http://www.gulfshorespierfishing.com...tid=3161&stc=1
Break out the Vasoline for 'round 2' :bang
Printable View
http://www.gulfshorespierfishing.com...tid=3161&stc=1
Break out the Vasoline for 'round 2' :bang
Until we as Saltwater Recreational Fisherman band together in large numbers as one voice, the regulations will never be fair to us. We need to form an organization like the NRA, NWTF, etc. to get the politicians attention. Until that happens we can just stay bent over and take it in the the bum.
Heads, they win. Tails, we lose. It's all about conserving the commercial fishery at the expense of the recreational fishery. Why isn't there a discussion about habitat? That would solve the problem except that the gains in the population would still advantage the commercial side of the coin.
The current recreational rules and season set up sucks. But eym, how does the above rule have anything to do with benefiting the commercial guys??? They have their quote, recs have a separate one. This doesn't speak to changing either quota or giving the commercial guys more fish.
And by habitat, do you believe there is a shortage of red snapper habitat?
The way I read the notice that Pier#r provided was that the proposed rule would add long-term RECREATIONAL accountability measures for red snapper. In that notice was no mention of the commercial fishery! It's all aimed at diminishing the recreational catch. That was my take-away, due to the fact that the notice targets exclusively the [specified] recreational catch. I think that it's a mistake to infer that the same rules apply, proportionately, to the commercial industry, given the repeated reference to ONLY the recreational catch.
My inference from the notice is that they're doing this to preserve/protect/underpin/favor the commercial catch, at the expense of the recreational fishery and that they didn't want to come out and say that there would NOT be corresponding sanctions on the commercial market. Doesn't the fact that they only mention the recreational catch in the new proposal support my take on the matter?
Commercial guys already have a mandatory landing reporting system, as well as electronic reporting & monitoring, they rarely significantly exceed their quota because when a commercial guy with a ITQ lands his allotment, they are not allowed to land and sell any more red snapper. Not to say it doesn't happen but we wont argue that point for now...
Recreational fisherman as a group have supposedly exceeded the quota most years. Which is why the M-S Act requires NOAA to take "Accountability Measures", which is what the press release is about. No link to commercial guys, commercial guys already have their accountability measure in place, as in mandatory landings & sales reports, electronic monitoring, etc....
Remember, the quota is split, so commercial guys don't get recreational quota nor vice versa. They are having no problem getting meeting their quota and neither are the recreational guys.
All this said, it is clear that based on the AL-MRD catch data vs. the NOAA catch data, there is something very wrong with the way NOAA has been calculating recreational catch (hence the "supposedly" in my above sentence). Part of the problem is trying to manage a recreational fishery with poundage quota, which is an inherently flawed approach. But the M-S Act doesn't give much flexibility. And its quite apparent to everyone involved that the red snapper stocks are at record levels, the NOAA population assessment cant keep up with the real world changes and therefore red snapper fisheries management is in shambles. Maybe congress will pass the Regional Management bill. It has the backing of all 5 Gulf States delegations.
I think that increased bottom structure would lead to increased red snapper populations. If the problem with red snapper isREALLY about population, then why isn't the discussion (at least equally) about increasing habitat? Why is it all about limiting the catch? I guess everyone has his theory as to what's going on here. To most folks I've talked to, the fishery is plentiful, with large fish available. That would appear to mean that fish stocks are sound and shouldn't be subject to austere limits, right? My point is that IF the scientific data indicate a red snapper population problem, then the restoration ledger should be worked from both sides, not just the expenditure (limits and other seasonal regulations) side.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlF
If the data figures are being deliberately misinterpreted - to what end? Why would the austerity measures be visited upon this one species, except to disincentivize the recreational fisherman? All that I can come up with is that they plan on allowing the commercial fishery to dominate the resource, the motivation of same being money, since this is a commercially valuable food fish. It may be commercially valuable as a recreational target species, too, but to Big Dawg's point - who's there to represent the recreational fisherman?
Whether there is a shortage of habitat depends on whether you believe that there is a shortage of fish, so to answer your question - no, I think that there's not a shortage of habitat for the present. I think that following the money trail is the way to answer the question, "Why are they doing this?"
(For the record, it's my assertion that the "love of money", specifically the ability of politicians/bureaucrats to SELL their decisions to the highest bidder, that will be the undoing of our country. The catch-22 in this SNAFU is that the ones who could make beneficial changes to the system are the very ones who will never change because they are the ones who profit from the status quo!)
I think that the difference, Carl, is that you seem to see the rule-makers as basically incompetent, while I see them as intentionally sinister/evil. I think that they DO know what they're doing and that the answer has to do with money. But you may be right - they may just be dimwits trying to justify their positions and haven't the first clue what they're doing. I agree with you about this - the fish stocks seem to be thriving. I still don't get why they're so obsessed with this one species, though, if it's not for commercial reasons!
I'm not all that enthusiastic about the prospect of Congress doing anything that doesn't involve a payoff, known these days as "a free speech honorarium". I'm betting they do nothing - same as the last several years.
I'm curious as to what you think their motivation is to clamp down on the red snapper fishery? Why this one fish, especially given the fact that stocks have rebounded! If it's not about money, then what?
Fundamentally, additional limits and enforcement are free for the price of a typewriter ribbon to draft regulations [unless more money is added to the law enforcement side] whereas adding habitat costs real money. We cannot even get Alabama point or the dock at Ft. Morgan repaired. So if there is worry about fish stocks, just tell everyone to behave better, write a few tickets, and declare political victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by eym_sirius
The best economic use of a resource like a game-fish is not as cheap protein. Making a fish such as trout or black bass catch and release for recreational purposes (not to mention environmental purposes) has totally changed that fishery. Certainly, selective harvest or a slot limit or other restrictions have a place in both keeping the snapper population healthy and allowing some usage. But if the highest and best use of a resource like snapper is to be sold wholesale to grocery stores and restaurants, I'll eat my hat. And yes, that might eventually be the end of a "way of life" for commercial fishermen, but that also happened to the commercial hunters for turkey, deer, buffalo and ducks. This is not Bambi-babble about species protection or harming wildlife, this is about economics and doing what is most economically beneficial for the whole state and the whole nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlF
Strictly money. Visit Share the Gulf Notice what it says? "We need your support to protect access to local, sustainable Gulf fish for restaurants, consumers and seafood businesses." What about recreational fishermen? Nope. This group actively raises and spends money to shorten the recreational season through law suits and such. I used to think incompetence could explain it all, but the more I researched, it is a well-planned, well-executed effort by those who make lots of money off this fishery.Quote:
Originally Posted by eym_sirius
Seems like this is one of the reallocation choices (as opposed to 51 percent Commercial vs. 49 pecent Recreational: Alternative 4:
Increase the recreational sector’s allocation by 10 percent
(in other words --)allocate 41% of the red snapper quota to the commercial
sector and 59% of the quota to the recreational sector.
There's also an Annual Catch Target that's being proposed.
What they want to know in comments is the commercial vs recreational red snapper quota and to what degree or IF you favor the Annual catch target (ACT) and why - what benefit an increased percentage does for the local economies.
From the "Share the Gulf " (pro-commercial fishing) site:
"Amendment 28 is a controversial proposal being considered by the Gulf Council that would take a portion of the red snapper fishery out of the consumer seafood market and move into the recreational fishery" "We believe that all Americans – sportsmen as well as restaurants and seafood lovers – deserve to enjoy the Gulf's bounty. And they shouldn't have to catch it themselves to do so"
So according to the commercial fishing industry, the red snapper fight IS commercial vs. recreational and the recreational guys can comment on it (I did). It looks like this is the proper form to use to comment to the gulfcouncil.org Comment Form
And here's the text of the proposal to comment on. http://gulfcouncil.org/docs/Public%2...tion_Guide.pdf