Skip to main content
Home Conservation Front

I see so many misconceptions here...........

2»

Replies

  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,872 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Sure you did.

    I was surprised as well. I guess their bait holds were already filled with "red mullet" so there was no need to keep any more. Hence all the floaters.
    Don`t know what was going on 150 miles out. The furthest I got was about 135.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,735 AG
    drgibby wrote: »
    I was surprised as well. I guess their bait holds were already filled with "red mullet" so there was no need to keep any more. Hence all the floaters.
    Don`t know what was going on 150 miles out. The furthest I got was about 135.
    should have called the law as the longliners are pushed out past the 85.30 until Sept.
    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.
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,872 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    should have called the law as the longliners are pushed out past the 85.30 until Sept.

    I have a hard enough time keeping up with the Rec laws to worry about what the Commies are and are not supposed to be doing.........
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,735 AG
    drgibby wrote: »
    I have a hard enough time keeping up with the Rec laws to worry about what the Commies are and are not supposed to be doing.........
    Don't worry, I keep up with the rec laws.:wink
    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
    I am trying to help you feel more comfortable and confident in enjoying your experience here with us in ConFron.

    I have provided you with the tools I use for that purpose from my own library, from which I prepared myself as the governor's nominee to the Gulf Council.

    If there is anything else I can help you with to better prepare yourself for future conversations, please do not hesitate to contact me.

    And your documents are great documents, for their time. They are just really dated now, and some of the concepts they propose have been enacted and others discarded.

    Because I need to clean out my bookshelves, I just recently threw many documents, like you referenced, in the recycle because they are so old and outdated. I'm not sure that you claiming those old documents are your basis for communication is valid anymore. The models discussed, and the procedures discussed, are all replaced now.
  • Gary S. ColecchioGary S. Colecchio Posts: 24,905 AG
    BubbaII wrote: »
    And your documents are great documents, for their time. They are just really dated now, and some of the concepts they propose have been enacted and others discarded.

    There is nothing time sensitive about them. Which you would know if you read them, which you indicated you did not because you did not recognize them and asked for links when I posted them.

    You see Bubba and BubbaII or whatever internet face you now want to mask yourself in at the moment to conceal who you are, I take this site and its value very, very seriously. We are here to inform recreational fishermen of the truth.

    That truth is reflected in the documents I provided to you. There is no color or position involved and it has not changed, since publication.

    So when you want to discuss those things with me, I will.

    I will not however debate your opinion of those things. That is a waste of my time and all who have chosen to waste theirs reading it.
    "If I can't win, I won't play." - Doris Colecchio.

    "Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick

    "All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
  • gettinwetgettinwet Posts: 1,366 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    2014 the dockside (boat) value of Florida's commercial fisheries was 261 million and change, that doesn't reflect the wholesale/retail, and restaurant value.
    That also doesn't reflect the total economic value.

    I can also remember when shallow water groupers had a closed commercial season while the recreational sector continued to pillage unabated.
    Didn't see nor hear any of y'all calling for restraints for the recreational sector.
    BTW, I enjoyed some fresh ARS over the weekend, as a consumer I sure appreciate access to fresh quality seafood.

    Suck it up Buttercup!

    Recreational angling in Florida alone is worth billions - yes, with a "B" - between $6 and $8 billion depending on whose numbers you cite (FWC, NOAA, etc.), produces over $35Mil in revenues for the State of Florida from licensing fees (compared to around $1 from commercial licensing), plus employs over 100K (commercial is around 60k). Over 1.6Mil recreational licenses were sold in FY 13/14 compared to less than 35K for commercial licensing (includes saltwater products, individual commercial, and wholesale dealer licenses).

    It is past time that recreational anglers be given the standing in this debate their numbers demand. Same old problem we see in "politics" nationwide today - the noisy special interests that fund campaigns have their voice disproportionately heard.
    There are only so many casts in life, so shut up and fish!!
  • gettinwetgettinwet Posts: 1,366 Officer
    gettinwet wrote: »
    Recreational angling in Florida alone is worth billions - yes, with a "B" - between $6 and $8 billion depending on whose numbers you cite (FWC, NOAA, etc.), produces over $35Mil in revenues for the State of Florida from licensing fees (compared to around $1 from commercial licensing), plus employs over 100K (commercial is around 60k). Over 1.6Mil recreational licenses were sold in FY 13/14 compared to less than 35K for commercial licensing (includes saltwater products, individual commercial, and wholesale dealer licenses).

    It is past time that recreational anglers be given the standing in this debate their numbers demand. Same old problem we see in "politics" nationwide today - the noisy special interests that fund campaigns have their voice disproportionately heard.

    One other important factor I neglected to mention, recreational "landings" of fish/shellfish is much less than commercial (and this does not take into consideration catch and release or by catch). So, to summarize, recreational angling has a much larger economic impact combined with much less environmental impact then commercial fishing.

    I'll say it again, IMHO the same rules should apply to everyone - commercial or recreational - for any fish/shellfish that requires management e.g. if the regulations allow for 1 redfish/grouper/etc per day per individual that should be applicable to both commercial and recreational. It is as simple as this - if a species is threatened - then it is not a viable sustainable commercial resource.
    There are only so many casts in life, so shut up and fish!!
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    There is nothing time sensitive about them. Which you would know if you read them, which you indicated you did not because you did not recognize them and asked for links when I posted them.

    You see Bubba and BubbaII or whatever internet face you now want to mask yourself in at the moment to conceal who you are, I take this site and its value very, very seriously. We are here to inform recreational fishermen of the truth.

    That truth is reflected in the documents I provided to you. There is no color or position involved and it has not changed, since publication.

    So when you want to discuss those things with me, I will.

    I will not however debate your opinion of those things. That is a waste of my time and all who have chosen to waste theirs reading it.

    If you are saying that 10 yr old documents are you basis of "enlightenment", you need to update your library. Those documents don't even discuss the SS3 model, which is the Gulf standard now. They discuss the inadequacies of the old surveys.

    Now, what do I think about the new SS3 model the center uses? Its a great model for Alaska.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,735 AG
    gettinwet wrote: »
    One other important factor I neglected to mention, recreational "landings" of fish/shellfish is much less than commercial
    We'll just pick a couple for ****s and giggles
    http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/fishstats/recreational-fisheries/landings/

    Scroll down to the bottom chart and except for red grouper pick out the popular species that us commercials catch more of than you recs..
    I'll even let you throw out red fish and snook as there is no commercial sale for those species..

    Don't even get me started on Mahi, Cobia, Wahoo, Triggers, Tripletail, etc..

    Thanks for playing, next?
    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: 12,735 AG
    gettinwet wrote: »
    Recreational angling in Florida alone is worth billions - yes, with a "B" - between $6 and $8 billion depending on whose numbers you cite (FWC, NOAA, etc.), produces over $35Mil in revenues for the State of Florida from licensing fees (compared to around $1 from commercial licensing), plus employs over 100K (commercial is around 60k). Over 1.6Mil recreational licenses were sold in FY 13/14 compared to less than 35K for commercial licensing (includes saltwater products, individual commercial, and wholesale dealer licenses).

    It is past time that recreational anglers be given the standing in this debate their numbers demand. Same old problem we see in "politics" nationwide today - the noisy special interests that fund campaigns have their voice disproportionately heard.
    Got any facts here also?

    Not.
    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.
  • conchydongconchydong Pompano BeachPosts: 11,973 AG
    There is room for both commercial and recreational fishing. It just needs to be managed properly. As long as the two sectors fight one another then neither will win. The Government is the enemy, backed by the environmentalist $$$$.

    “Everyone behaves badly--given the chance.”
    ― Ernest Hemingway

  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,735 AG
    one more.. And yes, Fl has a billion (with a B) + recreational impact.
    I'll also note that my figures for Fl reflected only dockside value (price paid to the boat) and didn't reflect the total economic value.
    I'll ask you this, if a tourist comes to Fl and spends a week here, buys nonresident fishing license and fishes every day, but dine's on stone crab and Fl lobster every night at Joe's Stone Crab whom do you attribute the economic impact to?


    NOAA report finds commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated $199 billion in 2011
    Contact:
    Fionna Matheson
    (301) 427-8003
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    March 7, 2013
    U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in sales and supported 1.7 million jobs in the nation’s economy in 2011, according to a new economic report released by NOAA’s Fisheries Service.

    The report, Fisheries Economics of the United States 2011, is published annually on a two-year lag to allow data collection, analysis, and peer review. It provides economic statistics on U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries and marine-related businesses for each coastal state and the nation. Key to the report are the economic effects--jobs, sales, income, and value added to Gross National Product--of the commercial and recreational fishing industries. “Economic impact” measures how sales in each sector ripple throughout the state and national economy as each dollar spent generates additional sales by other firms and consumers.

    The seafood industry—harvesters, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and retailers—generated $129 billion in sales impacts, $37 billion in income impacts and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011, the most recent year included in the report. Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales impacts, $20 billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in 2011. Compared to 2010, the numbers are up for all of these impacts except commercial seafood sales.

    “Commercial and recreational fishing are integral parts of the nation’s social and economic fabric,” said Sam Rauch, deputy assistant NOAA administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “While there’s still work to do, to see landings and value climb in 2011 shows we’re moving in the right direction, even in this time of challenging transition for many fishing communities.”

    The annual report also breaks down the sales impacts, income impacts and job figures for each coastal state. The five states that generated the most jobs from fishing in 2011 were California, Massachusetts, Florida, Washington, and Alaska. The states with the most growth in the number of commercial fishing jobs compared to 2010 were Alabama (76 percent, net increase of 4,743 jobs), Mississippi (45 percent, net increase of 1,722 jobs), Oregon (32 percent, net increase of 4,483 jobs), Louisiana (29 percent, net increase of 7,272 jobs), and Alaska (17 percent, net increase of 9,288 jobs).

    The greatest portion of the nation’s landings revenue generated by the commercial fishing industry was in Alaska ($1.9 billion), followed by Massachusetts ($433 million), and Maine ($381 million).

    Saltwater recreational fishing generated its highest economic effect in sales impacts and jobs in West Florida ($4.9 billion sales, 47,000 jobs) East Florida ($3.3 billion sales, 29,000 jobs); Louisiana ($2 billion sales, 18,000 jobs); North Carolina ($2 billion sales, 18,000 jobs); Texas ($1.9 billion sales, 15,000 jobs); and New Jersey (1.7 billion sales, 10,000 jobs).

    Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2011 includes descriptive statistics on commercial fish landings, revenue, and price trends; recreational fishing effort, catch, and participation rates; and employer and non-employer establishments, annual payroll, and annual receipt information for fishing-related industries such as seafood retailers and ship and boat building. The report also provides a snapshot of fishery management plans, limited access privilege fishing programs (a type of catch share program), buyback programs, as well as the status of fish stocks and an inventory of protected marine resources.

    The report is the sixth volume in an annual series designed to give the public accessible economic information on fishing activities in the U.S., and is a companion to Fisheries of the United States.

    Fisheries Economics of the United States 2011 is available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2011. Hard copies of the report are forthcoming.

    NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Visit us at www.noaa.gov and join us on Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels.

    - 30 -
    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: 1,595 Captain
    I don't have the data in front of me, but I believe that report above "missed" a huge $$ number on the recreational side of the equation - will check it out and get back on that...
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,735 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I don't have the data in front of me, but I believe that report above "missed" a huge $$ number on the recreational side of the equation - will check it out and get back on that...
    I believe some folks complained that it wasn't fair because it either included AK (with it's huge commercial fisheries) or that it included the jobs generated by importing seafood.
    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.
  • toomertoomer Posts: 348 Deckhand
    When I'm down there fishing I am eating bologna sammiches during the day and Cedar River flounder of an evening! :blowkiss
  • gettinwetgettinwet Posts: 1,366 Officer
    conchydong wrote: »
    There is room for both commercial and recreational fishing. It just needs to be managed properly. As long as the two sectors fight one another then neither will win. The Government is the enemy, backed by the environmentalist $$$$.

    Follow the dollars.
    There are only so many casts in life, so shut up and fish!!
  • JCSJCS Posts: 47 Deckhand
    Here you go:

    ASA MARY JANE WILLIAMSON 703.519.9691x227 | CSF COLE HENRY 202.543.6850 x19 | NMMA LAUREN DUNN, 202.280.6928 | Center JEFF ANGERS 225.382.3755 | IGFA JASON SCHRATWIESER 954.927.2628 | GHOF TONY FINS 800.288.1227 | CCA TED VENKER, 713.626.4234 | TBF ANDREW COX 954.938.0150

    Washington, D.C. – June 26, 2014 – After significant objection from the recreational fishing and boating community, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has taken steps to correct a key fisheries economics report that misleadingly indicated that the domestic commercial fishing industry in the United States was significantly larger than the recreational fishing industry. When imported seafood, which is not regulated or managed by NMFS, is removed from the equation, the corrected data show that the recreational fishing industry is actually $7.9 billion dollars larger than the commercial fishing industry. Furthermore, the corrected data show that the domestic commercial fishing industry actually decreased by $2.3 billion in 2012.

    “When seafood imports, industrial species, shellfish and fish that aren’t caught by recreational anglers are removed, recreational fishing generates $33.3 billion dollars more than their commercial counterparts while taking far fewer pounds of fish,” said Ted Venker, Conservation director for the Coastal Conservation Association. “That is the apple-to-apples number that needs to be considered when we are talking about management decisions that impact domestic fisheries, and it is important that NOAA corrected the data.”

    In late April of this year, NMFS released its Fisheries Economics of the United States 2012 with the headline “NOAA Reports Show Strong Economic Gains from Fishing, Continued Improvement in Fish Stocks,” but there was no indication that the agency had changed the way the economic impact data were compiled in the report. Previously, NMFS separated imports from domestic industry figures and reported each separately. In the latest report, the agency eliminated that distinction and simply published a total that included domestic and imported seafood. As such, topics such as imports from illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, 75,000 pounds of shark fins and shrimp harvested by practices that the U.S. has BANNED were included in the totals for the domestic commercial sector.

    “It was important to set the record straight because people naturally use this report to compare the two sectors, and combining imported seafood with domestically caught seafood gives an overinflated and incorrect representation of the economic impact of this country’s commercial fishing industry,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “This is particularly risky if this information is used to halt progress on important management decisions such as how fisheries are allocated between the two sectors. More than 64 percent of the total sales of seafood is generated by imported product which should have no bearing whatsoever on allocation discussions.”

    Recreational fishing and boating organizations including the American Sportfishing Association, Center for Coastal Conservation, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, International Game Fish Association and National Marine Manufacturers Association recently met with agency officials to request a correction. The agency refused to reprint the report, but did release a web query that allows individuals to remove imports and generate an accurate report on their own. [[url]HTTPS://WWW.ST.NMFS.NOAA.GOV/APEX/F?P=160:1:0::NO][/url]
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,735 AG
    JCS wrote: »
    Here you go:

    ASA MARY JANE WILLIAMSON 703.519.9691x227 | CSF COLE HENRY 202.543.6850 x19 | NMMA LAUREN DUNN, 202.280.6928 | Center JEFF ANGERS 225.382.3755 | IGFA JASON SCHRATWIESER 954.927.2628 | GHOF TONY FINS 800.288.1227 | CCA TED VENKER, 713.626.4234 | TBF ANDREW COX 954.938.0150

    Washington, D.C. – June 26, 2014 – After significant objection from the recreational fishing and boating community, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has taken steps to correct a key fisheries economics report that misleadingly indicated that the domestic commercial fishing industry in the United States was significantly larger than the recreational fishing industry. When imported seafood, which is not regulated or managed by NMFS, is removed from the equation, the corrected data show that the recreational fishing industry is actually $7.9 billion dollars larger than the commercial fishing industry. Furthermore, the corrected data show that the domestic commercial fishing industry actually decreased by $2.3 billion in 2012.

    “When seafood imports, industrial species, shellfish and fish that aren’t caught by recreational anglers are removed, recreational fishing generates $33.3 billion dollars more than their commercial counterparts while taking far fewer pounds of fish,” said Ted Venker, Conservation director for the Coastal Conservation Association. “That is the apple-to-apples number that needs to be considered when we are talking about management decisions that impact domestic fisheries, and it is important that NOAA corrected the data.”

    In late April of this year, NMFS released its Fisheries Economics of the United States 2012 with the headline “NOAA Reports Show Strong Economic Gains from Fishing, Continued Improvement in Fish Stocks,” but there was no indication that the agency had changed the way the economic impact data were compiled in the report. Previously, NMFS separated imports from domestic industry figures and reported each separately. In the latest report, the agency eliminated that distinction and simply published a total that included domestic and imported seafood. As such, topics such as imports from illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, 75,000 pounds of shark fins and shrimp harvested by practices that the U.S. has BANNED were included in the totals for the domestic commercial sector.

    “It was important to set the record straight because people naturally use this report to compare the two sectors, and combining imported seafood with domestically caught seafood gives an overinflated and incorrect representation of the economic impact of this country’s commercial fishing industry,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “This is particularly risky if this information is used to halt progress on important management decisions such as how fisheries are allocated between the two sectors. More than 64 percent of the total sales of seafood is generated by imported product which should have no bearing whatsoever on allocation discussions.”

    Recreational fishing and boating organizations including the American Sportfishing Association, Center for Coastal Conservation, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, International Game Fish Association and National Marine Manufacturers Association recently met with agency officials to request a correction. The agency refused to reprint the report, but did release a web query that allows individuals to remove imports and generate an accurate report on their own. [[url]HTTPS://WWW.ST.NMFS.NOAA.GOV/APEX/F?P=160:1:0::NO][/url]
    Your link is not valid and any report with CCA as the go to science is very suspect...

    -10
    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: 12,735 AG
    In other words; FAIL
    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.
  • JCSJCS Posts: 47 Deckhand
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Your link is not valid and any report with CCA as the go to science is very suspect...

    -10

    And because you disagree with the data CCA along with all of the other organizations involved must me wrong?
  • bay20bay20 Posts: 1,491 Officer
    Lets just face the facts the bottom species have been to sold to the highest bidder. The problem facing most recreational anglers including myself is we have regular 9-5 jobs which makes it difficult to keep up with the issues at hand much less attend their patronizing meetings as i call them.
  • "patronizing meetings"

    Hit the nail on the head.
    Been to many of them over the years and that is a very spot on description.
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,735 AG
    bay20 wrote: »
    Lets just face the facts the bottom species have been to sold to the highest bidder. The problem facing most recreational anglers including myself is we have regular 9-5 jobs which makes it difficult to keep up with the issues at hand much less attend their patronizing meetings as i call them.
    thought that's why y'all have CCA, hard for me to attend too, during season I work 12-16 hour days 5-7 days per week...

    Sorry bout the horror of a 9-5 job, it must be devastating to you and your family...

    My condolences.
    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.
  • Tarpon MonoxideTarpon Monoxide Posts: 606 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    thought that's why y'all have CCA, hard for me to attend too, during season I work 12-16 hour days 5-7 days per week...

    Sorry bout the horror of a 9-5 job, it must be devastating to you and your family...

    My condolences.

    No one told you to work 12-16 hours 5-7 days per week, that is your ill choice.
    Perhaps if you invested in some education you could get away from that slave job make more money and have more time to yourself.
    But apparently that was not part of your career plan.

    AN ARTICLE IN JADA (JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION) IN 2001 HAS THE ADMISSION THAT FLUORIDE SWALLOWED AND INCORPORATED INTO THE TEETH IS "INSUFFICIENT TO HAVE A MEASURABLE EFFECT" ON REDUCING CAVITIES."

    THE NOW CORRUPTED MEDIA MANIPULATES BY USING ORWELLIAN NEWSPEAK. In Orwell's words, Newspeak was "designed to diminish the range of thought." Newspeak seeks to eliminate or alter certain words that do not fit the media's ideological agenda. In Orwell's novel 1984 Newspeak is a way of controlling the people's language in order to keep the peons under ideological control.Newspeak is deceptive and deceitful as it stifles free speech and only allows only certain approved words, phrases and ideas to be used while other words are forbidden.

    Fauci's "Gain of Function" is newspeak for enhancing the contagiousness of a virus for use as a biological weapon in war. It was dumb, stupid and a threat to national security for the US  government with Fauci's blessing to help fund biological weapons enhancement in an arch enemy's country.  When Fauci used and pushed the euphemistic misnomer deceptive term "gain of function" the con was on.

    "Gain of Function" newspeak for "Viral Biological Warfare Weapons Enhancement".

    "Undocumented Immigrant" newspeak for "illegal alien".

    "Progressive" newspeak for "Marxist".

    "Dreamers" newspeak for "illegal aliens".

    "Immigration Reform" newspeak for "illegal alien amnesty".

    "Xenophobia" newspeak for those that want border security.

    "Gun control" newspeak for "confiscate your guns".

    "Pro-choice" newspeak for "pro-abortion".

    "Math is racist" newspeak for "we are too lazy to learn math".

    "Critical Race Theory" newspeak for "Reverse Discrimination Marxism".

    When a snake oil salesman knows that the snake oil does not sell with the accurate name he simply changes the name to the NEWSPEAK euphemistic misnomer "Magic Medicinal Elixir" to sell his misrepresented product otherwise not sellable.



  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,735 AG
    No one told you to work 12-16 hours 5-7 days per week, that is your ill choice.
    Perhaps if you invested in some education you could get away from that slave job make more money and have more time to yourself.
    But apparently that was not part of your career plan.
    I'm happy with my choice, I am a small business owner with a 6 month window..
    I don't mind the hours for the pay as my eyes are always on the prize.
    Keep that in mind when you punch the clock tomorrow, BTW, I like my mcdouble without cheese.

    My career plan is on track, gonna retire in 5 years at 60.
    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.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    I'm happy with my choice, I am a small business owner with a 6 month window..
    I don't mind the hours for the pay as my eyes are always on the prize.
    Keep that in mind when you punch the clock tomorrow, BTW, I like my mcdouble without cheese.

    My career plan is on track, gonna retire in 5 years at 60.


    Fishing for a living is sweet! Ive been semi-retired ever since I got started. Hope I never retire. Very few 9 to 5er will ever say that.
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