Council Meeting Discussions

[snapcon]

And of course seperating the sector and turning a once public resource into nothing more than a commodity is going to further save the fishery. It seems like everything NMFS does, makes matters worse and then some unintended consequence improves matters (hurricanes, fuel cost, hard economic times) these pinheads take credit for. And they find a way to use agains us.....Oh the fish are bigger now so they will reach quota faster. Why are fish bigger? Oh well "we(NMFS) are just guessing, cuz we think there are still not enough fish out there. And NO we are not going to count fish on artificial reef, rigs, hard spots!!!!" All these pie in the sky plans that help one group or another are BS. Create flexibility in the Law. Fix Magnuson. All you guys with your self serving interest trying to capture your share of OUR fishery need to remember that these people (EDF, Ocean Conservancy, et al) are not your allies. They may act like it, but as soon as they can, we will all be off the water. That is what they want. Pure and simple. All you CFH guys jumping in bed with the tree huggers are just playing into their hands. I know I am going to ruffle some more feathers withthis but after following this debate over the past 10+ years, it is clear what there tactics are. And you CFH guys are just laying down for it. Divide and conquor.

[manintheboat]

Chris Dorsett is a douchebag

[Loco Pato]

Originally Posted by hilton

SNAPPER RULES WERE A NON-EVENT

1. Snapper levels have been very abundant much before 2007, and popping up in areas not normally seen, such as off of Tampa. Fishermen had been reporting this phenomenon for years, yet the regulators insisted it wasn't true...

2. IFQs had NOTHING to do with the increased snapper levels, and this claim is nothing more than propaganda to try to take credit where none is due in addition to laying the groundwork to expand the IFQs into the recreational sector.

3. The previous ACLs and AMs (6 month season/4 fish limits) in addition to a vigorous habitat building program off of Alabama/FL panhandle provided the groundwork to rebuild the fisheries. These artificial reefs PRODUCED a much-needed, sustainable, viable fishery where none previously existed. Strange that the environmentalists do not favor enhancing the fisheries "environment".

4. The MSA had NOTHING to do with the decreased shrimper bycatch - that issue was taken care of by natural and economic forces that reduced the fleet dramatically. To claim that it did is again more enviro propaganda to lay the groundwork for ever-more restrictions.

5. There was not rampant overfishing occuring - the recreational TAC was UNDERFISHED by almost 2 million pounds in the years 1997 to 2003 according to NMFS figures. In fact, the alleged rampant overfishing started occuring AFTER 2007, after the new MSA restrictions came into play. The alleged rampant overfishing started occuring miraculously even though our seasons had been slashed by 67%, our bag limits slashed by 50%, and capt/crew were prohibited from retaining any snapper. Wow, that would be quite a feat to accomplish! (Almost as big a feat for shrimpers to be responsible for killing 80% of all year class of snapper - a virtually impossible action).

EDF/Ocean Conservancy/Chris Dorsett/SOS PLAN = P-R-O-P-A-G-A-N-D-A

All the best,
Tom

I missed you Tom! Your conspircy theories and funny signs you put up at meetings were missed by me greatly. I will have to give you a big ol Brohug when I see you next to get my Hilton fix. Mobile was not the same with out you. Calm Seas..Scott

[capt mike]

Reel Screamers, it was good talking to you at the meeting. This nonsense about the avg size getting heavier and heavier thus causing "mangement uncertainties", thus shortening our season was why I brought up in my testimony why they don't consider managing snapper by "head counts" (numbers) rather than lbs . As the fishery expands and the avg size keeps going up, it makes sense to me. I am sure it won't make any sense at all to them (nmfs) but I do want to get a explanation from them as to why it wouldn't work.

[Loco Pato]

Originally Posted by capt mike

Reel Screamers, it was good talking to you at the meeting. This nonsense about the avg size getting heavier and heavier thus causing "mangement uncertainties", thus shortening our season was why I brought up in my testimony why they don't consider managing snapper by "head counts" (numbers) rather than lbs . As the fishery expands and the avg size keeps going up, it makes sense to me. I am sure it won't make any sense at all to them (nmfs) but I do want to get a explanation from them as to why it wouldn't work.

CCA is beating this drum and its a valid problem! We need to address this as the biomass grows the fish will get larger. Russ Nelson with CCA would be a good resource to ask questions on this.

[Swells]

Originally Posted by capt mike

This nonsense about the avg size getting heavier and heavier thus causing "mangement uncertainties", thus shortening our season was why I brought up in my testimony why they don't consider managing snapper by "head counts" (numbers) rather than lbs . As the fishery expands and the avg size keeps going up, it makes sense to me. I am sure it won't make any sense at all to them (nmfs) but I do want to get a explanation from them as to why it wouldn't work.

Well the NMFS has always set the limits by poundage, which ended up in permits, quotas, and enforcement for the commercial sector.

To complicate matters, the NMFS put daily possession limits on red snapper, like 2 a day or whatever they decide.

So they're in a quandry because you can't force the recreational fishermen to weight their fish, and it makes no sense to say you can only keep 4 pounds out of a 20-pound monster (haha).

So if the recreational sector is not set by poundage, but by their own daily bag limits, they have ruined their own argument.

Plus, we all know that the big sows are heavy reproducers, and are a good thing - the problem might be "natural mortality" because momma is eating up all the babies she can find, being hungry. Hey, by setting the limits as they did, the NMFS might have ruined the fishing, not us.
-sammie

[Reel Screamers]

I don't know if the MSA would allow the stock to be managed by head count instead of biomass weight. But it sure would be nice.

As a charter and a boat that gets surveyed on a regular basis, some of you help see the down side to declining future surveys. Why should I keep giving them the data if it is not going to make a difference and serve as the knife that is going to slit our throats.

[Ducksmasher]

ding ding! participating in creel surveys are optional. its simply recorded as a refusal. refuse em if you got snapper. dont slit your own throat. good idea. now if we can come up with a catchy acronym..

[Levelwind]

Great idea. Let's just let them make it up like they do now!