Purchase Power

[silverking]

I appreciate many of the comments/insights on this and the other forum. I do empathize with the small time commercial operators who were making a living off the sea and respected the resource before the net ban. Unfortunately, they were in the minority and the industry as a whole failed to adapt and change with the times. The same thing happened with steel workers, family farms and it's happening with brick and mortar retail operations right now.

As far as some of the arguments against my call for a boycott, I'm still perplexed about what is righteous from profiting off recreational anglers and yet using those proceeds to fight against a necessary conservation measure that benefits those very same anglers, the resource, commercial harvesters and ultimately the bottom line.

RFC and his allies didn't consider the local jobs they were impacting or could impact again with netting or eroding the provisions of the amendment by increasing mesh size. And that's the ultimate goal. They want a three-inch or larger mesh to "protect the baby fish" when in reality that is a gill and entanglement net. They also fail to take into account the jobs of outboard mechanics, cooks at local restaurants, housekeepers at motels, rental property managers and grocery store clerks that have jobs due to the sport-fishing and eco-tourism industries, let alone fishing guides, boat dealerships, marina operators and yes, even outdoor writers.

Am I passionate about this? Yes I am. I did not make this post lightly. But I would do it again in a heartbeat if it opened the eyes of just a couple more consumers about the issue and its consequences.

[MudDucker]

I worry about boycotting due to politics small businesses. On the other hand, I'm all for boycotting big businesses that push politics, because they have so much economic clout. I know that Crum and Lovel (Spring Creek Restaurant) have both been vocal about the net ban. Crum doesn't hide behind a separate entity and instead acts in his own name. These two grew up where that was a bigger part of the locals economy than sport fishermen. I also watched the mackerel stocks I grew up enjoying were decimated by net fishing. I wish there was a way for them to target mullet without the by catch.

Mr. Crum has always been very cordial and helpful to me. Knowing his history, I doubt I'll stop shopping there.

Just curious, why do you boycott big business that push politics, but not a small business. Seems to me the money that you spend in a small business would more directly go to the politics you don’t agree with. What percent of the money spent at dicks goes to “fighting “ the second amendment vs what percent you spend at Crums goes to lawyers to fight the net ban? Dicks just stopped selling ar’s, hi cap mags and to people under 21. That’s it . Not paying lobbyists or layers to do anything. Crum is spending money made off of us to fight the net ban...If business want to get politics involved, then they have to live with the consequences of upsetting people that don’t agree. Mr Crum is free to spend his money anyway he likes, as do we. I chose not to spend mine where the profits go against what I believe

Big business has a much bigger presence in the media. Crum and most small businesses have little or no media presence and are generally not grandstanding. Crum is not out there as Crum's Minimall, he is out there as an individual fighting for something that changed the way of life for his family and friends.

Also, I don't think ANY executive or publicly traded company has the right to take political sides to the determent of the shareholders, many of whom disagree with the positions taken. In fact, if I were a shareholder of Dick's or Starbucks, I would probably start a class action lawsuit against the idiots in control.

[Pirate]

Would I give my money to a person who was going to use my money to take away one of the things that have meant so much to my family their entire life. The answer is no.

[procraftwes]

Pretty clear you are the only one taking issue with it.

He might not be the only one taking issue with it, but currently he is the only one posting about it here.

X2 I try not to make a habit of arguing with old men.

“A fool is made more of a fool, when their mouth is more open than their mind.” ...

[MudDucker]

X2 I try not to make a habit of arguing with old men.

“A fool is made more of a fool, when their mouth is more open than their mind.” ...

Smart move. Most of us OLD men were educated back in the day when it was real education and not indoctrination. The fool is the person who fails to recognize the wisdom of age. I have watched many a young man's ideas change as they fully experience life and the school of hard knocks. I too was once a young man full of piss and vinegar who thought old farts didn't know squat. Now reflecting back, those old men's wisdom far exceeded my education and opinions.

[Redfin]

Now reflecting back, those old men's wisdom far exceeded my education and opinions.

So unless you're over 65 and collecting medicaid, opinions and education don't matter. Ok. Maybe for you, but I chose to get educated way sooner rather than waiting and having someone on retirement tell me what I should think. Sorry you feel someone over 45 shouldn't be "entitled" to their opinion. You must lead a fun and enriching life.

I too was once a young man full of piss and vinegar

So you were borderline a douche bag? Not following?

[MudDucker]

Now reflecting back, those old men's wisdom far exceeded my education and opinions.

So unless you're over 65 and collecting medicaid, opinions and education don't matter. Ok. Maybe for you, but I chose to get educated way sooner rather than waiting and having someone on retirement tell me what I should think. Sorry you feel someone over 45 shouldn't be "entitled" to their opinion. You must lead a fun and enriching life.

I too was once a young man full of piss and vinegar

So you were borderline a douche bag? Not following?

I'm not over 65 and I suspect I am far more educated than you. Education does not equal wisdom. Today's indoctrination does not equal education. As Lewis Grizzard liked to say ... many are educated beyond their intelligence.

I didn't say you weren't entitled to your opinion. Opinions are like anal orifices, we all have one and some are smellier than others.

As for douche bag, I am not a stupid kid who doesn't know my biological sex assignment, which excludes the use of a douche bag.

[doomtrpr_z71]

Now reflecting back, those old men's wisdom far exceeded my education and opinions.

So unless you're over 65 and collecting medicaid, opinions and education don't matter. Ok. Maybe for you, but I chose to get educated way sooner rather than waiting and having someone on retirement tell me what I should think. Sorry you feel someone over 45 shouldn't be "entitled" to their opinion. You must lead a fun and enriching life.

I too was once a young man full of piss and vinegar

So you were borderline a douche bag? Not following?

I'm not over 65 and I suspect I am far more educated than you. Education does not equal wisdom. Today's indoctrination does not equal education. As Lewis Grizzard liked to say ... many are educated beyond their intelligence.

I didn't say you weren't entitled to your opinion. Opinions are like anal orifices, we all have one and some are smellier than others.

As for douche bag, I am not a stupid kid who doesn't know my biological sex assignment, which excludes the use of a douche bag.

Reminds me of another quote

A man who has not been a socialist before 25 has no heart. If he remains one after 25 he has no head. Even with a PhD I'd also agree there are a lot of people educated beyond their intelligence. My two cents on the lawsuit is that its pointless as it reads to me as a way to try and get restitution for lost income from the netting ban, I don't see it being upheld. Crums has always been an okay store to me, not some great institution so I can't stop shopping somewhere I never went anyway, my wife has bought more trinkets from them than I have fishing equipment.

[crappielimits]

Maybe the CCA should be questioned? I'm all for conservation. Though I have see the benefits of conservation decisions to support them. I definitely wouldn't support a political group pushing me on how to spend my money. With that said, I have to ask where the proof is that the net ban has improved the fishery. How many of you fished before the net ban? I know my experience was much more fish available but definitely fewer fisherman. I agree with limiting the nets don't get me wrong, but if the enforcement was better even with the nets I don't feel sports fish would be hurt. The lack of any regulations on commercial fishing is a huge problem and make no mistake it has a heavy political following. How do other states manage their nets and commercial fishing? Why is it that the fisheries to the west get more pressure but still produce better fishing? Is it possible there are other issues in Florida? We are losing habitat and it's worse in some areas but across the gulf of Florida. What are the issues causing it and how can we fix it? Just asking questions to stir the entire conversation.

[Pirate]

Did you fish much before the net ban? I did and there is a daylight and dark difference since nets were ban in the areas I fish and have for a long time. We almost got turned off to inshore fishing it got so bad. I'm sure some of the folks that are a lot more involved in the
research have all the proof you might want but to me it would be an insult to their intelligence to even bother to respond to it.

[doomtrpr_z71]

[MudDucker]

Did you fish much before the net ban? I did and there is a daylight and dark difference since nets were ban in the areas I fish and have for a long time. We almost got turned off to inshore fishing it got so bad. I'm sure some of the folks that are a lot more involved in the
research have all the proof you might want but to me it would be an insult to their intelligence to even bother to respond to it.

For over 40 years prior to the netban. The biggest hit to the population I saw was to mackerel, which were nearly whipped out. I actually caught way more redfish and trout back in those days, but I did know where the netters couldn't go. The only time a netter really screwed up my fishing was when one guy with a boat and a net whipped out a huge trout school out of Keaton Beach. Even Shorty was ticked off about that one.

We pushed for game fish status for trout and redfish to end netting of those. Since I had the pleasure of fishing with a Florida governor several times, he told me that the commercial fishing folks paid out big money in lobbying.

[crappielimits]

I absolutely caught more fish before net ban. I'm not sure where those numbers came from or how they were compiled. What I can tell you is that trout were much more prevalent before the ban and actually decreased for a while some years after nets were banned. Also have noticed a decline in trout numbers and quality since the opening the winter months to anglers. Commercial fishermen allowed 75 sea trout a day and 150 a boat? How's this make sense? I'm just saying a lot of factors to look at and be careful with political parties involved in fishing or hunting with their own agendas. Fisherman letting organizations speak for them is why sport fishermen keep getting less while commercial fishermen get more.

It has always been a pleasure to stop in at Crums and I see nothing wrong with a person fighting for what he believes or having a different opinion than me.

[doomtrpr_z71]

If you wish to read the whole report https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... s/download