Home Conservation Front

AL and MS are now noncompliant for Fed red snapper season

1246

Replies

  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Bubba wrote: »
    How do you want your fishery managed? Obviously, Tom Hilton's idea of "give us back a 6 month season" is ludicrous. That worked when there were no fish to catch.

    Let's see....who are we going to believe? Some pompous self-righteous anonymous blowhard or Dr. Shipp. the preeminent expert on red snapper in the Gulf?

    According to anonymous blowhard Bubba, reinstating our 6 month season is "obviously ludicrous".

    According to Dr. Shipp, we could be fishing a 6 month or even 8 month season for red snapper and not even "put a dent in the population".
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLK3ql1-q0I Start at 11:09 into the video to see Dr. Shipp's expert opinion of the problem and the solution.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    Bubba wrote: »
    I like trying to get you guys to think outside the box, and to be honest

    the private anglers have to realize there are more fishermen than available fish.

    Think outside the box. Many have but been mostly ignored. Remember that fish like
    Red Snapper in both the GOM and SA and the SA's BSBS especially were rebuilding
    under old regs......before the economic collapse and current fuel cost we now live
    with and most are controlled by. Remember also, the "Overfished and Undergoing
    Overfishing" are the new terms that slid the bar on defining stock status. That new
    definition took overnight, a stock that was growing, rebuilding, and suddenly reclassified it
    as in trouble. Effort did not change, well except the sudden drop when the cost of offshore
    fishing doubled,

    In the South Atlantic the ARS had the same situation, with fish becoming more abundant
    and more numerous.......with a 2 fish, 20" year round season. Then they applied the new
    definition and wanted all bottom fishing closed to prevent any release mortality of ARS.

    BSB in the South Atlantic perhaps identifies what a joke this all is. 9 years into a rebuilding
    plan.....where regs were 15 fish, 12" and year round, they suddenly applied the new 'standards'
    and closed the season, only to slash bag limit to 5 fish when reopened, then increased min
    size to 13" and still short season. AS year later the assessment reveals a healthy stock with the
    ACL nearly doubled. Still the new regs however, despite the stock rebuilding on the old regs.
    it really only takes a "Little" common sense to see the problems here, which tells us that those
    directing the policy in Federal Fishery Management have LESS THAN a "Little" common sense.

    So...."Think Outside the Box"? How about using "Common Sense"?

    As to 'More Fishermen than Available Fish"....where is that data coming from? That assumes that the
    NMFS has reliable data on the number of harvesters and fish. It also assumes that they have
    fixed their flaw where they have been overestimating recreational effort by 350% to 400%....Have
    They?
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    notreely wrote:
    I asked you a simple question Bob!

    HOW MANY VESSELS OPERATE IN WITHIN FLORIDA STATE WATERS IN THE FOR HIRE FISHERY ?

    You have not answered my question.

    So for $800.00 i can bring my captains license to any courthouse in florida and purchase a for hire fishing license.
    With that license I can take a unlimited number of unlicensed recreational fisherman on for hire trips within state waters without reporting it to anyone in the state.
    I do not have to provide the state any information as to what kind or how many vessels I can use in the fishery.

    If you think asking you a substantive question about Florida's ability to be accountable in the state water for hire fishery is antagonistic.
    GROW UP ![\QUOTE]

    I think you are confused....You asked:
    notreely wrote:
    HOW MANY VESSELS OPERATE IN WITHIN FLORIDA STATE WATERS IN THE FOR HIRE FISHERY ? [\QUOTE]

    I answered that question with valid data.
    Your diatribe has nothing to do with the number of operators or vessels...but the number of trips and that is determined by NMFS not the state using the same flawed survey that continually over estimates effort.

    Now if you problems is lack of reporting on the number of trips and passengers, that is easily fixed by requiring weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly reporting....

    But your rant versus your question are 2 entirely different issues and very different data sets.

    So maybe not antagonistic as I now realize you just didn't really understand what you were asking.

    As far as growing up....I provided what you ask for and it was you who had the tantrum, next time go find your own data.
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    One of the underlying themes in this thread, by some, is that State's can't manage a fishery, in this case RS.

    I get that when the Gulf EEZ becomes the largest MPA in the continental US due to state non-compliance for snapper, all the effort will shift to state waters and that may very well have deleterious ramifications on the nearshore RS populations.

    But, what is the background on why it is presumed States can't due a decent job of management? Is there any evidence to support this belief?

    I'm not knocking on anyone's fence here, but legitimately curious
  • MattDMattD Posts: 167 Deckhand
    Florida managed inshore fisheries seem to be doing fine. And if I were a betting man I would say there are a lot more speckled trout fishermen than offshore red snapper fishermen. I'd also bet that a lot more of the state licensed charter boats target trout more often than red snapper. At least here in west central florida. There's even commercial harvest available. Go figure.
  • BubbaBubba Posts: 204 Deckhand
    markw4321 wrote: »
    If private anglers dominate the fishery why are they forecasted to end up with about 35 % of the total red snapper tac when the commercial side is included? Best economic use in all....

    Hey but if you want out of the box from me. Here is a concept that could make everyone partially.happy for awhile at least. That would be let the private anglers have the entire 49 percent of the rec tac. Allow commercials to lease their 51 percent to cfh for use on charter boats.

    Inter-sector trading is up and down on the Council agenda more than a yoyo; however, it never seems to get traction and has lots of opponents from both private anglers and the for-hire group.
  • BubbaBubba Posts: 204 Deckhand
    One of the underlying themes in this thread, by some, is that State's can't manage a fishery, in this case RS.

    I get that when the Gulf EEZ becomes the largest MPA in the continental US due to state non-compliance for snapper, all the effort will shift to state waters and that may very well have deleterious ramifications on the nearshore RS populations.

    But, what is the background on why it is presumed States can't due a decent job of management? Is there any evidence to support this belief?

    I'm not knocking on anyone's fence here, but legitimately curious

    I'm assuming you're sorta tapping your hammer at my fence. And I'll give you a short answer. I said in a previous post that states would turn it into a Tower of Babel. And I believe that. The Council's regional management document died because the various states were quibbling over 1-3% allocations among states. Even without regional management, and if all states had 9 miles legitimately, they would argue among themselves over their self reported landings data (they are all developing state surveys, which I think is a good thing!). One state would argue that someone inflated their catches, others would argue a state deflated their catches.

    I don't disagree the states could manage the fishery. But when push comes to shove, and FL reports they took 2 million pounds and AL reports they took 1 million pounds, and MS, LA and TX report they took 3 million pounds, and that sum is over the quota...... then they will be in a spitting match over who is right and who is wrong.
  • BubbaBubba Posts: 204 Deckhand
    MattD wrote: »
    Florida managed inshore fisheries seem to be doing fine. And if I were a betting man I would say there are a lot more speckled trout fishermen than offshore red snapper fishermen. I'd also bet that a lot more of the state licensed charter boats target trout more often than red snapper. At least here in west central florida. There's even commercial harvest available. Go figure.

    I want you to think about your reply. You asked what the difference was with land-based hunting and red snapper fishing, and now you question speckled trout vs red snapper. What is the difference in the latter? The former is easy.
  • MattDMattD Posts: 167 Deckhand
    Ok. Ill start with the first post you never answered. you do understand they are two completely seperate posts right?
    I would say the biggest management difference between the land based animals and fed snapper is that land based animals are manages by the state in which thwy are harvested while red snapper are managed by the federal government for some reason. With all those gun toting deer hunters out there you would think deer would be extinct by now since they have the same daily bag limit as red snapper, and a longer season, here in Florida at least.
    As to the second. It wasn't a question so much as a statement about the ability of states to manage their own fisheries. Not sure where you saw the question there.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    I believe that the Gulf Council owes it to ALL Gulf recreational fishermen to explain how Amendment 40 is going to affect them, ALL OF THEM, BEFORE seriously considering implementing Sector Separation. If they implement a program that automatically shuts out the majority user group from the fishery, exactly how can that be a good thing, and more importantly, how can they justify such an action?

    The EDF-funded crowd is quick to demonize reallocation, citing sketchy effects on the Gulf seafood industry/consumers, but repeatedly refuse to provide specifics on what effects their plan (that requires Segregation and Discrimination) will have on those that are being segregated and discriminated against (Private recreational fishermen).
  • TypicleseTypiclese Posts: 393 Deckhand
    Flubba & notreeeeeeely-smart.....like batman and his boy wonder sidekick robin.

    Idiots. Answer the data question. You won't, you can't. You know it's BS. The fundamental modeling is biased and corrupted. The numerical analysis is fatally flawed.

    2012 - hottest year on record. Until that was smacked down. Yeah right, thought so. The issue flubba and notreeeeeeelysmart is the data being used to churn out the pink slime you idiots use to met regulation is wrong. You were ordered to fix it. But just decided what the hell, we 'll blow that off, what are they going to do about it anyway?

    What are you doing on this forum? Are you trying to sell us that the NMFS program is good? Good grief.

    Enough of the condescending comments like - "I'm trying to get you to think out of the box". Who the hell do you think you are making that comment?

    Conservation is not occuring in the fishery. Management is.

    No one has answered the import/export question I asked absolute zero. There's a reason why. It is the dark underbelly of the federal fisheries management plan. Connect the dots.

    But then again Flubba, you probably never set foot in the Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore or Shanghai fish markets. It's amazing what you'll find there - and the price it is selling for there in Asia.
  • BubbaBubba Posts: 204 Deckhand
    Typiclese wrote: »
    No one has answered the import/export question I asked absolute zero. There's a reason why. It is the dark underbelly of the federal fisheries management plan. Connect the dots.

    LOL...... maybe because no one here is an import/export expert? You can read the Fisheries of the U.S., just like anyone else. There are also specific import/export documents, just not detailed.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I believe that the Gulf Council owes it to ALL Gulf recreational fishermen to explain how Amendment 40 is going to affect them, ALL OF THEM, BEFORE seriously considering implementing Sector Separation. If they implement a program that automatically shuts out the majority user group from the fishery, exactly how can that be a good thing, and more importantly, how can they justify such an action?

    The EDF-funded crowd is quick to demonize reallocation, citing sketchy effects on the Gulf seafood industry/consumers, but repeatedly refuse to provide specifics on what effects their plan (that requires Segregation and Discrimination) will have on those that are being segregated and discriminated against (Private recreational fishermen).

    They also refuse to answer basic questions about the clear failures in the NMFS over data.
    That because those details along with that of their scheme really do not play out well for the
    average Family Level angler. Under their scheme, the average recreational angler will see
    their access erode to ZERO.

    A few years back I believe, these same separatist did post around 10 scenarios on their
    Sector Separation scheme, and all but 1 was very bad for those not gifted a private quota.
    That post was removed once they caught wind to others knowledge (like EDF's bragging about
    their rewriting the MSA).

    The GC, following NMFS lead recommended divvying up a large chunk of the recreational
    access of their fisheries for private use. They still ignore the fact that its not their fish, but
    the anglers on their boat fishing that they belong to. Funny how their is an assumption that
    the boat owners represent their voices. Since those people represent the recreational fishing
    public at large, one would think that this group would be ask what they want....oh wait, they
    already have! The NMFS did not like the answer, so they kicked it down the road to give time
    for the separatist to re-organize.

    These separatist still cite issues like State non-compliance as a reason for declining access, but
    continue to ignore, refusing to answer questions about the gross over estimation of recreational
    effort that continues and has a greater impact on access than any other thing. Tells you their
    idea.....get a guaranteed quota for themselves, and let the private sector get shut down to
    benefit their business model. They make clear this is all about the "Business Model", despite
    the law requiring that FMP's NOT be established for primarily economic reasons. Yet that's
    exactly what is being done.

    Data......These separatist claim to want better data and "Accountability", yet refuse to acknowledge
    that this is all possible without them separating sectors. They already know how many permits their
    are, names and address's. Even the non federal permitted charter operations operating in state
    waters only have a known identity and could have all the data needed.......if it was really wanted.

    Also funny how these groups wanting their own guaranteed quota all seem tied to the same system
    of determination of "Historic Data", iSnapper. Conflict of interest? When the HB allocations were determined
    a lot of questions were raised about how they seemingly got so much. Same seems true of what is
    being floated on the CFH separatist scheme proposed of nearly half of all recreational ARS quota.
    Guessing the Alabama CFH IFQ HB Clone will similarly be gifted a unproportionatly large "Share"
    of fish to benefit their business model.

    So continue blaming the states and ignoring the big problems that will continue to plague most
    family level anglers. Seems the mantra these groups used to claim of ensuring future generations
    will be able to fish applies only to those willing to pay to fish on their boat. They threw the average
    Joe under the bus with their lawsuit, now they attack families again with this. The states seem like
    the ONLY ones really interested in the private recreational angler. Guess that makes sense since
    they rely on both the health of the fisheries and income from recreational anglers access to those
    healthy fisheries for revenue........whereas the Feds get paid the same whether the fisheries are
    healthy or fail.
  • DI 310DI 310 Posts: 40 Deckhand
    http://www.courierjournal.net/online_only/article_9c560d4a-02f0-11e4-9a96-0019bb2963f4.html

    Here are the numbers from snapper landed in Alabama during the fed season.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    The entire state of Alabama landed about 300,000 pounds, and the Gulf Council is looking to give the Alabama Charterboat EFP 366,000 pounds next year.

    Does that sound right to you?
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    So on a 40 day season the state of Alabama would catch 1.3 million pounds. Right? Actually on a 40 day season it would be more like 2.5 million pounds because the vast amount of tourist usually show up in the middle of June so there would be way more fishing trips if it went the whole 40 days. The EFP will not have the buffers that everyone else has because they will basically be using TAGS, Electronic Tags to be exact. The EFP will not go over quota!!!! %100 Accountable.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    How can any system implemented by the NMFS be 100% accountable when the NMFS itself is unaccountatble?

    Who cares if the CFH sector is 100% accountable when the private recs are 100% shut out?
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    How can any system implemented by the NMFS be 100% accountable when the NMFS itself is unaccountatble?

    Who cares if the CFH sector is 100% accountable when the private recs are 100% shut out?

    I don't know, maybe the thousands of Anglers that fish on charter boats. Also the private recs wanted state seasons so there not shut out at all. The private recs have been able to enjoy red snapper season all summer while all the customer on Charter boats got 9 days total.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    notreely wrote:
    I asked you a simple question Bob!

    HOW MANY VESSELS OPERATE IN WITHIN FLORIDA STATE WATERS IN THE FOR HIRE FISHERY ?

    You have not answered my question.

    So for $800.00 i can bring my captains license to any courthouse in florida and purchase a for hire fishing license.
    With that license I can take a unlimited number of unlicensed recreational fisherman on for hire trips within state waters without reporting it to anyone in the state.
    I do not have to provide the state any information as to what kind or how many vessels I can use in the fishery.

    If you think asking you a substantive question about Florida's ability to be accountable in the state water for hire fishery is antagonistic.
    GROW UP ![\QUOTE]

    I think you are confused....You asked:
    notreely wrote:
    HOW MANY VESSELS OPERATE IN WITHIN FLORIDA STATE WATERS IN THE FOR HIRE FISHERY ? [\QUOTE]

    I answered that question with valid data.
    Your diatribe has nothing to do with the number of operators or vessels...but the number of trips and that is determined by NMFS not the state using the same flawed survey that continually over estimates effort.

    Now if you problems is lack of reporting on the number of trips and passengers, that is easily fixed by requiring weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly reporting....

    But your rant versus your question are 2 entirely different issues and very different data sets.

    So maybe not antagonistic as I now realize you just didn't really understand what you were asking.

    As far as growing up....I provided what you ask for and it was you who had the tantrum, next time go find your own data.

    That's the whole point Bob their is no data collected by the state of florida as to just how many,the size and capacity of the in state for hire fleet. As long as florida does not require some sort of endorsement or permit to be issued to the vessel you will not know how many passengers or what part of the for hire fishery that a charter boat or captains license is engaged in.
    So with a charter captain license I could run a 12 passenger flounder gigging trip here in Jacksonville or a 150 passenger red snapper trip out of Panama City and the only thing the state knows is I have a charter captains license.
    That is why a federal charter/Headboat permit is issued to a vessel not a person.
    On the application for a federal charter/Headboat permit you are required to provide the passenger capacity as well as boat size and other information about the vessel. I also believe you can't increase substantially the amount of passengers you take year to year,let alone day to day.
    Yes this could be easily fixed by a for hire reporting program.
    Unfortunately both Jessica McCawley (SAFMC) and Martha Bademan(GMFMC) of FWC marine fisheries management both spoke and voted against including Florida's state waters for hire charter and Headboat vessels from Being included in the joint amendment requiring charter boat catch reporting.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Let's see....who are we going to believe? Some pompous self-righteous anonymous blowhard or Dr. Shipp. the preeminent expert on red snapper in the Gulf?

    According to anonymous blowhard Bubba, reinstating our 6 month season is "obviously ludicrous".

    According to Dr. Shipp, we could be fishing a 6 month or even 8 month season for red snapper and not even "put a dent in the population".
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLK3ql1-q0I Start at 11:09 into the video to see Dr. Shipp's expert opinion of the problem and the solution.

    Tom even your boyfriend Dr Shipp knows that with better data their might be less days even if the next assessment showed a significant increase. He knows that Dr. Crabtree can't do a thing about it either way as long as the MSA requires quotas. So if the MSA is not changed not even your beloved Dr. Shipp thinks anything can be done to get more days.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Bubba wrote: »
    I want you to think about your reply. You asked what the difference was with land-based hunting and red snapper fishing, and now you question speckled trout vs red snapper. What is the difference in the latter? The former is easy.

    Maybe he's looking for his thinking cap.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    So on a 40 day season the state of Alabama would catch 1.3 million pounds. Right? Actually on a 40 day season it would be more like 2.5 million pounds because the vast amount of tourist usually show up in the middle of June so there would be way more fishing trips if it went the whole 40 days. The EFP will not have the buffers that everyone else has because they will basically be using TAGS, Electronic Tags to be exact. The EFP will not go over quota!!!! %100 Accountable.


    And those numbers are only with 60-65% private rec reporting and 80-85% charter boats and I don't even think that includes head boats.

    So much for all those effort deniers!
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    "Effort Deniers"......Funny. So a statement by pro separatist is taken as gospel? A lot
    of sheeples do believe that all "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" is man made
    though (even though climate scientist don't), so not surprising, simply because 'Big
    Green' promotes it.


    I ask the question several times with no answer:

    "Has the gross overestimation identified in MRFSS been eliminated in MRIP"?

    Still hearing states are "Unaccountable" but no comment on the Feds Unaccountability.
    The Federal CFH program, say in the GOM as an example, knows how many active
    permits there are...........yet has no clue as to how many of these business's actively
    fish for, lets say, Red Snapper.

    Could they? Easily. Could they do so without Sector Separation, IFQ's, etc? again, yes.
    The only real question is why they refuse to do so, at least without changing the management
    to benefit a 'Business Model'.

    Since the Alabama CFH scheme like the HB IFQ scheme was both for the primary intent
    of economic purposes (everyone knows it is, since data was already being collected on
    Head Boats), why no Red Flags about the complete disregard for US Federal Fishery
    law? Does it being an EFP allow they to break those laws? Any doubt these EFP's will
    simply be converted without a referendum in due time to a full FMP? Like the NMFS
    has proven to do before. What happened to the voices of the 97% of the thousands
    of individuals that were opposed to this scheme? Some more real good questions
    never answered.

    So why should the States be "Accountable", when the Fed's won't?

    So wh
  • jad1097jad1097 Posts: 9,611 Admiral
    Bubba wrote: »

    There are more rifle toting hunters than there are available polar bears.
    There are more rifle toting hunters than there are available grizzly bears.
    There are more rifle toting hunters than there are available black bears.
    There are more rifle toting hunters than there are available elk.
    There are more rifle toting/arrow toting hunters than there are available white tail deer.
    There are more shotgun toting hunters than there are available ducks.

    See a pattern?
    .

    YES. How many of those listed are hunted commercially? Are the commercial hunters allotted near 50%?



    MS sig says it all: 'THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.' BAM, there is your answer. It's really simple.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    "Effort Deniers"......Funny. So a statement by pro separatist is taken as gospel? A lot
    of sheeples do believe that all "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" is man made
    though (even though climate scientist don't), so not surprising, simply because 'Big
    Green' promotes it.


    I ask the question several times with no answer:

    "Has the gross overestimation identified in MRFSS been eliminated in MRIP"?

    Still hearing states are "Unaccountable" but no comment on the Feds Unaccountability.
    The Federal CFH program, say in the GOM as an example, knows how many active
    permits there are...........yet has no clue as to how many of these business's actively
    fish for, lets say, Red Snapper.

    Could they? Easily. Could they do so without Sector Separation, IFQ's, etc? again, yes.
    The only real question is why they refuse to do so, at least without changing the management
    to benefit a 'Business Model'.

    Since the Alabama CFH scheme like the HB IFQ scheme was both for the primary intent
    of economic purposes (everyone knows it is, since data was already being collected on
    Head Boats), why no Red Flags about the complete disregard for US Federal Fishery
    law? Does it being an EFP allow they to break those laws? Any doubt these EFP's will
    simply be converted without a referendum in due time to a full FMP? Like the NMFS
    has proven to do before. What happened to the voices of the 97% of the thousands
    of individuals that were opposed to this scheme? Some more real good questions
    never answered.

    So why should the States be "Accountable", when the Fed's won't?

    So wh
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    jad1097 wrote: »
    YES. How many of those listed are hunted commercially? Are the commercial hunters allotted near 50%?



    MS sig says it all: 'THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.' BAM, there is your answer. It's really simple.

    Red Snapper in the gulf are not considered overfished. However the recreational sector has been engaged in overfishing.
  • jad1097jad1097 Posts: 9,611 Admiral
    notreely wrote: »
    Red Snapper in the gulf are not considered overfished. However the recreational sector has been engaged in overfishing.

    Then reduce or ban commercial fishing for them. Problem solved.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Looks to me we are facing a total shutdown for the majority of red snapper fishermen in the Gulf whether we stay at status quo or go to Sector Separation because it's really not about managing the fish now is it? It's about converting our PUBLIC TRUST RESOURCE into private commodities.

    Let's see what has transpired this far;
    286,457 pounds have already been sliced off and gifted to the Headboat EFP (17 headboats). That's 16,850 pounds per boat.
    366,000 pounds is what they are looking to give to the Alabama Charterboat Cooperative (90 boats). That's 4,067 pounds per boat.

    There are about 1,200 for-hire boats in the Gulf that fish for red snapper. 47% of 5.5 million pounds = 2,585,000 pounds / 1200 boats = 2,154 pounds per boat. The numbers do not add up in any way, form, or fashion.

    Looks like these EFPs are designed to make this For-hire IFQ concept look a LOT better than it REALLY is. These EFPs are hardly a fair representation of what would ACTUALLY happen with for-hire IFQs.

    Some of the leaders of The Charter Fisherman's Association have already admitted that the result of their plan will be a REDUCTION of the charter fleet, eliminating their competitors, and giving themselves a LARGER piece of the pie. Start to look for qualifiers to participate in the for-hire IFQ program - income requirements, those who have "substantially fished", etc. etc. These so-called leaders of the charter industry are leading their brethren like sheep to the slaughter, feeding them misinformation in order to gain their support for a plan that will actually end up forcing them out of the fishery.

    Ard has already admitted that they have already filed ANOTHER lawsuit, which I am fairly sure that will mean even further restrictions on the Gulf recreational red snapper fishermen. What we have here is the enviro $$ dictating our fisheries policy via lawsuits to FORCE their profit-grab agenda, and to hell with everyone else.

    This is no solution to our fisheries problems - this is Armageddon for our children's fisheries future. It's time to hold all of these scam artists accountable and kick them out of our fisheries management. It's time for the states to take over our fisheries management - totally and completely and free from federal/enviro meddling.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,503 AG
    jad1097 wrote: »
    Then reduce or ban commercial fishing for them. Problem solved.
    Nah, you'll just overfish your new quota.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    notreely wrote: »
    And those numbers are only with 60-65% private rec reporting and 80-85% charter boats and I don't even think that includes head boats.

    So much for all those effort deniers!

    How many pounds of red snapper did MRIP say that Alabama caught in 2013?
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Digital Now Included!

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

Preview This Month's Issue

Buy Digital Single Issues

Don't miss an issue.
Buy single digital issue for your phone or tablet.

Buy Single Digital Issue on the Florida Sportsman App

Other Magazines

See All Other Magazines

Special Interest Magazines

See All Special Interest Magazines

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Florida Sportsman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement

Phone Icon

Get Digital Access.

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.

Get Digital Access

Not a Subscriber?
Subscribe Now