Home Conservation Front

Gulf States Unveil Solution to Red Snapper Management

harbisonharbison Posts: 4,560 Captain
What do you think?

Gulf States Unveil Solution to Red Snapper Management

Gulf States Unveil Solution to Red Snapper Management
Sportfishing and boating community welcomes state-based management approach

Washington, D.C. – March 13, 2015 – In a move long-awaited by the recreational fishing and boating community, the directors of the state fish and wildlife agencies from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas announced an agreement for state-based management of Gulf of Mexico red snapper, which in recent years has experienced increasing privatization of this public resource and decreasing recreational fishing opportunities. The announcement was greeted with strong enthusiasm from the recreational fishing and boating community, which has supported greater state control of Gulf red snapper.

“Throughout the country, states have proven to be highly successful at fish and wildlife management in a way that conserves natural resources while allowing for reasonable public access,” said Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Coastal Conservation. “The Gulf states are among the nation’s leaders in marine fisheries management, which is why we have continued to look to them as the vehicle for managing Gulf red snapper going forward to get us out of the current mess created by federal mismanagement.”

Gulf of Mexico red snapper is presently managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, under the National Marine Fisheries Service. The states’ agreement, which is predicated on transferring management authority away from the Council, describes the key elements of a plan in which the Gulf states would coordinate management of red snapper throughout the Gulf of Mexico through the proposed Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority.

“Coordinated management among the states is the only solution to an unaccountable federal system of fisheries management,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane. “Faced with an untenable situation, the states have risen to the challenge and collectively identified a clear path to a more balanced fishery.”

Under this management structure, each state would have authority to manage red snapper out to 200 miles off its coastline. Each state would be responsible for developing and implementing a red snapper management plan for its waters, which would be approved by the rest of the states.

“We have long pushed for the states to take over Gulf red snapper, but until now, we haven’t had a detailed plan for what state-based management would look like,” said Patrick Murray, president of Coastal Conservation Association. “Under this approach, we are confident that management outcomes will begin to align with the health of the resource and anglers’ access to it.”

“Gulf red snapper is incredibly important to the economy of coastal communities throughout the Gulf of Mexico region, and attracts anglers from all across the country,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “It’s abundantly clear that the states are best equipped to manage this valuable fishery. It’s time we give them that opportunity.”
«134

Replies

  • Mackeral SnatcherMackeral Snatcher Posts: 11,619 AG
    Oh crap, I can see that being a big cluster....

    "Under this management structure, each state would have authority to manage red snapper out to 200 miles off its coastline. Each state would be responsible for developing and implementing a red snapper management plan for its waters, which would be approved by the rest of the states."
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 4,560 Captain
    The # 1 problem is going to be trying to get away from the greed of EDF.
  • Mackeral SnatcherMackeral Snatcher Posts: 11,619 AG
    I agree that would be step one.
    Unfortunately I see step two being inter fighting between the states over the boundaries.

    Not trying to pick a fight with you Bob, just looking into the future.
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 4,560 Captain
    Good point snatcher!
    Bob agrees 100%. We are our own worst enemies and the likes of the EDF takes full advantage of the situation. To
    me one of the biggest problems is going to be Texas.
  • Capt EasyCapt Easy Posts: 203 Officer
    Oh crap, I can see that being a big cluster....

    "Under this management structure, each state would have authority to manage red snapper out to 200 miles off its coastline. Each state would be responsible for developing and implementing a red snapper management plan for its waters, which would be approved by the rest of the states."

    I can't see the future but that's the only paragraph I had to read over and over to try and absorb it's meaning. :)


    :Agree
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Capt Easy wrote: »
    I can't see the future but that's the only paragraph I had to read over and over to try and absorb it's meaning. :)


    :Agree

    I saw another announcement by Louisiana that had a link to the "bill". It also stated

    The Plan would include an initial three-year prohibition on any actions that might affect
    individual fishing quotas or management structure of the commercial fishery, effective
    from date of adoption by GSRSMA. During this period, NOAA Fisheries through the Gulf
    of Mexico Fishery Management Council would continue to manage the commercial
    fishery under existing regulations.


    Based on what the quote says, the allocation would remain what it is because of the 3 yr prohibition of any change to commercial fishing. But how is allocation going to be decided, if states are doing their own individual assessments off their states, but the commercial fishery is still gulf-wide?

    Dunno... seems like someone didn't think this all thru.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,778 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Dunno... seems like someone didn't think this all thru.

    Exactly, the greedy ones who have been working hard to steal our public trust resource for themselves didn't think thru that if they kept poking the bear long enough, the bear would get some lobbyists to outdo their lobbyists. :idiot

    But look at the bright side, at least you will have about 3 years until all them backlashes against the "special permit holders" start to raise havoc and rain on some greedy gravy trains.:grin

    The truth is the plan looks to be very well thought out as can be seen here (not Bubba's edited version)

    http://www.coastalconservation.us/docs/FinalLetter_of_Support_031315_with_Mgmt_Model_and_Bullets.pdf
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Exactly, the greedy ones who have been working hard to steal our public trust resource for themselves didn't think thru that if they kept poking the bear long enough, the bear would get some lobbyists to outdo their lobbyists. :idiot

    But look at the bright side, at least you will have about 3 years until all them backlashes against the "special permit holders" start to raise havoc and rain on some greedy gravy trains.:grin

    The truth is the plan looks to be very well thought out as can be seen here (not Bubba's edited version)

    http://www.coastalconservation.us/docs/FinalLetter_of_Support_031315_with_Mgmt_Model_and_Bullets.pdf

    That's the same document I read, only I got it from Louisiana DWF. The statement about the commercial sector is still the same. There is no way the Council can get reallocation done before Jan. 1, 2016 (when the commercial quota is given out by NMFS), so if this were passed by congress in 2016, the allocation would still be 51/49, and frozen.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,778 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    There is no way the Council can get reallocation done before Jan. 1, 2016 (when the commercial quota is given out by NMFS), so if this were passed by congress in 2016, the allocation would still be 51/49, and frozen.

    So what? I am more interested in someone TRUTHFULLY COUNTING when we have harvested our 49%.

    Everyone knows the current methods are a sham.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,778 Captain
    harbison wrote: »
    What do you think?

    Bob I think it is great that the ball has started rolling.

    I have been waiting for this kind of thing to start happening for a long time.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    So what? I am more interested in someone TRUTHFULLY COUNTING when we have harvested our 49%.

    Everyone knows the current methods are a sham.

    Could be. Could be that a state (lets say AL for instance) says they can have more, based on their assessment, and that will cut into the total available to other states. Think FL will give some up? According to that lady from the Center who speaks at Council meetings, red snapper assessments are one of the more rigorous in the nation. Hard to see how a state can assess a piece of that stock.

    And Mr. Harbison is right. State allocations are going to come from existing history, and I can see some friction there. With the new MRIP recalibrations, LA thru FL get a big bump that TX doesn't get since they don't play in the MRIP sandbox. I can see FL/AL having issues with TX wanting more, even Mr. Hilton (moderator here) has pointed out in the past that TX red snapper numbers are very questionable (i.e., low).

    Maybe they have come to some agreement. If so, good on 'em. But you just put your fate into the hands of basically 5 people to choose how much red snapper you get to catch.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,778 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Maybe they have come to some agreement. If so, good on 'em. But you just put your fate into the hands of basically 5 people to choose how much red snapper you get to catch.

    Maybe they can divide up some of this years unused quota from the "Gulf of Mexico Headboat Collaborative Pilot Program".

    Why don't you explain to us all how "Professional Paid Fisherman" can not manage to find and take their allotment of red snapper given an entire year. Yet we are to believe a bunch of novice recreational fisherman can decimate their allotment in one or two weekends and even in bad weather.:rotflmao

    I will gamble with my fate being better with anybody running the show other than the current crop of inept managers.:wink
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Maybe they can divide up some of this years unused quota from the "Gulf of Mexico Headboat Collaborative Pilot Program".

    Why don't you explain to us all how "Professional Paid Fisherman" can not manage to find and take their allotment of red snapper given an entire year. Yet we are to believe a bunch of novice recreational fisherman can decimate their allotment in one or two weekends and even in bad weather.:rotflmao

    I will gamble with my fate being better with anybody running the show other than the current crop of inept managers.:wink

    I won't say I know this for fact, but seems I remember the Paid Professionals didn't fail to take their allotment. They landed somethiung 98% of their allotment, and they didn't go over because they monitored themselves accordingly.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,778 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    and they didn't go over because they monitored themselves.

    Well at least we can both agree on that.:grin
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 4,560 Captain
    :crossed: This new ARS program represents the very first time the five gulf states have come together to take back what has been stolen from the American people; stolen out of greed, not science. Like it or not, admit it or not, the most radical of the so called environmentalist, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) now runs NOAA. When Obama appointed Lubchenco as head of NOAA she brought her EDF people with her. She has been canned, but they remain. EDF's NOAA # one goal is not a healthy fishery, but greed...the greed of Catch Shares. Like it or not, admit it or not, Catch Shares is nothing more than limited access paid fishing. Want to make a fortune? Don't bother actually fishing for a living; that is too much like work. Instead, sit behind a desk, let someone else do all the work, and simply buy, lease & sell shares. Don't want to buy a share? Simple! Don't fish.
    Think catch shares is only for the commercial interest? Think again! This comes directly from EDF:

    "We want to bring that same success (catch shares) to the recreational side of fishing"

    In actuality, Catch Shares has been a disaster wherever this 'paid fishing' program has touched; just ask the fishermen of Alaska, of the New England states, what they think of Catch Shares.
    Unless we who have been hurt the most come together and fight for what was once OUR fishery; the dominance of the likes of EDF, Pew, Walton, etc., will not stop, but will take over what little we have left.
    Hopefully we the anglers of the five gulf states are ready to show the rest of the nation how to take care of business; to tell the greedy feds we have had enough and are not going to take it anymore. :cool Bob H.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    That's the same document I read, only I got it from Louisiana DWF. The statement about the commercial sector is still the same. There is no way the Council can get reallocation done before Jan. 1, 2016 (when the commercial quota is given out by NMFS), so if this were passed by congress in 2016, the allocation would still be 51/49, and frozen.

    The poundage would remain the same for 3 years for commercial fat cats to get their affairs in order before the states take over. There is nothing written in stone (and never has been) regarding the 51/49% split. That % should be determined by each state.
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 4,560 Captain
    I see a need for both recreational & commercial fishing. However, I must admit, I question the 51/49 split. After all, they are many more recreational fisherman than commercial. I agree with Captain Hilton, "That % should be determined by each state." The split is something that will always be an issue, however, it is not the number one problem. Let's kick the Crabtree gang completely out of OUR fishery. Then we can work on allocations.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    The poundage would remain the same for 3 years for commercial fat cats to get their affairs in order before the states take over. There is nothing written in stone (and never has been) regarding the 51/49% split. That % should be determined by each state.

    Understood. But the Council would still manage the IFQ for 3 yr, and it doesn't seem like the states would want to manage the commercial sector in the future (other than reallocate), so someone would still have to decide how much the Gulf-wide commercial allocation is.

    Taking that further, I wonder what it takes for a Council to dismantle an IFQ? I got a feeling its more complicated than simply doing an amendment that makes it go away, where, on implementation, its just gone. If it takes a referendum to make one, I wonder if it takes a referendum to abolish one?
  • snake 166snake 166 Posts: 101 Deckhand
    Some of the commercial IFQ holders own $Ms in shares. You better believe it won't go down easy.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,778 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Taking that further, I wonder what it takes for a Council to dismantle an IFQ?

    If Congress approves this GSRSMA, it looks like for a red snapper IFQ, it will only require 36 months advance notice.:grin
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    Based on the statements of some of the state managers, I would say that they are VERY interested in managing commercial fishing in addition to recreational fishing.

    I believe that in order to get IFQs approved, there was the stipulation that they could be abolished at any time, and they did not infer "ownership" since they could be taken away at any time. If the GSRSMA is approved, I would think it would be at the states' discretion as to how they would want to mange the commercial side of the equation, but I can pretty much tell you that Catch Shares won't be the preferred option since it is Catch Shares that has gotten us into this mess.

    BubbaII wrote: »
    Understood. But the Council would still manage the IFQ for 3 yr, and it doesn't seem like the states would want to manage the commercial sector in the future (other than reallocate), so someone would still have to decide how much the Gulf-wide commercial allocation is.

    Taking that further, I wonder what it takes for a Council to dismantle an IFQ? I got a feeling its more complicated than simply doing an amendment that makes it go away, where, on implementation, its just gone. If it takes a referendum to make one, I wonder if it takes a referendum to abolish one?
  • airopsairops Posts: 9 Greenhorn
    A welcome move in the right direction.
  • harbisonharbison Posts: 4,560 Captain
    The feds have made a complete disaster of what was once such a great sport. This is indeed "A welcome move in the right direction."
  • TypicleseTypiclese Posts: 393 Deckhand
    Now if they would add gags, triggers and AJ's to state management out to 200 miles, that would be a touchdown. But I guess it is one step at a time.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,693 AG
    :Popcorn
    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.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Based on the statements of some of the state managers, I would say that they are VERY interested in managing commercial fishing in addition to recreational fishing.

    I believe that in order to get IFQs approved, there was the stipulation that they could be abolished at any time, and they did not infer "ownership" since they could be taken away at any time. If the GSRSMA is approved, I would think it would be at the states' discretion as to how they would want to mange the commercial side of the equation, but I can pretty much tell you that Catch Shares won't be the preferred option since it is Catch Shares that has gotten us into this mess.

    I know they can be abolished; I just wonder what the process is. Although that "plan" says it overrides MSA in 3 yr, that doesn't make the IFQ just go away. And how do you remove all red snapper from the FMP, but leave the IFQ? Its part of the FMP. Again, all I'm saying is that none of this is addressed in that short "plan". Details are lacking in that document.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,778 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Details are lacking in that document.

    Looks like it is explained so simply a child could understand it to me.:shrug

    "The Plan would include an initial three year prohibition on any actions that might affect individual fishing quotas or management structure of the commercial fishery, effective from date of adoption by GSRSMA. During this period, NOAA Fisheries through the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council would continue to manage the commercial fishery under existing regulations."

    "In order to establish the GSRSMA, the management of red snapper must be vacated from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan and any provisions that have been established for red snapper with that plan or any amendments to that plan. Additionally, this Act and any provisions of this Act regarding management and enforcement of any regulations and management provisions to the extent that there is any conflict will take precedence over the MSA and any portions of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council’s Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan."

    Is it perhaps that you don't like what it states (in the second paragraph I referenced), that makes it hard for you to comprehend?:rotflmao
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 5,982 Admiral
    I really don’t see the problem with states managing their own fishery, I don’t see the need for any “boundary” either, that would be unenforceable and unnecessary. I also don’t see states setting up regulations that would be hard to manage or enforce. No need to set boundaries, every boater has a state registration and license that is the regulations that would be enforced, there would only be “Issues “ at or near the state borders which would happen even with set boundaries just like it is now. Your boat must abide by your states regulations and I could see state fisheries managers working together and coming up with reasonable regulations that would work. If you trailer your boat out of state and want to fish under other states rules then you would be required to get that state’s permit just like you would need to do anyway.

    They certainly couldn’t do worse than the fed. The fed will never get it right, not the data not the regulations none of it.

    The fed should not be managing snapper and grouper, they should only manage migratory fish like tuna, period.

    I am referring to waters outside of the states’ waters and I also think that all gulf states should get the same 9 mile boundary. In other words if you fish within the states territorial boundaries (9 miles) then you are under the sates rules outside of that you are in the Gulf of Mexico, and go by the state that you are landing your catch in.
    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: 11,693 AG
    surfman wrote: »
    I really don’t see the problem with states managing their own fishery, I don’t see the need for any “boundary” either, that would be unenforceable and unnecessary. I also don’t see states setting up regulations that would be hard to manage or enforce. No need to set boundaries, every boater has a state registration and license that is the regulations that would be enforced, there would only be “Issues “ at or near the state borders which would happen even with set boundaries just like it is now. Your boat must abide by your states regulations and I could see state fisheries managers working together and coming up with reasonable regulations that would work. If you trailer your boat out of state and want to fish under other states rules then you would be required to get that state’s permit just like you would need to do anyway.

    They certainly couldn’t do worse than the fed. The fed will never get it right, not the data not the regulations none of it.

    The fed should not be managing snapper and grouper, they should only manage migratory fish like tuna, period.

    I am referring to waters outside of the states’ waters and I also think that all gulf states should get the same 9 mile boundary. In other words if you fish within the states territorial boundaries (9 miles) then you are under the sates rules outside of that you are in the Gulf of Mexico, and go by the state that you are landing your catch in.
    Red Snapper don't migrate???
    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.
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 5,982 Admiral
    No, they move around but they don't run from FL to Maine in summer and winter. Some I am sure would call any movement migrating but I wouldn't.

    I wouldn’t even call the king fish run a migration, sure they move from the northern gulf to the southern gulf to avoid the cold and technically that is migrating but, I would call migration more of leaving one area as a unified pack or school and traveling a great distance like across the country or from one hemisphere to another, not just moving into shallower water and out into deeper water, that is not migrating to me.

    Put is another way they should only concern themselves with HMS fish. How about that?
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
Sign In or Register to comment.