Coming soon a closure on all bottom fishing

bswiv

jmt378 said:

bswiv said:

I don't need a lecture from someone that's evidently never spent time around commercials in the industry.

??

LOL!  Didn't you used to own Fisherman's dock, Ben?

And pulled crab traps, ran gill nets back when they were legal, set catfish lines, owned a shrimp boat......and maybe a thing or two other.

He had me confused, thinking I may have gotten so old as to have forgotten everything and everyone, even the folks I speak to regularly and call friends.  

Thanks for reminding me. I'll try and be a little sharper next time.

MangroveMark

Unelected government jabronies taking away your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.......you must live free or die.

OakHeart

Irony

bswiv

OakHeart said:

Irony

Yes.....and so long as we are polite to each other, and remember that we are ultimately on the same team......it's actually fun. 

Glad to have you!

ANUMBER1

OakHeart said:

We should let them have all the fish in the state. How else will commercial fisherman afford their crack and defense attorneys?!?!

your mom will subsidize them as she really enjoys our big D icks

ANUMBER1

bswiv, I'm over arguing with these idiots, every sector is gonna get a turn in the box before it's over.

I'd just rather insult them and see if they step up or p uss out.
Most opt out.

plumber1969

Ben, I have a lot of respect for you and others that were/are commercial fishermen, including those in my family. I have to say something regarding this. I purchased a larger boat to fish further offshore and needed a truck to pull the boat, this along with the assorted larger tackle. Now we have no science or logic behind this, but rather more special interest imo. If the agency that gets this passed is willing to pay me what I paid for my equipment, not depreciated value, then I guess we could call it even. We know this won't happen. We caught our snapper limit in under 5 minutes this year only 7 miles from Mayport. One fish was over 20 pounds and the other 18. The cost to operate the boat and truck and to further add restriction are simply going to cause poaching to explode. Not that I would ever resort to such a thing. It is already hard enough to get a select number of days to fish offshore and to further restrict my freedoms are getting harder to swallow, especially when this is being done without any legislative oversight, unless I missed that part. And I agree with others on here that this will put more of a strain on the inshore species as well and soon you won't be able to keep anything. 

I do not eat farm fish, tilapia or basa. I grew up in Louisiana and will likely retire there because any nimwit politician that would propose this or support it there, wouldn't be in office much longer. I am about ready to keep a lawyer on retainer to fish because of the rules and changes.

Crkr23

I don't think the commercial fishermen are the Boogeyman on the Atlantic, it's the governing agencies. The commercials are only allowed 75#s per trip I believe, just not worth fooling with.
Now on the GOM it's a different story with the IFQs, I believe it's hurting the recs and some of the commercials.

Jgebb

Going political here but with the recent Supreme Court ruling saying the EPA can't restrict the power plants and they didn't have the authority to make restrictions.  Wouldn't that same logic apply here to the nimwits with the SAFMC?  

conchydong

Jgebb said:

Going political here but with the recent Supreme Court ruling saying the EPA can't restrict the power plants and they didn't have the authority to make restrictions.  Wouldn't that same logic apply here to the nimwits with the SAFMC?  

Congress passed the Magnuson- Stevens ACT giving authority to the Fishery Councils. Not sure if a similar act was passed to give the EPA the power that they were wielding. Who knows?

osprey11

Totally agree.   It is the politicians and scientists to blame.   Not a recreational vs commercial thing.   I have been on both sides in my life.   I just believe that if a fish is classified as endangered and a closure necessary that it applies to both sectors.  

osprey11

I also am over the statement that if you do not go to the meetings you dont care.   That is BS!   The board does not want our input, just the formality of holding public comment.   Captain George Straight was once a huge opponent of the snapper closure and fought hard to stop it.   They would not listen to his decades of experience.   He has stated that at his last meeting the seven council members would not listen and where being rude looking at their phones and computers.   He turned around and addressed the crowd since they where listening.  He was escorted out by two narine patrol members!    Thing is a sham!

plumber1969

osprey11 said:

I also am over the statement that if you do not go to the meetings you dont care.   That is BS!   The board does not want our input, just the formality of holding public comment.   Captain George Straight was once a huge opponent of the snapper closure and fought hard to stop it.   They would not listen to his decades of experience.   He has stated that at his last meeting the seven council members would not listen and where being rude looking at their phones and computers.   He turned around and addressed the crowd since they where listening.  He was escorted out by two narine patrol members!    Thing is a sham!

Roberts Rule of Order until they don't want to hear from us p ons. Then they call the law. Cowards. 

bustedhead

 I have a thought for consideration. If we get enough signatures can we create amendment to put on the ballot?  It could address some of the ongoing issue we face as fisherman. Politically it could bring focus to our causes. Verbiage of content would have to be considered.

Just a thought. I know signatures would not be a problem. 

ANUMBER1

bustedhead said:

 I have a thought for consideration. If we get enough signatures can we create amendment to put on the ballot?  It could address some of the ongoing issue we face as fisherman. Politically it could bring focus to our causes. Verbiage of content would have to be considered.

Just a thought. I know signatures would not be a problem. 

MS will not allow that, it's not a state issue.

bswiv

conchydong said:

Jgebb said:

Going political here but with the recent Supreme Court ruling saying the EPA can't restrict the power plants and they didn't have the authority to make restrictions.  Wouldn't that same logic apply here to the nimwits with the SAFMC?  

Congress passed the Magnuson- Stevens ACT giving authority to the Fishery Councils. Not sure if a similar act was passed to give the EPA the power that they were wielding. Who knows?

This is actually a important legal point. Also worth considering is that it was Congress who set the DATES at which the regulators were required to aim. Only Congress can change that.

Then there is the question of Chevron Deference, a SCOTS ruling that says when Congress delegates to a agency or department and is not specific then the interpretation of the agency is deferred to.......and now.....I need to quit.....for we've waded into politics and I might dive off into the KELO Decision!