Redfish Limit

2»

Replies

  • Spanky DunlapSpanky Dunlap Posts: 692 Officer
    I had breakfast this AM with a guy who is part of the decision making process for both the Gulf States and Federal saltwater fisheries management process. It's very interesting to me to hear his insights into the rule making. His predictions for our local inshore and offshore waters over the next couple of years were very enlightening to me.

    Interestingly he said that recreational guys shouting hysterically with no facts or analysis to back up their assertions did more damage than good in the long and difficult process. (He is very pro rec.)

    I told him of my disappointment that some of the local rec guys on the FS Fourm seemed to be against the reduction. I explained that I had mistakenly thought that the stakeholders would be in favor of tighter limits to help insure that current and future Redfish populations remained strong. His response was to say he had been taught by his father that is was not polite to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. (He said he didn't have "Buff" but he did have a "Do Rag" that he wore when riding his Harley) :rotflmao



  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 10,521 AG
    I had breakfast this AM with a guy who is part of the decision making process for both the Gulf States and Federal saltwater fisheries management process. It's very interesting to me to hear his insights into the rule making. His predictions for our local inshore and offshore waters over the next couple of years were very enlightening to me.

    Interestingly he said that recreational guys shouting hysterically with no facts or analysis to back up their assertions did more damage than good in the long and difficult process. (He is very pro rec.)

    I told him of my disappointment that some of the local rec guys on the FS Fourm seemed to be against the reduction. I explained that I had mistakenly thought that the stakeholders would be in favor of tighter limits to help insure that current and future Redfish populations remained strong. His response was to say he had been taught by his father that is was not polite to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. (He said he didn't have "Buff" but he did have a "Do Rag" that he wore when riding his Harley) :rotflmao
    so he was very polite to you?
    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.
  • Luv2YakLuv2Yak Posts: 944 Officer
    Q: On what scientific data did FWC base its decision to reduce the red drum daily bag limits in the entire NW Zone?
    A: None.

    Q: If no scientific data, then the FWC decision to reduce the red drum daily bag limits in the NW Zone was based on what?
    A: Solely anecdotal information of a reduced red drum population, provided to FWC primarily from for-hire guides in the Panhandle (northern) segment of the NW Zone.

    Q: For how long will the reduced daily bag limit for red drum in the NW Zone be in effect?
    A: Beginning 5/1/2016 then for a minimum of 6 months.

    [The above information was confirmed earlier today via telephone conversation with a FWC Staff member, Division of Marine Fisheries Management in Tallahassee, FL.)

    As of now, the unanswered questions:

    1. Why was no scientific data gathered then considered before making this decision?
    2. Why reduce the red drum daily bag limit for the entire NW Zone when anecdotal information indicates a perceived reduction of the red drum population in the Panhandle (northern) segment but not in the Big Bend (southern) segment of the NW Zone?
    3. What is the biological “connectivity” of the red drum between the Panhandle (northern) and Big Bend (southern) segments of the NW Zone?
    4. Given the known environmental degradation of Apalachicola Bay due to reduced freshwater influx, will a reduced daily bag limit of red drum for the entire NW Zone have any positive impact on the perceived reduction of the red drum population in the Panhandle (northern) segment of the NW Zone?
    5. Will the recently-announced reduction of red drum bag limit in the NW Zone shift increased fishing pressure on and greater harvest of other inshore saltwater species, i.e., Spotted Sea Trout, in the NW Zone?
    6. Why at the April 2016 meeting did the FWC Commission ignore its Staff's recommendation to wait until all feedback from the Red Drum Stakeholder Engagement Plan was completed (May 2016) then discuss and review at the June 2016 meeting?
  • illinoisfishermanillinoisfisherman Posts: 5,261 Admiral
    I didn't know Mr. Dewey was a barrister.

    I have no idea if the redfish stock is in danger or is being depleted but if there is nothing other than word of mouth from some parties that have a seemingly self serving interest to support this determination I would think it would be very suspect and should draw some serious investigation. I am coming to the opinion that the entire Gulf Fishery management, both on the Federal and State level, is ripe with corruption and very possibly is being influenced by illegal acts that involve payoffs of some kind. Officials going to prison is the best way deter this sort of behavior. It seems the only way to pass reasonable and fair control measures is by public referendum like the net ban was done.
  • stc1993stc1993 Albany, GA Carrabelle, FLPosts: 6,102 Admiral
    Luv2Yak, am I reading your post correct? The way I read it was your saying it didn't include the big bend area. The way I read the FWC post it was from Escambia Co. To Pasco Co.

    I might of just read it wrong.
  • Luv2YakLuv2Yak Posts: 944 Officer
    stc1993 wrote: »
    Luv2Yak, am I reading your post correct? The way I read it was your saying it didn't include the big bend area. The way I read the FWC post it was from Escambia Co. To Pasco Co.

    I might of just read it wrong.

    Effective May 1, 2016, FWC has reduced the redfish daily bag limit from 2 to 1 for Florida's entire NW Zone, from the AL/FL border to Pasco County, FL on the Gulf Coast.

    FWC's most recent 2015 Redfish Stock Assessment Report (data through 2013) indicates that the redfish has not been over-fished or over-harvested in the NW Zone.

    FWC has said that it has been receiving anecdotal reports of a "reduced red drum population" in the Panhandle segment of the NW Zone. At the same time, FWC has said input received to date from its Red Drum Stakeholders Engagement survey indicates that the Red Drum in the Big Bend segment of the NW Zone is okay.
  • illinoisfishermanillinoisfisherman Posts: 5,261 Admiral
    I wonder what the survival rate is on the 20 - 100 Redfish released by the catch and release type guides. It may be more devastating to the fish population than a fellow going out and simply catching his two to drop into the hot grease. Something to think about. I have always wondered why the regulations are not simply changed for all species to - you keep the first fish you catch until you are at your limit. No more free meals for the sharks and dolphins snacking on the fish dropped back in the waters. I hate seeing any fish float away.
  • grouper sandwichgrouper sandwich Posts: 532 Officer
    I wonder what the survival rate is on the 20 - 100 Redfish released by the catch and release type guides. It may be more devastating to the fish population than a fellow going out and simply catching his two to drop into the hot grease. Something to think about. I have always wondered why the regulations are not simply changed for all species to - you keep the first fish you catch until you are at your limit. No more free meals for the sharks and dolphins snacking on the fish dropped back in the waters. I hate seeing any fish float away.


    Those fish have been monetized by a select and well represented group of guides pandering to well heeled anglers. Case closed, keep your grubby hands off THEIR redfish!
    corksling-2.jpg
  • trout069trout069 Posts: 4,865 Captain
    Redfish don't taste good anyway. It is a finite resource,snapper and grouper regs stupid?,yes. And not all who fly fish and wear a buff are well heeled. And a big speck fights better than the same size spottail bass.
  • alligatoroballigatorob Posts: 197 Officer
    I remember when Florida didn't even consider redfish a sport fish, no limits at all. It seems to me it wasn't until Prudhomme made blackened redfish popular and the commercial guys went after them, including the big breeders, that they got scarce and needed regulation.

    My own unofficial unscientific stock assessment tells me that they are back and I have a hard time seeing why we need to go back to a 1 fish limit.
  • Spanky DunlapSpanky Dunlap Posts: 692 Officer
    After some thought this weekend I believe I understand the strong difference of opinion on this issue among a group of fishermen who usually consider themselves on the same team. There is a large group that can't see the logic in reducing the limit. They have not experienced any reduction in the number of Redfish they encounter on any given trip. There is another large group that supports any limit that maintains or increases the number of Red's they see/catch on any given trip.

    For me personally, I have been fishing from St. Marks to St. George since 1965. In the 70's when I was a teenager you could catch hundreds of trout almost every trip. There were so many Scallops some year you could sink the boat without ever having to move. But, we rarely if ever caught a Redfish. We did catch a few during the fall in the river mouth, but it was hit and miss.

    Spring forward to the 80's and we now caught far fewer trout and almost no Red's. For years. Inshore fishing in Florida was crap. For years.

    Then a large group of guys like us got together and supported this. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/outdoors/fl-waters-outdoors-net-ban-0702-20150701-column.html We set a limit of zero on ourselves in the hope that our fishing would improve. Not a FWC imposed limit. A limit of zero we proposed.

    And then it was on. Within 3 years there were Reds everywhere. Anybody could catch one. The limit then was zero. None. And it was a blast. From 1995 to about 2005 it was Redfish heaven. Numerous big schools out on the flats. Creeks full of Reds.

    Spring forward to now. It's not as good as it was. The last 10 years do not measure up to the previous 10. In our area I believe the Trout fishing has continued to improve but the Redfishing has not. It's WAY better than it was when I was a teen, but it could be better.

    So I'm willing to accept any limit (even zero) in the hope that the fishing could be great again.

    Others are not. Nobody is wrong. It's just your opinion based on your experiences.



  • Luv2YakLuv2Yak Posts: 944 Officer
    ...Then a large group of guys like us got together and supported this. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/outdoors/fl-waters-outdoors-net-ban-0702-20150701-column.html We set a limit of zero on ourselves in the hope that our fishing would improve. Not a FWC imposed limit. A limit of zero we proposed...

    Perhaps if a large group of guys got together again in the Panhandle area (where FWC has said there have been anecdotal reports of a reduced red drum population) and again set a limit of 0 on themselves, the reduced red drum population in the Panhandle area would rebound, leaving recreational anglers in the remaining area of the NW zone (where FWC has said anecdotal reports on red have been positive) to continue enjoying the current limit of 2.
  • Luv2YakLuv2Yak Posts: 944 Officer
    In the southern portion of the NW Zone the Steinhatchee, Suwannee, Waccasassa, Withlacoochie and Crystal Rivers flow into the Big Bend. The influx of freshwater from these rivers plays a critical role in the health of coastal fauna and flora. Science (or in the very least common sense) tells us if flow of these rivers were significantly reduced or restricted, particularly for a prolonged period of time, then it would be expected that coastal fauna and flora would be impacted.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    FWC says, “Many anglers and guides in the Panhandle, particularly those from Panama City in Bay County through Apalachicola in Franklin County report seeing declines both in red drum populations and size of fish over the past 2-3 years.” FWC also says, “Although the Northwest management zone includes both the Panhandle and Big Bend, these regions are split in this presentation. For the purpose of this presentation, the Panhandle is defined by Escambia County through Ochlokonee Bay in Wakulla County and the Big Bend is Apalachee Bay through Pasco County. This delineation coincides with both differences in red drum habitat and angler feedback on the status of red drum.”
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    (The oyster industry in Apalachicola Bay has virtually collapsed)

    A Fight Over Water, and to Save a Way of Life

    In a budding ecological crisis, the oyster population has drastically declined in Apalachicola Bay, one of the country’s major estuaries and the cradle of Florida’s prized oyster industry.

    The fishery’s collapse, which began last summer and has stretched into this year, is the most blatant sign yet of the bay’s vulnerability in the face of decades of dwindling flow from two rivers originating in Georgia. For 23 years now, Georgia, Alabama and Florida have waged a classic upstream-downstream water war, with Alabama and Florida coming out on the losing end of a long court battle in 2011.

    While the oysters face the most immediate threat, environmentalists and lawmakers said the diminished flow has other far-reaching consequences on Apalachicola’s $6.6 million seafood industry. It could affect some of Florida’s most popular catches, including grouper, snapper, blue crab and shrimp, which early on feed and grow in the estuary’s perfectly calibrated mixing bowl of salt water and fresh water. [my insert: blue crab and shrimp are part of the redfish diet]

    “The decline in the entire productivity of the bay is not only an ecological disaster but puts the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen at risk of being lost forever. And it’s not just Apalachicola Bay. It affects the entire Gulf Coast.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/us...ries.html?_r=0
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    If, IN FACT (not anecdotal testimonies but supported by scientific evidence) the red drum population in the area defined by FWC as the Panhandle is declining, it should come as no surprise or be a mystery given that Apalachicola Bay is dying from its thirst for freshwater.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    1. FWC acknowledges there is a difference in red drum habitat in the northern and southern portions of the NW Zone.

    2. The area in which red drum populations are being reported as in decline includes Apalachicola Bay, on the brink of environmental catastrophe.

    3. FWC has offered anecdotal testimonies, but no scientifically-based evidence made available to the public, that the red drum population has declined in the Panhandle.

    4. Effective 5/1/2016 FWC has reduced the red drum bag limit from 2 to 1 throughout the entire NW Zone despite offering anecdotal testimonies that in the area the FWC has defined as the Big Bend, “Most anglers that staff talked to from the Big Bend report both seeing and catching many red drum and that they are encountering large fish, both in the slot and above the slot.”
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    FWC makes a decision impacting the entire NW Zone based on incomplete anecdotal testimonies (continuing into May 2016), conflicting anecdotal testimonies (decline in the Panhandle no decline in the Big Bend), no science-based data and against its Staff recommendation to discuss and review the Red Drum Stakeholder Engagement Plan’s complete and full results at the FWC meeting in June 2016.

    Given the reported decline of the red drum population in the Panhandle, the dire circumstances of Apalachicola Bay, the reported soundness of the red drum population in the Big Bend, the difference in red drum habitats in the northern and southern portions of the NW Zone, FWC’s immediate action should perhaps be to reduce the red drum bag limit in the Panhandle, not the entire NW Zone.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 10,521 AG
    After some thought this weekend I believe I understand the strong difference of opinion on this issue among a group of fishermen who usually consider themselves on the same team. There is a large group that can't see the logic in reducing the limit. They have not experienced any reduction in the number of Redfish they encounter on any given trip. There is another large group that supports any limit that maintains or increases the number of Red's they see/catch on any given trip.

    For me personally, I have been fishing from St. Marks to St. George since 1965. In the 70's when I was a teenager you could catch hundreds of trout almost every trip. There were so many Scallops some year you could sink the boat without ever having to move. But, we rarely if ever caught a Redfish. We did catch a few during the fall in the river mouth, but it was hit and miss.

    Spring forward to the 80's and we now caught far fewer trout and almost no Red's. For years. Inshore fishing in Florida was crap. For years.

    Then a large group of guys like us got together and supported this. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/outdoors/fl-waters-outdoors-net-ban-0702-20150701-column.html We set a limit of zero on ourselves in the hope that our fishing would improve. Not a FWC imposed limit. A limit of zero we proposed.

    And then it was on. Within 3 years there were Reds everywhere. Anybody could catch one. The limit then was zero. None. And it was a blast. From 1995 to about 2005 it was Redfish heaven. Numerous big schools out on the flats. Creeks full of Reds.

    Spring forward to now. It's not as good as it was. The last 10 years do not measure up to the previous 10. In our area I believe the Trout fishing has continued to improve but the Redfishing has not. It's WAY better than it was when I was a teen, but it could be better.

    So I'm willing to accept any limit (even zero) in the hope that the fishing could be great again.

    Others are not. Nobody is wrong. It's just your opinion based on your experiences.
    Actually red fish was declared a protected species and all commercial harvested prohibited in June 1991 so the net ban really didn't address red fish.

    There was no science to support a net ban hence the constitutional amendment.
    Just as there is no science to support this recent ruling but hey if you like the guvment telling you what is best for you...
    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.
  • Spanky DunlapSpanky Dunlap Posts: 692 Officer
    Nice pic. I always wondered what you did for relaxation #1.



  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 10,521 AG
    Nice pic. I always wondered what you did for relaxation #1.
    lol..
    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.
  • eddiejoeeddiejoe Posts: 602 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Actually red fish was declared a protected species and all commercial harvested prohibited in June 1991 so the net ban really didn't address red fish.

    There was no science to support a net ban hence the constitutional amendment.
    Just as there is no science to support this recent ruling but hey if you like the guvment telling you what is best for you...


    There is always the science, such as it is at the time, and the public interest and perception. And so it was with the net limitation (be careful A-1, your boys make a big deal that there is no "net ban"). Perception was, from someone on the front lines at the time, that protective regulations were not able to keep up with conservation needs. That was probably right.

    FWIW now, recreational harvest of sub reproductive red drum was hammering reds as bad or worse as offshore commercial netting of big breeders before the redfish closure. Both practices needed to be stopped, and only with a total harvest closure could they be. That was a political and practical decision, not a scientific one, but the right one IMO.

    Don't know today about reds myself. The science doesn't seem to support a one fish bag reduction, but it won't hurt the population to do so. Anecdotal reports by guides is one factor to consider, but this decision shouldn't have been made on just that alone. But it does no harm to the resource, at least, and doesn't open anything up to commercial use.

    Compare redfish or snook management to snapper/grouper and the difference is stark, by the state or the Feds. Anglers like us are arguing about one or two red fish, but we aren't seeing wild caught redfish for sale year round while we get a week or so to fish. That would be crazy, wouldn't it?

    Oh gee, that is the situation with ARS, which somehow is acceptable. Kind of like the frog that doesn't jump out of the pan of water if it is heated slowly. And we have gotten cooked.

    EJ
  • NOLE66NOLE66 Posts: 1,630 Officer
    I wonder what the survival rate is on the 20 - 100 Redfish released by the catch and release type guides. It may be more devastating to the fish population than a fellow going out and simply catching his two to drop into the hot grease. Something to think about. I have always wondered why the regulations are not simply changed for all species to - you keep the first fish you catch until you are at your limit. No more free meals for the sharks and dolphins snacking on the fish dropped back in the waters. I hate seeing any fish float away.

    Redfish are very hardy fish. Unless you have gut hooked one deep, it's chances of survival are very high.
  • NOLE66NOLE66 Posts: 1,630 Officer
    eddiejoe wrote: »
    There is always the science, such as it is at the time, and the public interest and perception. And so it was with the net limitation (be careful A-1, your boys make a big deal that there is no "net ban"). Perception was, from someone on the front lines at the time, that protective regulations were not able to keep up with conservation needs. That was probably right.

    FWIW now, recreational harvest of sub reproductive red drum was hammering reds as bad or worse as offshore commercial netting of big breeders before the redfish closure. Both practices needed to be stopped, and only with a total harvest closure could they be. That was a political and practical decision, not a scientific one, but the right one IMO.

    Don't know today about reds myself. The science doesn't seem to support a one fish bag reduction, but it won't hurt the population to do so. Anecdotal reports by guides is one factor to consider, but this decision shouldn't have been made on just that alone. But it does no harm to the resource, at least, and doesn't open anything up to commercial use.

    Compare redfish or snook management to snapper/grouper and the difference is stark, by the state or the Feds. Anglers like us are arguing about one or two red fish, but we aren't seeing wild caught redfish for sale year round while we get a week or so to fish. That would be crazy, wouldn't it?

    Oh gee, that is the situation with ARS, which somehow is acceptable. Kind of like the frog that doesn't jump out of the pan of water if it is heated slowly. And we have gotten cooked.

    EJ

    Yep! Slot reds have been getting hammered with the two fish limit rom what i hAve observed.. I have some locations each year where I can pull up and catch slot reds till you get sick of catching them. Enough folks hammering those fish and your reproductive stock begins to gooseneck from the bottom up. Not enough recruitment to spawning size/age. Every year older fish disappear from the population due to a variety of types of mortality. Florida has far more folks using the resource than the other gulf states. Another reason to err on the side of caution. Wish we would have remained at one fish to begin with. Some of this will become clearer with the next red drum stock assessment. I look forward to the results. This decision was based on stockholder surveys, or anecdotal evidence. It's a 'temporary' rule and the science will determine if it's continued as one or if we revert back to two. Don't forget the current estimate of recruitment is based on data collected up to 2013, so it's a little outdated.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 10,521 AG
    eddiejoe wrote: »
    There is always the science, such as it is at the time, and the public interest and perception. And so it was with the net limitation (be careful A-1, your boys make a big deal that there is no "net ban"). Perception was, from someone on the front lines at the time, that protective regulations were not able to keep up with conservation needs. That was probably right.

    FWIW now, recreational harvest of sub reproductive red drum was hammering reds as bad or worse as offshore commercial netting of big breeders before the redfish closure. Both practices needed to be stopped, and only with a total harvest closure could they be. That was a political and practical decision, not a scientific one, but the right one IMO.

    Don't know today about reds myself. The science doesn't seem to support a one fish bag reduction, but it won't hurt the population to do so. Anecdotal reports by guides is one factor to consider, but this decision shouldn't have been made on just that alone. But it does no harm to the resource, at least, and doesn't open anything up to commercial use.

    Compare redfish or snook management to snapper/grouper and the difference is stark, by the state or the Feds. Anglers like us are arguing about one or two red fish, but we aren't seeing wild caught redfish for sale year round while we get a week or so to fish. That would be crazy, wouldn't it?

    Oh gee, that is the situation with ARS, which somehow is acceptable. Kind of like the frog that doesn't jump out of the pan of water if it is heated slowly. And we have gotten cooked.

    EJ
    I don't have any boys that I represent with that view.
    Not part of that group at all..
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.