NMFS BS

[bob zales, II]

Originally Posted by texasrangerw

“I learned that a great leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don't want to do and like it”

Harry S Truman also said

Let's see here again.....ACCOUNTABILITY..... one of the current buzz words from several including the unaccountable texasrangerw!!!
Now in order to be accountable, one must be identified otherwise how can anyone decide if that person has been accountable.
In my mind, anything coming from someone in any forum who refuses to identify their real name accountability maeans nothing, their statements, their mantra (a jarvis term), all have no impact. After several days of being challanged for your name, why are you so relunctant to provide it? Could it be maybe you are one of the violators, could it be you are one of the enviro wackos, could it be you are someone who just insist on causing problems among fishermen? Others have talked about communication being key, I and others agree. Communication starts with being able to know who you are communicating with, a real name, a real face, not an avatar and ficticious ID. I am still amazed at how those like levelwind, buddy, jennings all have not chimed in to have your id placed here. Had you been pushing anti sos, as we have seen before, they jump at the fact someone does not produce their real name.
So, from here on out what comes from texasrangerw has no impact and will not be responded to by, others may but I suggest we all don't and then you can post away with all your comments trying to divide fishermen.

[texasrangerw]

Listen to yourself "Dont talk to Ranger", "Dont talk to Ranger

You sound like a child.

I will respond ASAP I'm taking the afternoon off


signed,

Ida Meanwell

PS I dont want to be the biggest fish I just want to be a fish that survies.

[texasrangerw]

Some people just thrive off the negative remarks. Negative remarks breed more negative remarks.

Many of these same people are the ones who have told the same old story for almost 20 years. They just keep telling the story of what is over and over again. They just keep telling the story of what is over and over again. Oh sorry I already wrote that in the sentence before. You get the point.
You see they have told that same old story so many times they don’t know any other story to tell. They have begun to believe that there is no other story.
Mostly complaining all the time about how bad it is.

Over and over again they fail to tell the story of how it could be.

Ask yourself “What is it that I really want”.

Do you want longer seasons?
Do you want long term benefits?
Do you want conservation?
Do you want real time data?
Do you want successful management plan?

Ask yourself “Where else in the world have success stories being told”

The New Zealand Fisheries has success stories.

Google it

[texasrangerw]

Originally Posted by Aces Full

"I just learned that when confronted with facts, texasrangerw loses the ability to defend himself and we like it"

Aces Full

What facts are you talking about? I'll be happy to respond if you list the facts your talking about. For every problem has a solution.

[jim smarr]

I have an idea move to New Zeland if you boys like it so well and buy into their plan. I am sure we could raise funds to get you sos kids down there.
Take EDF and OC with you.
JWS

Originally Posted by texasrangerw

Some people just thrive off the negative remarks. Negative remarks breed more negative remarks.

Many of these same people are the ones who have told the same old story for almost 20 years. They just keep telling the story of what is over and over again. They just keep telling the story of what is over and over again. Oh sorry I already wrote that in the sentence before. You get the point.
You see they have told that same old story so many times they don’t know any other story to tell. They have begun to believe that there is no other story.
Mostly complaining all the time about how bad it is.

Over and over again they fail to tell the story of how it could be.

Ask yourself “What is it that I really want”.

Do you want longer seasons?
Do you want long term benefits?
Do you want conservation?
Do you want real time data?
Do you want successful management plan?

Ask yourself “Where else in the world have success stories being told”

The New Zealand Fisheries has success stories.

Google it

[texasrangerw]

No need to go to New Zealand the Gulf of Mexico rebuilding plan is currently working! The recent recommended TAC increase in red snapper is testimony to that. Perhaps we need is a annual real time data system in the recreational sector to support the facts about the stocks. Although the stocks are rebuilding quickly we should proceed with caution as to not reverse the long term possibilities.
People just don’t have the money to spend on fishing, hunting or any other recreational activities that they had a few years ago. The economy will get better and the fish stocks will even be more sustainable by that time. Remember the economic impact is not just happening in the GULF. Don’t get so frustrated reach for a better feeling. Life is supposed to be fun.

[bob zales, II]

Originally Posted by jim smarr

I have an idea move to New Zeland if you boys like it so well and buy into their plan. I am sure we could raise funds to get you sos kids down there.
Take EDF and OC with you.
JWS

Scanned the nz fisheries and did not see ifqs in the rec sector, in places they have a 20 fish aggregate bag limit. Rec regs seem to for all recs. There are other issues because of tribal rights in NZ. I also saw where they are reducing tacs in many fisheries to maintain sustainability. Their rec survey system is probably worse than ours because they also sample by phone, ramps, and do some fly overs. The key is that most of their com fisheries have no rec component, unlike here.

[Day0ne]

Originally Posted by texasrangerw

I would appreciate knowing I had my same amount of fish bowls to fish out of each year. Determine the number of bowls and then divide the bowls by 1,400. Do you get that? Need another chart?

One thing I don't see discussed is how the TAC or ACL or what ever it's called this week will be divided up among the CFH group. While I beleive the CFH group MAY catch more fish than the individual boat owners, I don't beleive it is as high as they claim and if it is, it's because of the head boats and only because of the headboats. This brings up a question. You talk about dividing the CFH portion of the TAC by 1400. I beleive a head boat that fishes 100 people will want a substanily larger share than one who fishes 6 people, and they probably have the historical data to back it up. How does this fit in your figures?

Another thing that comes to mind. With all this talk of providing a service to people unable to afford a boat, who provides the greatest service, the one that charges $100 or less for a days fishing (usually 12 hrs on the TX coast) or one who charges $1200-$1600 for the same service but probably less hours spent? In my opinion, if you can afford 6 pack charters, you can probably afford your own boat. Wouldn't all the smaller charter services stand a chance of shooting themselves in the foot if they end up going head to head against the headboats fighting for a share of what will amount to a reduced TAC for your sector? While there are a limited number of headboats in TX (probably under 20, 4 Galveston, 2 Freeport, at least 5 Port Aransas, and I think at least 3 in S.Padre) the total passenger miles on them are huge and FL has many more headboats. Do you realy want to divide your catch up with them? I guess I need another chart.

Just for the record, I used to carry a 100 ton license. so I am somewhat familiar with the head boat business

[Boboe]

Originally Posted by Day0ne

Another thing that comes to mind. With all this talk of providing a service to people unable to afford a boat, who provides the greatest service, the one that charges $100 or less for a days fishing (usually 12 hrs on the TX coast) or one who charges $1200-$1600 for the same service but probably less hours spent? In my opinion, if you can afford 6 pack charters, you can probably afford your own boat.

Your math isn't correct here. A headboat for 1 person would--let's assume--be $100. A 6-pack for the whole day would be $1600. That's for 6 people, so it's $1600 vs $600, rather than $1600 vs $100.

Also, just because I can afford to spend $400 to go fishing a few times a year (split charter with others), it doesn't mean I can afford to buy my own boat and run it. $800/yr (or even $3200 if I were paying the whole charter twice a year) is less than the cost of boat ownership. If you don't think so, go buy a boat and find out.

[Levelwind]

Originally Posted by Day0ne

One thing I don't see discussed is how the TAC or ACL or what ever it's called this week will be divided up among the CFH group. While I beleive the CFH group MAY catch more fish than the individual boat owners, I don't beleive it is as high as they claim and if it is, it's because of the head boats and only because of the headboats. This brings up a question. You talk about dividing the CFH portion of the TAC by 1400. I beleive a head boat that fishes 100 people will want a substanily larger share than one who fishes 6 people, and they probably have the historical data to back it up. How does this fit in your figures?

Another thing that comes to mind. With all this talk of providing a service to people unable to afford a boat, who provides the greatest service, the one that charges $100 or less for a days fishing (usually 12 hrs on the TX coast) or one who charges $1200-$1600 for the same service but probably less hours spent? In my opinion, if you can afford 6 pack charters, you can probably afford your own boat. Wouldn't all the smaller charter services stand a chance of shooting themselves in the foot if they end up going head to head against the headboats fighting for a share of what will amount to a reduced TAC for your sector? While there are a limited number of headboats in TX (probably under 20, 4 Galveston, 2 Freeport, at least 5 Port Aransas, and I think at least 3 in S.Padre) the total passenger miles on them are huge and FL has many more headboats. Do you realy want to divide your catch up with them? I guess I need another chart.

Just for the record, I used to carry a 100 ton license. so I am somewhat familiar with the head boat business

Agree with Boboe. Very few of my customers charter the boat for one angler. Actually almost none. The bill's usually split at least three, more often four ways.

Your other points are very valid. IF a new sector is implemented, apportionment within will be difficult, and there will probably be winners and losers, to some degree because it's going to be a negotiated process. What we have to prevent is anyone winning too big at others expense or losing too big. If done correctly, and I think it will, the main issue I see is inability to expand for a while. If you have a bad year during the initial data gathering period, well, try not to have a bad year.

You may be correct about the ratios. I've answered Bob Zales with what seems to be a smart arse remark, but is really true. My "data" is just an accumulation of a lot of days on the docks and at the cleaning tables with a sanity check run with MRFSS data with a LOT of assumptions thrown in. The big determinant is not numbers of fish - almost anyone can catch two snapper per day most of the time, it's the size. I'm not exaggerating when I say that most of the top tier charter captains I know can and do (since the limit went to two) bring in fish 3-4 times the average weight of most fish the average private recreational angler brings to the dock. Benefit of a lot of time on the water, networking, knowing what areas are hot and what are not, where the commercial boats have been, etc. as much as fishing skill. Not to mention those guys have sow spots they'll never fish because they have so many.

So I might be wrong. I'm going to be really observant this season and report what I see on the board. My home range (GYB) might be a lot different than your place, so I encourage everyone to do the same. BUT it's about pounds (so far. I think CCA's Nelson may have a good idea converting ACLs to numbers of fish), not numbers.