Skip to main content
Home Conservation Front

Now amberjack closed - fish tags soon to follow

Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
Now the Feds' have closed all recreational fishing for Amberjack until next year.

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishery_bulletins/2016/050/index.html

I wonder what the CFA suckups are thinking now that their EDF/NMFS benefactors have totally screwed the Gulf charter fishing industry along with the rest of us...no snapper, no AJs, no triggers.....what's next?

Probable course of action is to include AJs and Triggers into AMs 41 and 42 and the new Private Rec APP will no doubt recommend fish tags for the private recs based on totally bogus numbers.

State management can't come soon enough as these federal management idiots are hell bent on totally destroying recreational fishing as we know it - the days of us going out and catching a fish, placing it in our cooler "FOR FREE" are coming to an end soon if they get their way. We are going to have to pay SOMEBODY for the "privilege" of keeping a fish to eat.
«1345

Replies

  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,860 AG
    Didn't AJ close last summer too?
    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
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Didn't AJ close last summer too?

    A#!, you're apparently not understanding that even if it was closed, and now they are more abundant and easier to catch, and the fish caught are bigger, the season should be longer under the same quota.

    But to answer your question, in 2014, amberjack closed on August 25. The rec quota (catch target) was exceeded that year, but the catch limit was not exceeded, so no payback was necessary for 2015. In 2015, the amberjack season closed on Sept. 28, but after all the dust settled, the quota (catch target) and the catch limit were exceeded , so the quota and catch limit for this year was a bit less than normal (not much). (see NMFS web site for quota monitoring numbers, which is where I got this info - i.e. its not just my opinion, its what the data are; whether you agree with the data is moot)

    So, if Aug 25 from 2 yr ago was about right (exceeded ACT but not ACL), and Sept. 28 was too late (exceeded ACL) ........ gee, do you see a pattern here for why it might be closed Aug 1 this year to keep the sector under the quota (ACT) as required by Magnuson? And not let it go over the quota, let alone the ACL.
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,896 Captain
    Will someone please be so kind to remind us how the recreational catch is being accuratley counted by NMFS. I seem to have forgotten.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,860 AG
    BubbaII wrote: »
    A#!, you're apparently not understanding that even if it was closed, and now they are more abundant and easier to catch, and the fish caught are bigger, the season should be longer under the same quota.

    But to answer your question, in 2014, amberjack closed on August 25. The rec quota (catch target) was exceeded that year, but the catch limit was not exceeded, so no payback was necessary for 2015. In 2015, the amberjack season closed on Sept. 28, but after all the dust settled, the quota (catch target) and the catch limit were exceeded , so the quota and catch limit for this year was a bit less than normal (not much). (see NMFS web site for quota monitoring numbers, which is where I got this info - i.e. its not just my opinion, its what the data are; whether you agree with the data is moot)

    So, if Aug 25 from 2 yr ago was about right (exceeded ACT but not ACL), and Sept. 28 was too late (exceeded ACL) ........ gee, do you see a pattern here for why it might be closed Aug 1 this year to keep the sector under the quota (ACT) as required by Magnuson? And not let it go over the quota, let alone the ACL.
    That's what I thought.
    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.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,860 AG
    drgibby wrote: »
    Will someone please be so kind to remind us how the recreational catch is being accuratley counted by NMFS. I seem to have forgotten.
    Telephone and dockside surveys.

    If you have a better idea post it up.
    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.
  • saltyseniorsaltysenior Posts: 868 Officer
    starting to feel the pain that the commercial side has felt for years ????
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Telephone and dockside surveys.

    If you have a better idea post it up.

    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tails-n-scales-mississippi/id986045701?mt=8
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »

    Tom,

    That's all well and good, just like FL's exploratory reporting system, and AL's new system. But they have to mesh with MRIP eventually. LA Creel is about to be certified. They don't have to match, but they do need to have a consistency that can be recalibrated back to MRIP because that is the historical record. And MRIP still needs recalibrated back thru the old MRFSS data for species other than red snapper.

    Oh, and btw...... remember when LA Creel folks were bragging how tight their confidence intervals were vs MRIP? Well, as I understand it, when LA Creel expanded beyond red snapper to include all LA species, their standard errors expanded to just about what MRIP was. You can check with the LA folks if you want confirmation of that.

    And then there is TX creel....... and they apparently have no intention of improving their design, so when/if state allocations come for red snapper (and maybe other species), TX fishermen will be stuck with the underestimated TX creel estimates for their allocation.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,892 Captain
    Got news for you, historical science ain't always the most accurate science.

    Federal fisheries managers need to be held to the same expectations of continuous improvement in their method and means of arriving at their conclusions as the rest of the scientific community at large is.

    Not constantly denying anything that can't be shown to "prove" the historical results were correct.

    If the rest of the "scientific community" that you like to pontificate about so much.........acted like our current crop of Federal fisheries managers......we would still be lighting all our homes with only incandescent lighting and heating them with firewood or kerosene.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    I wonder where they sampled the amberjack population - around oil platforms/reefs or in the bays?
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Hey Bubba
    We invited Roy to the Gulf Rec Focus Group that met in Biloxi a while back.

    We asked him how many fish tags the private recs would get based on this year's ACT - he said 422,227 tags.

    Can you explain how many tags the charter boats would have gotten proportionally to the sector separation split as well as split from the headboats and how that number of tags would relate to this year's 46 day season?

    Thanks in advance
    Tom
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Got news for you, historical science ain't always the most accurate science.

    Federal fisheries managers need to be held to the same expectations of continuous improvement in their method and means of arriving at their conclusions as the rest of the scientific community at large is.

    Not constantly denying anything that can't be shown to "prove" the historical results were correct.

    If the rest of the "scientific community" that you like to pontificate about so much.........acted like our current crop of Federal fisheries managers......we would still be lighting all our homes with only incandescent lighting and heating them with firewood or kerosene.

    CB,

    The data collection methods and the data are being improved; the state sampling programs can be improvements as they can focus better than such a broad spectrum survey as MRIP.

    But, you still have to be able to tie these new "better estimates" back to historical data to have long-term time series for assessments. You obviously can't go back and resurvey in the past, so you have to bring the old data up to the new standard. When they recalibrated old MRFSS data to new MRIP data for red snapper is what led to the allowable catch jumping up about 3+ million lb in the last assessment from 10+ million pounds to nearly 14 million pounds. Adjusting those old data upward indicated the stock was bigger, more fish were caught historically, and it shifted the status of the stock upward for the current time period.

    Point being, you can't just throw the old data out; you have to try and adjust it to meet/agree with the new data. Otherwise, your assessment would be dependent on only one or two years of new data. Assessment models need to see what was caught over longer periods.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Hey Bubba
    We invited Roy to the Gulf Rec Focus Group that met in Biloxi a while back.

    We asked him how many fish tags the private recs would get based on this year's ACT - he said 422,227 tags.

    Can you explain how many tags the charter boats would have gotten proportionally to the sector separation split as well as split from the headboats and how that number of tags would relate to this year's 46 day season?

    Thanks in advance
    Tom

    Tom, your question is a pretty simple math problem, so I'm sure you've done those calculations yourself; I'm assuming you're asking so you can get a response you can respond to. Not biting, thank you.

    But I note you bypassed my comment about TX data not being improved vs. the other states, which will leave TX in the dust under state control and state allocations.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Tom, your question is a pretty simple math problem, so I'm sure you've done those calculations yourself; I'm assuming you're asking so you can get a response you can respond to. Not biting, thank you.

    But I note you bypassed my comment about TX data not being improved vs. the other states, which will leave TX in the dust under state control and state allocations.

    Bubba, yes, it's simple math and considering your stance defending the status quo federal mismanagement, I fully understand why you would not want to parse that simple math. Perhaps because the Feds' "math" doesn't add up, and hasn't added up for several years now.

    We invited Roy Crabtree to a meeting of the Gulf Angler Focus Group in Biloxi and asked him how many fish tags the private recs would get based on this year's ACT - he said 422,227 tags.

    If the private recs get 422,227 tags (straight from Roy's mouth) and the private rec sector gets 58% of the snapper, then the for-hire sector would get something like 309,535 tags. Assuming that the charter boats account for about 67% of the for-hire landings, then that would mean they get 207,388 tags. Since there are about 1,200 active federal charter boats fishing for snapper in the Gulf, that would mean each boat would get about 172 tags for the year. Let's assume that there are latent permits, so let's say there are at least 1,000 federal charter permits for the sake of conversation, so that increases the average number of tags to 207 tags per boat.

    Right now, with their 46 day season and assuming they take an average of 5 anglers out and put them on limits of snapper each day, that equates to about 460,000 snapper. Yes, there are weather days, but there are also boats taking 2 or more trips per day which probably negates weather days.

    Yet, with fish tags, the charter boats would be restricted to no more than about 207, 000 tags - NOT 460,000.

    So, according to the Feds' "conception" of equality in management for the charter boats, a 46 day season = 207,000 fish tags, NOT 460,000 red snapper for their customers. (less than 1/2 of the fish that could be expected to be landed even with this year's extremely short season). And fish tags are a good idea? No, as you can see Bubba, they obviously are not - they are simply another tools for the Feds' to use to continue justifying taking even more fish away from us.

    I think the charter captains are starting to realize that they have been fed a boatload of crap with Sector Separation / Catch Shares by the EDF-funded useful idiots, and that being regulated by bag limits/seasons certainly make more sense than fish tags, IFQs, or PFQs.

    So, the new private rec AP will undoubtably recommend fish tags as the answer for the private recs, but one has to ask; "If the Feds' are SO WRONG with the relatively small, known number of charter boats, then JUST HOW WRONG are they when attempting to regulate the relatively large, UNKNOWN number of private recs? I believe that they would be catastrophically wrong and would warrant a full and thorough investigation by the OIG.

    Yes, there are significant misconceptions being parlayed here, and it ain't us doing it.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Bubba, yes, it's simple math and considering your stance defending the status quo federal mismanagement, I fully understand why you would not want to parse that simple math. Perhaps because the Feds' "math" doesn't add up, and hasn't added up for several years now.

    We invited Roy Crabtree to a meeting of the Gulf Angler Focus Group in Biloxi and asked him how many fish tags the private recs would get based on this year's ACT - he said 422,227 tags.

    If the private recs get 422,227 tags (straight from Roy's mouth) and the private rec sector gets 58% of the snapper, then the for-hire sector would get something like 309,535 tags. Assuming that the charter boats account for about 67% of the for-hire landings, then that would mean they get 207,388 tags. Since there are about 1,200 active federal charter boats fishing for snapper in the Gulf, that would mean each boat would get about 172 tags for the year. Let's assume that there are latent permits, so let's say there are at least 1,000 federal charter permits for the sake of conversation, so that increases the average number of tags to 207 tags per boat.

    Right now, with their 46 day season and assuming they take an average of 5 anglers out and put them on limits of snapper each day, that equates to about 460,000 snapper. Yes, there are weather days, but there are also boats taking 2 or more trips per day which probably negates weather days.

    Yet, with fish tags, the charter boats would be restricted to no more than about 207, 000 tags - NOT 460,000.

    So, according to the Feds' "conception" of equality in management for the charter boats, a 46 day season = 207,000 fish tags, NOT 460,000 red snapper for their customers. (less than 1/2 of the fish that could be expected to be landed even with this year's extremely short season). And fish tags are a good idea? No, as you can see Bubba, they obviously are not - they are simply another tools for the Feds' to use to continue justifying taking even more fish away from us.

    I think the charter captains are starting to realize that they have been fed a boatload of crap with Sector Separation / Catch Shares by the EDF-funded useful idiots, and that being regulated by bag limits/seasons certainly make more sense than fish tags, IFQs, or PFQs.

    So, the new private rec AP will undoubtably recommend fish tags as the answer for the private recs, but one has to ask; "If the Feds' are SO WRONG with the relatively small, known number of charter boats, then JUST HOW WRONG are they when attempting to regulate the relatively large, UNKNOWN number of private recs? I believe that they would be catastrophically wrong and would warrant a full and thorough investigation by the OIG.

    Yes, there are significant misconceptions being parlayed here, and it ain't us doing it.

    see I knew you had a bully pulpit you wanted to expound on.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Yep, and I see that you don't want to discuss the facts Bubba since you cannot refute them.

    Fish tags are not the solution.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Yep, and I see that you don't want to discuss the facts Bubba since you cannot refute them.

    Fish tags are not the solution.

    I never said fish tags were a solution. They are an option, but it would be a nightmare of how to distribute them; if they are finite in number, it would need to be a lottery and if they are just issued willy-nilly and then counted as turned in....... its still a derby.

    You still haven't responded to the TX data issue I pointed out.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Bubba - the point I was trying to make is that according to the Feds', 46 days = 207,000 fish tags for charter boats this year, based on dividing up their portion of the fish and converting them into tags based on the average weight. The problem is that with a 46 day season, the Gulf charter fleet is landing probably over twice the 207,000 fish, so they will probably vote to keep managing the for-hire via bag limits seasons because it's twice as good as tags even with the truncated 46 day season.

    And then there's the new "private recreational" AP the EDF folks are screaming for the Gulf Council to form. Why? Because the end result of the "private recreational" AP will be Fish Tags - it's the ONLY reason why they want to form the AP. So, the for-hire fleet will continue to get longer seasons/bag limits while the private recs will get the shaft via Fish Tags.

    If fish tags are such a great idea, then we should require them of EVERYONE harvesting a red snapper, including private recs, those recreational fishermen who choose to fish on charter and/or headboats, AND commercial red snapper fishermen.

    As far as the Texas data goes, I have pointed out to Robin Reichers, The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commissioners, and anyone else who would listen that if we went to regionalization using the flawed data we are currently using (couple with the payback provisions) that Texas anglers would be facing access to the fishery that is but a fraction of what reality is. I have also pointed out to Roy Crabtree the Texas data deficiencies on multiple occasions, at Gulf Council meetings and in writing, yet he continues to use it as the "best available science". Since he has been alerted of the problem yet refuses to do anything about it, then the NMFS therefore OWNS the data - it really doesn't matter where it came from at that point. After all, the NMFS offices are located in St. Pete, FL and many of their decisions benefit the eastern Gulf at the direct expense of the western Gulf. The western Gulf has fewer anglers and more fish and should therefore be fishing longer seasons than the eastern Gulf - I believe Texas should be suing the NMFS for damages probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues due directly to this blatant, intentional mismanagement by Roy and Co.
  • permit_mepermit_me Posts: 1,197 Officer
    more fish farms to feed the masses!!!
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Bubba - the point I was trying to make is that according to the Feds', 46 days = 207,000 fish tags for charter boats this year, based on dividing up their portion of the fish and converting them into tags based on the average weight. The problem is that with a 46 day season, the Gulf charter fleet is landing probably over twice the 207,000 fish, so they will probably vote to keep managing the for-hire via bag limits seasons because it's twice as good as tags even with the truncated 46 day season.

    And then there's the new "private recreational" AP the EDF folks are screaming for the Gulf Council to form. Why? Because the end result of the "private recreational" AP will be Fish Tags - it's the ONLY reason why they want to form the AP. So, the for-hire fleet will continue to get longer seasons/bag limits while the private recs will get the shaft via Fish Tags.

    If fish tags are such a great idea, then we should require them of EVERYONE harvesting a red snapper, including private recs, those recreational fishermen who choose to fish on charter and/or headboats, AND commercial red snapper fishermen.

    As far as the Texas data goes, I have pointed out to Robin Reichers, The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commissioners, and anyone else who would listen that if we went to regionalization using the flawed data we are currently using (couple with the payback provisions) that Texas anglers would be facing access to the fishery that is but a fraction of what reality is. I have also pointed out to Roy Crabtree the Texas data deficiencies on multiple occasions, at Gulf Council meetings and in writing, yet he continues to use it as the "best available science". Since he has been alerted of the problem yet refuses to do anything about it, then the NMFS therefore OWNS the data - it really doesn't matter where it came from at that point. After all, the NMFS offices are located in St. Pete, FL and many of their decisions benefit the eastern Gulf at the direct expense of the western Gulf. The western Gulf has fewer anglers and more fish and should therefore be fishing longer seasons than the eastern Gulf - I believe Texas should be suing the NMFS for damages probably in the hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues due directly to this blatant, intentional mismanagement by Roy and Co.

    Tom, in 2015,

    The for-hire fleet harvested 2.2 million pounds of their 2.3 million pound annual catch target ( with the buffer); 93% of their ACT; 74% of their ACL.

    The private anglers harvested 3.47 million pounds of their of their 3.23 million pound quota (ACT); 107% of the ACT (quota); 86% of the ACL.

    http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/acl_monitoring/recreational_gulf/index.html

    Overall, the rec ACL was not exceeded, so no penalty for 2016. And the overall catch was buffered correctly.

    So both sub-sectors stayed under their ACLs; but the recs exceeded their quota again....... in 9 days. The for-hire fleet had 44 days and was at . Your math is off somewhere, and I'm not gonna try to figure out where.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    MY math is off? Good one.

    The recreational quota is higher than ever, yet we exceeded our quota in 9 days? That's laughable to the extreme. Landing more poundage in 9 days with 2 fish limits than we did with 194 day seasons / 4 fish limits? Naw, didn't happen in reality - only in Roy's convoluted computer modeling.

    The for-hire sector got about double the fish allocated to them than they should have gotten via Amendment 40 - where did those fish come from? STOLEN from the private recs. Where did they get the math to arrive at that %? From 30 year old "data" - what an absolute joke.

    Hopefully the FRA lawsuit will correct that absurdity.
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Tom, how can NMFS make Texas do anything? I'm referring to your comments on the last page regarding the Texas survey. If Texas is providing data that is inadequate and won't allow MRIP in or upgrade their survey, NMFS is required to take the information given to it by Texas.

    Would you rather that NMFS not accept Texas data?

    Doesn't your fish and wildlife commission care that your state would be short selling your fishermen? Or does Reichers have everyone snookered? Why don't more Texas fishermen complain about this issue? Seems to me, upgrading your survey system would be in the interests of your state and regional management.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Not sure - all I know is that TPWD does a GREAT job managing our wildlife resources, hunters, and fishermen while the Feds' have failed miserably. The proof is in the pudding, isn't it? No matter what, if the Feds' have control of the fishery, they will shortchange Texas any way they can.

    Once the states gain control of the fisheries off of their respective coasts, I would like to see them perform their own biomass assessments and enact landing collection programs similar to Mississippi's. Managing the Gulf as one unit is ludicrous, scientifically, biologically, and economically.
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    It seems like a better survey would be in the Stat's interests. From what I understand (it's been 20yrs since I last fished there) your inshore fishing is great and is sustaining increased numbers of fishermen. This, to me, at least shows TX has the ability to manage the fishery.

    The biomass issue is a great point. Though, if we were to abide by the numbers as they are at present, the Eastern Gulf would border on the overfished line if we split the Gulf.

    Again, data collection issues abound, not only on the landings side of things but the independent data side as well. If only the Gulf had like a billion dollars from an oil spill to spend on such things....
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,892 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    I never said fish tags were a solution. They are an option, but it would be a nightmare of how to distribute them; if they are finite in number, it would need to be a lottery......

    Why a lottery? Why not issue them to the anglers who can show "historical catch history" having priority? You know like how many years you have bought a license or how many old photos you can produce or how many affidavits you can get from witnesses of your likelihood to actually harvest and utilize the resource?

    You don't think John Q. Public would think that was an unfair way to distribute a "finite in number" public resource do you?:rolleyes

    I mean you could be our spokesperson to explain how the Commercial IFQ/limited participant method of management is so great and how we need to implement a very similar recreational management scheme.:shrug
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Why a lottery? Why not issue them to the anglers who can show "historical catch history" having priority? You know like how many years you have bought a license or how many old photos you can produce or how many affidavits you can get from witnesses of your likelihood to actually harvest and utilize the resource?

    You don't think John Q. Public would think that was an unfair way to distribute a "finite in number" public resource do you?:rolleyes

    I mean you could be our spokesperson to explain how the Commercial IFQ/limited participant method of management is so great and how we need to implement a very similar recreational management scheme.:shrug

    not arguing one bit. If someone wants to come up with some idea of how to identify historical participants, it would help. But, you are very correct...... how does that help Joe Blow and his family from Minnesota who make an annual trip to (Orange Beach/Pensacola/Panama City) on a 10-day vacation that includes a half-day charter trip to catch red snapper?

    So, what is your idea of how to issue a finite number of tags? Tom already identified the speculated number. How do you distribute a few hundred thousand tags to the million of licensed anglers in the Gulf, plus all the tourists who might want to fish a charter boat (sans sector separation)?

    Don't just rebut me..... What is your idea? I sure don't have one that is fool proof and would work. If you have one, the Gulf Council is currently seeking people to participate in a Recreational Angler Red Snapper Advisory Panel. Apply......

    http://gulfcouncil.org/news_resources/Press%20Releases/AdHocRecAPRecruitment.pdf
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    not arguing one bit. If someone wants to come up with some idea of how to identify historical participants, it would help. But, you are very correct...... how does that help Joe Blow and his family from Minnesota who make an annual trip to (Orange Beach/Pensacola/Panama City) on a 10-day vacation that includes a half-day charter trip to catch red snapper?

    So, what is your idea of how to issue a finite number of tags? Tom already identified the speculated number. How do you distribute a few hundred thousand tags to the million of licensed anglers in the Gulf, plus all the tourists who might want to fish a charter boat (sans sector separation)?

    Don't just rebut me..... What is your idea? I sure don't have one that is fool proof and would work. If you have one, the Gulf Council is currently seeking people to participate in a Recreational Angler Red Snapper Advisory Panel. Apply......

    http://gulfcouncil.org/news_resources/Press%20Releases/AdHocRecAPRecruitment.pdf

    Here's an idea that would accommodate EVERYONE - do away with Sector Separation and have EVERYONE fish the SAME seasons and bag limits. It works fine - no need for the supposed "cure" called fish tags.

    Another novel idea; COUNT THE FISH WHERE THEY LIVE INSTEAD OF INTENTIONALLY AVOIDING THEM!

    And another; IDENTIFY WHO GOES FISHING FOR RED SNAPPER AND HOW OFTEN. This can easily be accomplished, yet the Feds' have shown time and again they are not interested in knowing this very important piece of the puzzle and prefer to deal in convoluted computer modeling and antiquated random phone surveys.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Here's an idea that would accommodate EVERYONE - do away with Sector Separation and have EVERYONE fish the SAME seasons and bag limits. It works fine - no need for the supposed "cure" called fish tags.

    Another novel idea; COUNT THE FISH WHERE THEY LIVE INSTEAD OF INTENTIONALLY AVOIDING THEM!

    And another; IDENTIFY WHO GOES FISHING FOR RED SNAPPER AND HOW OFTEN. This can easily be accomplished, yet the Feds' have shown time and again they are not interested in knowing this very important piece of the puzzle and prefer to deal in convoluted computer modeling and antiquated random phone surveys.

    Thanks, Tom, for reiterating the hard line old school. Got a better idea than just blasting the current system?

    That counting fish on artificial reef argument is really weak. Where do all the MRIP data come from? Rec fishermen fishing on artificial and natural hard bottom. Those fish are being counted, one way or the other.

    What else can be done besides lamblasting the current system? What is a solution? I think you're on that independent rec panel. What new and innovative programs has your group come up with? Besides to blame NMFS?

    How would you propose to identify red snapper fishermen? Florida put in a reef fish "stamp" program, and everyone applied (because it was free to get the reef fish "stamp") ...... not that they would go fish for red snapper but they got the "stamp". What valuable information is gleaned from "I might" vs "I do"?
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    It's ludicrous to claim you can estimate the number of fish still swimming in the water by counting dead fish on the dock.

    Here's an idea - how about the NMFS do its job instead of doing the bidding of an environmental corporation?

    The Gulf Rec Focus Group will make its recommendations to the Gulf Council in due time.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    BubbaII wrote:
    Got a better idea than just blasting the current system?
    How would you propose to identify red snapper fishermen?
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    It's ludicrous to claim you can estimate the number of fish still swimming in the water by counting dead fish on the dock.

    Here's an idea - how about the NMFS do its job instead of doing the bidding of an environmental corporation?

    The Gulf Rec Focus Group will make its recommendations to the Gulf Council in due time.



    Seems Tom's answer is to just continue blasting the system, put the blame on someone else, and expect someone else to fix the problem, instead of stepping up and trying to fix the problem with some new approach. Is that the general consensus?

    Private anglers have blamed:

    1990s...... the shrimpers. Shrimping collapsed from outside economic issues. Not the problem.

    2000s..... the commercial guys: They came in with a solution that gave them a controlled stable fishery.

    2010s...... the for-hire guys: They've come to the Council with detailed plans to give them the same stability and the Council is moving forward to do that.

    Who's left to blame? besides NMFS or the environmentalists which CCA used to proudly promote partnership with; now you blast them. You're running out of tar babies. Shrimp fell on its own; the commercial and for-hire came to the Council with solutions for their issues. What is your solution?
This discussion has been closed.
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