Handguns
Subscribe
Digital Now Included!
Current Subscribers Click Here.
Current Subscribers Click Here.
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.
Replies
BS! Nobody can go catch crabs without tags…………That they have to buy from fishermen. Fishermen were issued tags based on history. Did you pay for them? Are you saying that a guy with 50 tags can catch as much as a guy with 5000?
A pound of quota doesn’t guarantee a fisherman anything either, it’s no more certain than crabbing. What would we do, tag our hooks?
It’s a Catch Share as much as any other Catch Share.
Yes, I was issued tags based on my catch history. I pay the state of Fl. $1441.00 every year for the privilege of fishing 2882 traps. I also pay the state of Fl. $500.00 to fish 1000 blue crab traps.
No, 50 will never out fish 5000, but sometimes 2882 will out fish 3500, all you got to do is work it.
No, my tags don't guarantee me a profit either but I don't have to quit at a certain point .
It's not a catch share it's a limited entry or gear limitation.
The only ones that were upset at the stone crab program were the ones selling under the table anyway. They had no landings on paper so they didn't qualify.Didn't need them in our fishery anyway.
1)Actually the call is for Catch Share Funding to pay for Reliable data for "ALL" sectors, that includes biomass numbers.
NOAA was supposed to have Rec data working in 2009! Good data would benefit Com and Rec (well maybe not Com Catch Shares).
2)The idea that "Catch" or Landing data is sufficant to manage with is what is questioned. many examples could be
cited to explain this. Catch data is ONLY (1) peice of the pie, and without stock data, derived from something more
than extrapulated landings data and computer modeling, it is pointless. Landing data does make up the bulk of all
data currently used by NOAA, and its cheap from the Com sector, since its all supposed to be reported. All NOAA
has to do is imput it. Rec data, and biomass numbers take time and money. NOAA is supposed to be gathering this,
but guess what? Their not. At least not to any degree needed to set sustainable harvest rates. So why has NOAA
refused to provided the data needed to manage sustainably with?
As to the Catch Share funding, we all know how much NOAA is spending on this. Look at fy2012's budget alone,
$54 Million. Why is NOAA paying to fund Catch Share programs, when the selling point of Catch Shares schemes was
that they would pay for themselves? Who profits from the lease fee's? Why is this paid to private groups, rather than
the "Trustee" of the fisheries.....???? If NOAA is paying for the Catch Shares programs, like they are now, then the
money for Share Lease should be returned to the Trustee. Now, if Catch Shares are supposed to be paying their own
way, NOAA should not have to spend the hundreds of millions they have, and could be aquiring the needed data to
manage with.
1) Aquire Accurate and Current Commercial Landing data.
2) Aquire Accurate and Current Recreational Landing Data.
3) Aquire Accurate and Current Biomass data.
4) Set Catch Limits at sustainable harvest rates and adjust as necessary to support current data trends.
Sounds to basic, but its whats needed. If...If Commercial fisheries WANTED (based on a clear majority of all participants,
unlike what is done now) a Catch Share system in their sector, then it should pay for itself, with share cost used to
pay all management and oversight cost (NOT like it is now, with NOAA spending $$$$$$ and the fees's going in someones
pocket).
How much reliable data, which would benefit ALL sectors could be aquired for $54 Million a year?
Hahaha! That sure would be a lucrative business!
How much would I have to pay a fisherman to get 2882 trap tags?
It’s a catch share as much as any other catch share. Catch shares ARE limited entry programs.
Lots of guys feel the same way about the Grouper and Snapper programs.
No it is something I competely made up and fabricated because we know it never happens right.
All those LEO reports, observer reports and stories form some who have left the business are all made up.
We would never find any sharkfin on a LL vessel now woudl we
And where did the term maggots come from, certainly not the rec side.
If you are going to come on here and try to imply that this does not happen ROUTINELY on LL boats, then you will reveal to all the credibility you have.
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
Better yet, go get some tended gear like a rod and reel and become a real fisherman (pun intended)
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
I think my post have been thoughtful, respectful and had points....
And yours?
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
Unlike PEW and SOS and all the other agenda driven so called institutes of misinformation and propaganda
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
Maybe the attitude of I got mine and the rest of you can go screw, makes the label fit, that and the use of indescriminate killing gear like long line.
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
I corrected my numbers when are you going to correct your fuzzy math.
It is 2.75% there I fixed it for you of course then you have to assume that everyone in the US eats saltwater fish and we know that is not the case.
Domestic caught saltwater fish make up but a very small portion of the american diet.
So I made a mistake and picked the wrong number form a lot of different studies I read....what is your excuse for trying to imply that 300,000,000 people eat domestic caught marine finfish.
I will lay a bet that You feed a smaller proportion of the American Population than the 2.75% who fish.
Now as for revenue and money....Much of what we purchase to fish with has an extra excise tax on it to fund much of our management (as do the comms) and since recreational fishing produces many many times the money spent on these supplies each year, the rec provides the lion share of that excise tax, so does it not seem reasonable to expect that the lion share of that money should be spent on providing decent recretional data and not a catch share entitlement scheme that only benefits a few?
As was mentioned before: IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO COUNT THE FISH....it is NMFS's job to create, analyze and PROPERLY use data, they have failed NOT US.
I mean really, the crying heard 25 years ago by you guys when NMFS wanted to do a better job of monitoring the coms, was deafening and here we are SCREAMING for NMFS to improve it and do a better job of using it.
SEE the difference?
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
As was suggested and reviewed by the NRC...
National Angler registry
Federal water permits
Voluntary reporting
Surveys that focus on permit holders
Considering that MRFSS only used landlines and produced its effort estimates based on coastal populations and not fishing populations, the previous effoprt estimates were and are off the charts.
Imagine 300 calls in Pinellas county, 32 answered and at least 3....that's right 3 must answer affirmative for fishing (anytome in the previous 12 months)
So 3 people are used to determine the effort for all of Pinellas county......
Imagine in the Commercial fishers effort was based on calling alll of the businesses in Pinellas county to try and find 3 that fished.........
There are ways to do it....it is just a matter of does NMFS have the will and do they really want better rec data?
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
Let's look at the matter at hand....
If grouper is closed in state waters from Jan to July and then open until November 1 does that or does it not, basically shut down state waters for the year to RECREATIONAL fishermen.
Let's try to stay focused and realize we are talking about something that affects many recreational fisherman and 0% commercials......
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
Why are the GULF OF MEXICO IFQ OWNERS somehow different from the oil, timber, mining interests who DO pay for the priviledge to harvest/profit off of our Public Trust Resources?
I have asked each and every Gulf Council Member if they have determined whether or not it is in the public interest to collect royalties the Gulf IFQs with the only response coming from a commercial fishing representative coming out against the idea. If they have not looked into it, why not? They have the power to do it.
If it's not in the public interest to collect royalties from the Gulf of Mexico IFQ Program, then exactly how/why is it not in the public interest? We, the Public have the RIGHT to know.
This fundamental question needs to be addressed and answered BEFORE looking to expand IFQs/Catch Shares/Sector Separation into the recreational sector, and should be asked by each and every one of us to each and every Gulf Council Member.
I think you misunderstand....
Catch Shares and IFQ should only be purchased form the issuing agency...period.
So let's assume you want 100,000 pounds for the year 2012....then you would go during the open period and purchase your shares at let's say $2 per pound. The government makes $200,000 you go catch your fish and sell at $6 and make $600,000. Deduct your expenses and bring home probably $220,000 or so.
That is the only logical way to do it.
Over purchase shares....so sorry too bad...under purchase....again....so sorry too bad....no aftermarket......
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
So if a former LL guy tells me it happens (all the time it is just second hand BS) and if we read about it in LEO reports it is just second hand BS and if you come here and acknowledge it happens...just second hand BS....got it....nice little fairytale world you live in.
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
You will not get and answer TOM....they can not tell us why they are entitled to FREE FISH....
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
Tags are going for about 5.00 each with no limit on how many lbs you can catch. in the stone crb plan we capped the amount of gear in the water and put in place a passive trap reduction plan.
We(industry) felt there was a problem that needed to be addressed before the state or feds shoved something down that wouldn't taste very good.
Bob, when it comes down to grouper I have been a recreational fisherman since 2006. I can find and catch or spear gags in my area inside of 9 miles in those open months, been doing it for 35 years, but yes for the average angler who depends on artifical reefs to consentrate the fish for him, they are effed.
Just one more question,When I use my income(100% derived from commercial fishing) to participate in recreational activities(buy a new guide boat or take a vacation to the Keys) do you folks put that in the rec #'s or the commercial #'s? Y'all have fun, ya hear....
You will not get and answer TOM....they can not tell us why they are entitled to FREE FISH....
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
Never mind...this is about the FWC screwing the state during the State Water grouper season and I am going to try and stick to that.
If we want to trash each other I guess we should start our own thread
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
let me set this straight for you. I have never LL, never cut maggots for bait, (why would I kill my future) and never fined a shark. Think about the rec sector, who has never knowingly or not gone over the bag limit or kept undersize fish? Now multiply that number to how many rec anglers you say their are. Scary. Last statement: why is the red grouper fishery so strong with LL, and all the com pressure, and the gag fishery so decimated with mostly rec fishing? I don't think LL and trap fishing were or are the problem if managed correctly. In my opinion, the red grouper fishery is as good as it has ever been since i've been around (1992).
One big problem I see is that in many posts the commercial fisherman on this board seem to think that numbers should be based on the amount of rec anglers that fish, when only a tiny percentage of these anglers fish offshore and an even smaller percentage catch the fish in question (gags, ars). As many of you guys already know I fish offshore more than most in my area and still more than many of the commercial vessels in my area, and I have seen a huge decline off fishing boats beyond the 20 mile mark. This tells me that the Red Snapper debate in most cases is wrong since the chance of getting ARS inside of 20 miles are like the chances of hitting the powerball. Gags are found in Tampa bay and in shallow waters up and down the coast but again a huge percentage of the boats fishing offshore inside of 20 miles are going to get very few fish simply due to the lack of knowledge of where these fish are. (i.e- my buddy gave me this #, they head out there, miss the spot by 50 yards anchoring up and end up catching only a couple of fish OR same # given and they beat that spot to death over the next few weeks catching every grunt and porgy off of it) Either way the old saying that 90% of the fish are caught by 10% of the anglers rings true on both of the species in question more often than not.
I truly believe that there needs to be an offshore fishing lic and an inshore fishing lic. This way the guy that only fishes inshore in his hells bay, canoe does not get counted in the offshore fishery as another angler that takes a bunch of Grouper and snapper each year. Thoughts?
Lagerhead Fishing Team
Team Cabo Loco
You mean like this?
There has been a trend over the last few years of fish moving in very very close to the beach ( that's Bonita Beach over my shoulder).
It ain't rocket science. If I can do it, most anyone can.
There is also a noticable reduction in the number of boats fishing those areas from say 3 years ago.
I wouldn’t credit NMFS with the conspiratorial ability to pit one user group against each other by design. They are not that clever, although their inept handling of fisheries management really makes it appear that way, since no one can really believe that any organization can bumble their way through regulatory process with such dogged consistency over time.
"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
Very insightful post Captain Steve.
I and 99% of the rec anglers I know want to be accountable for our catches and be it a different license or a stamp, recreational angler reef fish permit,whatever it doesn't matter.
As has been mentioned over and over again, NOAA finds it easier to manage fisherman then the fishery.
And that's the thing.....having a known base of users is far better than calling 314,578 land lines in Pinellas county to find out if someone (anyone) at the number has fished in the twelve months and the last 2 months.
Then after finding at least 3 calls positive for fishing, saying they have enough data to make an estimate regarding effort.
Instead of everyone who uses the resource, has a license and part of the licensing process is an inexpensive federal waters permit with reef and migritory stamps
To fish from land you license is less than $10, the federal permit is $15 and each stamp is $5.
So the most you would pay is $35 (plus the HMS permit at $22) so $57 bucks.
Now NMFS would have a database of contacts and a self reporting site can be added. My fear is that NMFS does not want real and accurate data, they can handle (manipulate) the truth.
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes