Home Conservation Front

Congressman Jolly's Folly

ChuggerChugger Posts: 44 Greenhorn
Congressman David Jolly (FL, Dist. 13) just put out a press release that's quite remarkable, just as it was in last year's congressional budget. The bill unfortunately demonstrates Jolly's total lack of understanding of the recreational fishing industry and the millions of anglers in Florida. This $10 million a year to NMFS to do "third-party" studies regarding red snapper and others species is absolutely laughable in its utter ignorance of how recreational anglers view NMFS. In fact, NMFS is viewed as a pro-commercial fishing, anti-recreational federal bureaucracy bent on closures of red snapper fishing in federal waters of the Gulf and Atlantic.

Anyone who thinks that NMFS is an objective third-party data collector isn't someone in the corner of recreational fishing in Florida. To give NMFS an extra $10M per year to tuck away while continuing to inhibit recreational fishing access and to dictate closures and more restrictive regulations is going to be raised as an issue in the upcoming election by those familiar with political issues affecting conservation.

Bills like this by Jolly demonstrate what can happen when a candidate (he's running for the U.S. senate seat being vacated by Marco Rubio) tries to pander to recreational anglers and instead ends up revealing total ignorance of fisheries issues. A concerted effort will be made to block this onerous bill if it's again pushed by Jolly or others as part of the federal fisheries data collection measures -- which have been mired in bias for decades.

Replies

  • ChuggerChugger Posts: 44 Greenhorn
    So, after Cong. David Jolly (Rep., Florida District 13) succeeded two years in a row to give NMFS $10 million to provide so-called objective data affecting red snapper resources, it was announced today that recreational anglers in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico will get TWO EXTRA DAYS to keep two reds at least 16" TL.

    Whoopee do. This is the problem when politicians like Jolly, who's vacating his House seat before finishing his first term to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Rubio, attempts to pander to recreational fishing voters while purporting that NMFS is an "objective" third-party data gatherer. Ignorance is not bliss.
  • mjacksmjacks Posts: 152 Deckhand
    Chugger wrote: »
    So, after Cong. David Jolly (Rep., Florida District 13) succeeded two years in a row to give NMFS $10 million to provide so-called objective data affecting red snapper resources, it was announced today that recreational anglers in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico will get TWO EXTRA DAYS to keep two reds at least 16" TL.

    Whoopee do. This is the problem when politicians like Jolly, who's vacating his House seat before finishing his first term to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Rubio, attempts to pander to recreational fishing voters while purporting that NMFS is an "objective" third-party data gatherer. Ignorance is not bliss.

    Couldn't agree more!
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Chugger wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks that NMFS is an objective third-party data collector isn't someone in the corner of recreational fishing in Florida. To give NMFS an extra $10M per year to tuck away while continuing to inhibit recreational fishing access and to dictate closures and more restrictive regulations is going to be raised as an issue in the upcoming election by those familiar with political issues affecting conservation.

    Uh........... guys/gals...........

    I don't think you understand what "third party" means. Congress (first party) allocates budget to NMFS (second party) to give the $10 million to outside sources (third party) to conduct biological assessments.

    Congress can't simply designate $X million to go to Univ. of S. Alabama, $X million to go LSU, and $X million to go to FSU to do a specific research activity. That is "earmarking", and to avoid the perception of "pork barrel", Congress "banned" themselves from pork barreling and earmarking funds several years ago.

    So......... to get around this limitation, to get money out to other (outside gov't) third party institutions, they have to give the money to NMFS who will then solicit proposals from universities, research organizations, etc, and NMFS will give the $10 million to those third party independent sources to do the research.

    Its no different than any other federal grant program.
  • Got TA GoGot TA Go Posts: 2,608 Captain
    Chugger wrote: »
    it was announced today that recreational anglers in federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico will get TWO EXTRA DAYS to keep two reds at least 16" TL.

    That was based on T/S Colin, not science.
    www.gottagofishinginkeywest.com


    Hero's Don't Wear Capes....They Wear Dog Tags.
  • junglejimjunglejim Posts: 82 Deckhand
    If you want to help the recreational fisherman cause. Show up on Wednesday June 22nd at the Clearwater Hilton hotel on the beach. National Marine fisheries will be there to hear public comment starting at 1:45PM till 5 PM. I am trying to get as many friends who fish and dive to attend stand at the microphone and tell them the fishery has been miss managed . This meeting is about ending sector separation or extending it . If you want to help get as many people to attend and speak. We all need to work together to get change!

    PM me and I will send you the the letter regarding this meeting.
    .
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Uh........... guys/gals...........

    I don't think you understand what "third party" means. Congress (first party) allocates budget to NMFS (second party) to give the $10 million to outside sources (third party) to conduct biological assessments.

    Congress can't simply designate $X million to go to Univ. of S. Alabama, $X million to go LSU, and $X million to go to FSU to do a specific research activity. That is "earmarking", and to avoid the perception of "pork barrel", Congress "banned" themselves from pork barreling and earmarking funds several years ago.

    So......... to get around this limitation, to get money out to other (outside gov't) third party institutions, they have to give the money to NMFS who will then solicit proposals from universities, research organizations, etc, and NMFS will give the $10 million to those third party independent sources to do the research.

    Its no different than any other federal grant program.

    Giving the money to the NMFS to pick a "third Party" is like giving Roy Crabtree to ultimate say on who is appointed to the Gulf Council, like he does....

    It's a joke to say that the money will go to truly independent research - the money will go to the grant **** who will provide the predetermined outcome that the NMFS/EDF desire.

    It has become a total and obscene joke.
  • Doc StressorDoc Stressor Homosassa, FLPosts: 2,748 Captain
    That's just the way funding for applied research works. Researchers can apply for funding from an agency like NSF, but the project would need to be of much broader scientific interest than the condition of the red snapper fishery.

    How else would you propose to fund fisheries research than through the agency that is responsible for regulating it?

    Any private group can raise money to conduct fisheries research. But it isn't cheap. Privately funded research would likely be even more suspect than federally funded studies since there would be no independent grant review process and no need for peer reviewed publication.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Dr. Greg Stunz has been doing some research on the red snapper populations off of Texas and found that there were snapper on just 5 natural reefs that equated to about 8% of that year's ACL for the entire Gulf. The paper is in the peer review process as we speak.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Dr. Greg Stunz has been doing some research on the red snapper populations off of Texas and found that there were snapper on just 5 natural reefs that equated to about 8% of that year's ACL for the entire Gulf. The paper is in the peer review process as we speak.

    Tom,

    As was pointed out by scientists about that former FL Congressman's graph of stock size, you want to harvest less than 10% of the available biomass. So, if those reefs contain 8% of the ACL, you'd want to harvest 0.8% (i.e. 0.008), or less, off those reefs. That's 500,000 pounds max for ACL, 400,000 for ACT (split between private and for-hire). That's 200+,000 for private angler; at 7.5 lb per fish, thats 26,000 fish, or 13,000 bag limits, or about 3,000 trips.

    Not sure your point tho; TPWD says it only catches about 250,000 lb a year.
  • ChuggerChugger Posts: 44 Greenhorn
    Fortunately, David Jolly switched again from running for the U.S. Senate to his 13th congressional district. Either way, he's in the pocket of NMFS because his staff is giving him poor fisheries advice. And again, anyone who thinks NMFS will dole out the $10 million to any entity other than those who provide conclusion-driven studies that support NMFS' & NOAA's objectives is whistling dixie.
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