Red Snapper Chart

Tom Hilton

Here is a graphic showing the federal red snapper range (in pink) - the inshore line of the pink area is the state/federal line, and the offshore line is the 500' line, which is pretty much the outer depth of the red snapper range.

Considering that about 98% of the structure that snapper desire in the Gulf is located in federal waters, it would make sense to assume that likewise about 98% of the Gulf's red snapper population lives in federal waters, since they are structure-dependent fish.

If the Gulf states open up their state seasons, then the TAC will be all caught inside state waters and there will be NO recreational fishing for red snapper in federal waters. How in the heck does that make sense when the large majority of fish reside in federal waters? How could the fish caught in state waters possibly affect the biomass as a whole?

Ludicrous. Obviously, this is setting up a hostile takeover of our fisheries based on bogus data and assumptions to promote maximum profits for corporations via Catch Shares at the expense of every other fisherman in the Gulf as well as Gulf coastal communities.

drgibby

I could not agree more. Even when there is hard evidence and clear scientific data, it seems like it is just ignored if it does not fit their agenda. Cannot wait for A#1`s whitty retort to this post................

BubbaII

dunno, Capt. Tom. Have you perused the Panhandle fishing forum for posts in June and July when FL state waters were open but federal waters were closed? Seems catching snapper in state waters wasn't too hard.

According to NMFS' website about 800,000 pounds were caught in state waters in Jan.-Apr. and in Jul-Oct. Can't really split the May-June wave since the federal season was in the middle of it. In any event, that is a lot more than 2% of the quota.

and I hope you don't try to say MRIP is biased, thus the numbers are no good. MRIP isn't in Texas or Louisiana, which were two of 3 states open outside the federal season. Looks like Florida folks (and Alabama folks who could go to Florida waters to fish and go home to Alabama) did pretty well.

CountryBumpkin

OK Bubba so let's say we agree with you, that most all the allowable take is being taken in "State waters".

Seems to me that would be even more reason for Congress to follow Rep. Byrne's suggestion and take all NOAAs funding for red snapper management and give it to the States, and let them manage the fishery. Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do, you know manage the fishery at the point of origin.

Or are you the type that would advocate some "less than logical" means of fisheries mangement?:grin

reel stamas

BubbaII wrote: »

dunno, Capt. Tom. Have you perused the Panhandle fishing forum for posts in June and July when FL state waters were open but federal waters were closed? Seems catching snapper in state waters wasn't too hard.

According to NMFS' website about 800,000 pounds were caught in state waters in Jan.-Apr. and in Jul-Oct. Can't really split the May-June wave since the federal season was in the middle of it. In any event, that is a lot more than 2% of the quota.

and I hope you don't try to say MRIP is biased, thus the numbers are no good. MRIP isn't in Texas or Louisiana, which were two of 3 states open outside the federal season. Looks like Florida folks (and Alabama folks who could go to Florida waters to fish and go home to Alabama) did pretty well.

Just b/c we can catch ARS in State Waters doesn't mean that most of them live there... Your argument is asinine...

Tom Hilton

Yes Bubba, MRIP is a joke.

Also, looking at the graphic, the overall biomass of red snapper live in the pink area. Fish caught outside of that area have little to no impact on the health of the stock as a whole, especially when noting that snapper are reef fish and do not migrate like pelagics.

BubbaII

CountryBumpkin wrote: »

OK Bubba so let's say we agree with you, that most all the allowable take is being taken in "State waters".

Seems to me that would be even more reason for Congress to follow Rep. Byrne's suggestion and take all NOAAs funding for red snapper management and give it to the States, and let them manage the fishery. Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do, you know manage the fishery at the point of origin.

Or are you the type that would advocate some "less than logical" means of fisheries mangement?:grin

I doubt there is a NMFS line item in their budget for "red snapper management", but you have a good point.

Did you watch the last House Committee hearing? I did; one of the benefits of being retired, I guess. Every Congressman asked if the Commission could handle such a new load, and the unanimous answer from the state reps there was no. They would need substantially more funding than what NMFS currently expends, just to get up to where they could handle the task. NMFS already has stock assessment folks who do multiple assessments; not just red snapper. The data collection programs would have to be rolled over and absorbed.

Oh, and Byrne's focused questions were silly. He asked what the NMFS budget was for the nation, and then used that number to ask why with all that money, NMFS couldn't better manage red snapper, like the only thing NMFS does is manage red snapper. LOL....... talk about a small potato fishery compared to the nation......

BubbaII

reel stamas wrote: »

Just b/c we can catch ARS in State Waters doesn't mean that most of them live there... Your argument is asinine...

No; its just a comment to Tom's assertion was since 98% of the area was outside state waters, thus 98% of the catch should be in federal waters. If 800,000 pounds (excluding May-June) were landed in state waters, that is a lot more than 2% of 5.5 million pounds.

Tom Hilton

I'm saying tht 98% of the biomass lives in the pink area and that any catches outside of that area would not affect that 98%. You are confusing the TAC with biomass.

surfman

Exactly right Tom, been asking that same question for months now, the Gulf fish are obviously being reserved for someone else. I would love to have a copy of that chart.

ANUMBER1

drgibby wrote: »

I could not agree more. Even when there is hard evidence and clear scientific data, it seems like it is just ignored if it does not fit their agenda. Cannot wait for A#1`s whitty retort to this post................

*witty..
and the chart is wrong.

Tom Hilton

How is the chart wrong Art?

TrippleTailIV

The chart us incorrect in the assumption that 98% of RS live in the shaded area. The fish starts shallow and moves deeper as it ages. Likely the majority of fish in the shaded area are 3+ yr old fish. While it may be likely the majority of catchable fish are in the shaded area, I'm not so sure about biomass, as biomass could be a function of numbers of young which may outweigh the adult population. In other words, there may be more young than old and the sheer number of young may have a higher biomass than the adults.

Tom, I'd run this by one the experts in the scientific world. You may be correct, but it seems a bit unfounded to base a population structure solely on depth without some sort of corroboration.

Tom Hilton

Tripple,
The purpose of the chart was to show the incorrect assumption that catches outside of the pink area affect the biomass of catchable fish inside the pink area - we are talking about catchable fish, so thanks for the clarification.

Any fisheries experts here feel free to chime in.

ACME Ventures Fishing

TrippleTailIV wrote: »

Tom, I'd run this by one the experts in the scientific world. You may be correct, but it seems a bit unfounded to base a population structure solely on depth without some sort of corroboration.

Sadly its some of the very "experts" that have led to the gross mismanagement we see now.
Ask the fishermen where they are catching the fish. Seems the best evidence of where the
fish are. I have caught a lot of nice ARS in the 60' depth off Panama City Beach, and guessing
much of the panhandle is similar. On the east coast 60' to 200' seems the norm for finding
good numbers of fish. 60' on the east central coast is well outside our 3 mile limit and is generally
outside 9 miles. While the Gulf lines vary between 9 miles and 3, still seems the vast majority
of fish from juveniles to breeders are outside that range. That's not to say that there may not be a lot of
fish in that relatively tiny area, but compared to the massive range and structure found outside those
borders it would be a stretch to even suggest anything but a lopsided comparison.

Now we have had Red Snapper experts weigh in on the stocks health and range. The thought is that the
ARS stock has now exceeded Historic stock levels (before fishing). That's likely true.

Question I have, does anyone REALLY believe the NMFS biomass estimates are anywhere close to reality?
How about their estimated effort numbers?

ANUMBER1

Tom Hilton wrote: »

How is the chart wrong Art?

Reply #13

ANUMBER1

I never caught many fish inside of 90' off Levy, Citrus, Hernando, and Pasco counties.

That would put the line off all but Pasco at 65 miles.
And most of Pasco would apply.

Tom Hilton

ANUMBER1 wrote: »

I never caught many fish inside of 90' off Levy, Citrus, Hernando, and Pasco counties.

That would put the line off all but Pasco at 65 miles.
And most of Pasco would apply.

Thanks for making my point - the fish inside of 3 to 9 miles off of the beach make up a small fraction (probably less than 2%) of the overall population of legal sized fish. The idea that the fish landed outside of the pink area could equal the Total Allowable Catch is either 1) based on a gross underestimation of the total stock size, or 2) a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the red snapper population, or 3) an intentional action designed to justify the draconian regulations and the supposed "cure" - Catch Shares.

You make the call.

ANUMBER1

Tom Hilton wrote: »

Thanks for making my point - the fish inside of 3 to 9 miles off of the beach make up a small fraction (probably less than 2%) of the overall population of legal sized fish. The idea that the fish landed outside of the pink area could equal the Total Allowable Catch is either 1) based on a gross underestimation of the total stock size, or 2) a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of the red snapper population, or 3) an intentional action designed to justify the draconian regulations and the supposed "cure" - Catch Shares.

You make the call.

However I have dove 6 miles off panama City Beach and seen plenty of ARS.

reel stamas

ANUMBER1 wrote: »

However I have dove 6 miles off panama City Beach and seen plenty of ARS.

Yes, We have 'plenty' of ARS ~5-9 mi. off PCB... but I highly doubt 'most' of the ARS are in State Waters off the Panhandle...

mustang190

It's nothing to catch big RS 3-5 miles off the beach here (Panama City). The problem is that a lot of people judge the health of the population by the public reefs and spots! A bridge span maybe wiped out in a month but a half a mile away that old pile of chicken coops or that VW bug is loaded up with RS.

Capt Easy

ACME Ventures Fishing wrote: »

Now we have had Red Snapper experts weigh in on the stocks health and range. The thought is that the
ARS stock has now exceeded Historic stock levels (before fishing). That's likely true.

I'd bet it's not true at all. Based on my experiences fishing in the mid 1970's and having talked to fisherman that were fishing earlier than that. Not true at all.

I read not to long ago that the commercial and rec quota combined is expected to be 16 million pounds when the fishery is rebuilt compared to I guess somewhere around 8 million now. That's 8 more million pounds per year. That is what comm. and rec fisherman have to keep their eye on.

Getting everything strait now, commercial IFQ, Charter headboat IFQ. will, I believe make it easier to distribute the fish in the future. Having said that I'm not wedded to the idea that commercial or charter IFQ holders automatically double their shares. I think that future fish should be distributed with the income from leases going to further fisheries research.

Tom Hilton

I'll have to go with the opinion of the foremost red snapper expert in the Gulf - Dr. Bob Shipp who says otherwise Capt. - we are experiencing historically high populations of snapper today due to the influx of artificial structures - oil platforms and artificial reefs.

We have an 11 million pound TAC right now - not 8 million.

What income from leases? Currently, all lease revenues go to shareholder's bank accounts, and I don't see anything on the table that says otherwise.

surfman

The allocation should be more fair than that, if recreational fishermen get to fish for 18 days then commercial fishermen should get to fish for 18 days. Of course according to the “experts” recreational fishermen land 100,000 lbs of fish a day, even when the hurricanes are blowing we manage to get the job done. And now they say we are doing that in state waters to boot.

ANUMBER1

surfman wrote: »

The allocation should be more fair than that, if recreational fishermen get to fish for 18 days then commercial fishermen should get to fish for 18 days. Of course according to the “experts” recreational fishermen land 100,000 lbs of fish a day, even when the hurricanes are blowing we manage to get the job done. And now they say we are doing that in state waters to boot.

Let's apply that to red fish or trout, you ok with that?

surfman

I’d be okay with your bag being reduced to 5 trout only 1 over 20”, compared to what 75 to 150 up to 24”?

ANUMBER1

Can I sell redfish and snook too?

surfman

Absolutely not those are game fish, as they should be, intended only for recreational use.

Reef Bandit

I don't usually come onto this section but that a few months ago, I made up a chart just like that one, only mine was hand drawn. I really appreciate Tom posting it. I know most of you on here live up north of me but if you look at the map at the bottom, you'll see that Key West basically has 0 red snappers in state waters... this is actually a true assessment. My problem with State vs Fed is that we do have red snappers but they're to the west of Key West in Federal waters. We get to fish them a whopping 9 days a year yet we have so many that we literally have to not fish certain area's as they are so thick. I went to an FWC meeting recently where one of their reps said "Since we don't have red snappers in the Keys, let's talk about lobster".
Are we all beating our heads against a wall fighting NMFS? Is it even worth our while? Who do we need to contact in Fla? Senator/Governor?

Tom Hilton

Reef Bandit - it is this type of graphic that the politicians can understand and the reason why it was created. When you can show the absurdity of what the federal fisheries managers are claiming, then maybe somebody in a position to affect change will do so. I urge everyone to send this graphic to their representatives and ask for their help in reversing this attack on our fishing rights and heritage. (You can right click on the image and save it to your computer).

surfman

Reef Bandit, you should come here more often.