Skip to main content
Home Conservation Front

Sector Separation (Amendment 40) Public Hearings

Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
I urge everyone to take the time and effort to attend these public hearings to voice your disapproval of Sector Separation - here is a link to the meeting schedule; http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=1091674

Here are some graphics of what is at stake here.

You will notice that under Sector Separation, the recreational anglers who fish on for-hire vessels simply disappear, as they have no vote, and the have no stake in the fishery, as ALL of the rights to the for-hire component will be handed over to a select few corporations to price out as they seem fit for maximum profits.

Additionally, if there is a referendum, the recreational fishermen who fish on for-hire vessels will have no vote.

Under Sector Separation, the private recreational angling component will be shut out, and doled out fish tags via a lottery system to see who is lucky enough to get a tag to go fish.

Additionally, if there is a referendum, the recreational fishermen who fish on private rec vessels will have no vote.

Does that make any sense to you?

Any Plan that addresses only 1/2 of the equation, (as Sector Separation does), is doomed for failure.

Any Plan that addresses only 1/2 of the equation, (as Sector Separation does), is half-baked and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it belongs.

UNTIL there is a Plan on the table that clearly addresses ALL Gulf recreational fishermen in a clear, transparent manner at to the effects of such Plan on ALL Gulf recreational fishermen, (such as Sector Separation), any action to separate the recreational fishery should be shelved.

There is ALREADY Sector Separation implemented in a US Recreational fishery - the Alaska Halibut fishery. The Gulf Council needs to take a long hard look at what is happening up there relative to the effects of Sector Separation on the recreational for-hire and private recs RIGHT NOW. It is not a theory or a hypothesis - it is the REALITY of what is happening to those fishing communities RIGHT NOW...it is an unmitigated disaster.

Sector Separation is going to cause scores of charter operations to close their doors this year since they took away 50% of their catch. Sector Separation is geared to force charter operators to lease commercial quota in order to have enough fish to take their clients fishing (Catch Sharing Plan).

Why should ANY American be forced to pay ANOTHER American (commercial fishing corporations) for the right to go catch what we ALREADY OWN? This is especially poignant when you consider that these same commercial fishing corporations paid $0 for their IFQs.

Contact ANY of the Alaska charter organizations (not funded by EDF) and they will ALL tell you the SAME thing - FIGHT THIS WITH EVERY OUNCE OF ENERGY YOU HAVE, AS IT WILL FOREVER CHANGE OUR FISHING HERITAGE AND OUR KIDS'/GRANDKIDS' FISHING FUTURE.

When you make you case at the Public Hearings in the next couple of weeks, here is an example of what you should say;

"My name is ______________ from ______________, I have been recreational fishing the Gulf for Red Snapper since _____ on private boats, charter boats and head boats. With regards to Amendment 40, Action item 1, I am in favor of Alternative 1. I urge the members of the Gulf Council to act to adopt Action 1, Alternative 1. With regards to Amendment 40, Action item 3, I am in favor of Alternative 1. I urge the members of the Gulf Council to act to adopt Action 3, Alternative 1."
«1

Replies

  • Mackeral SnatcherMackeral Snatcher Posts: 12,787 AG
    You gonna bail me out Tom?
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    I can't think of anything that would that would ensure the implementation of sector separation, then a paranoid conspiratorial rant by Tom Hilton!

    I thought you guys were taking this to court?
    Many of you against sector separation have claimed that it is illegal under the MSA.
    Have you had any luck getting a federal judge to put an injunction on the council to keep them from proceeding with sector separation?
    Or have you resolved yourselves to the fact that sector separation will happen and Tom's comments will just get separation over with faster!
  • markw4321markw4321 Posts: 171 Officer
    notreely wrote: »
    I can't think of anything that would that would ensure the implementation of sector separation, then a paranoid conspiratorial rant by Tom Hilton!

    I thought you guys were taking this to court?
    Many of you against sector separation have claimed that it is illegal under the MSA.
    Have you had any luck getting a federal judge to put an injunction on the council to keep them from proceeding with sector separation?
    Or have you resolved yourselves to the fact that sector separation will happen and Tom's comments will just get separation over with faster!

    Hope to meet you at one of the upcoming meetings. You seem to be a real PoS.
  • Mackeral SnatcherMackeral Snatcher Posts: 12,787 AG
    Mark, I think I met you. I believe Gary introduced us awhile back.
    Your an attorney, correct?
    Back on topic..............I just looked to see if my comments made it to the council web site'
    And lo and behold I found comments going back 9 months.
    Interesting reading.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Atgbk2rxQkqhdFlHMXpBb2Zld2J1dlpOZHp2RjZrQmc&usp=drive_web#gid=0

    Now if only the council members would read it.

    Makes me sick to think that the voice of the majority is being so blatantly disregarded.:mad
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    I know - it's paranoid and delusional to suggest that we look at where Sector Separation has already been implemented in the US rec fisheries to see how it is working for THOSE charter and private rec fishermen. Totally off base.
  • Mackeral SnatcherMackeral Snatcher Posts: 12,787 AG
    Public Hearings, Scoping Meetings & Workshops:

    Reef Fish Amendment 40 - Sector Separation

    August 4, 2014

    Hilton Galveston Island Hotel
    5400 Seawall Blvd.
    Galveston Island, TX 77551

    Sirata Beach Hotel
    5300 Gulf Blvd.
    St. Petersburg Beach, FL 33706

    August 5, 2014

    Plantation Suites & Conference Center
    1909 State Highway 361
    Port Aransas, TX 78373

    August 6, 2014

    Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott
    3111 Loop Road
    Orange Beach, AL

    August 7, 2014

    Renaissance Mobile Riverview Plaza Hotel
    64 S. Water Street
    Mobile, AL 36602

    August 12, 2014

    Holiday Inn Select
    2001 Martin Luther King Blvd.
    Panama City, FL 32405

    August 18, 2014

    Hyatt Place Baton Rouge
    6080 Bluebonnet Blvd.
    Baton Rouge, LA 70808

    August 19, 2014

    Courtyard by Marriott Gulfport Beachfront
    1600 E. Beach Blvd.
    Gulfport, MS 39501


    The times seem to be missing??
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Public Hearings, Scoping Meetings & Workshops:

    Reef Fish Amendment 40 - Sector Separation

    August 4, 2014

    Hilton Galveston Island Hotel
    5400 Seawall Blvd.
    Galveston Island, TX 77551

    Sirata Beach Hotel
    5300 Gulf Blvd.
    St. Petersburg Beach, FL 33706

    August 5, 2014

    Plantation Suites & Conference Center
    1909 State Highway 361
    Port Aransas, TX 78373

    August 6, 2014

    Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott
    3111 Loop Road
    Orange Beach, AL

    August 7, 2014

    Renaissance Mobile Riverview Plaza Hotel
    64 S. Water Street
    Mobile, AL 36602

    August 12, 2014

    Holiday Inn Select
    2001 Martin Luther King Blvd.
    Panama City, FL 32405

    August 18, 2014

    Hyatt Place Baton Rouge
    6080 Bluebonnet Blvd.
    Baton Rouge, LA 70808

    August 19, 2014

    Courtyard by Marriott Gulfport Beachfront
    1600 E. Beach Blvd.
    Gulfport, MS 39501


    The times seem to be missing??


    The time for sector separation is now!
  • Mackeral SnatcherMackeral Snatcher Posts: 12,787 AG
    I got two words for ya.............and they aint happy birthday.
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    I got two words for ya.............and they aint happy birthday.

    Sector separation ?
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    markw4321 wrote: »
    Hope to meet you at one of the upcoming meetings. You seem to be a real PoS.

    Partitioner of sectors !
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »

    You will notice that under Sector Separation, the recreational anglers who fish on for-hire vessels simply disappear, as they have no vote, and the have no stake in the fishery, as ALL of the rights to the for-hire component will be handed over to a select few corporations to price out as they seem fit for maximum profits.

    Additionally, if there is a referendum, the recreational fishermen who fish on for-hire vessels will have no vote.

    Under Sector Separation, the private recreational angling component will be shut out, and doled out fish tags via a lottery system to see who is lucky enough to get a tag to go fish.

    Additionally, if there is a referendum, the recreational fishermen who fish on private rec vessels will have no vote.

    Tom,

    Can you tell me where in amendment 40 it states that there needs to be votes, referenda, people excluded? Please provide that answer; otherwise, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

    As best I can tell, Amendment 40 would separate the rec quota into 2 sub-quotas, allocating some percentage to the for-hire and some percentage to private anglers. Under the current MSA statutes, when the recreational SECTOR (for-hire plus private) meets its quota, the recreational SECTOR (for-hire plus private) shuts down. Amendment 40 doesn't establish IFQs, tags, or require votes or referenda, as far as I can tell. Its still a derby; but with Amendment 40, for-hire will be racing to fish against themselves, and private anglers will be racing to fish against themselves.

    Now, with state non-compliance, like happened this year, private would be allowed to fish longer in state waters as for-hire can't fish in state waters if federal waters are closed. So, I can see where private might wind up with little federal season, but long state seasons, and since for-hire would have their own sub-quota, they might get a longer federal season since they can't fish in state waters.

    Yes, sector separation COULD lead to further action....... but by itself, it simply creates 2 derbies vs 1.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Mark, I think I met you. Your an attorney, correct?

    Mark, you're an attorney? Wow! And you think the National Standard Guidelines are law that you can be busted for (that's what you repeatedly told me earlier)?

    Magnuson Stevens Act Section 301(b) GUIDELINES.—The Secretary shall establish advisory guidelines (which shall not have
    the force and effect of law), based on the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery management plans.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Bubba,
    With all of the EFPs that are utilizing IFQs, Roy looking to implement a Gulf-wide for-hire "IFQ-type" program, and the fact that in order to implement IFQs, they MUST implement Sector Separation FIRST, then it is clear that Sector Separation is merely a stepping stone to recreational IFQs. Then again, we have been pointing that fact out for years, despite people such as Scott Hickman claiming that Sector Separation has nothing to do with Catch Shares. Scott has since come out of the closet on thsi issue and is now actively endorsing Sector Separation, Catch Shares, IFQs, - you name it.

    If Sector Separation is such a GREAT idea, then why isn't there greater scrutiny on the ONLY instance of Sector Separation implemented in a US recreational fishery - The Alaska Recreational Halibut Fishery? We should be flying down some of the charter captains who are currently fishing under Sector Separation up there to relay their experience with the program thus far. Every single one of the Alaska charter captains that I have talked to have said that Sector Separation is an UNMITIGATED DISASTER. They have told me that there will be scores of charter operations closing their doors after this season. The "Plan" up there is to put the squeeze on them so hard (similar to our 9 day season squeeze down here) that they will be forced to lease commercial quota to go catch their fish (Catch Sharing Plan - CSP).

    Bubba - you should contact some of those charter captains and let THEM tell you what they think about this sham. Rod Berg - [email protected] or talk to the people at the largest CHARTER organization in Alaska; http://www.alaskacharter.org/ or http://homercharterassociation.com/

    If we want to see what Sector Separation will be like, we can simply look at the Headboat EFP. These 17 headboats were given an inordinate amount of the quota, and have been able to fish any day they want for over 7 months now, while the private recs have been forced to sit at the dock all year, excepting 9 days. This is an EXCELLENT preview of what Sector Separation will bring. This is the "solution"? Not in this lifetime.
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,022 Admiral
    Thanks Tom, clearly the government doesn’t want our input but they have to pretend to listen to it by law, we will make our case and they will do what they want like always. It is getting a lot worse too and the people keep voting for this crap.
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    the private recs have been forced to sit at the dock all year, excepting 9 days.

    Now that's funny, there, I don't care who you are.

    You sit in TX and have always had a 365 day state season, with a 4 fish bag limit. LA opened its state waters for every day until the end of the year (although there are limited opportunities within LA's 3 mile limit to catch red snapper, the LDWF is recognizing their state's declaration of 9 miles). FL opened its state waters for 52 days this year, and AL private anglers could fish in FL waters and land in AL. AL opened its state waters on weekends (I think) through the end of July, and much like LA declared 9 mile authority, and their DNR isn't really watching if boats are coming in from outside their legal 3 mile limit.

    So, private anglers only got 9 days? I'd say charter boats only got 9 days; private anglers get a big bonus.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    You seem to forget that Texas has ALWAYS had a year-round state water season - FOR DECADES. All of a sudden, it supposedly is an issue, even though the feds' data shows that Texas state water snapper are "statistically insignificant". After all, according to the feds' data, almost 70% of ALL Texas red snapper (including state water catches) are landed by recreational anglers fishing aboard headboats, in federal waters. Freaky, since in the other 4 Gulf states, headboat landings are closer to 7% of their total red snapper landings - NOT 70%.

    You seem to have an issue with the Constitutional rights guaranteed to the states to manage their lands as they see fit, free from federal interference, but don't have an issue with what's actually causing the supposed problem - 30B. It's just another excuse that you guys point to in an attempt to justify your resource grab.

    If you want to see what Sector Separation will look like - you simply need to look at the existing Headboat EFP. Those 17 headboats were given an inordinate amount of the fish (at least double what they should have gotten), supposedly derived from the fishable days in the 2011 47 day season, yet here we are, in August, and those boats have ALL been able to fish whenever they want for over 7 months now. And we private recs (and the headboat competitors) are prohibited from fishing federal waters excepting for a 9 day window.

    THAT is exactly what we will CONTINUE TO SEE with Sector Separation, that is Bubba, unless you can point to ANY information that shows otherwise.
  • BubbaII wrote: »
    As best I can tell, Amendment 40 would separate the rec quota into 2 sub-quotas, allocating some percentage to the for-hire and some percentage to private anglers. Amendment 40 doesn't establish IFQs, tags, or require votes or referenda, as far as I can tell. Its still a derby; but with Amendment 40, for-hire will be racing to fish against themselves, and private anglers will be racing to fish against themselves.

    Yes, sector separation COULD lead to further action....... but by itself, it simply creates 2 derbies vs 1.

    Sector Separation in of itself is pointless....which means it is obviously ONLY a stepping
    stone to other plans. It is a necessary step to remove the average recreational angler
    from having any sense of say on what happens to the quota after separated......but

    WHO's quota is it? The Recreational Harvester for which all of the regulations are crafted
    and held in effect for, or the Business owner hired by the recreational angler to take them
    to the fishing grounds? What SS and an obvious follow-up plan would attempt to do is take
    away the "Harvest Rights" which currently belong to the recreational angler regardless of
    their means of transportation to the fishing grounds, and then assign them to a commercial
    business entity.

    Again, since IFQ's have been the clearly stated goals of separating the sectors all along, and
    the very basis of their EFP schemes the same groups are tied to, we have to look at the end
    game, Recreational IFQ's. Since SS is only another Derby, it serves no purpose to the primary
    economic purpose of the end game, creating an IFQ, which without SS is not possible. So,
    with IFQ's being the goal, what are the legal definitions we should consider? What "Ownership"
    rights are maintained under IFQ's? NOAA legal defined it as a 'Right to Harvest'. As such, WHO
    is the "Harvester" in a recreational sector, regardless of whether separated or not? It is the
    Recreational Angler, or Harvester. Its NOT the Boat Owner, Business Owner, Captain or any
    other individual other than the person holding the rod. The regulations, size and bag limits and
    seasons pertain to them alone.

    What is again being sought is not just splitting the recreational harvesters quota, but taking away
    their individual harvest right and assigning it to a commercial business owner. So, WHO would
    in an eventual IFQ proposal get to vote in a referendum, the business owner, or the individual
    defined under MSA as the one with the "Harvest Rights". the Recreational Angler? Why is it that
    the business owner now is being given so much attention, when even for the consideration of SS,
    its still the Recreational Harvesters fish? It seems what is being attempted its to make Charter
    Business owners Legal Representatives of all future clients so as to allow them to make all legal
    determinations on their behalf when it comes to their fishery.

    So as to allocations IF such a scheme occurred. The separatist want nearly half of all ARS quota,
    based on "Historic" data going back decades when many more charter boats operated in the Gulf.
    Is that "Fair and Equitable"? Maybe NS is not written law, but its designed to be followed in it not?
    Seems, 'Fair and Equitable', since its still recreational anglers, many of which fish both CFH and
    on private boats, would be to maintain similar access. If private rec's had only 9 days of fishing
    this year and likely less next year, not counting weather cancellations, why should the SAME
    recreational Harvester be allowed any more on a boat owned by a commercial business rather than
    by a friend or family member, or even their own boat?

    We keep hearing that business owners should be allowed to manage their own business's.....but that's
    not what they are wanting to do is it? They are wanting to have the Harvest Rights of half of the
    recreational anglers quota assigned to them.
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,022 Admiral
    I was pleasantly surprised at the very good turnout of people that spoke out against sector separation. Of course there were some charter boat captains that spoke out in favor of it too. If they want to go that route then the allocation for them should come out of the commercial allocation. Especially since the NMFS is no longer considering A-28 for reallocation. A-28 would have prevented this whole thing in the first place, what a cluster the Fed is!
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    notreely wrote: »
    I can't think of anything that would that would ensure the implementation of sector separation, then a paranoid conspiratorial rant by Tom Hilton!

    I thought you guys were taking this to court?
    Many of you against sector separation have claimed that it is illegal under the MSA.
    Have you had any luck getting a federal judge to put an injunction on the council to keep them from proceeding with sector separation?
    Or have you resolved yourselves to the fact that sector separation will happen and Tom's comments will just get separation over with faster!

    Okay there is an obvious lack of understanding of our legal system here...
    Now congress could tell the council to stop and threaten to withhold any further funding until they do.
    As for suing, until an amendment is written, rules codified, and the ultimate division of quota made, then there is no standing....
    You must show damages or clear violation of the law.....simply discussing it does not meet that standard....

    On its merits....
    Amendment 40 is purely an economic amendment to the RS FMP, this is in clear violation of the MSA and one reason why the AP voted to not approve until legal interpretation was made.
    Secondly the quota if amendment 40 is passed will determine of damages are done and National Standard 4 is violated (Fair and equitable treatment of all fishermen in a class). Since CFH carry recreational fishermen and they are no different than any other recreational fishermen any quota over and above that necessary to provide RS within a reasonable amount would be excessive.

    The CFH carries about 22% of the passengers in the recreational sector; so by extension they only need 22% of the quota to meet the needs of their customers when looked at fairly across the spectrum of anglers.
    It does not matter what the historical catch was, because the fishery today is not what it was and the make of the fishery is not what it was, so basing it on what was instead of what is violates another National Standard.

    So yes it is in contravention to the MSA and its underlying National Standards and will be challenged in court once (if) it become reality.

    My gut feeling is that it will be tabled once again waiting for something else, like a reauthorization of the MSA or the next stock assessment.
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • Doc StressorDoc Stressor Homosassa, FLPosts: 2,777 Captain
    If they want to go that route then the allocation for them should come out of the commercial allocation.

    That's what Alaska did with halibut. They put the charter guys in with the commercials when they separated the sectors. Of course the private recreational fishermen make up a much smaller percentage of the fishing picture up there.

  • Jack HexterJack Hexter New Port RicheyPosts: 5,494 Moderator
    What right does a non-boat owner who fishes on a charter/headboat have that I don''t have, that allows him to catch a fish that I am not allowed to catch
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    What right does a non-boat owner who fishes on a charter/headboat have that I don''t have, that allows him to catch a fish that I am not allowed to catch

    Short answer NONE!

    This is all about splitting the oppositions to their management, giving one group cream puffs, while they figure out how to give both sides the shaft.
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • mjacksmjacks Posts: 152 Deckhand
    notreely wrote: »
    Sector separation ?

    Nope! Stinky Sphincter!
  • TypicleseTypiclese Posts: 393 Deckhand
    Okay there is an obvious lack of understanding of our legal system here...
    Now congress could tell the council to stop and threaten to withhold any further funding until they do.
    As for suing, until an amendment is written, rules codified, and the ultimate division of quota made, then there is no standing....
    You must show damages or clear violation of the law.....simply discussing it does not meet that standard....

    On its merits....
    Amendment 40 is purely an economic amendment to the RS FMP, this is in clear violation of the MSA and one reason why the AP voted to not approve until legal interpretation was made.
    Secondly the quota if amendment 40 is passed will determine of damages are done and National Standard 4 is violated (Fair and equitable treatment of all fishermen in a class). Since CFH carry recreational fishermen and they are no different than any other recreational fishermen any quota over and above that necessary to provide RS within a reasonable amount would be excessive.

    The CFH carries about 22% of the passengers in the recreational sector; so by extension they only need 22% of the quota to meet the needs of their customers when looked at fairly across the spectrum of anglers.
    It does not matter what the historical catch was, because the fishery today is not what it was and the make of the fishery is not what it was, so basing it on what was instead of what is violates another National Standard.

    So yes it is in contravention to the MSA and its underlying National Standards and will be challenged in court once (if) it become reality.

    My gut feeling is that it will be tabled once again waiting for something else, like a reauthorization of the MSA or the next stock assessment.

    Well said Capt B.
    :USA
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,735 AG
    surfman wrote: »
    If they want to go that route then the allocation for them should come out of the commercial allocation.
    Ok, let's take charter guides redfish out of the commercial allocation(they are registered commercial boats).
    Oh wait, there is no commercial allocation of redfish......

    but there could be.:grin






    Careful what you wish for.
    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.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,892 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Ok, let's take charter guides redfish out of the commercial allocation(they are registered commercial boats).
    Oh wait, there is no commercial allocation of redfish......

    but there could be.:grin

    Careful what you wish for.

    Perfect example of what happened once before when States continued to be bullied around, finally they said screw it and made it a game fish with recreational take and landings only. It won't do nobody no good to hold all the federal harvest privileges for red snapper if the States ban together and make possession of commercial quantities illegal. Are you going to offload them in Mexico?:huh

    You are right, some should be careful what they continue to wish for.:wink
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,022 Admiral
    Or the allocation should be made fair, like 95% recreational 5% commercial, that way we get to fish for 6 months and so does the commercial. Instead the allocation was set at a predetermined amount that just so happened to match the commercial fishery’s historical take. What do you know, isn’t it funny how that works, so they get to fish all year because that’s how long it takes to catch their allocation, supposedly anyway. Business as usual. While in the meantime the recreational fisherman who numbers in the millions and is obviously out there targeting red snapper on a daily basis can catch their “fair” allocation of red snapper in 9 days. If we catch that many fish then we should have been given a much much larger allocation and any new allocation should go directly to the recreational fishermen, in order to truly even things up and make it fair, as they say.
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    Hey guys dirty little secret.....the stock is healthy enough to support and increase in commercial quota (they don't want or will use it in order to keep prices up) and support a year round 2 or 3 fish bag limit......

    When this hit s the fan....all He$$ is gonna break loose.
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,022 Admiral
    Yep, I believe you are correct, Bob.
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,735 AG
    surfman wrote: »
    Or the allocation should be made fair, like 95% recreational 5% commercial, that way we get to fish for 6 months and so does the commercial. Instead the allocation was set at a predetermined amount that just so happened to match the commercial fishery’s historical take. What do you know, isn’t it funny how that works, so they get to fish all year because that’s how long it takes to catch their allocation, supposedly anyway. Business as usual. While in the meantime the recreational fisherman who numbers in the millions and is obviously out there targeting red snapper on a daily basis can catch their “fair” allocation of red snapper in 9 days. If we catch that many fish then we should have been given a much much larger allocation and any new allocation should go directly to the recreational fishermen, in order to truly even things up and make it fair, as they say.
    We used to catch our allocation in 60-80 days, mostly from the panhandle west.
    You make a lot of allegations for not knowing shizz, please try to keep up.
    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.
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