BigBendFishing.Net

A book worth reading on a number of levels is COD by Mark Kurlansky. It will enlighten anyone about numerous aspects of the importance of fish in society.

Salty Gator wrote:

wevans wrote:You wanna pull some other BS outta yer a$$ MM, ta go with this!!! I'm through with this thread. It's more than obvious that most just don't want to share the ocean with anyone besides their fellow recs., 'who outnumber the coms. by the thousands and kill more fish the the mullet fishers even think about"!!!!!

There is so much wrong with this statement, I don't know where to start. I'd love to know where you get you data that recs kill more fish that commercials. You are so wrong it is comical. Many more dollars go to the community for every fish I harvest vs what a commercial fisherman gets. I spend hundreds of dollars( gas, tackle, bait, ice, food, drinks, launch fees, etc) for every fish I harvest( I probably keep one out of every 10 slot fish I catch). Every dime of the money I spend is local. And I mean wakulla and Franklin county local( except the tackle I get at Kevin's). And there are many more like me. Without the possibility of getting a few fish, most will stop going and spending their money at places like Lanark market and Angie's ( no more Crums for me).

Alright, I'll post once more Data on recs killing fish "aint seen no data on netters killing fish neither", I figure there are 1000 to 2000 mullet fishers and there are millions of rec fishers. Now I aint foolish enuff to think that every fish that recs release is gonna live! SO, you compare one fish per rec angler dieing for one reason or another per trip, compared to maybe 100 per net fisher and I figure that the rec fishers are PROBABLY killing more fish than the netters!!! " I spend hundreds of dollars( gas, tackle, bait, ice, food, drinks, launch fees, etc) " SO DO THE NET FISHERS!! No more Crum's, why not AMS also "they gotta by nets from someone ya know, why not the other stores and gas stations "they gotta by fuel and food ya know! Y'all keep talking about going back to the way it was "never gonna happen", the net fishers have learned to fish with the 500 squares that the law allows and can live with that "only the big boys in netting want their huge nets back in play". The only thing affected by the judges ruling is the size of the MESH, not the size of the net!!! And Mister Mullet, show me ANYTHING "besides yer active imagination" that shows that there are netters coming from out of state or anywhere else to decimate our fisheries due to this ruling!!!!!!!
Peace out y'all

Salty Gator wrote:

reelbad wrote:I remember going to the seinyard ( NOT THE RESTAURANT ) in Panacea years ago when you could buy roe mullet right on the beach. I don't recall seeing trout or reds being pulled up on the beach by the hundreds. I have also fished with Jonas Porter and WT Marks of Marks Roofing Co. many a night at Goose Pasture and have had hundreds of pounds of mullet in the bottom of the boat and not one red or trout. I am not sure what to think about the net limits , size or any of the laws on the matter. What I do know is that there should be some way it could be worked out to where all parties involved could come to an agreement. I could see letting the mullet guys fish certain areas at certain times of the year same as the government is letting the recs fish for snapper and grouper at certain places and times of the year. Just a thought, after all we are all neighbors and friends after the same things in life.

I wonder if the reason you didn't see any reds or trout was because there weren't many around then?

Should have seen that response a mile away. I fished for and caught both trout and reds back then as well. Today the difference is your average fisherman is on the water more in a two month period of time than most of us spent in an entire year. Like I said, I am not sure how this is to play out but there has to be options for both sides or we all lose and PETA will take over. That statement is not intended to be funny.

Weavens, it isnt science when you make up the numbers. I per Rec angler vs 200 per netter?? how did you get that? We can all make up numbers to make a point. I really thought it was common knowledge that more dollars came to the state for every fish taken by rec anglers vs commercial. It would be a lot cheaper for me( and less money going to the state) to go buy 4 snapper fillets vs all that it takes to go catch 2 fish ( licence, launch fee, gas, chum, bait, ice, tackle etc)

Again you show yer ineptitude I never claimed anything scientific, did you? I never said that the netters spent more money, nor that the state made more money! You keep saying a lot of words, but never really say anything worthwhile, so maybe you should think about it for a while and then try again

Salty Gator wrote:Weavens, it isnt science when you make up the numbers. I per Rec angler vs 200 per netter?? how did you get that? We can all make up numbers to make a point. I really thought it was common knowledge that more dollars came to the state for every fish taken by rec anglers vs commercial. It would be a lot cheaper for me( and less money going to the state) to go buy 4 snapper fillets vs all that it takes to go catch 2 fish ( licence, launch fee, gas, chum, bait, ice, tackle etc)

There are plenty of data to go around that can demonstrate various justifications for the regulations as they exist, or as someone would like them to be. What we have is a resource allocation that has changed through time for a smaller resource, overall. It comes down to what people think is the best use for the resource, and that is a judgment call. Heck, as someone has already written, it would be far cheaper for most of us simply to buy all of our fish at the store, rather than catch them for ourselves. Likewise, we could have commercial outlets for deer, hog, squirrel, ducks, etc., rather than allowing only personal hunting. But we don't because society has made the decision that commercial hunting is not the best use of the resource.

When those rules changed the commercial hunters were "put out of business", too, but that was the changing times. These things can be tough on hard working folks, but it will continue to happen. I don't think we can have gill nets out there for mullet, even small ones, and that opinion is shared by most Floridians, IMO. The current abundance of mullet and other bait fish is a result of the current net limitations, and it is important to the base of the food web. Yes, anglers do kill non-target and undersized fish during the fishing process, as commercials do when they fish. Follow a shrimp boat some time and see what they throw back dead after a trawl. For now, those things are allowable, but they too might be modified in the future, just like most of the regulations have changed many times already over the years. Just life with an expanding population and a limited resource, and that is not just limited to commercial fishing, by far.

EJ

wevans wrote:Again you show yer ineptitude I never claimed anything scientific, did you? I never said that the netters spent more money, nor that the state made more money! You keep saying a lot of words, but never really say anything worthwhile, so maybe you should think about it for a while and then try again

Idiots, typing slow so we can understand, and ineptitude??? Your insinuation that you are smarter than others that do not share your ideas is becoming insulting. If you are as smart as you think you are you could provide a more convincing argument without making up numbers and name calling

Fellas, this is getting real ugly. For 18 years you commercial mullet fishermen (by the way, this isn't just about mullet...it's gillnets in general) have managed to get by with the restrictions. But someone just had to stir the pot...again, and now we are ALL facing some unintended consequences. We all have our own opinions on what is best, but someone will always be unhappy with the decision. History is full of regulation-by-crisis. Gone are the wild buffalo, carrier pigeons, wild turkeys in many states, flora and fauna that once flourished, and on and on. What the state has done is to protect OUR fisheries before they collapsed. Ask the general sportsmen in states where indiscriminate netting still happens and see if they wouldn't rather have some rational form of control. My guess is that yes, they would. We have that here in Florida. But now that sane management is in danger of being flushed down the drain. I can only speak for myself, but I think gill nets are totally wrong. You can't just say oops to a net full of dead trout, or snook, or redfish and pretend it didn't happen. If you must net, use one that doesn't kill, something like a seine or cast net. And if that won't work, maybe it just time to change jobs. I don't want YOU killing MY share of the fish...especially just to make a dollar.

Salty Gator wrote:

wevans wrote:Again you show yer ineptitude I never claimed anything scientific, did you? I never said that the netters spent more money, nor that the state made more money! You keep saying a lot of words, but never really say anything worthwhile, so maybe you should think about it for a while and then try again

Idiots, typing slow so we can understand, and ineptitude??? Your insinuation that you are smarter than others that do not share your ideas is becoming insulting. If you are as smart as you think you are you could provide a more convincing argument without making up numbers and name calling

TO QUOTE ANOTHER MEMBER ON THIS TOPIC

sometimes the truth hurts. Get over it.

And no, I am not smarter than others, maybe more intelligent, but not smarter

wevans wrote:

Salty Gator wrote:

wevans wrote:Again you show yer ineptitude I never claimed anything scientific, did you? I never said that the netters spent more money, nor that the state made more money! You keep saying a lot of words, but never really say anything worthwhile, so maybe you should think about it for a while and then try again

Idiots, typing slow so we can understand, and ineptitude??? Your insinuation that you are smarter than others that do not share your ideas is becoming insulting. If you are as smart as you think you are you could provide a more convincing argument without making up numbers and name calling

TO QUOTE ANOTHER MEMBER ON THIS TOPIC

sometimes the truth hurts. Get over it.

And no, I am not smarter than others, maybe more intelligent, but not smarter

Being intelligent is like being good looking. If you have to tell people you are, you are probably not.

OK.
That does it.
I am locking this tirade.

Wevens...buddy I don't think they understand us and we don't understand them

I'm really locking it... No need to call names.

this is a complicated situation and fear is at work on both sides.
Fear that jobs are taken away and Fear that a resource is going to be depleted.

I'll hope calmer heads can come together on this.