A unique website dedicated to fishing information from Florida's Northern Big Bend. This includes the area from the Econfina River west to the Apalachicola River
Rhettley wrote:It's my understanding Louisiana has been surveying and are finding the feds best scientific information guesses are way over what LA is finding in actual surveys.
It's not perfect but it's better than what we have with the feds. I'm all for helping the Gulf States get back control of the Gulf and reef fishing. If this helps I'll spend a few minutes signing up and taking a phone or dock survey. It sure can't be any worse that the mess the feds have made.
As for over 65 and vets, if you want your kids and grandkids to fish get involved and change it if you don't like this. Right now it's our best option. I really hope yall participate. As I said, it's a whole lot better than the feds guesses that everyone with a salt water license fishes for reef fish a lot and catches their limit. I'm lucky to get out reef fishing 4 to 6 times a year but I bet the feds have my license pegged as twice that much with a limit every trip.
Well great, I just bought my Lifetime License last year and was thankful that I wouldn't have to remember to renew it each year. Looks I will still have to "remember" to take dang survey every year....
Dubble Trubble wrote:To those Ok with this, do you really think that one little survey is all they will want. Once you register, then later they will decide you need to make a report every time you catch a reef fish.
What good do you think that little survey is going to do to give them info on reef fish numbers caught by recreational anglers?
Remember, government slowly takes our rights in incremental steps. They condition you for the next step. Just wait and see.
Funny how the younger ones on here are already "conditioned" to accept this so easily.
Come on folks, wake up!
Dubble
Or maybe they are well educated and understand what the survey is about. Data, not taking away your rights
I'll tell you what Salty, you keep your education, and you just do not eat any food us old dumb arse farmers produce......Deal?
Dubble
The more I know about something, the more I know that I did not know as much as I thought I knew that I knew.
Ok. Here is some positive news that might bring a smile to recreational reef anglers. The gulf coast states are working on a bill that would allow the "gulf states" (Texas, Louisana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida) to manage red snapper populations in federal waters. This year, a 70 day state water snapper season had been proposed and should be approved at the next commission meeting. If this elongated state water snapper season is any foresight of what's to come, we should be in luck for federal waters if the state governed snapper bill passes. Here is a link from the American Fisheries Society:
Although I applaud the gulf states for entertaining such a bold stance, do any of you think the feds will relinquish control of the cash cow that is the gulf fishery? We all know the gulf council is in bed with the commercial guys, and although I see the need for their existence, I do not agree with the percentages they have been afforded. Not sure how a single state survey would sway the unfavorable perception of the world's worst scourge to the fish population, aka, the rec fisherman, but alas, we will all go sign up for yet another permit to be able to take our place in an ever dwindling sport.....
onefishtwofish wrote:For informational purposes only, we duck hunters have been getting our HIP (one from each state you hunt) from the feds for years. We answer a brief survey and they give us our license. As far as I know, there has been no intrusion on our duck hunting rights or dissemination of the information. For the record the highest number of ducks is 11 and I always laugh when that ask if I killed more than 11. The local tag office girl just checks that now without even asking me.
I don't reef fish and understand the inconvenience is aggravating, but that is probably the only good argument against it. And I know the gubment will mess up the use of the data, but they do that with everything they touch.
Just thought some of ya'll that don't duck hunt would like to know it is no big deal for duck hunting.
That is not really a survey, you answer those questions to get a required HIP permit.
I would agree that since there is no species delineation, the data is not used for much of anything. A fed told me several years ago that all it is used for is to come up with a swag numer of ducks killed. With the highest being 11 plus, it is really a joke to use it for that purpose.
It is a survey, just a small one. The real data is by the voluntary surveys issued by UFWS and they extrapolate from there. But I agree the HIP survey is pretty much useless. Not sure why they make it so worthless, just make more choices. probably because hunter mortality is such a small factor in annual duck populations.
I don't really have an opinion on the Reef Survey.
Ducks, turkeys, flats fishing. Who has time for golf?
Fish Masterson wrote:Although I applaud the gulf states for entertaining such a bold stance, do any of you think the feds will relinquish control of the cash cow that is the gulf fishery? We all know the gulf council is in bed with the commercial guys, and although I see the need for their existence, I do not agree with the percentages they have been afforded. Not sure how a single state survey would sway the unfavorable perception of the world's worst scourge to the fish population, aka, the rec fisherman, but alas, we will all go sign up for yet another permit to be able to take our place in an ever dwindling sport.....
To hopefully clarify what is mentioned, above:
The Gulf States Fishery Agencies announced they are supporting a bill concept that would give them management over Red Snapper in the Gulf. The NOAA feds won't have any say in what happens regarding Red Snapper if Congress passes the bill. Don't know what the chances are of that happening, although lately Congress doesn't seem to agree on much.
onefishtwofish wrote:It is a survey, just a small one. The real data is by the voluntary surveys issued by UFWS and they extrapolate from there. But I agree the HIP survey is pretty much useless. Not sure why they make it so worthless, just make more choices. probably because hunter mortality is such a small factor in annual duck populations.
I don't really have an opinion on the Reef Survey.
Not to be argumentative, but here is the HIP site. They say it is not a survey, instead, it is to gather a list of names to ask for more data from.
In addition, when you sign up for HIP, you will be asked to voluntarily answer several questions about your hunting experience during last year's season. Your answers to these questions are not used to compile harvest estimates, but are simply used to identify what types of birds you usually hunt. This allows the Service to mail its surveys to the appropriate hunters. For example, most surveys about dove harvest are sent to hunters who usually hunt doves, while most waterfowl harvest surveys are sent to hunters who usually hunt ducks and/or geese.
Two fish biologists west defending the survey and were called naive. I called them educated. I apologize if hat hurt anyone's ferlings or if is sounded condescending. I don't apologize for the fact that , in a discussion ,I'm usually going to take the side of the guy formally educated on the subject
Catholic girl pray for me, you’re my only hope for heaven
Been reading all the comments from the sidelines and don't remember seeing the point expressed that captures my frustration with the survey. Taken alone I can see how it *possibly* *might* be used for good, though as others have referenced God knows many well intended (and not so well intended) government actions aren't used very well or morph with time to suit other purposes than originally intended and become punitive / financially taxing. But putting all that aside, here's why it bothers me. As someone who enjoys fishing offshore from time to time, it's impossible to see it in isolation.
Instead, I see it as another irksome straw that sometimes almost seem intentionally set upon the recreational fisherman's back to break it. The joke about needing a lawyer aboard to ensure you follow the law seems increasingly true each year and I honestly believe that it's driven some guys on this very board to sell their offshore gear and offshore boats because they just didn't find the pleasure in offshore fishing anymore. I consider myself fairly well educated and more than once I've radioed others for reg check confirmation out of fear of keeping an illegal fish, and more than once I've released fish I subsequently found later I could have kept. You have regulations / season lengths changing mid-year, varying regulations by county borders, special gear requirements, sudden closures, requirement not to stop in state waters on way back in depending on fish aboard, etc, that all add up to an experience that can leave you feeling anxiety that you're likely guilty of something even if you're not.
Not against responsible fishery management but I also believe that in life the K.I.S.S. principle is often the wisest. It sure would be nice to see that be an aim of our government officials -- help responsibly manage resources but in a way that is consistent and easy enough year by year that the recreational fisherman can enjoy his time on the water without feeling like a criminal leaving the dock.
One last thought / concern... with over-regulation there comes a true risk that those who believe in the rule of law avoid the over-regulated activity while those with less scruples just begin to ignore them. Again, having seen some good folks give up offshore pursuits I can't help but wonder if we're not already approaching this point.
"The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank GOD for the United States Marine Corps." Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945
Semi-related observation on ignoring overly-regulated things... bought a dozen or so chairs for our office recently and while putting them together had to pull SEVEN warning stickers off the bottom pad of each chair, including the one that says that per studies in the state of California the chair possibly included carcinogenic materials. No reference as to what material was the carcinogenic one -- wouldn't surprise me if it was the glue for stickers that had to be affixed, but it made me stop and think about how ubiquitous the stickers have become and that for many items you would be hard pressed to find an option that doesn't contain the sticker. Truth time -- how many on this board REALLY fear that sticker and avoid buying anything that has it versus merely throwing it away post-purchase. Because guess what, if we're all throwing it away we're paying extra for our goods just to throw away that sticker. The sticker itself costs money, the adhesive cost money, and the labor to affix it costs money, and you know the manufacturers pass along the costs.
Know I've taken the post on a bit of a tangent, but sharing just to show over-regulate folks and they actually begin tuning out, which is what I bet 99.9% on the board do when they see the California stickers.
"The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank GOD for the United States Marine Corps." Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945
onefishtwofish wrote:It is a survey, just a small one. The real data is by the voluntary surveys issued by UFWS and they extrapolate from there. But I agree the HIP survey is pretty much useless. Not sure why they make it so worthless, just make more choices. probably because hunter mortality is such a small factor in annual duck populations.
I don't really have an opinion on the Reef Survey.
Not to be argumentative, but here is the HIP site. They say it is not a survey, instead, it is to gather a list of names to ask for more data from.
In addition, when you sign up for HIP, you will be asked to voluntarily answer several questions about your hunting experience during last year's season. Your answers to these questions are not used to compile harvest estimates, but are simply used to identify what types of birds you usually hunt. This allows the Service to mail its surveys to the appropriate hunters. For example, most surveys about dove harvest are sent to hunters who usually hunt doves, while most waterfowl harvest surveys are sent to hunters who usually hunt ducks and/or geese.
That is what I just said, without quoting the site. But, in spite of what they said, a series of questions is, in fact, a survey. It is not a "harvest" survey. It is a 'who harvests" survey.
Ducks, turkeys, flats fishing. Who has time for golf?
Salty Gator wrote:Two fish biologists west defending the survey and were called naive. I called them educated. I apologize if hat hurt anyone's ferlings or if is sounded condescending. I don't apologize for the fact that , in a discussion ,I'm usually going to take the side of the guy formally educated on the subject
You have absolutely NO CLUE about my education level or possibly many of the other guys' education levels, on here who don't like this. I never said or implied that the guys weren't educated on BIOLOGY, nor that they were naive about the data. My point was and still is that the data gathered can and HAS BEEN used against us in the past. This is a government agency, and ANY government agency, in my opinion, should ALWAYS be looked at skeptically, and hence trusted rarely!!!
