Home Conservation Front

FWC considers modifying 2016 Gulf rec red snapper season to 78 days in state waters

TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 17,010 AG
Received in email from FWC:

At its Feb. 10 meeting at the Florida Public Safety Institute near Tallahassee, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) approved a draft rule to modify the 2016 Gulf of Mexico recreational red snapper season.

This newly proposed season will be considered for final approval at the FWC’s April Commission meeting in Jupiter.

The newly proposed season would be open Saturdays and Sundays in May starting May 7. On May 28, the season would open continuously through July 10. Finally, the season would reopen for Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays in September and October, and on Labor Day. This would provide for a 78-day season in Gulf state waters.

This season will help maintain fishing opportunities for recreational anglers in state waters and provide additional May and fall weekend fishing days.

Learn more about red snapper at MyFWC.com/Fishing by clicking on “Saltwater,” “Recreational Regulations” and “Snappers.”
«1

Replies

  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,538 Captain
    Now if the state will just extend the state boundary out 100 miles, we will be in business!
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Received in email from FWC:

    At its Feb. 10 meeting .... the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) ... proposed ... a 78-day season in Gulf state waters.

    This season will help maintain fishing opportunities for recreational anglers in state waters and provide additional May and fall weekend fishing days.

    And what will that do to the federal season for all the other states, which last year was 10 days? Seems rather short sighted for the cooperative "we can do it better" concept proposed by the Council (and killed because no one could agree) and by the Graves Bill in Congress.

    If the states are going to do their own thing, then any kind of state management strategy seems a fruitless effort.
  • 2WayCenter2WayCenter Posts: 225 Officer
    Commercial interest much better organized, proof follows. Numbers and dollars are on the rec side but.....

    Here is a new show in the Wicked Tuna theme that will raise your eyebrows, and might even **** you off.

    New National Geographic program called Big Fish, Texas.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJh7c7R3u3U

    More about what we already know.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    And what will that do to the federal season for all the other states, which last year was 10 days? Seems rather short sighted for the cooperative "we can do it better" concept proposed by the Council (and killed because no one could agree) and by the Graves Bill in Congress.

    If the states are going to do their own thing, then any kind of state management strategy seems a fruitless effort.

    Yeah, I see your point. The states fisheries commissions have such a dismal record of fisheries management as compared to the Feds'.

    NOT.
  • 2WayCenter2WayCenter Posts: 225 Officer
    I am not sure the best approach is to try to label the Feds bad and FWC good. Fish stocks continue to get better and the recreational share continues to get smaller. The recreational interest and the companies that profit on that interest needs to get better at lobbying the powers that are. Does it make sense for marine electronics makers, boat builders and resorts back lobbying that represents the recreational sportfishing industry? One of the things that got me back into reef fish is the improved sounding technology. But I'm not gonna pay Garmin all that cash to power 65 miles out to look at marks and chart bottom. I need to take home a few snapper to make the trip worth the ride.

    The commercial interest is much more unified. See Buddy's shirt??? This while we are busy arguing with each other.

    http://www.shareholdersalliance.org/
  • 2WayCenter2WayCenter Posts: 225 Officer
    The commercial interest knows who their friends are and they know that we are the enemy. Here is what Buddy said when the sector separation (allocating Red Snapper to charter boats) was held up as constitutional in Texas.

    “This should be a wake-up call to the CCA. They’re undermining the public process, misrepresenting their
    membership, and wasting hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of their members’ dollars in frivolous
    lawsuits. If they spent this much time and money actually working on real solutions for the fishermen they
    “represent,” we might actually have a recreational fishery that’s managed properly.”
    Buddy Guindon, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance.
  • 2WayCenter2WayCenter Posts: 225 Officer
    Everything the general public has been fed about the difficult lives of commercial fishermen does not apply to Buddy. The Feds gift wrapped his seemingly eternal share of the Red Snapper quota. Watch the show, check out his house. It is a really nice house. I am telling you, waterfront mansion nice. Yet every Shareholder Alliance letter is expertly penned by hired public relations guns to draw sympathy for the struggling and lowly commercial fisherman.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    The Feds are culpable here since they are actively promoting the privatization of the very resources they have been entrusted to safeguard for future generations of Americans.

    Sector Separation has not been found to be constitutional in Texas. A federal judge struck down CCA's argument, but other lawsuits are yet to be heard.

    Guindon knows a thing or two about filing frivolous lawsuits - he has filed a couple lately that has directly resulted in our short rec red snapper seasons.
  • 2WayCenter2WayCenter Posts: 225 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Sector Separation has not been found to be constitutional in Texas. A federal judge struck down CCA's argument, but other lawsuits are yet to be heard.

    Thanks, good to know.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Yeah, I see your point. The states fisheries commissions have such a dismal record of fisheries management as compared to the Feds'. NOT.

    Tom, you'd have a point if the Council agreed to something at the last Council meeting. But they didn't.

    They voted to table regional management. The STATES and CCA all voted to table regional management.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Sector Separation has not been found to be constitutional in Texas. A federal judge struck down CCA's argument, but other lawsuits are yet to be heard.

    Now that's funny; I don't care who you are.. Law suit to what? It is a federal rule. Anyone who wants to file a complaint against a federal regulation has to do so in 30 days of implementation of the rule. Time has expired. The judge even filed the finding that no more complaints could be filed against the action. No more lawsuits can be filed or considered.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Tom, you'd have a point if the Council agreed to something at the last Council meeting. But they didn't.

    They voted to table regional management. The STATES and CCA all voted to table regional management.

    They voted to table Amendment 39 which was in no way regional management - it even included a clause to eliminate the sunset for Amendment 40. All 5 Gulf states fisheries commissions voted against Am 39, and for good reason.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Now that's funny; I don't care who you are.. Law suit to what? It is a federal rule. Anyone who wants to file a complaint against a federal regulation has to do so in 30 days of implementation of the rule. Time has expired. The judge even filed the finding that no more complaints could be filed against the action. No more lawsuits can be filed or considered.

    It was filed on time - it is just now going forward, and it is against AM 40.

    I accidentally hit the wrong button - I did not edit your post Bubba.
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 5,982 Admiral
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Tom, you'd have a point if the Council agreed to something at the last Council meeting. But they didn't.

    They voted to table regional management. The STATES and CCA all voted to table regional management.

    Bubba has a one track mind, he will not let go of the fed managing our fisheries for us. But I can see why, he has cashed in big time thanks to their work.
    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: »
    It was filed on time - it is just now going forward, and it is against AM 40.

    I accidentally hit the wrong button - I did not edit your post Bubba.

    I'm lost; what is moving forward? The lawsuit against 40 is over, and the rule cannot be re-challenged.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    surfman wrote: »
    Bubba has a one track mind, he will not let go of the fed managing our fisheries for us. But I can see why, he has cashed in big time thanks to their work.

    What part did you miss? The state reps, one charter rep, and 3 CCA reps on the Council voted to kill the regional state management amendment. NMFS voted against killing it. It was a close roll call vote; I wrote down the numbers, while listening in. Motion to kill 39 passed 9-8. Basically, the recs voted against regional management while the commercial and others voted to keep working on it.

    Bosarge (MS comm): No
    Diaz (MS other): No
    Crabtree (NMFS): No
    Greene (AL rec/charter): No
    Sanchez (FL comm): No
    Swindell (LA comm): No
    Walker (AL comm): No
    Williams (FL other): No

    Boyd (CCA): Yes
    Dana (FL rec/charter): Yes
    Stunz (other, but hasn't ever voted in opposition to CCA): Yes
    Matens (CCA): Yes
    Lucas (MS): Yes
    Fischer (LA): Yes
    Riechers (TX): Yes
    Bademan (FL): Yes
    Anson (AL): Yes
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,693 AG
    BubbaII wrote: »
    What part did you miss? The state reps, one charter rep, and 3 CCA reps on the Council voted to kill the regional state management amendment. NMFS voted against killing it. It was a close roll call vote; I wrote down the numbers, while listening in. Motion to kill 39 passed 9-8. Basically, the recs voted against regional management while the commercial and others voted to keep working on it.

    Bosarge (MS comm): No
    Diaz (MS other): No
    Crabtree (NMFS): No
    Greene (AL rec/charter): No
    Sanchez (FL comm): No
    Swindell (LA comm): No
    Walker (AL comm): No
    Williams (FL other): No

    Boyd (CCA): Yes
    Dana (FL rec/charter): Yes
    Stunz (other, but hasn't ever voted in opposition to CCA): Yes
    Matens (CCA): Yes
    Lucas (MS): Yes
    Fischer (LA): Yes
    Riechers (TX): Yes
    Bademan (FL): Yes
    Anson (AL): Yes
    What say you now Mr. Furman? lol
    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.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    I'm lost; what is moving forward? The lawsuit against 40 is over, and the rule cannot be re-challenged.

    Fishing Rights Alliance lawsuit is moving forward against AM 40.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    What part did you miss? The state reps, one charter rep, and 3 CCA reps on the Council voted to kill the regional state management amendment. NMFS voted against killing it. It was a close roll call vote; I wrote down the numbers, while listening in. Motion to kill 39 passed 9-8. Basically, the recs voted against regional management while the commercial and others voted to keep working on it.

    Bosarge (MS comm): No
    Diaz (MS other): No
    Crabtree (NMFS): No
    Greene (AL rec/charter): No
    Sanchez (FL comm): No
    Swindell (LA comm): No
    Walker (AL comm): No
    Williams (FL other): No

    Boyd (CCA): Yes
    Dana (FL rec/charter): Yes
    Stunz (other, but hasn't ever voted in opposition to CCA): Yes
    Matens (CCA): Yes
    Lucas (MS): Yes
    Fischer (LA): Yes
    Riechers (TX): Yes
    Bademan (FL): Yes
    Anson (AL): Yes

    Am 39 was called "regional mgmt" but definitely was not.

    If the idea is supposedly to give the regional managers more say in how their fishery was managed, then what would that have meant if Pam Dana (pro sector separation) hadn't switched her vote and it passed - even with 100% opposition from the regional managers themselves? More say? No, in reality, less say. They wouldn't even have had a say in whether or not they wanted to participate in it.

    You need to look who is promoting it - the EDF-funded charter captains and commercial fishermen. If the idea behind sector separation is to separate the sectors, then why are the charter/commercials sticking their big noses in a sector they do not belong? It's literally none of their business.

    Lastly - I didn't edit your post (again) - I can't seem to do this on my phone. Sorry about that.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Am 39 was called "regional mgmt" but definitely was not.

    If the idea is supposedly to give the regional managers more say in how their fishery was managed, then what would that have meant if Pam Dana (pro sector separation) hadn't switched her vote and it passed - even with 100% opposition from the regional managers themselves? More say? No, in reality, less say. They wouldn't even have had a say in whether or not they wanted to participate in it.

    You need to look who is promoting it - the EDF-funded charter captains and commercial fishermen. If the idea behind sector separation is to separate the sectors, then why are the charter/commercials sticking their big noses in a sector they do not belong? It's literally none of their business.

    Lastly - I didn't edit your post (again) - I can't seem to do this on my phone. Sorry about that.

    You used "they" a couple of times too many. Not sure if you're talking about states or charter folks in one of your sentences. What I got out of listening to that discussion was that charters and headboats wanted no part of regional management (which is why Dana voted to kill it, I guess), but the states all wanted them in regional management. I guess so all that quota became available when sector separation died in 3 years. Council never agreed on who would be included, or on state allocations, and then they killed it.

    Since its dead, seems this line of discussion is moot, anyway. Just replying to your comment that confused me.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    True regional management is by no means dead - HR 3094 would transfer management of the Gulf red snapper away from the failed federal management regime and give it to the states where it belongs.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3094/text
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    True regional management is by no means dead - HR 3094 would transfer management of the Gulf red snapper away from the failed federal management regime and give it to the states where it belongs.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3094/text

    if that happens....... let me know how that works out for you. From what I've heard, it has so many unintended consequences, it is a train wreck, and it doesn't have much support. Someone from the southeast would have to call in a whole lot of chits to get someone from Montana or Idaho to make it happen.

    But who knows........ Trump is leading the polls for our next president.

    btw - since you indicated RFA lawsuit in a reply, I checked their site. I can't imagine how they can do something now. That rule was in effect last year. Looks to me like they are just asking for money for a cause that already died, and hoping that people will believe them so they can milk money.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    Whatever. Fact is that the corrupted federal fisheries management has failed the American rec angler - there really is no disputing that.
    The states have proven to be capable and willing to manage our wildlife resources for the best benefit for ALL, not a select few corporations.

    If you don't believe me or the FRA about the lawsuit, you may want to contact NOAA legal counsel or your bud Roy Crabtree.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Whatever. Fact is that the corrupted federal fisheries management has failed the American rec angler - there really is no disputing that.
    The states have proven to be capable and willing to manage our wildlife resources for the best benefit for ALL, not a select few corporations.

    If you don't believe me or the FRA about the lawsuit, you may want to contact NOAA legal counsel or your bud Roy Crabtree.

    Tom, for once you and I agree. I won't argue with you that the current system sucks. That is a fact, Jack.

    I won't go so far as to say its corrupt, or selecting for certain corporations.

    I will disagree when you say states are willing to manage the red snapper resource for the benefit of ALL. The states voted to kill 39 because they couldn't agree on what was best for ALL.

    Folks I used to know in NOAA Fisheries are a few notches down the ladder from your referenced sources, and wouldn't know either. I doubt Dr. Crabtree would take a call from some "John Q. Public" guy he doesn't know.

    As to a lawsuit -- I remember seeing posts about "send us money so we can sue"; I just never heard/saw anything about them actually filing the suit (no mention here or on a couple of other boards I visit occasionally). Do you have a link where we all can read this lawsuit? I went to FRA's web site and while I did see a recent blurb about it, I didn't see the document for download.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    The states voted to kill AM 39 because it was BS and just another tool in the box for the feds' to further restrict recreational fishing - the feds' still controlled how the fish were apportioned to each state coupled with payback provisions that had a 100% certainty to shut down the red snapper seasons for at least some of the states.

    The states manage the resources for THEIR state - there is no reason for Alabama to consult or agree with Texas regarding how they manage the deer populations in each respective state for example.

    The same should hold true for the fish landed in each state's ports - there is no scientific justification for managing Texas anglers based on what is happening off of Florida, but that is exactly what we have today. The ecosystems, biomass, effort are vastly different in either region, so why manage them under the same set of rules? Action 2/Alternative 2 of Amendment 39 (EDF's preference) ironically exemplified the very need to break away from the current system and give the management of the fisheries to the states; it would have resulted in 12-15 day season for Florida and Alabama private rec anglers while giving Texas private rec anglers a 100+ day season. Why? Because there are vast differences in the numbers of people fishing relative to amount of fish in the water.

    Craig Berman is the lawyer for FRA handling the case.
  • Meanwhile on Big Fish Texas, last episode, they sold 10,000 lbs of Red Snapper to a Dog Food company!!!!!
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,693 AG
    Meanwhile on Big Fish Texas, last episode, they sold 10,000 lbs of Red Snapper to a Dog Food company!!!!!
    $4.50/lb for that dog food, that's goodly amount and maybe .75 cents below what our fish house pays for food grade.
    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: »
    Action 2/Alternative 2 of Amendment 39 (EDF's preference) ironically exemplified the very need to break away from the current system and give the management of the fisheries to the states; it would have resulted in 12-15 day season for Florida and Alabama private rec anglers while giving Texas private rec anglers a 100+ day season. Why? Because there are vast differences in the numbers of people fishing relative to amount of fish in the water.

    Which is exactly why it died. FL and AL obviously wanted more than that, and TX/LA wanted their bigger numbers. That Alternative wouldn't fly, but any other Alternative that cut into the TX/LA days was not approvable by TX/LA.

    Wasn't it you who was noting that TX landings numbers were bogus? That they were way off? Way low? So why would FL/AL agree to give TX so many days when everyone, including you, knows that TX numbers are a massive underestimate?

    Thus........ AS I SAID FOUR OR FIVE POSTS AGO and you've now corroborated, the states couldn't agree on their allocations or who should be in or out....... so the STATES killed 39.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Which is exactly why it died. FL and AL obviously wanted more than that, and TX/LA wanted their bigger numbers. That Alternative wouldn't fly, but any other Alternative that cut into the TX/LA days was not approvable by TX/LA.

    Wasn't it you who was noting that TX landings numbers were bogus? That they were way off? Way low? So why would FL/AL agree to give TX so many days when everyone, including you, knows that TX numbers are a massive underestimate?

    Thus........ AS I SAID FOUR OR FIVE POSTS AGO and you've now corroborated, the states couldn't agree on their allocations or who should be in or out....... so the STATES killed 39.

    Agree on an allocation determined by whom? Roy Crabtree? THAT'S why AM 39 died - it's based on bogus federal data which doesn't reflect reality and would guarantee end of state water seasons and total closures of fishing seasons.

    True regional management would entail the states themselves determining their own allocations based on what THEIR regions can sustain long term.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,693 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »

    True regional management would entail the states themselves determining their own allocations based on what THEIR regions can sustain long term.
    Who would pay for that and how?
    I can't see the feds giving up control AND funding.
    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.