Home Conservation Front

FWC considers modifying 2016 Gulf rec red snapper season to 78 days in state waters

2»

Replies

  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    Louisiana and Alabama have pretty much already done it - how did they fund it?

    Better question; Seeing as how the feds' have unnecessarily truncated red snapper seasons so drastically in the past few years since the reauthorization of Magnuson for the sole purpose of trying to justify the implementation of Catch Shares, and this has cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to Gulf coastal communities, how can the states afford NOT to?

    The cost of loss of access to their artificial reefs to Alabama communities alone has been hundreds of millions of dollars - this is documented fact, and reinstating those revenues by opening access back up to their reefs would more than pay for it.
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 5,982 Admiral
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Am 39 was called "regional mgmt" but definitely was not.

    If the idea is supposedly to give the regional managers more say in how their fishery was managed, then what would that have meant if Pam Dana (pro sector separation) hadn't switched her vote and it passed - even with 100% opposition from the regional managers themselves? More say? No, in reality, less say. They wouldn't even have had a say in whether or not they wanted to participate in it.

    You need to look who is promoting it - the EDF-funded charter captains and commercial fishermen. If the idea behind sector separation is to separate the sectors, then why are the charter/commercials sticking their big noses in a sector they do not belong? It's literally none of their business.

    Lastly - I didn't edit your post (again) - I can't seem to do this on my phone. Sorry about that.

    Tom what's the use like I said these guys have a one track mind and will never let go of the Fed giving all the fishery to them.
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,693 AG
    surfman wrote: »
    Tom what's the use like I said these guys have a one track mind and will never let go of the Fed giving all the fishery to them.
    I asked a legit question sir.

    If you don't know then maybe you need to refrain from responding.












































    Mr Furman.
    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: 11,693 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Louisiana and Alabama have pretty much already done it - how did they fund it?

    Better question; Seeing as how the feds' have unnecessarily truncated red snapper seasons so drastically in the past few years since the reauthorization of Magnuson for the sole purpose of trying to justify the implementation of Catch Shares, and this has cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to Gulf coastal communities, how can the states afford NOT to?

    The cost of loss of access to their artificial reefs to Alabama communities alone has been hundreds of millions of dollars - this is documented fact, and reinstating those revenues by opening access back up to their reefs would more than pay for it.
    Tell me how would Fl fund that program?

    Maybe a RS endorsement?
    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.
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 5,982 Admiral
    They could take all the money they are now wasting on the NMFS and divide it among the states for their own management purposes for starters. The states are already doing a good job with most of the resource now they already manage snapper and grouper in state waters.

    But you are right I can't see the fed ever giving up control either.
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • grouper.comgrouper.com Posts: 71 Greenhorn
    BubbaII wrote: »
    I'm lost; what is moving forward? The lawsuit against 40 is over, and the rule cannot be re-challenged.

    I filed a suit in Tampa that is pending. The decision from the E.D. La. is not binding on the federal judge in Tampa.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Agree on an allocation determined by whom? Roy Crabtree? THAT'S why AM 39 died - it's based on bogus federal data which doesn't reflect reality and would guarantee end of state water seasons and total closures of fishing seasons.

    True regional management would entail the states themselves determining their own allocations based on what THEIR regions can sustain long term.

    How are bogus TX data a federal flaw? Not sure how Crabtree plays into this, except as someone to blame for someone else's failure.

    I think I outlined earlier that FL/AL wouldn't accept the numbers LA/TX wanted, and LA/TX wouldn't accept the numbers FL/AL wanted. The STATES couldn't agree. Feds had nothing to do with it. The State reps on the Council couldn't agree.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    When the NMFS accepts the data, no matter where the data comes from, the NMFS then owns that data as its own.

    The state reps on the Gulf Council ALL agreed that AM39 wasn't anything they wanted to be a part of.
Sign In or Register to comment.