See how they are going to steal your fish
Here's a post off of another board - very good analysis.
Also pertains to the targeting of a species out of season - the enviros will grab onto anything to keep us ofF the water. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be giving them any ammunition, even if they are delusional in their claims. They are extremely well-funded.
All the best,
I read this document (below) with both amazement and complete disbelief.
The amount of misinformation contained in this document is so incredible that I do not even know where to begin.
I guess the easiest place to begin is the assumption made regarding historical bio-mass.
What is your source for the bullet point statements at the start of the document:
Red Snapper are at 3% of 1945 levels
What was the total bio-mass of red snapper in 1945
What scientific body made that assessment and by what means were data samples taken and which computer models were used to make these estimates.
The fact is that there is NO estimation of the Red Snapper stock level in 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960 or even 1978. IN fact the very first Red Snapper stock assessment did not even occur until 1988.
In 1945 there was no science developed and there certainly was not the computing capability necessary to produce such an estimate. Your claim is complete and udder academic dishonesty and I request that you retract this statement publically.
The species has been fished up to 14 times the sustainable level since 1960
Again what is your source; any reputable organization would be able to provide sourcing for such an outrageous claim. Of course you and I know that this is a made up number to produce a gut wrenching reaction. We both know that the OSY had not been produced for this species until well after the very first Red Snapper Stock assessment, which was in what year? 1988 of course you remember.
Red Snapper off the coast:
1954: 5,000,000 Today: 500,000
Again what is your source, just as I am certain there are many millions more ARS than 500,000 today, couldnít you have at least come up with a more plausible misinformation; I mean really is your average reader so dense that you must make such a simpleton estimation.
For the record; when making stuff up and using falsified statistics; if you place them on the same page and especially in the same bullet list you really need to make sure you numbers add up.
Your first bullet point states that Red Snapper is 3% of that in 1945; if we try to even play with the idea that there are only 500,000 Red Snapper out there, then we must assume based on your numbers that there were 16,666,666.66667 (16.6 million) in 1945. What do you attribute the dramatic drop in just 9 years (1945 to 1954) of nearly 70% (the 5 million in 1954 is 1/3 of the 16.6 million you want us to believe existed in 1945) of the stock?
Using your highly suspect estimations we are to believe that 70% was killed off in 9 years between 1945 and 1954 a 7% per year reduction, but over the course of the last 52 years, that 90% of the remaining 30% has been killed off at a rate of .2% per year.
What do you attribute to the dramatic decrease in annual reductions? Basically the reasons your numbers donít make sense is that you made them up. Isnít it a fact, that you, I, nor anybody else for that matter has any real idea of what the stock levels were prior to 1988. I await your answer to this question
As we dig deeper into this science fiction piece you attribute a 40% release mortality rate for Red Snapper (again with no source cited). What study have you done to make such a statement, or have you plagiarized someone elseís study, or have you once again just made these numbers up.
The facts are that release mortality is a function of: depth of water and speed of retrieve. The Galveston Laboratory in the last extensive study of recreational angler release mortality place deeper release mortality at somewhere between 19% and 31%, your made up number does not even do the courtesy of using the high end of the range, but extends the range by 9 points.
Your assessment that: ďA vast numbers of red snapper die after they are thrown back into the water by fishermen who caught them accidentally or at below legal sizeĒ is an erroneous statement as well. I can assure you that a legal red snapper caught in season and within legal limits is not thrown back. Most undersize red snapper are caught in fairly shallow water, where there is a high probability of survival after release (red snapper are incredibly durable). For those fish caught out of season or above the bag limit that are released I cite the above release mortality statistic from the Galveston Lab.
As a side note; most anglers once they encounter a non-target species, will move out of the spot after just a few minutes. This is especially true regarding red snapper. Red Snapper are so veracious and aggressive that if they are out of season or you have reach your limit, once you encounter them at a spot and there is no intent to keep them most anglers will move on, knowing that nothing else will be caught on that spot as long as the red snapper are holding it. It would help greatly if you guys would actually try to learn something about fishing and fishermen.
Your spawning assessment is also wrong. Recently along both coast the resurgence of red snapper has produced many fish well over 30 inches which is indicative of a fish 10 years and older. This is evident in part of the issue with Recreational TAC as we exceeded poundage, but caught fewer fish, with less effort.
Illusion of Plenty. A fishery on the rebound is a fishery on the rebound. Both at sea reports and the science back that up. There is a resurgence of fish across the range and age classes. Catch rates (in numbers of fish) are at historic lows and effort is reducing each year (2006 Census report on Wildlife). In 2006 marine saltwater fishing was 11% below 1996 and is estimated to be reducing by 2.2% each year. The current restriction, size limits and reduction in effort are combining to make for one of the strongest fisheries in my 45 year fishing life.
Ending overfishing (where it is actually proven to exist based on reliable data) is a very laudable effort. Protection of the fishery for future use is an objective I share. But the use of bad or worse made up data to try and strong arm the regulatory process and misinform the public regarding an already complicated issue is atrocious. It seems your goal is to make our oceans off limits too all, which means that your stated goal is a lie and this is not good for the fishery or coastal communites.
When a group such as yours is caught using false data and it is exposed, much damage is done to you cause (ala Climatgate). Your use of fictitious data in this piece is deplorable and I will do everything in my power to show to what lengths you will go to mislead the public.
Feel free to have your actuary call me to discuss any of these point or to produce any of the source you neglected to cite.
Actuarial Systems Group -SuBo Corporation
167 107th Ave, Treasure Island, FL 33710
Capt. Bob Bryant
Director of Data & Scientific Studies
Fishing Rights Alliance.
To fish or not to fish - what a stupid question!
Last edited by hilton; 03-04-2010 at 10:48 PM.