Skip to main content
Home Conservation Front

Now amberjack closed - fish tags soon to follow

245

Replies

  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    I guess you haven't been listening....hmmm, yes, probably a very good chance that you work for the Feds.

    The solution? HR 3094.

    Any other questions?
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I guess you haven't been listening....hmmm, yes, probably a very good chance that you work for the Feds.

    The solution? HR 3094.

    Any other questions?



    Hope your ready to fund it. States are broke that bill is dead.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Hundreds of millions of dollars coming available for the Gulf states to use to improve the Gulf fisheries. Can't think of a better use of those funds than repairing the damage that your EDF has done to our Gulf recreational fishing.

    HR 3094 is FAR from dead Ard.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 18,926 AG
    By all accounts Gulf fishing is as good as it's been in decades.

    I suspect, however, your offshore fishing-related business is not.

    That must be the Fed's or the EDFs' fault.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Hundreds of millions of dollars coming available for the Gulf states to use to improve the Gulf fisheries. Can't think of a better use of those funds than repairing the damage that your EDF has done to our Gulf recreational fishing.

    HR 3094 is FAR from dead Ard.

    15% chance as good as dead!
    Obama won't sign it and after the election probably won't get through the senate and if it does President Hiliary Clinton won't sign it. Time to embrace another plan Texas Tom.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3094
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    By all accounts Gulf fishing is as good as it's been in decades.

    I suspect, however, your offshore fishing-related business is not.

    That must be the Fed's or the EDFs' fault.

    Not sure why you would separate the Feds' and EDF since they are basically one and the same.

    Offshore fishing is good, (in the 2% of the year that the Feds' allow you to fish for snapper). The have enacted Prohibition of fishing for snapper for the remaining 98% of the year.

    My offshore fishing-related business is doing quite well - best year we have ever had, but of course, species that affect my business covered by Catch Shares are but a tiny fraction of my business. That will probably change with time since the Plan is to include ALL federally managed species under Catch Shares.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    notreely wrote: »
    15% chance as good as dead!
    Obama won't sign it and after the election probably won't get through the senate and if it does President Hiliary Clinton won't sign it. Time to embrace another plan Texas Tom.

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr3094

    15% is about double what it was last time I checked - it seems to be gaining traction the more that our reps are being informed of how the American People are getting scammed.

    It's interesting to see the Hillary supporters lining up at the polls voting to keep their entitlements called Catch Shares.

    BTW, I hit the wrong button (again) and did not edit your post notreely.

    Congress has appropriated the funds to do an actual assessment that counts the fish where they live - I embrace any plan that is based on reality. I would support a split in the Gulf at the mouth of the Mississippi - manage the fisheries based on what the east/west can sustain. Right now, the western Gulf is subsidizing the eastern Gulf - Texas and Louisiana should be suing the federal government for this blatant bias that is causing billions of dollars in damages to the Gulf coastal communities.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    15% is about double what it was last time I checked - it seems to be gaining traction the more that our reps are being informed of how the American People are getting scammed.

    It's interesting to see the Hillary supporters lining up at the polls voting to keep their entitlements called Catch Shares.

    BTW, I hit the wrong button (again) and did not edit your post notreely.

    Congress has appropriated the funds to do an actual assessment that counts the fish where they live - I embrace any plan that is based on reality. I would support a split in the Gulf at the mouth of the Mississippi - manage the fisheries based on what the east/west can sustain. Right now, the western Gulf is subsidizing the eastern Gulf - Texas and Louisiana should be suing the federal government for this blatant bias that is causing billions of dollars in damages to the Gulf coastal communities.



    WOW! Doubled to 15%. It really making progress.

    It's no problem Tom, I'm sure you hit the wrong button. Just like the time you used your moderator status to openly post my IP address.

    At least you finally admit that you support a plan that would offer catch shares to the western Gulf states. I hope the people on the FLORIDA SPORTSMAN FOURUM realize that you want to reallocate fish the whole gulf has acess too. Over to the western gulf states and you are supporting taking away fish from the RESIDENTS OF FLORIDA.

    It's nice that your being so honest today TEXAS TOM.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    notreely wrote: »
    WOW! Doubled to 15%. It really making progress.

    It's no problem Tom, I'm sure you hit the wrong button. Just like the time you used your moderator status to openly post my IP address.

    At least you finally admit that you support a plan that would offer catch shares to the western Gulf states. I hope the people on the FLORIDA SPORTSMAN FOURUM realize that you want to reallocate fish the whole gulf has acess too. Over to the western gulf states and you are supporting taking away fish from the RESIDENTS OF FLORIDA.

    It's nice that your being so honest today TEXAS TOM.

    No, I didn't hit the wrong button the time your IP address was revealed - that was a mistake that was addressed and we have moved on. You need to get over it.

    Offer catch shares to the western states? No, you are again confused notreely. States have managed their own resources for decades using bag limits and seasons - they work fine, and are certainly not catch shares.

    Asking for local management of a fish that swims off of Galveston Texas is taking fish away from Florida fishermen? That is not only laughable, it's ridiculous, but then again we have come to expect the laughable and ridiculousness from the EDF crowd.

    I know, it's nefarious to ask that the fishery be managed locally for the best interests of the fish and the fishermen living there. It makes no scientific sense whatsoever to manage the Gulf fisheries as one unit - what happens off of Florida should have no bearing on what happens off of Texas, and vice versa. Each area has it's unique ecosystem, biomass, and effort - Florida fishermen should be able to fish the maximum amount based on what the Florida ecosystem can sustain over time. Texas fishermen should not be underfishing their fish because the Feds'/Democrats don't like Texas.

    The great people of Alabama have been prohibited from accessing their great artificial reefing system for 98% of the year, while the commercial boys have 365 day access to those same reefs. I think Alabama/Florida panhandle anglers should have equal access to the reefs that THEY deployed - not taking away access for the benefit of a few commercial operations.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    No, I didn't hit the wrong button the time your IP address was revealed - that was a mistake that was addressed and we have moved on. You need to get over it.

    Offer catch shares to the western states? No, you are again confused notreely. States have managed their own resources for decades using bag limits and seasons - they work fine, and are certainly not catch shares.

    Asking for local management of a fish that swims off of Galveston Texas is taking fish away from Florida fishermen? That is not only laughable, it's ridiculous, but then again we have come to expect the laughable and ridiculousness from the EDF crowd.

    I know, it's nefarious to ask that the fishery be managed locally for the best interests of the fish and the fishermen living there. It makes no scientific sense whatsoever to manage the Gulf fisheries as one unit - what happens off of Florida should have no bearing on what happens off of Texas, and vice versa. Each area has it's unique ecosystem, biomass, and effort - Florida fishermen should be able to fish the maximum amount based on what the Florida ecosystem can sustain over time. Texas fishermen should not be underfishing their fish because the Feds'/Democrats don't like Texas.

    The great people of Alabama have been prohibited from accessing their great artificial reefing system for 98% of the year, while the commercial boys have 365 day access to those same reefs. I think Alabama/Florida panhandle anglers should have equal access to the reefs that THEY deployed - not taking away access for the benefit of a few commercial operations.



    Tom,,I'm beginning to believe you might be a hired EDF shill.

    Dividing a specific biological stocks allocation and closing a open acess fishery in part of a body of water is exactly what a catch share is. I hope the people on this forum realize what you want. You want to slice the recreational allocation like a pizza with uneven slices to benefit one community over another. THAT IS WHAT A CATCH SHARE IS. Tom wants the western gulf to have more allocation than the eastern gulf, because he believes there is more biomass in the western gulf. More biomass in western gulf and less effort would mean more acess(days) for Texas Tom and less biomass and more effort in the eastern gulf would mean LESS ACESS (DAYS) FOR FLORIDA FISHERMAN!
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Managing resources offshore of each state (or group of states) based on what the ecosystem can sustain is not catch shares. Just like each state manages their own deer, ducks, dove, etc., why should it be any different with fish? Oh yeah, there is a commercial market that the Feds' are protecting at the expense of the Gulf recreational fishermen and communities - it has nothing to do with what is best for the fish, fishermen, or Gulf coastal communities.

    Splitting the Gulf into east/west areas basically is a simpler version of HR 3094 - if it's easier and more feasible to split it into 2 regions rather than 5, let's implement it. Of course, I'm advocating that the states in those 2 regions would be the ones managing their fish - not the Feds'.

    Who is advocating closing an open access fishery for one group for the benefit of another? Not me, but that is exactly what Sector Separation does however. For-hire boats get 4X the access than private recs? Going back to 1986 to justify the inflated amount of fish the for-hire sector got? Ridiculous and laughable. Where did those extra fish come from? Stolen from the private recs. Hopefully the FRA lawsuit will reverse this injustice.

    I believe that Alabama and Florida anglers (both private rec and those who choose to fish on for-hire taxis) should be able to equally fish to the maximum extent that THEIR ecosystem can sustain.

    I also believe that Louisiana and Texas anglers should likewise be able to equally fish to the maximum extent that THEIR ecosystem can sustain - not be punished just because the Feds'/Democrats/environmentalists don't like Texas.

    To claim that the Gulf is even slices of pizza is laughable and ridiculous - ecosystem-based management is based on managing what each ecosystem can sustain. Managing a body of water as large and diverse as the Gulf of Mexico as one unit is one very large reason why the Feds' deserve to be fired for gross incompetence and mismanagement.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    I gave up on this thread when:

    I asked Country Bumpkin the following question:
    Don't just rebut me..... What is your idea?
    No answer

    I asked Tom Hilton the following question:
    How would you propose to identify red snapper fishermen? Florida put in a reef fish "stamp" program,..... What valuable information is gleaned from "I might" vs "I do"?
    No answer

    I subsequently asked Tom Hilton:
    What is your solution?
    His answer: The solution? HR 3094.

    Now, Tom Hilton states:
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Managing a body of water as large and diverse as the Gulf of Mexico as one unit is one very large reason why the Feds' deserve to be fired for gross incompetence and mismanagement.

    The Feds are simply following what Congress laid out for them in the MSA. Its not being incompetent and mismanaging to do what your boss tells you to do; in fact, in most places I ever worked, you got fired if you didn't do what they said.

    MSA Section 301(a)(3): To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit
    throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.

    MSA Section 301(a)(4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of
    different States.

    MSA Section 301(a)(7) Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and
    avoid unnecessary duplication.

    Your proposal (and the congressional bill) all violate these MSA national standards. If that bill actually passed (with its 15% support), all these national standards become moot.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Let's put some perspective to Gulf of Mexico red snapper.

    First off, people go fish. Charter boats run all year; private anglers run all year, but more in summer. The vast majority of recreational angling and catch occurs in state waters from the beach, a pier, a small boat. To them red snapper is something you buy in the store.

    According to the 2014 report of Fisheries of the US
    http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/commercial/fus/fus14/documents/04_Recreational2014.pdf

    here are the top 10 or so recreational species (and keep in mind this isn't Gulf; its US)

    Striped Bass 24 million pounds
    Spotted Sea Trout (Specks) 14.6 million pounds
    Bluefish 13.6 million pounds
    Yellowfin Tuna 11 million pounds
    Dolphins (2 spp) 9.8 million pounds
    Summer Flounder 6.4 million pounds
    Sheepshead 5.6 million pounds
    Red Snapper 4.6 million pounds
    Croaker 4.3 million pounds
    Spanish Mackerel 4.1 million pounds
    Black Drum 3.6 million pounds
    Mullet 3.5 million pounds

    Red Snapper is 4-5% of that top 10-12 list. Do you notice a pattern in this top 10-12? That other than yellowfin, dolphin and red snapper, these are all state water fisheries? This is where the majority of people fish. Congress developed MSA for federal fisheries, which, yes....... is primarily commercial. Only in the southeast do we have dominant recreational fisheries.

    What is your solution recreational fishermen?
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,741 AG
    Tom, if you and your ilk cared about coastal communities, y'all wouldn't have pushed for net bans...

    It's all about the bottom line and at the moment you (or the folks that fund you) are losing $$.
    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
    House Bill 3094 seems to have some confusion surrounding it. In a recent newspaper article, the LA Secretary and Rep. Graves did some sparring over some specifics:

    Melancon had said his opposition was in response to a "poison-pill" amendment added to the bill by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, stripping it of funding and creating an unfunded mandate.

    Graves, one of the lead sponsors of the bill, said the amendment did no such thing. "While the amendment by Chairman Bishop does affect management costs, it does not impact stock assessments or research," Graves said. "The federal government will continue to provide those."


    But, if you go read the congressional report coming out of the Committee passing that bill forward to full House, it clearly states that the States will be doing the data collection and assessments:

    Once management has been fully transferred, the Secretary shall transfer the federally appropriated funding currently used for federal management to the states. The Secretary would be tasked with providing all federal funding to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, which would then be responsible for administering the funds to the states for management and assessments.


    And if you go read the bill itself, its pretty clear that the states will do the assessments, etc., using transferred federal funding (more on that later):

    (2) DUTIES.—The duties of the GSRSMA are as follows:
    (C) To the maximum extent practicable, make scientific data, stock assessments and other scientific information upon which fishery management plans are based available to the public for inspection prior to meetings described in paragraph (c)(2).

    (If overfishing occurs) … such Gulf coastal State shall submit a certification to the GSRSMA showing that such State—
    (B) in consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has implemented a program to provide for data collection adequate to monitor the harvest of Gulf of Mexico red snapper by such State.


    In other words, the state has implemented a data collection program (which infers assessments).

    Now, here comes the kicker:

    SEC. 505. GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION.

    a) FUNDING TO THE GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION.—The Secretary shall provide all Federal funding to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission for all necessary stock assessments, research, and management for the red snapper fishery.

    (b) FUNDING TO THE GULF COASTAL STATES.—The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission shall be responsible for administering the Federal funds referred to in paragraph (1) to each of the Gulf coastal States for proper management of the red snapper fishery.

    (c) NO ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED.—Nothing in this section may be construed to increase the amount of Federal funds authorized to be appropriated for Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery management.


    Now, I don't see it in this version of the bill, but in the past, it said that all money spent by the Feds for red snapper research would be transferred to the Gulf States Commission to do all the assessments, data collection, etc. Thus the bolded (c) right above this comment - no additional funds can be appropriated for red snapper management.

    So only existing red snapper money can be transferred. Only problem with that is: the Feds don't do "red snapper research". They do fishery independent (plankton, hook/line, longline, trawl) and dependent (MRIP) monitoring, which will continue at full force for all other species....... including the capture and documentation of red snapper.

    There is simply no way to parse out what the Feds spend on red snapper research, except maybe the cost of a SEDAR red snapper assessment. And that would be a pittance anyway.

    I think this is Melancon's concern that Graves doesn't even understand his own bill.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 18,926 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Not sure why you would separate the Feds' and EDF since they are basically one and the same.

    Offshore fishing is good, (in the 2% of the year that the Feds' allow you to fish for snapper). The have enacted Prohibition of fishing for snapper for the remaining 98% of the year.

    Now you know why I separated them, but please do keep flying your flag of conspiracy theory. It's entertaining.

    You can fish for snapper whenever you want. You just can't kill them year round like you used to.

    Some of us understand and appreciate the difference.

    That must be the EDF talking....or was it the NMFS....I can't keep track.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Tom, if you and your ilk cared about coastal communities, y'all wouldn't have pushed for net bans...

    It's all about the bottom line and at the moment you (or the folks that fund you) are losing $$.

    My ilk? Interesting.

    I'm also interested to know who is funding me and who is losing $$ - please elaborate Art.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    House Bill 3094 seems to have some confusion surrounding it. In a recent newspaper article, the LA Secretary and Rep. Graves did some sparring over some specifics:

    Melancon had said his opposition was in response to a "poison-pill" amendment added to the bill by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, stripping it of funding and creating an unfunded mandate.

    Graves, one of the lead sponsors of the bill, said the amendment did no such thing. "While the amendment by Chairman Bishop does affect management costs, it does not impact stock assessments or research," Graves said. "The federal government will continue to provide those."


    But, if you go read the congressional report coming out of the Committee passing that bill forward to full House, it clearly states that the States will be doing the data collection and assessments:

    Once management has been fully transferred, the Secretary shall transfer the federally appropriated funding currently used for federal management to the states. The Secretary would be tasked with providing all federal funding to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, which would then be responsible for administering the funds to the states for management and assessments.


    And if you go read the bill itself, its pretty clear that the states will do the assessments, etc., using transferred federal funding (more on that later):

    (2) DUTIES.—The duties of the GSRSMA are as follows:
    (C) To the maximum extent practicable, make scientific data, stock assessments and other scientific information upon which fishery management plans are based available to the public for inspection prior to meetings described in paragraph (c)(2).

    (If overfishing occurs) … such Gulf coastal State shall submit a certification to the GSRSMA showing that such State—
    (B) in consultation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has implemented a program to provide for data collection adequate to monitor the harvest of Gulf of Mexico red snapper by such State.


    In other words, the state has implemented a data collection program (which infers assessments).

    Now, here comes the kicker:

    SEC. 505. GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION.

    a) FUNDING TO THE GULF STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION.—The Secretary shall provide all Federal funding to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission for all necessary stock assessments, research, and management for the red snapper fishery.

    (b) FUNDING TO THE GULF COASTAL STATES.—The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission shall be responsible for administering the Federal funds referred to in paragraph (1) to each of the Gulf coastal States for proper management of the red snapper fishery.

    (c) NO ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED.—Nothing in this section may be construed to increase the amount of Federal funds authorized to be appropriated for Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery management.


    Now, I don't see it in this version of the bill, but in the past, it said that all money spent by the Feds for red snapper research would be transferred to the Gulf States Commission to do all the assessments, data collection, etc. Thus the bolded (c) right above this comment - no additional funds can be appropriated for red snapper management.

    So only existing red snapper money can be transferred. Only problem with that is: the Feds don't do "red snapper research". They do fishery independent (plankton, hook/line, longline, trawl) and dependent (MRIP) monitoring, which will continue at full force for all other species....... including the capture and documentation of red snapper.

    There is simply no way to parse out what the Feds spend on red snapper research, except maybe the cost of a SEDAR red snapper assessment. And that would be a pittance anyway.

    I think this is Melancon's concern that Graves doesn't even understand his own bill.

    Melancon is a stooge, and you know it. Louisiana went fro a "can do" state to a "can't do" in short order as soon as he got appointed by the Democrats/enviros.

    Alabama was "somehow" able to afford to do their own assessments - the other states can do the same. It's especially ludicrous that claiming that louisiana can't afford to do basic fisheries management when they are receiving the lion's share of the BILLIONS and BILLIONs of $$ from the BP oil settlement.

    Also, the Feds' were mandated by Congress to fix the data since MFRSS was deemed fatally flawed by the NRC back in 2009 - they still have not done what was mandated by their "Boss". MRIP is no better than MFRSS - just lipstick painted on a pig.

    Sector Separation violates several national standards, but I don't see you "Bubba" complaining about that. The states have done an exemplary job of managing our public trust resources for many decades now - the Feds? No, it's been a dismal failure - the proof is in the pudding when you look at their idea of "managing" is simply taking away access and gifting our public trust resources to commercial interests.

    The NMFS needs to be fired and the Gulf Council dismantled due to gross incompetence and/or corruption.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Now you know why I separated them, but please do keep flying your flag of conspiracy theory. It's entertaining.

    You can fish for snapper whenever you want. You just can't kill them year round like you used to.

    Some of us understand and appreciate the difference.

    That must be the EDF talking....or was it the NMFS....I can't keep track.

    Yep, no need to keep track - they are now one and the same.

    And yes, we can't kill them year-round like we used to - that is reserved for the commercial corporations ain't it? We are being driven off the water because they don't like us killing "their" fish.

    HR 3094 will resolve that problem as well.
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,874 Captain
    Tom Hilton wrote: »




    "The NMFS needs to be fired and the Gulf Council dismantled due to gross incompetence and/or corruption.
    "
    I will gladly second that motion....................
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Melancon is a stooge, and you know it. Louisiana went fro a "can do" state to a "can't do" in short order as soon as he got appointed by the Democrats/enviros.

    Alabama was "somehow" able to afford to do their own assessments - the other states can do the same. It's especially ludicrous that claiming that louisiana can't afford to do basic fisheries management when they are receiving the lion's share of the BILLIONS and BILLIONs of $$ from the BP oil settlement.

    Also, the Feds' were mandated by Congress to fix the data since MFRSS was deemed fatally flawed by the NRC back in 2009 - they still have not done what was mandated by their "Boss". MRIP is no better than MFRSS - just lipstick painted on a pig.

    Sector Separation violates several national standards, but I don't see you "Bubba" complaining about that. The states have done an exemplary job of managing our public trust resources for many decades now - the Feds? No, it's been a dismal failure - the proof is in the pudding when you look at their idea of "managing" is simply taking away access and gifting our public trust resources to commercial interests.

    The NMFS needs to be fired and the Gulf Council dismantled due to gross incompetence and/or corruption.

    You know what, Tom? I didn't post the text of the bill to get your opinion. Your opinion is well known.

    I thought there just might be others here who THINK they know what it means, but they don't. They THINK they know what is in it because of incorrect statements that people like you make.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,892 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »

    Some of us understand and appreciate the difference.

    But could you understand and appreciate the difference if you woke up tomorrow and a select group of "PRIVELEGED INDIVIDUALS" were allowed to commercially harvest and sell thousands of pounds of Tarpon a year?..................To sell for dog food perhaps?:shrug............You know as long as NMFS stated that was for the best utilization of the resource, for the nation as a whole?

    Unless you can answer yes..........I don't think you are comparing apples to apples.:wink

    I have no problem with a fishery needing to be managed as catch and release only.........as long as that goes for everybody.:nono
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Bubba
    So, it's an incorrect to point out that Melancon is a stooge. No, that is crystal clear.

    So it's incorrect to say that the NMFS did not follow Congress' mandate to improve the data? Obviously they ignored Congress.

    So it's incorrect to say the Alabama was able to fund their own assessments? No, they were able to do it.

    So it's incorrect to say that Louisiana is going to receive tens of BILLIONS of dollars from BP to put towards their fisheries? It's beyond ludicrous for the Stooge (and you Bubba) to claim Louisiana can't afford this.

    These are not opinions - they are fact.

    It's anonymous trolls such as you Bubba, that are incorrect.

    That is of course, my opinion.
    Thomas J. Hilton
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 18,926 AG
    But could you understand and appreciate the difference if you woke up tomorrow and a select group of "PRIVELEGED INDIVIDUALS" were allowed to commercially harvest and sell thousands of pounds of Tarpon a year?..................To sell for dog food perhaps?:shrug............You know as long as NMFS stated that was for the best utilization of the resource, for the nation as a whole?

    Unless you can answer yes..........I don't think you are comparing apples to apples.:wink

    I have no problem with a fishery needing to be managed as catch and release only.........as long as that goes for everybody.:nono

    I concur. Our fishery rules are not fair to both parties.

    Tom's not focused on arguing for fairness, however. He's flying a flag of conspiracy theory where only one side is to blame, and lying and misrepresenting the facts while doing so...all the while with a commercial interest in his side of the argument, through his pulpit as an administrator of this forum, and from Texas no less.

    That's why I take issue with him and not you.

    Take care...>Mike
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Lying and misrepresenting the facts? Easy to say, but lacks details...please provide proof of supposed lies and misrepresentation of facts Tarponator. Moderators on this site are interested in such, as well as those casting false accusations which is a form of attack.

    I have every right as an American to make my stand for my children and their children - nothing more, nothing less. Your claim to the contrary ironically smacks of conspiracy theory doesn't it?

    As far as any commercial interests, I use my own name in my posts, and hide nothing, unlike others who post under aliases.

    As far as being from Texas, that's about the only thing you got right pard.
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Tom, you note in the above that "...as well as those casting false accusations which is a form of attack."

    But yet, you levied this against Bubba, "It's anonymous trolls such as you Bubba, that are incorrect."

    Seems like that statement is an attack, though you thinly veil it with the caveat of it's your opinion.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Bubba is an anonymous troll - his role on this forum, according to him, is an antagonist. An anonymous antagonist is a troll - no attack, just an observation.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,741 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Bubba is an anonymous troll - his role on this forum, according to him, is an antagonist. An anonymous antagonist is a troll - no attack, just an observation.
    I did a personal observation not to long ago, some one labeled it an attack..

    An ethical person would step down from a power position if they couldn't adhere to their own rules..

    Then again that's why we still have to contend with Hillary.


    Just my own PERSONAL OBSERVATION of course.
    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.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Bubba is an anonymous troll - his role on this forum, according to him, is an antagonist. An anonymous antagonist is a troll - no attack, just an observation.
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