Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
Digital Now Included!
Current Subscribers Click Here.
Current Subscribers Click Here.
All Florida Sportsman subscribers now have digital access to their magazine content. This means you have the option to read your magazine on most popular phones and tablets.
To get started, click the link below to visit mymagnow.com and learn how to access your digital magazine.
Replies
You can foment your conspiracy theory all you want by repeatedly asking questions that have been answered. You choose not to accept the answers or not to believe them as credible, but that is the data that is being used. The for hire fishery in the south Atlantic is structured very differently than that of the gulf. There is no 30B provision so a federally permitted charter boat can catch and land a red snapper in state waters while federal waters are closed. The charter Headboat permits in the SA can be obtained by anyone with a 20 foot boat they are not in a LAP. So I would say if the conditions were similar in the SA as the gulf, IFQ'S would have more support in the SA.
As for bag limit recreational sales be all but eliminated. I don't know we're you are getting your information, but you are wrong again. In the EEZ in the SA there are several species that bag limit cannot be sold. However their many species that are perfectly legal to sell. As for florida state waters you can sell almost anything within the bag limit, Actually you can sell twice the bag limit. I know in other posts you have mentioned that you don't sell fish from your charters, I don't know whether you are ethically opposed to it or just don't need the money.
As for the SA commercial fishery, the snapper grouper permits are under a reduced effort plan. You need to buy 2 to obtain 1. Even though there are no IFQ'S , special endorsements for small groups of participants in certain fisheries in the snapper grouper complex have been handed out. I have also read and herd at public comment,commercial king mackerel fisherman wanting to reduce effort. If the benchmark assessment for Atlantic king mackerel comes back showing the stock is in trouble and the ACL is lowered I would suspect those fisherman would be more open to an IFQ program or some sort of historic endorsements.
That bring me back to my question. If you operated you charter boat in the gulf or the SA adopts a similar IFQ program would you enter the program or not?
No difference.
So much for a serious response. The reason I ask is because it has NOT been answered. Simply
saying it has does not make it so. More recently I have directed questions besides on forums and social
media about the GOM's Head Boat IFQ scheme, but also direct to the groups supposedly in charge.
Think I got any answer? Think again. First question I ask about that scheme was when it was open
to public comment, through a special NOAA portal. I ask for access to the public input comments so
as to see who was commenting and what was being said. After the administrator of that process checked
with NOAA legal, I was told I could not have access to it. So much for FOIA let alone just the promised
Transparency. Since then in that program the access to info and answers has NOT gotten better. Most
recently the question pertained to the HB's allocation being based on ACL's since determined to be
overfished and subject to AM's based on a court loss. Also about the fact that when the general ACL was
declared reached, the HB season would be closed. Would think an answer would be easy and forthcoming
if they had one, but guess again!
That's just one subject. Others include the SA circle hook discard mortality and implementation of greatly
reduced discard mortality on ACL's. Gotten no answer. Best I got was from SEDAR...and that was an I don't
know. Another concerned angler also ask Carmichael the same question and got an answer even more
perplexing, that 'He was not directed to include it'! I have ask about the SA's BSB rationalization for
re3creational fisheries....how a fishery basically rebuilt under old regs to a point where the most recent
assessment shows a very healthy stock suddenly has access cut by 72% when you consider the new restrictions
that include a bag limit reduced by 66%, an increased min size and a season cut anywhere from
half to 1/3 of what it was. Of coarse there are many more questions deserving answers that have remained
without.
As to the ones you claimed have been answered....EFFORT. Roy Crabtree stated when ask directly by me
about whether the gross estimation of recreational effort clearly identified in MRFSS has been corrected.
His answer (yes He did answer technically) 'Well......Its getting Better'. Then He went on to explain how
they are looking into the mail in surveys of random coastal households to try getting better data. No
answer on how its currently better, especially since the formula used to determine this effort is unchanged
since the failure was identified. So......beating around the bush is not a real answer here is it. Really, while
claiming that its 'getting better' no information has been presented to "SHOW" that its getting better. If anything
the only real adjustments to the methodology such as varied reporting times and intercept times has hurt
recreational interest.
"The sale of bag-limit caught snapper grouper species is prohibited" That obviously is all but managed
pelagic. Since then additional Coastal Migratory fish have been added and Dolphin. Like I said they all
but closed down the sale of Recreationally caught fish. So I can as a Recreational Federal Permitted
South Atlantic Charter boat stop in state waters on the way back in, when Red Snapper are closed in Federal
Waters, and should we somehow find a 20" Red Snapper.....We could legally keep it? No 30b but what about the
provision to 'abide by the more restrictive regulation' that is clearly required? I am a Recreational Charter Fisherman, not commercial, dual permitted or SPL/RS holding. I take people recreationally fishing. Sometimes
they want to take the fish home, sometimes they cannot. Seems the striving of some to mix charter fishing
with commercial sale of fish has really soured many on the CFH industry, lumping all into one with the
commercial side. Its only a recent turn that bag limit possession of Snapper/Grouper complex fish are
being allowed for Captain/Crew......but that is still not to be sold on CFH trips, even if caught on a dual
permitted boat.
Reduced effort calls by certain King Fishermen are those with multiple boats, and would benefit the most
by eliminating competition. When Kings are thick, the prices plummet. Hard to drive prices up when
you cannot stop fishermen needing the money from going out fishing. Those with the most to gain
generally have the resources to play the market game and wait......if they had a private resource to
monopolize.
So as to "Participating" or quitting in a Recreational IFQ fishery if one came to our region....I still ask...Would
I have been allowed to participate in a process first among all other recreational anglers to determine
whether or not we wanted such a scheme.....or would it be a NMFS/NOAA unilateral move that ignored
a required referendum? No conspiracy theory as to what was done in New England's commercial ground
fishery, the GOM's IFQ, the GOM's HB and even Alabama CFH clone, or the Alaska CFH Halibut. We know
exactly how well the required referendum process was followed in all of these, or better to say was NOT
followed or grossly manipulated to get around the technical mandates. Would you be asking if I would
participate in a program enacted by trickery and deception?
A lot of your questions have not been answered, and can't be answered because they are framed as "What will happen in the future?" "What will someone else do?" "Will I be allowed to do something in the future?" How any future programs are developed will depend on how the Council wants to structure them. Until they pick how they want to identify substantial participation, your questions can't be answered.
As to your comments about the Headboat study, I just did a quick google search - I typed "Headboat EFP" and the following link was at the top of the list. The material for the study (application, final EFP, comments, etc) can be found here http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2013/headboat_efp/index.html
And you can daily track landings at https://ifq.sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ifqgt/main.html?CFID=159018&CFTOKEN=dce5a48b3684362f-4DDBFE4C-D591-9FB8-93F11E5B9D47B42A#
As to the allocation, I suspect the headboat allocation has not been adjusted (maybe it has, IDK) because there is no uncertainty about their catch, just like the commercial catch. The reduction to an ACT is to account for any uncertainty regarding overages above the ACT while trying to keep it below the ACL. If you read the EFP at the link above, you'd see that yes, they are subject to closure if the quota is met (the Magnuson 407d stuff).
Your right about more restrictive rule issue,I remember the SAFMC was proposing something in a amendment that worked both ways between state and Feds but it went nowhere.
I forgot red snapper was one of those species that had a more restrictive rule.
As for bag limit sales florida still allows it for all species so a non federally permitted for hire boat can sell any fish not involved in a commercial IFQ program.
That was one reason the SAFMC wanted to do the more restrictive into state waters.
You as federally permitted vessel can still sell Cobia,bonitos, blackfin tuna, blue runners etc,etc,etc.
But I do respect your conviction on your no sale policy.
As for the king fisherman I believe most were worried about over capitalization in the fishery. To many permits for the ACL. When fishing is good everybody jumps in and hurts the full time fisherman. And if the ACL gets lowered it will only exacerbate the problem.
The HB scheme has links to the just of the comments received before, including the
EDF form document click thru from their site......but this was not available BEFORE
the deal was signed off, while Public Comments were being made......like is done in
most other agenda's so that a open and transparent process was ensured. So if the
ACL....of which the HB scheme is part of the Recreational total of has not been met,
why have all other Recreational Anglers been stopped from harvesting ARS? The
emergency rule and season determination was not only to apply AM's but keep it
under the adjusted quota also, thus allowing the HB's to keep fishing. But...their
historic data was based on seasons declared overfished and subject to AM's in the
court ruling, yet they remain unaffected.
Why are Circle hook discard mortality numbers in the SA which have created much less
discard mortality...not being used? That should be able to be answered.
Why has BSB in the SA which rebuilt over 90% with old regs in place suddenly have
its season slashed, bag limit decreased by 66% and min size increased despite the
new stock assessment showing completely rebuilt, increases in ACl's, reduced discard
mortality with mandated circle hooks, etc? That should be able to be answered.
Here is a biggy, and one the NMFS and Councils SHOULD be able to address, since its
something they are legally bound to correct. "Has the MRIP eliminated the Gross Overestimation
of Recreational Effort clearly identified in the MRFSS and ordered by law to be fixed? That
has been ask, but the only answer received was not very promising at "Well....its getting better".
That by the way was a direct quote of the answer I received from Roy Crabtree with numerous
others in attendance. You would think that had it done so, a "Yes" would have been replied.
Now the question ask of me about whether I would participate in a SS or IFQ was
hypothetical, so the question I ask back could be nothing but the same....however
it does make a difference on how I would answer.
This is all under the fed control/guide lines, the fed should get out of managing non-migratory fish all together, they are not needed.
What choice do they have? This is what the Fed is forcing them to do, and I think they like to see us squabble over it.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Red Snapper is a migratory fish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think we just uncovered who notreely is - he is LSU's Professor Cowan. The enviro crowd had no answer to Bob Shipp's question a while back; "If the Alabama artificial reefs have been accounting for about 40% of the rec landings year after year, and these reefs are not PRODUCING these fish, then where are they being ATTRACTED from?"
The enviros then relied (again) upon the "science" produced by Professor Cowan, who claimed that the Alabama reefs were being populated by red snapper MIGRATING from banks offshore of Texas! If that was true, there would be a river of snapper that you could walk upon in the narrow strait of suitable snapper depth off of South Pass Louisiana. Total garbage produced to try to counter the argument that artificial reefs actually play an important role in the red snapper ecosystem.
It's time for all of the Gulf states, as Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana have recently done, to declare control over their fisheries out to whatever point needed to sustain a vibrant recreational fishery here in the Gulf. Why stop at 9 miles? I would recommend that they claim jurisdiction out to 100 miles, and institute a 6 month red snapper season. Let's see the feds' enforce that without the help from any of the states' game wardens.
For the Gulf States, as far as how far out or what territory they need to claim, I see no need for that. Each boat has a state registration, which is the regulation that boat needs to follow. I know there will be some issues with the borders but I would be willing to bet that if given the chance most of the regulations per state will be the same. That being said, if a FL boater wants to fish using AL regulations or he trailers his boat to AL then he should be able to acquire an AL permit that shows he is fishing under those regulations. He will have to land those fish in AL of course too. No need for boundaries that cannot be patrolled.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
The states wont allow it....remember we are talking about 1200 federal permit guys versus all the state licensed guys....Think the states will allow 50 percent of go to 1200 boats....not likely....remember a big chunk of the CFH number is state guys in state waters.....
This also illustrates the folly of sector separation.
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
A College Professor wow! Its to bad my mother is not alive, she would be so proud of me.
Did I mention the word Highly ?
You are running out of straws Tom!
Since I'm now a professor! Your Dismissed!
Bob the non federally permitted vessels are already excluded from the fishery in federal waters. The states have no say In the matter! Again If the states could do something,you need to blame them for the commercial IFQ program.
And talk about unaccountable florida has no idea of how many state for hire trips their are. Florida doesn't even know how many vessels are operating in the state for hire industry.
The feds' cannot control state water catches, and really shouldn't even be concerned with them since they do not have jurisdiction over what happens in state waters. But, since they insist on combining state water snapper landings with federal landings, then I would hope the states extend their fisheries management out to 100 miles and reinstate our 6 month season - let's see how much IFQ quota each of you get when/if that happens. I cannot believe you guys think this action is going to go unchallenged by the states.
Why stop there? Why not all the way to 100 miles?
This is the United STATES of America, after all.
Why? THE SUBMERGED LANDS ACT
No, the purpose of an ACT (adjusted quota as you call it) is to try and stop fishing so it doesn't go over the ACL (quota) when uncertainty in catch estimates is high. For red snapper, recreational catch levels are very uncertain, as you have pointed out.
notreely, congratulations. Do you have a 9 month appointment or a coveted 12 month appointment?
I do believe it was Mr. Hilton who was stating that all the fish in FL migrated from AL reefs.
http://forums.floridasportsman.com/showthread.php?157871-Plea-to-the-NMF&p=1999470&viewfull=1#post1999470
http://forums.floridasportsman.com/showthread.php?157871-Plea-to-the-NMF&p=2006878&viewfull=1#post2006878
Maybe I mistook his statement?
So, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi are in violation of the Submerged Lands Act? We are not talking about land, or oil, but fisheries regulations.
No, it was Bubba who claimed it was the pipeline which was responsible for the resurgence of red snapper offshore of Tampa - that was shown to be an idiotic statement, now wasn't it? Perhaps you should cite some of Cowan's work - maybe all of those red snapper migrated from Cuba.
Tom I'm not an attorney, I'm a professor! I don't think those states are in violation of the SLA, but I do believe it's why they can't protect state recreational anglers from federal law enforcement past 3nm.
I believe it's time to issue a category 5 desperation warning. I'm starting to worry about Tom! He needs some relaxation!
When the for hire IFQ is implemented, maybe I'll buy him a ticket on a Headboat so he can catch and keep a nice red snapper.
No, Bubba made a commentary http://forums.floridasportsman.com/showthread.php?157871-Plea-to-the-NMF&p=2007865&viewfull=1#post2007865 that he had been told that, not that he believed it, just that he'd heard it over and over, just as you have been told its all about Katrina.
Tom, take a break. You contradict yourself so much its almost not fun to catch you in the contradictions; its just too easy.
Well, I'm not an attorney or a perfesser; but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn recently. Its not even just submerged land act, although that is the biggie. Its all about whether the French or the Spanish ceded the territory to the US, whether its 9 or 3 miles. And actually its not even 9 miles; its measured in leagues.
Tom, you might find this interesting (another quick google search where this was the 4th hit).
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgovinfo.library.unt.edu%2Foceancommission%2Fdocuments%2Ffull_color_rpt%2F03a_primer.pdf&ei=_QGyU9iXK9WkqAbe5YHYDg&usg=AFQjCNEiqEeKYcSPvqLoFkjT73__a-vPQg&bvm=bv.69837884,d.b2k
I haven't contradicted myself at all Bubba boy - it is you who has contradicted yourself.
As far as your link to the Submerged Lands Act, I guess you didn't read this;
"In general, states must exercise their authority for the benefit of the public, consistent
with the public trust doctrine. Under this doctrine, which has evolved from ancient Roman
law and English common law, governments have an obligation to protect the interests of
the general public (as opposed to the narrow interests of specific users or any particular
group) in tidelands and in the water column and submerged lands below navigable waters.
Public interests have traditionally included navigation, fishing, and commerce. In recent
times, the public has also looked to the government to protect their interests in recreation,
environmental protection, research, and preservation of scenic beauty and cultural heritage.
Tom, why do you think states can't "grab" submerged land? Do you think it could have something to do with OIL?
Just asking........