will find a way to hunt down the last one, for the money. That's why the tiger and rhino will soon be seen only in crackling old videos. We are hunting them to death. If you are ignorantly stupid and don't think that is possible google recent extinctions. We are surrounded by it. And usually by the time the issue has sunk in enough that the political will is there to take on the voters (fish etc. can't vote) it's usually too late. When was the last time you saw a Passenger Pigeon, the most common bird in North America 200 years ago and then, well, there were none.
there is a international governing body for this bluefin catch. Japan has a quota. They consume the most. but that means that its hundreds of thousands of dollars for a big tuna. Therefore the organized crime go after these giants illegally using the best deep sea sonar. That is why this fish that is supposed to live for many years, has been hunted away. This crew will get a heavy sentence.
These commercial trawlers are not fishermen. Its like comparing a commercial Chicken operation which has 10 thousand to 50 thousand hens, to a small family farmer with a henhouse.
i think he should get something because he was honest
but then again i dont like trawlers they kill everything its not fishing