Skip to main content
Home Conservation Front

Who does the Gulf Council members represent?

harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
I, for one, certainly do not agree with what Texas is doing. After all, they are 5 Gulf states; not just Texas. Recreational, commercial, charter, and head boats all contribute a great deal to not only what Florida has, or should have, to offer the sportsman/consumer but also our very economy. The fact that the gulf council approved Amendment, 40 when their own web sight recorded a 96.3% opposition rate, indicates how 'broken' the system really is. We pay, reimburse, the council members to represent the best interest of both fisherman & fishery. Who exactly are they representing is the really big question. We all knew how 'follow the money trail' Crabtree would vote; but Pam Dana, the 'supposed' recreational fisherman representative on the council, voting yes was a shocker.
Who is Pam Dana?
Pam_zps3ae2cb44.jpg
As most on here probably know I have been fishing on Hubbard's boats for decades. With Hubbard's extensive log book records their 'share' under shares-separation would probably be very large; great for business. However Captain Mark Hubbard, owner, as well as myself, are strong opponents of Amendment 40; it's just not the right thing to do. Each & everyone of us deserve our fair share of ARS, gags, and everything our waters have to offer. This is our heritage. However, 'fair share' has been taken over by greed. The council members are appointed; not elected. If they were forced to face the VOTE the 10 who voted for Amendment 40 would have a most difficult time holding on to their positions. Wonder who they really represent?
Untitled_zps490d33ca.jpg

Does anyone know how much the council members are reimbursed?
«134

Replies

  • Gary S. ColecchioGary S. Colecchio Posts: 24,905 AG
    Council members are NOAA contract employees and report to the regional administrator ( Roy Crabtree ), who is the hiring manager. They are compensated as Federal employees as GS 15s on a daily basis. Currently the rate schedule is approx. $70 /hour , so an 8 hour day is $560 plus expenses.

    Pam Dana is entitled to that compensation as well as the monetary benefits directly resulting from the "sector separation" legislation she establishes as a dual license holder.
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

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

    "All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
  • Mackeral SnatcherMackeral Snatcher Posts: 13,214 AG
    Sooooooooooooooo, what your saying is "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"
    And Pam is sorta double dipping.

    Did I get that right?
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
    Thanks Gary; I knew you you know the answer.
  • Mackeral SnatcherMackeral Snatcher Posts: 13,214 AG
    Pretty sure I got it right also:wink
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • There were (2) Charter for Hire Owner/Operators on the Gulf Council that voted YES to give
    themselves effectively raise. The COI rule written for Councils apparently differs greatly from
    the clearly intended NOAA COI standards. Council Members are allowed to pretty much ignore
    any COI issue. The way "Someone" amended the Councils COI rule (it was not originally as it
    is now), these (2) charter boat owners would have to own interest in 10% of the entire GOM
    Charter fleet, or about 130 of the 1300 boats......just to meet the minimum for being considered
    a "Conflict" by their voting on the issue. In MOST government agencies and even the NMFA and NOAA
    its a ZERO interest policy. I firmly believe that the original intent of the Councils COI was to prevent
    members from owning more than 10% of a specific holding of company....NOT of the entire fleet. It
    is only a few word in the rule that make it what it is today.

    There were (2) Florida reps that ignored the states official policy on AM 40 and failed to serve the
    states interest, one of them being Pam Dana.

    While there are clauses preventing council members from being employed by certain outside groups
    that effectively lobby the council, there are plenty of loopholes as recent years have see members
    end their term only to reappear after the limits expired working for groups like OC.

    The council members are SUPPOSED to represent the nation as a whole, but AM 40 proved otherwise.
    It most definitely harmed one sector just to reward the other smaller sector. It failed to include the
    Economic Impact Study.. Which really is the sole basis and claim for needing AM40. It claimed
    it would produce "Accountability", but of coarse nothing included when passed. Really, it included
    NOTHING to do ANYTHING. Everything was apparently left till after it was voted on to avoid any more
    public outlash. They allowed themselves complete editorial license on the scheme. The wanted a
    signed, blank check on the taxpayers account and then said "Trust Me". Seems they ignored many legal
    issues with the amendment also. Seems that they feel as the NMFS does, that it accountable to no one.
    Seems that Fishery Managers should be held accountable when their actions violate the public trust,
    as NOAA's COI rule states, or violate the clear intent of the US Fishery law, if not the clear written rules.
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
    Per Bob Zales:

    Per Bob Zales.
    So how much do they receive per year?
    Council members are appointed to serve by the Secretary of Commerce.
    They have no manager.
    They serve for 3 years and can serve for 3 terms if reappointed.
    Their compensation is per day while serving on council business plus a per diem for meals travel and hotel.
    They do not work per hour
  • aegeusaegeus Posts: 5 Greenhorn
    from the msa,
    96-561, 101-627, 104-297
    (d) COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.—The voting members of each Council who are
    required to be appointed by the Secretary and who are not employed by the Federal Government
    or any State or local government, shall receive compensation at the daily rate for GS-15, step 7
    of the General Schedule, when engaged in the actual performance of duties for such Council.
    The voting members of each Council, any nonvoting member described in subsection (c)(1)(C),
    and the nonvoting member appointed pursuant to subsection (c)(2) shall be reimbursed for
    actual expenses incurred in the performance of such duties, and other nonvoting members and
    Council staff members may be reimbursed for actual expenses.

    No where in the msa does it state any hourly rate nor is it stated that a council member is a noaa contract employee nor does it state a council member reports to the regional administrator. The SOC appoints each council member and they serve a 3 year term and can serve 3 consecutive terms. If anyone wants to know about how a council member is appointed, serves, is compensated, duties, etc, read the msa as it specifies all.
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
    Regardless of the semantics used, we, the tax payers, are 'reimbursing' the council members with a great deal of money. Nowhere have I been able to find how much it is costing us to be 'represented' by Pam Dana, recreational representative on the Gulf Council. What about Roy Crabtree? Bet here is that we are paying him a small fortune to represent whomever it is he represents.
  • aegeus wrote: »
    from the msa,
    96-561, 101-627, 104-297
    (d) COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.—The voting members of each Council who are
    required to be appointed by the Secretary and who are not employed by the Federal Government
    or any State or local government, shall receive compensation at the daily rate for GS-15, step 7
    of the General Schedule, when engaged in the actual performance of duties for such Council.
    The voting members of each Council, any nonvoting member described in subsection (c)(1)(C),
    and the nonvoting member appointed pursuant to subsection (c)(2) shall be reimbursed for
    actual expenses incurred in the performance of such duties, and other nonvoting members and
    Council staff members may be reimbursed for actual expenses.

    No where in the msa does it state any hourly rate nor is it stated that a council member is a noaa contract employee nor does it state a council member reports to the regional administrator. The SOC appoints each council member and they serve a 3 year term and can serve 3 consecutive terms. If anyone wants to know about how a council member is appointed, serves, is compensated, duties, etc, read the msa as it specifies all.


    The MSA is the authorising legislation. The administration of the act is contained in the federal code as established by the NOAA Administrator.Members indeed function and are compensated as I previously described.
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

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

    "All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
    "they will have discussions and do what they want...and I believe that it is in their best (pocketbook) interest. I may be wrong but that was the observation to me."
    You are not wrong. "their best (pocketbook) interest" now controls what was once our fishery. When you look at the facts staged meetings & public comments mean little to nothing. This can be evidenced by the gulf council's approval of Amendment 40 over a public 96.3 rejection rate. The entire system is broken and out of controll.
    Is there anything that can be done? YES! Things are being done where it really counts:
    "RFA has opposed sector separation at every step of the way Bob - it's becoming a "very hot issue" because it's now posted at the Federal Register for NOAA to act on later this year, I'm very aware (the RFA is quite aware). NOAA Fisheries is also proposing change to the national standards - incorporating 'flexibility' and some possible changes to the way ACLs and AMs are meted out upon our community. The House is revamping the committee structure in Washington DC, and a new 114th Congress is expected to take some type of action on Magnuson Stevens this year.
    Our team has been working with others on Capitol Hill to ensure this whole mess gets sorted out and quickly. The answer is not at Roy Crabtree's council or yet another round of bureaucratically ignored public comment - it's in the 114th Congress which is where RFA is actively working right now!" Jim Hutchinson, RFA
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,937 Captain
    I sent my check to RFA. Something has got to be done. This has gotten so far out of hand it isn`t funny. It is high time we take back our resource. What ever happened to majority rule?
  • Yankee CaptsYankee Capts Posts: 1,003 Officer
    RFA has opposed a lot of things over the years.

    Good luck, your under gunned and completely out matched. This coming from someone who hates the council and the process. They act with impunity. They own the science.

    Greg
  • Ya hit the nail on the head.
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
    "I sent my check to RFA. Something has got to be done. This has gotten so far out of hand it isn`t funny. It is high time we take back our resource. What ever happened to majority rule?"
    GREAT! I have been a member for years. It has been proven over & over again that our voices mean nothing. "Majority" has been taken over by greed. The RFA works the halls of congress daily. This is where chance must originate. The stronger the RFA, the stronger we are!
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Council members are NOAA contract employees and report to the regional administrator ( Roy Crabtree ), who is the hiring manager. They are compensated as Federal employees as GS 15s on a daily basis. Currently the rate schedule is approx. $70 /hour , so an 8 hour day is $560 plus expenses.

    Pam Dana is entitled to that compensation as well as the monetary benefits directly resulting from the "sector separation" legislation she establishes as a dual license holder.

    There are so many things wrong with your statement of "fact", I don't know where to begin.

    Council members are paid by the Council, which gets its operating funds from NOAA, not NMFS. They do not report to NMFS nor do what NFMS wants; in fact, they often vote against NMFS ideas. They vote as they see fit to meet their constituency. They are not hired by the the regional administrator. He recommends to his boss, but the decision of who gets on the Council is made by the Secretary of Commerce; not NMFS, not NOAA, but at DOC level.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    When did something that the Gulf Council vote against what the NMFS wanted and it passed? 30B sticks in my mind here.

    The decision of who gets on the Council is made by Roy Crabtree - the SOC simply takes his recommendation. To say that the EDF/NMFS doesn't select who is and who isn't on the various councils is naive at best, disingenuous at worst.
  • BubbaII wrote: »
    There are so many things wrong with your statement of "fact", I don't know where to begin.

    Council members are paid by the Council, which gets its operating funds from NOAA, not NMFS. They do not report to NMFS nor do what NFMS wants; in fact, they often vote against NMFS ideas. They vote as they see fit to meet their constituency. They are not hired by the the regional administrator. He recommends to his boss, but the decision of who gets on the Council is made by the Secretary of Commerce; not NMFS, not NOAA, but at DOC level.

    With a NMF Rep as a voting member of the council there is a direct connection. And of coarse anyone that ever listened to the dialogue knows that in our SE region at least much more weight is given to the NMFS rep.

    When they do vote as they see fit....it really does not matter because if the NMFS does not like it, they have
    complete veto power. They have the right to omit, amend or disallow any council decision.

    As to voting to meet their constituency.........you would think that's what they should do, but AM40 proves otherwise.
  • BubbaII wrote: »
    There are so many things wrong with your statement of "fact", I don't know where to begin.

    Council members are paid by the Council, which gets its operating funds from NOAA, not NMFS. They do not report to NMFS nor do what NFMS wants; in fact, they often vote against NMFS ideas. They vote as they see fit to meet their constituency. They are not hired by the the regional administrator. He recommends to his boss, but the decision of who gets on the Council is made by the Secretary of Commerce; not NMFS, not NOAA, but at DOC level.


    As a 3 time Florida gubernatorial nominee to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (by invitation of Governor Crist ) I assure you that I have thoroughly investigated the selection process, procedures, participation and politics associated with the position.

    What did you say your name was again?
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

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

    "All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
    Gary, sir do you have any idea how much the council members cost we the fisherman to 'represent' whomever it is they represent. They may not be salaried employees, but I bet they are well paid for their 'services!'
    How much did it cost for Pam Dana to represent us last year? What do you think of her YES vote on 40? Looks to me like she could indeed be a EDF yes girl. Please explain the selection process to us. Sir, I, we, value your opinion. What do you think?
  • I have no idea, Bob. Federal employees (Gulf Council members) are not subject to the same fiscal transparency Florida's elected and appointed officials be.

    Since the federal checkbook has unrestricted limits, I would assume ( and have been told ) that you could make a very good living exclusively as a Council member.
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

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

    "All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
    Thank you sir. Would be very interesting to know how much we are paying them to represent EDF & Co.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    When they do vote as they see fit....it really does not matter because if the NMFS does not like it, they have complete veto power. They have the right to omit, amend or disallow any council decision..

    You need to read the MSA more carefully. The Secretary of Commerce can approve, disapprove, or partially approve a submission by the Council, and any disapproval (complete or partial) has to be because it does not meet applicable law. They can't just say "no, we don't want this". They can't amend anything; you're use of omit/disallow are redundant.

    harbison/gary ...... the Council regularly reviews their budget at meetings; its those boring committee meetings that no one listens to. But, the expenditures are public information.
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
    "the expenditures are public information." OK! So how much is it costing for Pam Dana to 'represent' us?' I have not ben able to find the amount. What are we paying Crabtree to represent EDF
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    harbison wrote: »
    "the expenditures are public information." OK! So how much is it costing for Pam Dana to 'represent' us?' I have not ben able to find the amount. What are we paying Crabtree to represent EDF

    Aren't you a writer? Maybe you should do some research instead of using biased sources.
    Who is this "US" you are talking about ?
    Why should Pam Dana be singled out?
    Council members are not charged with representing "US".

    They should ,

    conserve and manage the living marine resources of the United States of America by carrying out the business of the Council for the greatest overall benefit of the Nation. I recognize my responsibility to serve as a knowledgeable and experienced trustee of the Nation's marine fisheries resources, being careful to balance competing private or regional interests, and always aware and protective of the public interest in those resources.

    Aren't you a membeber of the FOWA ?
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
    Biased sources: 'Biased' by whose's standards?
    'us' the fishing public
    "Why should Pam Dana be singled out?"
    "Council members are not charged with representing "US". " Maybe you should do some research " You would find out that Pam Dana is the recreational representative, a voting member, on the gulf council. She is being "singled out" because she is "charged with representing "us."
    "They should... being careful to balance competing private or regional interests, and always aware and protective of the public interest in those resources."
    The question is, when approving Amendment 40 over a 96.3% public rejection rate, whose 'interests' are they balancing?
    Been an active member of the FOWA for years, and proud of it.
  • PigskinCaptPigskinCapt Posts: 253 Officer
    I was a 2-time gubernatorial nominee to the Gulf Council under Governor Jeb Bush. I could see over a decade ago the foothold that the enviros were grabbing at the Council level. Their participation goes much further back than that. They have infiltrated every level of the process currently and don't mind if it takes them 25 years to achieve their goals. Termites don't eat your house in a day. But once you realize you have a problem, your roof might be ready to fall in.

    The enviros wined and dined a select few commercial fishermen in order to get the red snapper and grouper IFQ and now they are moving their way into the charter community and the recreational/private boat owners are going to take the major hit here as this Sector Separation plays out.

    I understand business owners having a self interest in order to protect their business and investment, but instead of pointing fingers at various sectors- as the enviros want everyone to do- the discussion should be focused on getting this rogue agency (NMFS) back on track to be held to making decisions based on better science based decisions.

    The re-authorization of the MSA and ACL language added set off the various closures in the Gulf this year with triggerfish, amberjacks, and red groupers closing. Flexibility needs to be added to the bill. For over 20 years now, the Council manages groupers, which are protogynous hermahrodites, with a knee jerk reaction. Plain and simple, researchers do not understand what triggers the grouper sex change, when it happens and why many fish of reproduction size and age, don't spawn. If you don't understand the species, how can you properly manage it? Groupers are long-lived, slow growing species which can age to 30+ years. The question needs to be asked, does NMFS have a complete generational data set on age/growth, fecundity and landings data for the last 30 years? The answer is no.

    Red snapper. Those of us that have been fishing a while along the West Coast of Florida have seen the explosion of this species. Why is always the research for Red Snapper focused on the northern Gulf? Political and financial interest? NMFS can't even get the sampling process correct in the Northern Gulf. I'm sure many of you saw the YouTube video of Congressman Byrne grill NMFS officals about their process for stock assessments on red snapper. Typical government answer, we don't have enough money. No work is being done along the West Florida coast to determine the status of our stock.

    The enviros power in the process needs to be dialed in. Their influence, especially in the SE region, needs to be put in check. Congress needs to add flexibility to the MSA. This process has become even more politically convoluted. The entire process needs to be revamped, but in the grand scheme of things, fisheries management is back-burner issue, unless you are from Alaska.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    harbison wrote: »
    Biased sources: 'Biased' by whose's standards?
    'us' the fishing public
    "Why should Pam Dana be singled out?"
    "Council members are not charged with representing "US". " Maybe you should do some research " You would find out that Pam Dana is the recreational representative, a voting member, on the gulf council. She is being "singled out" because she is "charged with representing "us."
    "They should... being careful to balance competing private or regional interests, and always aware and protective of the public interest in those resources."
    The question is, when approving Amendment 40 over a 96.3% public rejection rate, whose 'interests' are they balancing?
    Been an active member of the FOWA for years, and proud of it.

    Pam Dana was appointed to the council as Rec representative because of her knowledge of and her experience in the recreational fishery. Pam Dana And other council members are NOT appointed to advocate for specific user groups.
    PUBLIC comments are NOT a referendum.

    Maybe you should consider resigning from the FOWA !
    This is from the FOWA code of ethics!


    CANON I – In dealing with the public and fellow outdoor communicators, we shall strive for honesty, integrity, accuracy, and truth at all times. Accuracy in reporting, fairness in controversy, and objectivity

    will be our first goals. Facts and opinions will be separate, clearly indicated, and attributed.
  • notreely wrote: »
    Pam Dana was appointed to the council as Rec representative because of her knowledge of and her experience in the recreational fishery. Pam Dana And other council members are NOT appointed to advocate for specific user groups.
    PUBLIC comments are NOT a referendum.

    Maybe you should consider resigning from the FOWA !
    This is from the FOWA code of ethics!


    CANON I – In dealing with the public and fellow outdoor communicators, we shall strive for honesty, integrity, accuracy, and truth at all times. Accuracy in reporting, fairness in controversy, and objectivity

    will be our first goals. Facts and opinions will be separate, clearly indicated, and attributed.

    "PUBLIC comments are NOT a referendum."

    While this is technically true, there is a very specific and meaningful purpose. Now just for a minute, lets
    go back to the Headboat EFP scheme. We know that the individual "Public" comments were kept "secret",
    making the whole public comment process a joke, but that's beside the point. We also know that EDF used
    a click thru portal to get their members to create a large "Support" for the scheme, likely with folks having
    zero interest in any fishing, but still that's what they did. We also know that NMFS reps cites a 'large support'
    for the EFP in the 'Public Input process'.

    So if its not to be considered why even have it? NOAA has a policy of decisions being made by their agency
    being done in a manner that does so with the trust of its stakeholders in mind. This is actually in their
    Conflict of Interest statement. While the rules for council members and COI have been manipulated to
    pretty much allow them to make any decision they wish, the spirit of the rule still stands.

    So what are we talking about with the "Public Comment". We have heard GC staffers proclaim its just to
    get different idea's but not to see how the public feels about a measure. However the request are made for
    issues already outlined and like with AM40 approved by the council against the massively overwhelming
    opposition by the very public invited to comment. If they wanted idea's they should have listened before
    the scoping process, which we also know was shown to be overwhelming opposed. "ALL of the Public was
    invited to comment in this process. Does that not reflect the "American Public Interest" that they are
    supposed to represent? When the NMFS cited 'public support' among their reasons for allowing the headboat scheme, why should the rules or even thought be any different for opposition to a scheme like AM40?

    Now had the results of the Public Input process shown individual comments were close to equal in the
    for or against, that would show a need for the GC to really focus on what was best. The process was to
    allow the US Public at large to weigh in on the idea......and they did. Guess what we learned is if the
    player (Council/NMFS) does not like the rules, just proclaim they don't apply.

    I cant imagine anyone "REALLY" thinking the (2) GC CFH owners that voted, either way really, on AM 40 was in
    harmony of NOAA COI policy on gaining the "Publics Trust" in their decision to either vote or abstain.
  • Why was 30b shot down before making it anywhere? What were the reasons cites and alternatives given?
    Back to the rest of my post....the NMFS does indeed have a player on the council that at least in the SE region
    does indeed wield great NMFS influence in the direction and agenda the council follows. While the council
    "Technically" does not have to follow ideas, policies or recommendations from above its rare that they don't.
    Much like a boss telling an employee...'You can do it however you want, but as your boss this is really how I
    want it done', the NMFS drives the agenda, often through its voting member on each council. Seems to me the
    MS also has allowances for Vetoing council decisions that fall outside specific legal issues.....
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 5,621 Admiral
    :USA First of all let me thank ACME Ventures Fishing & PigskinCapt for adding their expertise to this very informative thread. They are greatly appreciated.
    "PUBLIC comments are NOT a referendum."
    "While this is technically true, there is a very specific and meaningful purpose."
    We, the tax payers support every branch of NOAA, and the gulf council. We pay, subsidize, them to represent the best interest of fisherman & fish alike. As such "PUBLIC comment" should be an integral part of the decision process. The "very specific and meaningful purpose" is to inform those whom we pay to represent us how we want to be represented. As such our input, along with REAL up-to-date, un- manipulated science, should be the basis of the decision processes governing our, or what was once our, fishery.
    Opinion: "Pam Dana was appointed to the council as Rec representative because of her knowledge of and her experience in the recreational fishery.
    "Pam Dana And other council members are NOT appointed to advocate for specific user groups."
    FACT: Pam Dana was originally appointed as the recreational fishing representative, a very 'specific user group,' to the gulf council over Governor's Scott's #1 choice, Mr. Bo Gorham.
    FACT: Pam Dana voted YES on Amendment 40.
    OPINION: Pam Dana, a charter boat owner, could profit from Amendment 40...Sector Separation.
    SureLure_zpse146115f.jpg
    OPINION: Mr. Bo Gorham, Governor Scott's original # 1 pick, a 100% recreational fisherman, has NO vested interest. Bo was not chosen because he would actually represent the recreational fisherman; not the special interest groups.
    FACT: EDF is a strong advocate of Amendment 40...Sector Separation.
    OPINION: Pam Dana's decisions are heavily influenced by EDF
    FLORIDA OUTDOOR WRITERS ASSOCIATION: CANON I – In dealing with the public and fellow outdoor communicators, we shall strive for honesty, integrity, accuracy, and truth at all times. Accuracy in reporting, fairness in controversy, and objectivity will be our first goals. Facts and opinions will be separated, clearly indicated, and attributed.
    FACT: Agreed
    OPINION: Followed
    FACT: We, the fishing public, are so divided, "Maybe you should consider resigning from the FOWA !" so into criticizing our own, so easy to distract, and so un-organized that we cannot even come close to the united front necessary to regain control of what was once our fishery.
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