InTheBite

Traveling Shoes- Spares to Bring When You Take Your Operation off the Beaten Path

By

This article first appeared in our October/November 2017 Volume 16 Edition 7 of InTheBite The Professionals’ Sportfishing Magazine

Traveling Shoes
Spares to Bring When You Take Your Operation off the Beaten Path
by Steve Katz

I am writing this column during peak tournament season in the mid-Atlantic area. During these tournaments, it seems that there is a service truck for every marine trade in the parking lot or service yard at the tournament marinas. Engine mechanics, propeller companies, fiberglass and paint contractors, electrical and electronics companies – just about all the trades and parts you would need to build a boat are readily available day and night during tournament season. While this is convenient for captains and crews, it is not the normal way of getting parts or service. Many of us have become accustomed to the abundance of parts and service companies that are available quickly and reasonably to help keep your boat in top condition. This is especially true for those whose home port is South Florida, Oregon Inlet, or other popular sportfishing destination. What happens when you travel away from the mainstream areas or off the beaten path?

Travel Case in Point

A sportfish captain recently returned from a summer fishing trip in the northeast, staying on Nantucket Island for a few weeks. While Nantucket is only 100-miles from Boston, it feels like millions of miles away when you need parts and supplies. He indicated that getting things like oil absorbent pads by the case and even refueling the boat was difficult and expensive. Travel farther south, towards the popular fishing destinations in Latin America and the Caribbean and the availability of parts and service becomes much more scattered. Next time you are at a South Florida airport, a quick scan of the parking area will often reveal service trucks of mechanics and trades people flying off to distant location to perform service for their customers. Importing parts or technicians is not the fastest or least expensive way to keep your boat running when away from your home port. Carrying a good cross selection of spare parts can allow you to make temporary or permanent repairs while away from your home port. One boat owner who prided himself in his spare parts inventory mentioned that, “Finding a technician was easier than getting the parts needed for the repair.”

Pack It Up!

When heading out for an extended trip, most professional crew prepare the boat with the important fishing supplies and food provisions for the voyage and destination. What about the spare/regularly consumed parts that you may need to maintain the boat while away? What if something critical breaks – do you bring a spare? What spare parts should you bring? What parts can I get at my destinations? How can I ship parts to my destination? How fast and how much will it cost? Do you have room to bring all of this with you? What to Bring? Let’s skip the typical spares and supplies. Such items as filters, oil, bulbs, fuses, screws, nuts and bolts, oil pads, bilge pumps and the other expendable supplies should be a no brainer on your pre-trip shopping list. How do you determine the other parts you should bring on your trip? The first way to be prepared is to bring parts that your boat………………. to read the rest of this article and the entire issue click here 

 

A Captain’s “captain” on a mission

By

Captain John Adams

A Captain’s “captain” on a mission

John Adams has been trolling Florida waters as a boat captain for 25 years and his devotion to the boating community has placed him at the center of a nasty waterfront battle.

Grumblings on the docks at Sailfish Marina Resort in Palm Beach Shores first caught Adams’ attention two years ago. Fellow boat captains and fishermen were angry because the marina was securing a state permit to demolish its north dock, with plans to replace 32 smaller boat slips with 12 mega yacht slips. Adams was infuriated, “I hope the boating community realizes that it’s an attack on all of us. It’s basically the fact that we’re losing slips, we’re losing access. Before you know it, you won’t be able to put your boat in the water anymore.”

Intimately familiar with shoreline currents, Adams and other longtime sport fishermen insist the north dock expansion would create a navigational hazard in the waters between Sailfish Marina and neighboring Buccaneer Marina. They also take umbrage with how the expansion will infringe on public access to the waterfront by turning out smaller boats in favor of yachts. In 2006, Palm Beach County paid Sailfish Marina $15 million dollars in taxpayer money to ensure public access to the north dock and surrounding waters. “People don’t realize this is more than just a rebuilding of Sailfish Marina, this is taking away what we paid for…it is taking away the public’s access.”

Adams grew up playing on the quiet streets of Palm Beach Shores where his grandmother lived and his father kept a boat at Sailfish Marina. The veteran boat captain resents that an out-of-state insurance conglomerate which owns Sailfish Marina could change the character of the town he loves. “The community of Palm Beach Shores has no idea what kind of affect this is going have on them, bigger boats, more traffic.”

Determined to stop Sailfish Marina, Adams alerted managers at Buccaneer Marina, who challenged the DEP permit. Months later in the spring of 2016, amidst public outcry over the plans, Sailfish withdrew its permit application. However, victory came at a cost to Adams, who had gone public with his concerns. This summer, Adams’ employer received an email from Sailfish Marina about docking his boat at Sailfish Marina next season. “The email said Sailfish Marina was reluctant to give my employer a slip because his captain had been counterproductive to their dock plans. They said they would welcome him back with a different captain.” Adams is being blackballed by the marina where he has worked as a boat captain for the last five years.

Sailfish Marina is not giving up. Earlier this year, owners applied for a DEP permit for a similar expansion plan for its north dock. Buccaneer Marina has filed a lawsuit and is again challenging a DEP permit. Boat captain John Adams is again speaking out. Given his reputation among fellow boaters who describe him as “a captain’s Captain and a straight shooter of the highest degree,” there is little doubt, the boating community is listening.

North Dock of Sailfish Marina

Image of questionable waterway

The following is sponsored content

 

Spotter Power: The Eye In The Sky Pays

By

Spotter Power: The Eye in the Sky

From the Vault- This article was previously published in InTheBite The Professionals’ Sportfishing Magazine.

by Dale Wills

One definition of passion is when you put more energy into something than is typically required to do it. It is more than just enthusiasm or excitement. Meet Mike Kasten, a tower spotter with eyes like a frigatebird. He personifies his passion by spotting fish in a spread before anyone else.

Kasten’s love for spotting fish began in the Florida Keys several years ago when he realized he had a knack for it. I was fortunate enough to work for some of the best captains in the keys sight fishing sails , mahi , and cobia. In 2010, Kasten persuaded Team Galati to give him a shot spotting fish from the tower. “They broke me in by going 26 for 28 on white marlin off Ocean City, MD the first time I went offshore with them and since that trip I was hooked,” he says.

“I never want to take my eyes off the spread or miss a fish. It drives me nuts if the captain or someone in the cockpit sees a fish before me,” says Kasten.

“I love coordinating the communication between the anglers and the fish,” he reports. “My job is to let the anglers know where the fish is and what it’s doing, like whether it’s lazy or aggressive. I also notice if there’s a tangle or if there’s a fish on the dredge that nobody in the cockpit can see. Seeing the fish and alerting the angler gives them an extra second to engage the fish versus letting the fish engage the angler. There are certainly a lot of boats that do not have towers and are successful tournament winners but if it’s a close race I am certain that I can be the difference in a few extra fish because I’m up there doing everything I can to help the team win,” says Kasten.

Kasten has also taken the tower communication to the next level by wearing a headset mic that lets him correspond clearly via a Bluetooth speaker in the cockpit, which he says all but eliminates the usual yelling and shouting during the fishing day.

When asked about how far back the long riggers are trolled and visibility of the bait, Kasten explains, “I have the guys fish the longs close enough to where I can just barely see the bait. If they are too far back, the fish usually ends up being a sneak bite and I’m no help. I probably drive them crazy because I’m always saying ten less or ten more feet on the rigger baits. If I can warn them the anglers love it.”

“Nine times out of ten, I see the fish before he gets to the bait depending on the light conditions. If the sun is on my back I can see everything in our spread and a sailfish or marlin sticks out like a sore thumb. If the sun’s in my face and there is a glare, I look for fins cutting through the water or a wake made by the fish. It also helps that I was blessed with 20/10 vision. If a fish comes up either very aggressive or lazy, I’m able to help the angler drop back to try to get the fish to eat but most of the time the fish wants to chase that bait and I try to not have them drop back unless he fades off. There have been countless times we have gotten a bite and not come tight and I will let the angler know if the fish is coming back to eat again and most importantly if they still have a bait. Another thing I help with is when we hook a fish and make our turn, sometimes you can’t tell where the hooked fish is and I’m vigilant at watching to make sure we don’t run over the line. I’ll let the captain know hard to port or starboard and give him a read on where the fish is.”

As you can probably tell, Mike Kasten is taking the job of spotting fish from the tower very seriously and has become an integral part of the Galati fishing team. Kasten adds that you also need to make sure the seas are not too rough to risk injury by climbing a tuna tower in the first place. “It’s something you should get comfortable doing at the dock before you try it offshore. It’s not for everyone but it’s an amazing view and something I love doing.” When it comes to sunglasses, blue mirror Costa sunglasses are his favorite for bright days in blue water. “They make the dark shadows of the sails stick out very well,” he says. “On a cloudy overcast day, I wear amber Costas to brighten things up.” Adding a tower guy can pay dividends. Just follow Team Galati via InTheBite as they compete around the world and remember that Mike Kasten will be riding 40 feet above the boat like a frigatebird waiting to dive on its prey. “Left long rigger!”

Kasten utilizes a Harmon Kardon headset with a wireless  transmitter which transmits to the cockpit speakers. Communication is a low key, no-yelling affair which keeps anglers calm during the bite. 

Team Galati spotter Mike Kasten keeps a watchful eye on the spread from his perch high above in the tower.

Subscribe Today! This is the Pro’s magazine and we are all about passion and substance for all things Big Game Sportfishing. See for yourself. You’ll love every issue.

 

White Marlin Winner Appeals $2.8 Million Prize Case In U.S Federal Court

By

White Marlin Open Winner Appeals Case in U.S. Federal Court

Ruling that denied $2.8 million prize was based on erroneous assumption and ignored significant evidence

August 02, 2017—Baltimore, MD—2016 White Marlin Open winner Philip Heasley today filed a notice of appeal of last month’s U.S. District Court decision in the case of White Marlin Open et al. vs Heasley, RDB-16-3105.

“We filed today’s appeal because the District Court ruling last month was fundamentally wrong. It became clear that the judge based much of his ruling on a deeply flawed assumption, and discarded facts, evidence and eyewitness testimony that contradicted it,” said Mr. Heasley, owner of the boat Kallianassa. “The Kallianassa crew and I caught the tournament’s only qualifying white marlin fairly, legally and without violating any tournament rules.”

The June 14, 2017, U.S. District Court’s decision is seen by many within the professional fishing industry as demonstrating a lack of understanding of how fishing tournaments work.

Two areas that Mr. Heasley’s attorneys will focus the appeal on are: 

1.  The finding that the Kallianassa put fishing lines in the water early: The judge misinterpreted a statement made in deposition that it takes 15 to 20 minutes to get the lines into the water.  In reality, that preparatory work is done on the deck and the lines are then dropped into the water at the 8:30 a.m. start time, taking one to four minutes.  Dismayingly, the judge clung to this statement and then extrapolated that the boat was at trolling speed because the lines were down, when in fact it was because the baiting of hooks and other preparatory work was underway.  The judge further ignored eyewitness testimony from the captain and mate of a competing fishing boat, who testified that they were in  close proximity to the Kallianassa and that they did not see any lines in the water prior to 8:30 a.m. start time.

2.  The court based its decision on polygraphs, which are generally not admissible in federal court because they are unreliable: The problems with the polygraphs are legion. To touch on a few:

The polygraph examiners who gave the tests admitted they gave a certain type of polygraph, where the polygraph standards referenced in the tournament rules required that a different type of polygraph be given. As a result, the polygraph examiners gave incomplete tests.

One polygraph examiner who administered the test testified in court that he did not understand the rules of the White Marlin Open tournament, nor of the International Game Fish Association (IGFA). As a result, he asked general questions that were so broad, they did not even apply to catching the winning fish.

One polygraph examiner was unfamiliar with the polygraph standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), which are safeguards to ensure that a polygraph is administered properly (even with these in place, there are still reliability issues with polygraphs).

One polygraph examiner used an outdated polygraph technique, called the “Relevant/Irrelevant” test, which has been rejected by the polygraph community as scientifically invalid because it does not have much better than 50-50 accuracy. 

The bottom line is that the White Marlin Open directors did not disqualify Mr. Heasley, nor did any other competitor lodge a single complaint. Instead, the White Marlin Open directors declined to make a determination and sent it to the court despite Mr. Heasley’s several requests to describe the catch and present his boat’s electronic information directly to the tournament directors. The court then based its ruling on a combination of unreliable polygraphs and false assumptions.

“For the first time in my life, my integrity and honesty have been challenged because of a polygraph test,” said Mr. Heasley. “The impact of this incorrect ruling not only has had great emotional impact on me and my family, but also on my professional captain and crew—who are fine, upstanding men and fishermen who are being unfairly branded as cheats. Whatever the outcome of the appeal, I could not let this ruling stand unchallenged. This has become about more than a winning white marlin. We’re honorable people, and we will continue to fight for our reputation and the truth.”

Today’s appeal will send the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

White Marlin Open Winner Appeals Case In U.S. Federal Court

By

White Marlin Open Winner Appeals Case in U.S. Federal Court

Ruling that denied $2.8 million prize was based on erroneous assumption and ignored significant evidence

August 02, 2017—Baltimore, MD—2016 White Marlin Open winner Philip Heasley today filed a notice of appeal of last month’s U.S. District Court decision in the case of White Marlin Open et al. vs Heasley, RDB-16-3105.

“We filed today’s appeal because the District Court ruling last month was fundamentally wrong. It became clear that the judge based much of his ruling on a deeply flawed assumption, and discarded facts, evidence and eyewitness testimony that contradicted it,” said Mr. Heasley, owner of the boat Kallianassa. “The Kallianassa crew and I caught the tournament’s only qualifying white marlin fairly, legally and without violating any tournament rules.”

The June 14, 2017, U.S. District Court’s decision is seen by many within the professional fishing industry as demonstrating a lack of understanding of how fishing tournaments work.

Two areas that Mr. Heasley’s attorneys will focus the appeal on are: 

1.  The finding that the Kallianassa put fishing lines in the water early: The judge misinterpreted a statement made in deposition that it takes 15 to 20 minutes to get the lines into the water.  In reality, that preparatory work is done on the deck and the lines are then dropped into the water at the 8:30 a.m. start time, taking one to four minutes.  Dismayingly, the judge clung to this statement and then extrapolated that the boat was at trolling speed because the lines were down, when in fact it was because the baiting of hooks and other preparatory work was underway.  The judge further ignored eyewitness testimony from the captain and mate of a competing fishing boat, who testified that they were in  close proximity to the Kallianassa and that they did not see any lines in the water prior to 8:30 a.m. start time.

2.  The court based its decision on polygraphs, which are generally not admissible in federal court because they are unreliable: The problems with the polygraphs are legion. To touch on a few:

The polygraph examiners who gave the tests admitted they gave a certain type of polygraph, where the polygraph standards referenced in the tournament rules required that a different type of polygraph be given. As a result, the polygraph examiners gave incomplete tests.

One polygraph examiner who administered the test testified in court that he did not understand the rules of the White Marlin Open tournament, nor of the International Game Fish Association (IGFA). As a result, he asked general questions that were so broad, they did not even apply to catching the winning fish.

One polygraph examiner was unfamiliar with the polygraph standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), which are safeguards to ensure that a polygraph is administered properly (even with these in place, there are still reliability issues with polygraphs).

One polygraph examiner used an outdated polygraph technique, called the “Relevant/Irrelevant” test, which has been rejected by the polygraph community as scientifically invalid because it does not have much better than 50-50 accuracy. 

The bottom line is that the White Marlin Open directors did not disqualify Mr. Heasley, nor did any other competitor lodge a single complaint. Instead, the White Marlin Open directors declined to make a determination and sent it to the court despite Mr. Heasley’s several requests to describe the catch and present his boat’s electronic information directly to the tournament directors. The court then based its ruling on a combination of unreliable polygraphs and false assumptions.

“For the first time in my life, my integrity and honesty have been challenged because of a polygraph test,” said Mr. Heasley. “The impact of this incorrect ruling not only has had great emotional impact on me and my family, but also on my professional captain and crew—who are fine, upstanding men and fishermen who are being unfairly branded as cheats. Whatever the outcome of the appeal, I could not let this ruling stand unchallenged. This has become about more than a winning white marlin. We’re honorable people, and we will continue to fight for our reputation and the truth.”

Today’s appeal will send the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.