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
Red fish was taken from the commercial fishing industry in 1985. It impacted my families income by about 40% at that time. If the stocks have come back which they have I think a daily bag limit of fourty fish commercialy for a few months a year would be exceptable for harvesting from the stocks with little impact. JMHO
FORTY reds a day for "a few months a year" (read: nine)... that's gotta be a sick joke
Now I'm scared that these commercial guys are whispering in the FWCC's ear
I've caught about 65 reds in my entire life and I have kept a total of one (for a tourney). I treasure red fish, I think that they are strong, smart, adaptable fish and they get my respect as an angler. I am greatful for each one that I have boated. I considered each fight a unique, challenging and exciting outdoors experience. I have spent thousands on recreational fishing over a number of years.
I can't believe that there are people out there who want to net up 40 of these fish per day and sell the meat at ____ cents per pound.
Some do use hook and line. It's just that the lines are five miles long. It's called long lining, and is done just out of legal limit lines. Mostly Japan, and Russian from what I understand.
After 48 years, I finally made my first trip to the Aucilla.
And, I caught my very first red fish. In fact, we caught many of them!
I had only one keeper, and we ate it last night.
I sympathize w/ commercial fishermen, but you gotta figure that there just aren't enough reds to go around. After all, it took me 48 years to catch the 1st one!
Where are the trout?
The language used :"would be exceptable" in the text as this means that it is Unacceptable. "Exceptable" is not even a word. If he meant it as he has stated, he is defeating his own purpose.
As you know, should he used the word "acceptable", then I agree with the rest of the turkey hunters as this practice would be, in my opinion, Unacceptable.
See, 6 years in a Tennesse University and my degree is paying off!
Dale, you must be in politics. Seems I've heard that kind of talk somewhere before. Maybe from someone from Arkansas. I almost take acception to that kind of talk.
Whoever wrote this said his family income was impacted by 40%. That's a lot. I would think he isn't looking for a few redfish.
When I fead this I thought of the net ban. I had several confrontations with commercial fishermen after the net ban was implimented. Some of them were totally dependant on netting for an income. What came to light in these confrontations was they had no idea what impact netting had on the environment, nor did they care. Netting was all they knew. Most of them are still bitter, and still don't understand the need for the net ban.
I think this guy is probably bitter because he can no longer net the reds.
TC, I have a few of those folks in my family. Four generations of comercial fishermen in my line. Then one day they were told to stop it, it was against the law to net fish. The State did give them a good offer-10 cents on the dollar for all their equipment. I understand how they can be bitter. I also call myself a conservationist to a certain degree. I can see the impact the nets had on the fish population in general, not just Reds, or Mullet, but all fish populations.
The conflict between Recreational and Commercial Fishermen, is a World-wide issue.
It is being debated in the UK and Australasia mainly, but in parts of Europe also.
The economic revenue from Recreational angling, far outweighs that from Commercial fishing.
It is far easier to control size and catch limits with Recreationals and there are fewer "bycatch" problems.
So Recreational angling is "conservation friendly".
Aquaculture is the future of putting fish in the markets and on restaurant tables.
This does not just mean fish in farms.
It also means areas of the ocean set aside for managed Commercial fishing, as already exists off the North East coast of Canada, Iceland and Norway.
Governments should pay commercial fishermen realistic compensation and ensure that retraining facilities were available for them to start new careers, or businesses.
It may be hard for a generation, but things have to change.
My Grandfather earned a living as a Ploughman and had three horses.
He never did learn to drive a tractor.
tin can wrote: Some of them were totally dependant on netting for an income. What came to light in these confrontations was they had no idea what impact netting had on the environment, nor did they care. Netting was all they knew. Most of them are still bitter, and still don't understand the need for the net ban.
You hit the nail on the head right there, John. I can see where the commercial netters were angry when the State of Florida stepped in and said they couldn't do it anymore. I wouldn't be a happy man if my income was taken away from me and I didn't know any other skill than that. To the netters, they were making a living like the rest of us do.
I can sympathize somewhat for their position on the matter.
I have been a recreational fisherman since I was a kid and I have seen the fishing go from great to poor and go back to great again. I agree that the Net Ban was a good thing. You can only take and take from a resource for so long before it is gone.
