NMFS BS

[hilton]

Howdy,

Here's a quote from NMFS Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council Voting Council Member Robin Riechers;

"The mean weight of red snapper retained by recreational anglers during the 2007 season was 3.4 pounds, said Robin Riechers, Gulf Council member and director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's coastal fisheries division.

That average weight increased to 4.07 pounds in 2008 and jumped to 5 pounds this past year, he said.

“The good news is that fishermen are catching bigger snapper and catching them at a faster pace,” Riechers said. “The down side is that it takes fewer snapper and fewer days for them to reach their annual allowable catch.”

Now, here's a quote from NOAA administrator Lubchenco responding to Senator LeMieux at the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee meeting this week;

"With respect to the red snapper fishery, I understand that fishermen may not have confidence in the data but this is not a situation where we don't have good information. Uh, I think the challenge with something like red snapper is that, umm, the, uhh, calculations about what is a sustainable level of fish take into account, uhh, how, uhh, what size the fish are, uhh, and what many of the fishermen are seeing are lots and lots of younger fish and are assuming that, uhh, that means that they are recovered and that there are plenty out there. In fact, uhh, it's important for those younger fish to get larger and reproduce for the future health of the fishery. And the complication with red snapper is very much that it is a directed fishery and they are also bycatch in other fisheries, for example grouper. So, they get hammered both directly and indirectly and uhh we have been working hard to try to find the right balance in allowing some fishing to happen but not preventing, uhh, the recovery of those stocks."

Seems to me that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing here; On one hand, they claim they have to reduce our season because the fish, on average, were much larger than before...and on the other hand, they are saying that they must reduce our season because the fish are too young and need to be able to reproduce.

Anybody else see the "Heads I win/Tails you lose" scenario here?

Tom Hilton

[texasrangerw]

I’ve been reading some of the post and understand that the commercial sector developed a good fishery management plan that helped better manage that sectors issues. It sounds like they had a problem so they developed a successful management plan that worked for them. Good for them.
Also, I understand some CFH (Charter) SOS leaders realized they needed bet a better management plan for that sector so they developed one. Good leadership works towards solutions. Focus on your solution not the problem. Good for SOS
OK now so you have this problem in your fishery.
So do you:
1 March around and complain about your problems all day.
2 Hinder the councils from doing their jobs by giving negative testimony about fishery management plans that work.
3 Tell many lies and deceive people.
4 Continue status quo as a spokesperson and continue leading everyone that will listen to you down the wrong path.
5 Never educate yourself about how successful fishery management plans work in the US or other countries.
6 Never work with other sectors to learn how to develop a management plan.
7 Discard your morals and have an inappropriate relationship that hurts others
8 Waste millions of fish by not working on a solution.
9 Twist the facts to make yourself sound smart (You can’t fix stupid!)
10 Develop a successful fishery management plan. Start NOW!
The buck stops here. So if you have a better plan than the SOS put up or shut up. You do have a plan don't you? Post it. Let the world witness all the work you've been doing now.

[hilton]

Originally Posted by texasrangerw

I’ve been reading some of the post and understand that the commercial sector developed a good fishery management plan that helped better manage for their fishery. It sounds like they had a problem so they developed a successful management plan that worked for them. Good for them.
Also, I understand some CFH (Charter) SOS leaders realized they needed bet a better management plan for that sector so they developed one. Good leadership works towards solutions. Focus on your solution not the problem. Good for SOS
OK now so you have this problem in your fishery.
So do you:
1 March around and complain about your problems all day.
2 Hinder the councils from doing their jobs by giving negative testimony about fishery management plans that work.
3 Tell many lies and deceive people.
4 Continue status quo as a spokesperson and continue leading everyone that will listen to you down the wrong path.
5 Never educate yourself about how successful fishery management plans work in the US or other countries.
6 Never work with other sectors to learn how to develop a management plan.
7 Discard your morals and have an inappropriate relationship that hurts others
8 Waste millions of fish by not working on a solution.
9 Twist the facts to make yourself sound smart (You can’t fix stupid!)
10 Develop a successful fishery management plan. Start NOW!
The buck stops here. So if you have a better plan than the SOS put up or shut up. You do have a plan don't you. Post it. Let the world witness all the work you've been doing now.

Now that's intelligent!


NOT.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by texasrangerw

I’ve been reading some of the post and understand that the commercial sector developed a good fishery management plan that helped better manage that sectors issues. It sounds like they had a problem so they developed a successful management plan that worked for them. Good for them.
Also, I understand some CFH (Charter) SOS leaders realized they needed bet a better management plan for that sector so they developed one. Good leadership works towards solutions. Focus on your solution not the problem. Good for SOS
OK now so you have this problem in your fishery.
So do you:
1 March around and complain about your problems all day.
2 Hinder the councils from doing their jobs by giving negative testimony about fishery management plans that work.
3 Tell many lies and deceive people.
4 Continue status quo as a spokesperson and continue leading everyone that will listen to you down the wrong path.
5 Never educate yourself about how successful fishery management plans work in the US or other countries.
6 Never work with other sectors to learn how to develop a management plan.
7 Discard your morals and have an inappropriate relationship that hurts others
8 Waste millions of fish by not working on a solution.
9 Twist the facts to make yourself sound smart (You can’t fix stupid!)
10 Develop a successful fishery management plan. Start NOW!
The buck stops here. So if you have a better plan than the SOS put up or shut up. You do have a plan don't you? Post it. Let the world witness all the work you've been doing now.

You have now posted the same exact dribble in two different threads: do you have anything else to report?

[texasrangerw]

Originally Posted by Ed

You have now posted the same exact dribble in two different threads: do you have anything else to report?

I stand corrected. I did make a mistake by posting on two threads.

I’m still learning how to post but I will work on it.

I’ll work on it as I go along and learn from my mistakes.

OK let’s start over. Today is a new day. Don’t focus on yesterday.

So I’ve read you have a problem in your fishery. I understand that from your negative remarks and the amount of attention you give it.

So how are going to you fix the problems in your sector?

What it is you really want?

Do you have your plan?

Are you just going to keep complaining about how others have successfully addressed their issues?

Allow yourself to work in constructible ways to fix your problem.

First step lets all get along


Ida Meanwell

[Ed]

I like the Ida Meanwell thing: I might have to steal that and use it sometime.

[Boboe]

This is exactly the problem, Hilton. They're going to F you no matter what. "You're catching more fish than before? OVERFISHING!!!" or "You're not catching as many fish as before? ALREADY OVERFISHED!!!"

I don't trust these liars. They have an agenda and use data however they want.

[Levelwind]

Originally Posted by hilton

Howdy,

Here's a quote from NMFS Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council Voting Council Member Robin Riechers;

"The mean weight of red snapper retained by recreational anglers during the 2007 season was 3.4 pounds, said Robin Riechers, Gulf Council member and director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's coastal fisheries division.

That average weight increased to 4.07 pounds in 2008 and jumped to 5 pounds this past year, he said.

“The good news is that fishermen are catching bigger snapper and catching them at a faster pace,” Riechers said. “The down side is that it takes fewer snapper and fewer days for them to reach their annual allowable catch.”

Now, here's a quote from NOAA administrator Lubchenco responding to Senator LeMieux at the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee meeting this week;

"With respect to the red snapper fishery, I understand that fishermen may not have confidence in the data but this is not a situation where we don't have good information. Uh, I think the challenge with something like red snapper is that, umm, the, uhh, calculations about what is a sustainable level of fish take into account, uhh, how, uhh, what size the fish are, uhh, and what many of the fishermen are seeing are lots and lots of younger fish and are assuming that, uhh, that means that they are recovered and that there are plenty out there. In fact, uhh, it's important for those younger fish to get larger and reproduce for the future health of the fishery. And the complication with red snapper is very much that it is a directed fishery and they are also bycatch in other fisheries, for example grouper. So, they get hammered both directly and indirectly and uhh we have been working hard to try to find the right balance in allowing some fishing to happen but not preventing, uhh, the recovery of those stocks."

Seems to me that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing here; On one hand, they claim they have to reduce our season because the fish, on average, were much larger than before...and on the other hand, they are saying that they must reduce our season because the fish are too young and need to be able to reproduce.

Anybody else see the "Heads I win/Tails you lose" scenario here?

Tom Hilton

I think Reichers and the Administrator were referring to two different fish stocks, the GOM red snapper fishery and the South Atlantic red snapper which was recently closed.

I do think the NMFS has stacked the deck against any liberalization in either snapper population though.

[Mike Jennings]

Originally Posted by Levelwind

I think Reichers and the Administrator were referring to two different fish stocks, the GOM red snapper fishery and the South Atlantic red snapper which was recently closed.

I do think the NMFS has stacked the deck against any liberalization in either snapper population though.

Steve you mean there are snapper in the South Atlantic ,,,,,,,two separate stocks of red snapper that are managed separately ? , say it ain't so !


if memory serves me right i made a long winded post a few days ago about multiple cut and paste , somewhat unrelated comments used as so called glaring examples.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Mike Jennings

Steve you mean there are snapper in the South Atlantic ,,,,,,,two separate stocks of red snapper that are managed separately ? , say it ain't so !


if memory serves me right i made a long winded post a few days ago about multiple cut and paste , somewhat unrelated comments used as so called glaring examples.

I guess it is sort of like NMFS stating there is one stock of red snapper in the Gulf that must be managed the same, uh, except for the imports from Mexico. Somehow it was/is okay to import fish from Mexico when the commercial US season was closed, but that didn't matter in the "one stock fits all" NMFS approach.