New (improved) data collection site

13

Replies

  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,548 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    I understood your position long ago, just like I understand why you refuse to answer the questions I posed.

    I believe the reason is because you have just as much self-interest as those you condemn, and admitting that would show the hypocrisy in your position.

    So, instead of answering my questions -- all the while while demanding your own are answered -- you continue to demean me and call me names. And now you want to take your ball and go home, which is something I'd expect from my six year old nephew, not a grown man who is so quick to publicly demonize others for self-interest they are also guilty of.

    I cannot say I am surprised, but I am disappointed....Mike

    The purpose of this thread is to discuss a "new, improved data system" - not how Tom Hilton makes a living.

    And, if the development of that "new improved data system" is associated with an extreme anti-fishing group providing funding for that project, then there are pertinent questions that should be answered regarding that. The questions about EDF's involvement have not been answered for some inexplicable reason.

    If their goal supposedly is to provide "honest, truthful data" in this age of dishonest, untruthful data that we are getting from the NMFS, then it would seem logical that they would support a transparent process that would be open to all interested parties. They support a process cloaked in secrecy, not "open, honest, truthful data" as advertised, which is exactly what we DO NOT NEED in our fisheries management.

    I have answered your questions, and have not continued to call you names or demean you Amigo.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,548 Captain
    "...how data on fish dynamics could benefit habitat protection..."

    No, you missed my point entirely - you are unjustly comparing yourself to a successful program based on an entirely different paradigm, which PROVIDED HABITAT, and participation/harvest data by the people in charge of managing that wildlife - not some get-rich-quick scheme that it seems you have cooked up.

    Your statement suggests "protecting habitat" as in Marine Protection Areas I suppose - typical. Providing millions of acres of new habitat is not the same as fencing off areas to "protect" the fish from fishermen, or creating sectors to keep fishermen from accessing the fishery as your partners at EDF are attempting to do.

    Data on fish dynamics could also just as easily be used AGAINST fishermen, no? After all, your enviro partners like to claim that artificial reefs/oil platforms simply "attract" fish, making them easier to catch, thus supposedly providing a negative net effect to the fishery. If the harvest data from your program shows an inordinate amount of fish being harvested off of the artificial reefs/platforms, that could be used to close off those areas, no? Nevermind that they don't have adequate data on the size of the fishery biomass in order to make an informed analysis since they don't count the fish swimming in the water around artificial reefs / oil platforms.

    You have shown your true colors here - green - as in the $$$$$ .

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • Aces FullAces Full Posts: 6 Greenhorn
    As a member of the recreational data AP and because of the ties to EDF, I won't be recommending this program. Tom has done his homework and knows his stuff. I've been reading through it for years. The lack of direct answers to his questions speak volumes!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Capt BloodCapt Blood Posts: 184 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    "
    Data on fish dynamics could also just as easily be used AGAINST fishermen, no?
    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

    This sounds like cherry picking Capt - to say data should be withheld because it might not get us what we want is.......well, wrong. Firm believer here that if we focus on the resource that puts food on my famiily's dinner table and great sport for us, that's what it's all about.

    Gotta ask Capt - where do you live? Cause if it ain't Florida where we lose mangroves and coastal wetlands to McMansions by the Sea all the time - me, thinks you overreacted to brettfitz intent of habitat protection. The loss of coastal habitat in FL over my 25yrs of fishing has been painful to see. Me thinks you owe someone an apology...

    BTW - got the spreadsheet, will give it to some of the good'uns I've come to trust over the years in this stock assessment stuff - get their input and layman's explanation that I can understand whether it adds up. Thanks for sending over.
    "...forced to become a pirate not for infamy and riches, but out of a rankling sense of injustice by the government leaders who have forsaken him..." -Rafael Sabatini-
  • brettfitzbrettfitz Posts: 433 Officer
    Aces,

    I suggest to you and everyone, do your own research. Allowing a keyboard cowboy dictate your thoughts might lead you down a path where you don't desire to be.

    Try as I might to avoid it, I find myself finding points that I agree with Capt. Tom Hilton on. Unfortunately he and I are not going to agree on some issues and that's fine.

    Recreational anglers are getting the short end of the stick, I think we all agree with that. I think we also agree that the biggest excuse we have heard for that truth is that we "don't have data" to back our position.

    The AAP will collect true, real time data. And it will succeed, it's just too important not to.

    Several folks have taken advantage of my phone number or email and contacted me. I've have some great conversations, learned many things as a result of this thread. That's what having an open mind is all about, and that is how we will eventually succeed. Chester is a great example of an open mind - he took time to learn things on his own and although we might end up having some philosophical differences, he sees value in things that might be outside his personal zone of comfort. He is the kind of person who will help us anglers the most, I believe.

    As was demonstrated a few posts earlier, you only have to research our own website to see who we have talked to. It is no secret. If I want to learn about who someone is, I'll ask THEM what they are all about otherwise I won't ever know the entire picture. Obviously you must listen with an open mind, which means you make your own judgements and decide what you think requires further research etc. But avoiding someone because you don't agree with what you've heard about them is just does not make sense to me.

    The validity of the data we collect, you will come to find out, will be very powerful. It will give us a collective voice we've never had, and we will all benefit. Whether you believe it or not, it will happen - it already is.

    As I typed earlier, the danger of these forums is not being able to impact how someone interprets your keystrokes. That is the reason I offer myself at a personal level. Understand what we are trying to do before you denounce it. If we don't agree, more power to you and I trust you will keep fighting the good fight from your personal perspective. It's all good to me.

    And since the idea was brought up that this is all about making money, again feel free to research our org. The cliff note version of where our money goes is this: Our director gets paid $1 per year. There are a couple part time hourly people that keep the lights on. The rest of us have been doing this because we believe in the overall mission of education, conservation, and research. Will we grow? I sure hope so. Will we be able to put some of us into a position where they can work on it full time? Again I sure hope so. Will it be me? Again I sure hope so. Time will tell. We've accomplished a lot with very little, and it is just beginning to get good.

    Brett
    "A 'real' fisherman is one who thinks like I do. There are more of us around than you might suspect."
    -John Gierach
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,548 Captain
    Hey Brett,
    What's your position on Catch Shares?

    Sector Separation?

    Days At Sea?

    Thanks in advance,

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

    Hey Tarponator, your buddy is calling me names - you gonna call him out on it?
  • Capt BloodCapt Blood Posts: 184 Officer
    I like your style Brettfitz, good on ya mate.

    Liked what I heard about your group in this piece too - keep up the good work protecting our coastal habitat.

    "...But did you know according to The Snook Foundation, “Lee County has led the state in snook stamps. In the recent past (they) figured the value of snook fishing by stamp holders to be worth almost $600 million for Lee and Charlotte Counties...”

    Guest opinion: Baseball sentimentalism neglects offseason tourism
    Naples Daily News

    Seduced by the romance of Red Sox baseball, we have fallen into a financial trap that is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to escape. A baseball game in the spring makes a fun, even sentimental, day. But there is a business side that cannot and must not be obscured by sentimentality.

    Simply put, we have overspent satisfying the lavish demands of the Red Sox, thereby impairing our ability to meet the basic mission of our tourism development effort: fund programs that would level the too seasonal character of tourism here. We now have little choice but to continue to spend limited “tourist tax” dollars on baseball while either: neglecting offseason promotion, reducing beach re-nourishment programs, devoting even more general tax revenues to tourism promotion or raising the “tourist tax” — creating a price disadvantage for local businesses.

    None of these choices are good business.

    The “boom or bust” nature of excessively seasonal tourism makes it very hard for a tourism-dependent business to make it through the long, hot summers. Excessive public investment in baseball during the height of “the season” now threatens the availability of funds to promote “offseason” tourism.

    We know baseball brings in money. Otherwise billionaires wouldn’t buy baseball teams and players would not become millionaires – yet their playground is built on the backs of the little guy. Even if spring training does heighten high season, it does nothing to level the offseasons or help struggling merchants make it through the rest of the year.

    Yet here is an eye opener. A recent study shows the two baseball teams bring in $50 million annually. But did you know according to The Snook Foundation, “Lee County has led the state in snook stamps. In the recent past (they) figured the value of snook fishing by stamp holders to be worth almost $600 million for Lee and Charlotte Counties.”

    That’s just for snook.

    What if we had spent $84 million not on a stadium but on watershed improvement programs around Estero Bay – similar to Fort Myers’ Billy Creek Filter Marsh, which drastically cuts down on contaminates pouring into the Caloosahatchee? We could have done a lot of restoration. Ernest Hemingway wrote how he imagined walking across Estero Bay on the backs of tarpon because there were so many. What if we were to make a serious commitment to cleaning up the bay? Returning it to its natural status as a fish hatchery and nursery would make Estero Bay an economic engine that would rival the beaches themselves – year round for fishermen.

    Alas, overlooking the financial realities and forgetting the primary mission of our tourism development efforts, our political leaders pursued the Red Sox too aggressively to the risk of financial prudence.

    Because we lavishly met the Red Sox’ every demand, we must now fund comparable facilities for the Twins, whose fans generate nearly identical “in season” economic impacts. Even then we end up with three stadiums and only two teams. In an attempt to get another team to fill our excess stadium capacity, Lee County is now negotiating with the Washington Nationals. Meeting even reasonable demands will stretch our “tourist tax” dollars past the breaking point, threatening “offseason” promotions. Failing to do so will leave the city of Fort Myers holding a lot of stadium debt without any of the benefits.

    We got into this dilemma by acting impetuously for sentimental reasons. Enjoy a day at the ballpark, but try not to let a little fun obscure the mistakes we have made and refuse to admit. We will now pay dearly for such impetuosity, sentimentality and missed opportunities.

    http://www.news-press.com/article/20120405/OPINION/304050037/Guest-opinion-Baseball-sentimentalism-neglects-offseason-tourism
    Warren Wright of Fort Myers is a member of the Lee County Tourism Development Council and a former Fort Myers City Council member.
    "...forced to become a pirate not for infamy and riches, but out of a rankling sense of injustice by the government leaders who have forsaken him..." -Rafael Sabatini-
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,548 Captain
    brettfitz wrote: »
    Aces,

    I suggest to you and everyone, do your own research. Allowing a keyboard cowboy dictate your thoughts might lead you down a path where you don't desire to be.

    Try as I might to avoid it, I find myself finding points that I agree with Capt. Tom Hilton on. Unfortunately he and I are not going to agree on some issues and that's fine.

    Recreational anglers are getting the short end of the stick, I think we all agree with that. I think we also agree that the biggest excuse we have heard for that truth is that we "don't have data" to back our position.

    The AAP will collect true, real time data. And it will succeed, it's just too important not to.

    Several folks have taken advantage of my phone number or email and contacted me. I've have some great conversations, learned many things as a result of this thread. That's what having an open mind is all about, and that is how we will eventually succeed. Chester is a great example of an open mind - he took time to learn things on his own and although we might end up having some philosophical differences, he sees value in things that might be outside his personal zone of comfort. He is the kind of person who will help us anglers the most, I believe.

    As was demonstrated a few posts earlier, you only have to research our own website to see who we have talked to. It is no secret. If I want to learn about who someone is, I'll ask THEM what they are all about otherwise I won't ever know the entire picture. Obviously you must listen with an open mind, which means you make your own judgements and decide what you think requires further research etc. But avoiding someone because you don't agree with what you've heard about them is just does not make sense to me.

    The validity of the data we collect, you will come to find out, will be very powerful. It will give us a collective voice we've never had, and we will all benefit. Whether you believe it or not, it will happen - it already is.

    As I typed earlier, the danger of these forums is not being able to impact how someone interprets your keystrokes. That is the reason I offer myself at a personal level. Understand what we are trying to do before you denounce it. If we don't agree, more power to you and I trust you will keep fighting the good fight from your personal perspective. It's all good to me.

    And since the idea was brought up that this is all about making money, again feel free to research our org. The cliff note version of where our money goes is this: Our director gets paid $1 per year. There are a couple part time hourly people that keep the lights on. The rest of us have been doing this because we believe in the overall mission of education, conservation, and research. Will we grow? I sure hope so. Will we be able to put some of us into a position where they can work on it full time? Again I sure hope so. Will it be me? Again I sure hope so. Time will tell. We've accomplished a lot with very little, and it is just beginning to get good.

    Brett

    Hey Brett,
    As you probably know, I have been clamoring for better data on the rec side probably louder than most - I don't have an issue with better data at all. I do have an issue with anything that Environmental Defense has its fingers into, as I have yet to see anything positive come from it as far as recreational fishing goes. EDF has way too long of a history of saying one thing, then doing another - they are untrustworthy, dishonest, and greedy, to put it bluntly, and to reiterate what Chester has said about them.

    You keep mentioning needing to have an "open mind" about this. Why is that? Better data should clear up a LOT of misconceptions, distrust, etc., and should open up peoples' minds on its own merit - dissenters and all. It has been the glaring lack of data that has spawned the overwhelming sentiments of distrust from recreational anglers towards the federal fisheries managers and their NGO partners.

    We need to keep an "open mind" because you are doing this project with some unsavory characters (EDF)?

    If not, then why do you feel the need, specifically, to keep mentioning the necessity for an "open mind"?

    Also, you encourage people (including me) to contact you on a "personal level" to discuss your project. I maintain that one of the main reasons for forums such as this is to discuss our points of view, openly, in a public venue and IN WRITING. Refusing to answer pertinent questions about your project when asked repeatedly and preferring to discuss "verbally" and not in writing just doesn't pass the smell test, I'm sorry. Especially when you take into account that we had to not only pull the truth out of you regarding you affiliation with EDF, but your continued refusal to provide details of that affiliation other than they are giving you an unspecified amount of $$$$ .

    My mind is open - please explain.

    Thanks in advance,
    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • Capt BloodCapt Blood Posts: 184 Officer
    Capt H, it's Easter, give it a break already. We got it, you've got a beef with EDF, roger that. Now give it a rest.

    Last I read this was FLORIDA Sportsman. From what i've gathered looking at your posts, you're from somewhere west where rig fishin is the thing. We've got alot of other problems we're dealing with here and while I'm a patient man, it's reached an end.

    Go to church, think about our Lord and what Easter means....
    "...forced to become a pirate not for infamy and riches, but out of a rankling sense of injustice by the government leaders who have forsaken him..." -Rafael Sabatini-
  • Chester BrewerChester Brewer Posts: 171 Officer
    Tom,
    Lighten up on Brett a bit. He is young but he has served his country and what he is trying to do now with regard to data is being done with no pay to him. The Snook Foundation was accepting money from EDF for years before his time. Years ago EDF was a good organization. Of course it is not now, when it comes to fisheries.
    This is a time for hope and renewal. I've been thinking today about our struggles over the past 30 years. I remember when Karl started talking about a constitutional amendment on gill nets. I thought he was crazy. I remember when two of our folks had their camps burned down the night that Karl's dream came to fruition.
    We have had many wonderful people who have guided us over the years, many of them are still with us. I don't think that Alex, Karl, Curtis, Ted or Walter would jump a young man who had good intentions but who also had some associations with the likes of EDF. They would instead give good guidance.
    It is my hope that the Snook Foundation will renew itself and pursue funding through vehicles other than EDF. It is also my hope that we who have a common goal can refrain from jumping on those who are trying to help and rather offer constructive criticism.
    All that being said, I still believe EDF to be truly evil. Happy Easter everyone. Chester Brewer
  • markw4321markw4321 Posts: 171 Officer
    Brett/Capt blood,

    The first rule of data collection and statistics is that "figures can lie, and liars can figure.". There are MANY that have come before you that have been open and completely honest with valid data that
    has been presented to federal fisheries managers only to be ignored by them.

    What makes you special?
    Brett
    Why do I feel like you are trying to sell the proverbial "pig in a poke" and that you have a hidden. agenda when I read your posts? Are you working with edf?

    If you are up front and being honest you are in well over your head and swimming in the deep end of the pool already but you don't. even realize you are wet. This situation Recreational fisherman are in isn't abot good data. It's about lobby money and fish Politics. Better data won't help this is a political fight and it will only be won by political action at the federal and state levels. Capt blood for the record i am a fla native and I am out of patience as well.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,548 Captain
    ****, Chester, I thought I WAS lightening up on Brett a bit. I had completely cleared my mind, and it was WIDE OPEN, waiting on his response - I guess since Blood is out of patience, I'll have to wait til next week.

    I will sit back and enjoy the rest of the Easter weekend with my family - hope you all have a great one.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • Chester BrewerChester Brewer Posts: 171 Officer
    Thanks buddy, have 12-14 people to feed tomorrow. Should be fun. Have a blessed Easter. Chester Brewer
  • brettfitzbrettfitz Posts: 433 Officer
    Chester,
    Appreciate the thoughtful words.
    Capt. Blood,
    Thanks for that article, hadn't read it.
    Mark,
    Welcome to the table. I don't know why you get that "feeling," but time will work that out of you if you follow the work of the SGF.

    I can tell you we aren't special. Nor are we in over our heads.

    Our data collection program started at a very small, focused level. It worked, it grew. It worked, it grew.

    I am not supposing that in 15 months we'll unveil numbers that will make the Federal Government rewrite their entire position.

    All I am saying is, we have a system that is working. It is being used at the state level for snook. Again, we're not special, but has that ever happened before? Recreational anglers collecting recreational fishing data, and it proving to be useful at the state level? I don't believe it has. We're on to something. If you aren't in Florida that might not mean much to you but in my world, I gotta tell you, I was pretty stoked. Snook fishing is a big deal to me and many of my friends.

    The AAP is a tool for collecting good data. We are not in over our heads because we don't present it as anything other than what it is.

    From where I sit, you (offshore/reef) folks in the trenches are not winning. At least, considering the level of emotion that is pounded into this forum that is the impression I get. Winners don't generally act that way. Maybe a fresh perspective will do some good.

    Let me turn this around - you are against catch shares. What are you doing to accomplish your goals? Is it currently working? How do you intend to get anybody to listen to you if you don't bring something to the table?

    Tell me one group out there that has recreational angler's best interest in mind. Aside from recreational anglers, I mean. You have fringe extremist groups, commercial interests, financial interests that have nothing to do with recreational fishing who are more organized about their fishing views than we are. That is just poor form on our part, I think.

    Here's an example that burns me up. Somewhere back a few posts someone was blasting away and quoted a blurb that had the word "overfished" or "overfishing." When a fish population declines, that is the term generally used even when fishing might have absolutely nothing to do with the decline. Essential juvie habitat is destroyed, less fish make it to spawning age, the population drops, stock assessments come out, and who looks like the bad guy? All of us recreational anglers. Who pays in terms of management restrictions? Again, us. Nobody has our backs. If we don't get it together, it just won't come together, period.

    Show me what you are doing, and if it has a better potential outcome than what I am doing, I have no ego about this - I'll support you and yours. But you won't see me take a defeatist attitude and say "the problem is too big, I can't do it."

    And enough with the money. Sheesh. Like I said this is not about me, but since you can't let it rest, here is my weekend. I drove 600 miles in my personal vehicle with my two kids, ages 9 and 10. Spent my money to go work on SGF things with other board members. Have not seen my wife in 2 days - not a big deal for most I guess but my family means a lot to me. None of the other members I met with get paid either, and none of us work for EDF. I just love fishing and I am not ready to let it disappear. I am nobody's shill. At this point, if you aren't satisfied to that end, you never will be.

    Tomorrow I rest, no forum for me. Come Monday, I'd really like to be past all of this BS and get back to trying to accomplish something.
    "A 'real' fisherman is one who thinks like I do. There are more of us around than you might suspect."
    -John Gierach
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    markw4321 wrote: »
    Brett/Capt blood,

    The first rule of data collection and statistics is that "figures can lie, and liars can figure.". There are MANY that have come before you that have been open and completely honest with valid data that
    has been presented to federal fisheries managers only to be ignored by them.

    What makes you special?
    Brett
    Why do I feel like you are trying to sell the proverbial "pig in a poke" and that you have a hidden. agenda when I read your posts? Are you working with edf?

    If you are up front and being honest you are in well over your head and swimming in the deep end of the pool already but you don't. even realize you are wet. This situation Recreational fisherman are in isn't abot good data. It's about lobby money and fish Politics. Better data won't help this is a political fight and it will only be won by political action at the federal and state levels. Capt blood for the record i am a fla native and I am out of patience as well.

    Actually I could care less if a single Federal regulator sees, reads, or considers any new or analyzed data. I mean really they already have really decent data....they just are either really incompetent, incapable or corrupt in its use.

    But here's the thing.
    I nearly every court case I have followed or been involved with..."NMFS Science" trumps no-Science.....when the judge asks if there is any competing data to be considered...the outcome has been determined...we lose.
    In addition to that; it is hard enough to have an intelligent conversation with congress, but not being able to back it up with different data....makes it even harder.

    Now I am not going to say that this is the data set of all data sets, and until I can see the size and frequency of entries, it will be difficult to judge if it is usable to grow across the population.
    I can say this....EDF or anybody else will not have any input or influence on my analysis of the data...this I can assure all.

    I devote the time I do...free of charge, without any hope of return and for one reason and one reason only......Better Fishery Management.....From Better Fishery Data......Period...end of story.


    Now having said that...we must all be willing to live with what the data ultimately says....we know in our gut that something is amiss....but if data comes back that shows we as recreational anglers are having a greater impact than we think or that fisheries may be in trouble....then we must be willing to do the hard things.

    What independent data will help to show is a truer rate of recovery and more timely data will enable better tracking of needed in season changes (up or down).
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    Good data is is short supply. Collecting Recreational "Catch" or Landing data is
    something the NMFS has put very little effort into. Even their new, highly
    bragged about program really is little more than a revamp of the old, with a
    handfull of dockside interveiws and a few phone surveys taking place.

    A few missing items in data MUST still be completed, before having good landing
    data will be of use on making sound management decisions.

    First, knowing how many fish are caught, their size and location, is needed, but
    without having 'Reliable' biomass numbers, their is an essential and perhaps
    most important peice of the equation mising that will not allow any sum to be
    determined. Commercial Fishermen, particularry those pushing for Catch Shares
    and a greater peice of the TAC argue that they bring Data to the fishery and Rec's
    don't. This is true, in detail. The NMFS is responsable for providing data, and while they
    basically have a black and white landing data on Com trips, they have failed to place
    any meaningfull landing data requirements for recreational anglers, even self reporting
    ones (except for billfish landings). Like Com landing data however, even with Rec landing
    data, there MUST be a baseline biomass number in which to determine sustainable
    harvest rates. And without continuous updates on the biomass, the true health of the
    fisheries will never be known. Biomass numbers of coarse take more time and resources
    to obtain than landing data, but they are indeed the most important peice of data needed.
    As long as NOAA refuses to properly fund this process of Stock Assesments, we will be
    at the mercy of the policy NOAA determines to manage with (currently focusing on their
    'Market Based Management' scheme.). Remember that NOAA has reallocated money,
    away from fishery science and research, and TO Catch Shares....and EDF lobbied for that
    budget request. Also keep in mind that NOAA acknowledges that some 75% of their managed
    stocks have ZERO data, and of the minority that 'some', most is commercial landing data. The
    comprehensive stock assesments used to determine buimass are very few, and even important
    stocks like the South Atlantic Black Sea Bass is using data from the last full stock assesment, which
    is over a DECADE old! And they are using that to close the fishery, despite an acknowledged
    explosion since new regulations were enacted shortly after that last assesment.

    Here is something that you may want to include along with the angler input data: Total
    fishery participants. In commercial fishing, licenses and permits quantify the total number
    of participants. In CFH fisheries, it is much the same. Private, recreational fishing though
    is a mystery to the NMFS as to the totl number of participants. What has been estimated
    to be a 300% to 400% overestimation by the NMFS of federal recreational fishing has
    certainly shown itself up in estimated harvest numbers, that are in many cases extremely
    unrealistic, and obviously grossly overestimated. In the South Atlantic, Red Snapper are
    a recent example of this, but Black Sea bass shows itself up as a recent example where the
    only explanation of what took place was either complete incompetance in determine the
    estimated recreationa catch, or willfull manipulation of the numbers. Either is unacceptable.
    Without knowing the total number of participants, no extrapulation of catch data can
    provide relaible results, much like what we see from the NMFS.

    A little about EDF funding. I found the number to request the financial information from the
    Snook Foundations 501c ststus and state filing. I will request it on Monday. I'm not sure of
    the detail it will show, and I'm certain it will not include any earmarks, or conditional
    arrangements made in connection with the donor. As Chester stated, EDF funding will cast
    serious questions about the data provided. On the east coast, we have Red Snapper closed
    as a result of data, that included some that was paid for in part by Pew. When a NGO, ENGO
    especially has a history of policy that is not freindly to the fishing community, and they are willing
    to offer you money to collect fishery data....well, Red flags should be shooting up. While it is
    certainly possible to accept money from an anti-fishing organization on one hand, and provide
    credible, unbiased data on the other, the subject is far too important to allow even the perception
    of bias to enter into the equation. Remember, because of folks like EDF, Pew and their policies,
    many recreational fishermen are suffering, both in their lifelong pastimes, and even in their livelihoods.
    As such, any connection to these groups is well deserving of suspicion. Realizing this shoud give
    cause for future financial aid from these groups to be questioned with great scrutiney. Explaining this
    to would be users of your service would go a long way in dispensing of any doubts.

    MOST fishermen do not trust the NMFS or their head, NOAA....and rightfully so. Most fishermen
    likewise do not trust groups like EDF and Pew when it comes to fishing policy...and rightfully
    so. As such, any data that will be trusted by the majority of fishermen needs to be free from
    influence of both of these groups.
  • Gary S. ColecchioGary S. Colecchio Posts: 24,922 Officer
    Tom, Brett is cool. He is an innocent and his heart and head are in the right place. He needs some back story on all this to put it into perspective.

    Blood, are you the 2Cool Blood?
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

    "Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick

    "All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
  • beach_tradebeach_trade Posts: 2,040 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Hey Brett,
    What's your position on Catch Shares?

    Sector Separation?

    Days At Sea?

    Thanks in advance,

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

    I too would like to see the answers to these questions.

    Are you going to answer these questions Brettfitz???
  • yurifishmanyurifishman Posts: 54 Deckhand
    Got TA Go wrote: »
    The Feds don't even come down here to collect data. They just impose rules on us that don't/shouldn't apply to us because of the uniqueness of this area. The Gulf and SA councils both argue over who has jurisdiction down here, because neither of them want to.

    We should be our own Region.

    Rob

    You got that right Rob. Just got a word from someone working for NOAA fisheries management that the red snapper population in the Keys was not even counted in the last stock assesment!
  • Aces FullAces Full Posts: 6 Greenhorn
    I too would like to see the answers to these questions.

    Are you going to answer these questions Brettfitz???

    X3

    Plus, answer the previous questions from Tom.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • brettfitzbrettfitz Posts: 433 Officer
    Beach-

    I am not a commercial fisherman, nor do I charter. My areas of concern did not include catch shares and such until recently so I am way behind in the learning curve on those issues.

    The link that was provided earlier in this thread that showed a gentleman from EDF named Jack Sterne had come to speak to our board demonstrates an attempt on our part to start to get a grasp on the whole concept. We invited him, not the other way around. Like it or not, EDF is clearly entrenched so understanding them simply makes sense, right? Not claiming I do - there isn't enough time in the day to learn everything in a week or month or whatever. What I remember most from that meeting (without looking at my personal notes) was that Sterne was a fisherman and we talked about that mostly.

    I have a letter in front of me right now from April 9, 2010 from Amanda Leland to Jane Lubchenco, neither of whom I've ever met or dealt with. The letter refers to the role of catch shares in commercial fishing, potential it has for charter captains, but says "...for private anglers catch shares are not appropriate and a new approach is needed."

    I am generally aware of the situation you are dealing with. I am aware that there are differences in opinion regarding why there are so many red snapper in the water right now. In any discipline the scientific method falls short in explaining the "whys" of your observations. The AAP data won't tell anybody "why" either, and if we go into this expecting such we will certainly be disappointed with any outcome. That doesn't mean it won't be extremely beneficial in management, it most certainly will. And like Bobby points out, we need to be prepared for the outcome.

    So.... I'm not dodging your question, it just has not been my focus over the past few years. Inshore habitat and the associated fisheries has. It is sort of like asking me to give a detailed opinion regarding some new rule change in the game of tennis - I just started watching it so my opinion won't be as well thought out as yours if you have been a lifelong fan or are a professional player. Ask me about rugby, where I've played and coached for years, now I can have an indepth conversation with plenty of opinions. Make sense?

    If you have literature regarding catch shares and such that is not biased, send me links. I don't want to read other threads on forums like this, there is too much emotion to sift through and emotions don't help me or you learn.

    Finally, I have a direct hand in this data project. I think it is best that I don't form an opinion about catch shares until the data starts coming in anyhow. To do so would put me at risk of including a bias that doesn't need to be there. I would think that is the logical and obvious approach that anyone can agree with. Yes I need to learn more about it as a system and it's impacts along the way, but at this point I leave the battlegrounds to y'all. I believe you will find our data useful when it starts coming in. Fair enough?
    "A 'real' fisherman is one who thinks like I do. There are more of us around than you might suspect."
    -John Gierach
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    brettfitz wrote: »

    If you have literature regarding catch shares and such that is not biased, send me links. I don't want to read other threads on forums like this, there is too much emotion to sift through and emotions don't help me or you learn.

    http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/briefs/catch-shares-gulf-of-mexico/

    I am a Pritave Rec and Charter Captain primarily in the South Atlantic , and though having
    no current ties to Commercial Catch Shares, nor the push by a small group to bring it to the
    rec side in the GOM, it is affecting me in my region. Much like war, if not fought abroad when
    it starts, it will eventually make its way to your homeland.

    NOAA has made Catch Shares a "Policy", even creating a National Catch Share Program, at a
    cost of hundreds of millions and counting. This despite acknowledging that data, especially
    stockments, are expensive and in short supply. The obvious question is WHY is the hundreds
    of millions being spent on a 'Fishermen' management tool, based on market trends, rather
    than spending this money on collecting the Science FIRST? As a result of this policy, fisheries
    that most acknowledge are healthy, or at least much better than NMFS claims are closed of
    severly restricted. Its not a lack of dish, but a lack of reliable data, which is directly a result
    of NOAA's policy. Its worth noting that EDF is the cheif lobbiest of this policy, and they and Pew
    have both recently OPPOSED a legislative measure aimed at mandating reliable data in the
    setting of ACL's! See why we are outraged, and why we rightfully distrust these ENGO's
    involvement in dealings with OUR fisheries?
  • Capt BloodCapt Blood Posts: 184 Officer
    No, Gary, I only dabble with this forum; brettfitz summed it up for me pretty well, too much emotion. Traffic, hunger and bonehead govt moves all give me anger mgmt issues.

    There are the times when emotion gets the best of me so I'm dabbling, little pressure release. That special gag grouper season for the big bend really chapped my hide. I mean I'm not opposed to some fair system that rations the limited number of gag that can be taken. Yet, giving an area in the backyard of the 2 commissioners leading the charge for the special season? That's not fair - that reeks of government cronysim and it's shameful that the other commissioners went along.

    As far as I remember, when FL went inconsistent on Red Snapper way back - the season got whacked - hard. Mark my words, this crony move by the FWC is gonna screw all of us when the July-Oct season rolls around and gets cut short right as the gag are should be coming back inshore during the fall. It's gonna be deja vu of the early AJ closure awhile back, followed by a worse season the following year.

    I've seen so much cr*p in FL government over the years, selling off to developers, polluting estuaries, and now this...disgusting.
    "...forced to become a pirate not for infamy and riches, but out of a rankling sense of injustice by the government leaders who have forsaken him..." -Rafael Sabatini-
  • brettfitzbrettfitz Posts: 433 Officer
    Thanks ACME. Downloaded the PDF and will dig in at lunch.

    After 9 pages of back and forth, I hope I made it clear that I am for anglers taking a part in the managment of our fisheries. That is what the AAP is all about. I understand the distrust of third parties, and I am not on a mission to change that.

    This is about getting our act together so we have a stake in the conversation.
    "A 'real' fisherman is one who thinks like I do. There are more of us around than you might suspect."
    -John Gierach
  • Got TA GoGot TA Go Posts: 2,608 Officer
    Brett...Any plans on breaking out Monroe County Atl/Gulf?

    Rob
    www.gottagofishinginkeywest.com


    Hero's Don't Wear Capes....They Wear Dog Tags.
  • Gary S. ColecchioGary S. Colecchio Posts: 24,922 Officer
    Capt Blood wrote: »

    I've seen so much cr*p in FL government over the years, selling off to developers, polluting estuaries...

    Well, I can help you there. It will not happen with this administration and under my watch.
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

    "Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick

    "All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
  • Capt BloodCapt Blood Posts: 184 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    This is from another thread but is pertinent here, as the title of this thread is about "New (improved) data collection".

    The state of Texas collects its own data separate from the NMFS, then submits their Texas state/federal landings data to the feds to be included in the overall landings data. We collected the Texas data submitted by TPWD's Michael Ray on 03/02/2010 for the years 2000-2008 then compared that to the NMFS data that they claimed was attributable to Texas. Guess what?

    The feds over-reported our landings data by and average of 500% for each of those years.

    Here are the % numbers that the feds attributed to Texas landings that were ABOVE what Texas reported;
    2000 - 202%
    2001 - 115%
    2002 - 354%
    2003 - 742%
    2004 - 993%
    2005 - 838%
    2006 - 571%
    2007 - 339%
    2008 - 359%

    Long story short - it doesn't matter what "new and improved" data system is implemented as long as the current regime is left in place - the "interpretation" is left up to the NMFS to output whatever pre-determined outcome that it desires regardless of the input.

    Remember - these are not MY numbers - they are TPWD numbers compared to NMFS numbers - it is a matter of public record.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

    Hey Capt Tom,

    Here's my bud's preliminary thoughts - let me know if I should give em any pointers as they dig into this some more in the spare time.

    I think what is happening, though I can't be sure without a confirmation from NMFS (waiting on their response is:

    1)he has not included headboat landings
    2)the data he presents is in calendar year format
    3)TPWD doesn't include discards (and NMFS may estimate these for TPWD via proxy).

    NMFS has to take what Texas gives them and make it into a calendar year (Jan-Dec). TPWD data is May to May. So, TPWD presents data unlike that of everyone else. Thus, the landings he shows may be higher or lower for a calendar year.

    Example (mp = million pounds)
    2007
    MRFSS = 4.08 mp
    Headboat= .487 mp
    TPWD= .222 mp

    Sum is 4.8 mp
    Total (from NMFS) is 4.4 mp

    So why is the total from NMFS lower than the total from the straight addition (MRFSS+HB+TPWD)? Quite probably, the Texas numbers were lower for the annual calendar year rather than what Tom has. Basically, the May to May estimates are what (I think) Tom has and he's applying this to what NMFS uses.

    Here's another set
    2009
    TPWD = .164mp
    HB = .806mp
    MRFSS =1.66 mp
    Sum = 4.618 mp

    FINAL Est all combined for year from NMFS = 4.625mp.


    Basically, his 'percentage higher' is inaccurate. I could be wrong, it may be worth asking.
    "...forced to become a pirate not for infamy and riches, but out of a rankling sense of injustice by the government leaders who have forsaken him..." -Rafael Sabatini-
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 8,401 Admiral
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I have answered your questions, and have not continued to call you names or demean you Amigo.

    I thought you were done trying to make me understand?

    Getting past that, thank you for stopping the sophomoric responses. That said, you have not answered any of my questions. Here they are again, in case you overlooked them:

    Please provide a list of all your customers, so we can determine who they are, what's in their head, and if any that use your services are doing so to make a profit?

    Is your business venture profitable?

    How much money do you make off your fishing chart services? Last year? Since its inception?

    Please name all the employees of and consultants to your fishing chart service. Please also indicate which of those might have profited of recreational fisheries in the past, and for those who left, where are they working now?

    Is your company a non-profit who opens their books for all to see if they are so inclined?

    And for at least the fourth time, why are you suggesting we look past your self-interest but take into account others?

    Lastly, do you see the false logic in denying your own self interest but damning others for the same, or are we to believe you're somehow above your self-interest but those you disagree with are not capable of the same objectivity?
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,548 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    I understood your position long ago, just like I understand why you refuse to answer the questions I posed.

    I believe the reason is because you have just as much self-interest as those you condemn, and admitting that would show the hypocrisy in your position.

    So, instead of answering my questions -- all the while while demanding your own are answered -- you continue to demean me and call me names. And now you want to take your ball and go home, which is something I'd expect from my six year old nephew, not a grown man who is so quick to publicly demonize others for self-interest they are also guilty of.

    I cannot say I am surprised, but I am disappointed....Mike

    I said previously to your above tirade;

    "Tarponator - whatever. You just can't get some people to comprehend the difference between affiliating with an extreme anti-fishing group, as a non-profit, their refusal to disclose their relationship, AND HOW THAT COULD AFFECT ALL OF OUR FISHING FUTURES. I have already explained my self-interest in this matter - I am an American recreational fisherman and a father of 3 kids who I want to be able to go fish without having to pay people like Brettfitz and his enviro partners.

    I'm done wasting my time trying to get to you to understand."

    If you think that is demeaning you and calling you names, then I am truly sorry. Accusing me of wanting to take my ball and comparing me to a six year old is, well, demeaning me and calling me names. Your buddy Brettfitz called me a keyboard cowboy yet you don't call him out on it.

    Get ready...you are a HYPOCRITE in every sense of the word Tarponator.

    My company is a private corporation and as such, I have no responsibility or obligation to answer ANY of your arcane questions - it's really none of your business, and I would be subjugating my fiscal reponsibilities to my partner(s) in said corporation if I did so.

    You should try to keep on topic, as the purpose of this thread (again) is about a new, improved data system. Entities with a proven track record of working AGAINST recreational fishing interests are providing funding for that new system. Questions regarding those entites' involvement are valid, to-the-point questions regarding said data system.

    We ALL have a vested interest in the fisheries tarponator - how I make my living in no way undermines my rights as an American to expose the corruption and greed that has taken over our fisheries management process, yet I already know you will never be able to comprehend that fact, and I'm ok with it.

    I have some more information coming out regarding the funding for this new angleraction.org data system, and it ain't pretty.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,548 Captain
    Capt. Blood,
    Thanks for the feedback.

    Considering the discrepancy of 500% OVER Texas reported landings, the 3 points your bud made in no could account for that broad of a discrepancy.

    1)he has not included headboat landings - Headboat landings have historically accounted for only about 15% of the total TAC.
    2)the data he presents is in calendar year format - irrelevant - since the data is compiled over several years, the average remains the same (excepting the beginning /ending years)
    3)TPWD doesn't include discards (and NMFS may estimate these for TPWD via proxy). Again, discard numbers could in no way (even using Strelcheck/Crabtree calculations) account for such a large discrepancy.

    I have another analysis that I will send you that I created that mirrors this overestimation of landings (to the tune of several hundred % OVER), but this time using NMFS figures showing what happened immediately after EDF hijacked our fisheries management process with the 2006 reauthorization of MSA.

    Synopsis: In the 12 years PRIOR to the 2006 hijack, we recreational anglers UNDERFISHED our quota by an average of 100,000 pounds per year, enjoyed an average of 244 day seasons, 4 fish per person bag limits, and landed about 4.2 million pounds of red snapper each of those years. In 2007, the first year after the hijack, the NMFS claimed that we OVERFISHED our quota by 1 million pounds and cut the 2008 season accordingly. They have continually cut our seasons/bag limits every year since to where we were last year with a 48 day season. SOMEHOW, however, we were still able to catch that same 4.2 million pounds DESPITE having 196 LESS fishing days, 50% LESS daily bag limit, and 20% LESS CFH boats. Remember that it's illegal for private recs to collect multiple daily bag limits, so we can not legally take multiple trips per day to collect multiple daily bag limits. In any other wildlife management regimen, such draconian reductions in bag limits/seasons would result in a 90%+ REDUCTION in harvest, but not here in the Gulf (according to Crabtree/Strelcheck math anyways). Another way to view the same information is that we brought back to the dock 1,700 ANGLER LIMITS PER DAY (ON AVERAGE FOR THE YEARS ‘95-’06, STATE SNAPPER INCLUDED. To do what they claim happened WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO INCREASE OUR EFFORT TO OVER 6,200 ANGLER LIMITS PER DAY. Remember that the larger size fish in the later years has already been taken into account, and that many sources show a marked drop in offshore effort in these later years - not increase.

    NOTE: 6200/1700 EQUALS A 265% INCREASE IN EFFORT THROUGH YEARS WITH KATRINA, RITA, ETC.

    NOTE: IF YOU DIVIDE THE 2011 3.52 MP TAC BY ’95-’06 1700 LIMITS/DAY EFFORT (2 FISH/PERSON, 6 POUND AVERAGE) WE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A 173 DAY SEASON! Imagine the damaging economic impacts that this has had upon our Gulf fishing infrastructure already.

    They actually claim, with a straight face, that everytime that they cut our seasons/bag limits, we react by increasing our effort exponentially calling it "EFFORT COMPENSATION". Nevermind that it's a physical impossiblity.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file