Red Snapper meeting
Moderators: bman, Chalk, Tom Keels
-
Mister Mullet
- Posts: 396
- Joined: May 29th, 2007, 10:30 am
Red Snapper meeting
Don't forget the FWC meeting on red snapper regulations tomorrow night in Carrabelle. A good turnout of recreational fishermen would be helpful to our case. I personally like the 70-day proposal. Lots of fishing for weekend anglers with jobs.
-
Salty Gator
- Site Sponsor
- Posts: 3437
- Joined: April 17th, 2010, 7:23 pm
- Location: Tallahassee
Re: Red Snapper meeting
I love the idea of a 70 day federal season. A 70 day state season doesn't mean much around here, good for destin though
Catholic girl pray for me, you’re my only hope for heaven
-
crappielimits
- Posts: 254
- Joined: July 11th, 2007, 7:31 pm
Re: Red Snapper meeting
I personally vote for a year round season or just hand out tags. Dang trying to fight the weather and the wife. Snapper are over populated.
Re: Red Snapper meeting
I see it as cynical and self-serving on the part of the FWC. The Florida Gulf Council representatives essentially support: 1) the allocation 2) the population estimates 3) the shortened season for anglers, and have repeatedly voted that way. At the same time, they complain a lot about the accuracy of the harvest data and have sold out Florida seniors and disabled veterans as a way to get tabs on every recreational fisherman in the Gulf, thus securing the big grant to handle the survey in Florida. This also is the gateway to licensing everyone and getting more federal Wallop-Breaux dollars, as with the FWC it has always been about the money: the money they want in their budget.Salty Gator wrote:I love the idea of a 70 day federal season. A 70 day state season doesn't mean much around here, good for destin though
Voting for a longer state season which only partially benefits a limited area in the state solves little or nothing, and it ensures the feds will have a highly limited or no federal season for snapper, as the anticipated state waters harvest will be deducted. It also makes it look like they are standing up to the feds, even though they really are not. I can tell you from personal conversations with FWC technical staff that they still do not believe red snapper are "recovered", and that some of them, at least, are convinced that anglers are "greedy".
Meanwhile, commercial boys are grinning all the way to the bank as they enjoy a virtual lock on their snapper selling dollar. I notice that the fishing shows the FWC sponsors have the participants going into seafood restaurants and ordering fresh gulf fish for their meals. This is after a catch and release day on the water, or maybe keeping one fish "for the table". Meanwhile, commercial season is 365/24, thus satisfying the market while convincing anglers they really don't need to keep fish for themselves, as the restaurant is better at cooking it, anyway.
It's the perfect new age of FWC offshore fishing management in the Gulf. Lots of show, mostly.
As I recently opined, inshore fish management pretty good, offshore pretty awful.
EJ
Re: Red Snapper meeting
It sure seems unfair that recreational fishermen get only a few days if commercial fishermen fish 365/24. Why is that happening?
Re: Red Snapper meeting
It's complicated, and is the subject of intense debate and much opinion.timeout wrote:It sure seems unfair that recreational fishermen get only a few days if commercial fishermen fish 365/24. Why is that happening?
The Federal Magnuson-Stevens Act was passed in 1976, and has been amended since that time. I recommend that you read it if really interested, so you can form your own opinion about it.
The Act did many things, including setting up a management structure for fisheries in federal waters, promoting conservation, and other matters. Existing uses like recreational and commercial fishing were recognized and goals were set to maintain fisheries into the future. One of the management measures was to characterize fisheries like the red snapper fishery, assess the health of the fishery, and assign an "allocation" in a management plan based on historic "use". So, for example, if commercial landings were deemed to constitute 52% of the harvest (I'm making figures up, actuals are slightly different) and recreational 48% then the management plan might allocate those percentages to each "user group". For an abundant resource with generous bag and seasons for everyone this didn't hurt much, but over time when life and fishing patterns changed it did.
So, if the feds determine, as they did with snapper, that the resource was overfished and the harvest needed to be curtailed, then each "sector" had a reduced annual take to reach recovery goals. Commercial harvest has been based on actual counts at the fish house, while recreational has been based on very low confidence access point and phone surveys. Everyone believes that commercial harvests are somewhat undercounted, while recreational estimates are way high. In effect, this meant commercial harvests were rarely shut down for reaching quotas, while recreational limits were reached, more and more frequently before the year was up. Also, there are more anglers fishing offshore than in the past, so less quota fish are being sought by more people. Law suits by some environmental groups have pressured the feds to seek stronger "recovery" goals for fisheries, which the lawsuits claim the feds have not enforced. One effect of this is to have overall harvest smaller and recovery goals more stringent. This equals more fish seen on the water (like red snapper) and yet smaller bag and seasons for anglers. However, commercials keep fishing and fresh fish are available for purchase at the fish house or restaurant while anglers are almost completely shut out of fishing for themselves.
So, recreational bag and seasons have gotten reduced to virtually nothing, since the percent allocated to each "sector" has stayed just about frozen in time. Anglers argue that commercial fishing shouldn't be allowed to continue if there is not enough for individual harvest, but this argument doesn't convince the feds, since they think their mandate is different, and that Aunt Suzie in Iowa should be able to eat fresh red snapper from a federal fishery.
That's a pretty long winded explanation for the mess, and I bet I screwed up something in my monologue, but that is what I think it is.
EJ
-
silverking
- Site Sponsor
- Posts: 5113
- Joined: June 29th, 2003, 6:31 pm
- Location: Panhandler
Re: Red Snapper meeting
Gulf States Unveil Solution to Red Snapper Management
. Sportfishing and boating community welcomes state-based management approach
Washington, D.C. – March 13, 2015 – In a move long-awaited by the recreational fishing and boating community, the directors of the state fish and wildlife agencies from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas announced an agreement for state-based management of Gulf of Mexico red snapper, which in recent years has experienced increasing privatization of this public resource and decreasing recreational fishing opportunities. The announcement was greeted with strong enthusiasm from the recreational fishing and boating community, which has supported greater state control of Gulf red snapper.
“Throughout the country, states have proven to be highly successful at fish and wildlife management in a way that conserves natural resources while allowing for reasonable public access,” said Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Coastal Conservation. “The Gulf states are among the nation’s leaders in marine fisheries management, which is why we have continued to look to them as the vehicle for managing Gulf red snapper going forward to get us out of the current mess created by federal mismanagement.”
Gulf of Mexico red snapper is presently managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, under the National Marine Fisheries Service. The states’ agreement, which is predicated on transferring management authority away from the Council, describes the key elements of a plan in which the Gulf states would coordinate management of red snapper throughout the Gulf of Mexico through the proposed Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority.
“Coordinated management among the states is the only solution to an unaccountable federal system of fisheries management,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane. “Faced with an untenable situation, the states have risen to the challenge and collectively identified a clear path to a more balanced fishery.”
Under this management structure, each state would have authority to manage red snapper out to 200 miles off its coastline. Each state would be responsible for developing and implementing a red snapper management plan for its waters, which would be approved by the rest of the states.
“We have long pushed for the states to take over Gulf red snapper, but until now, we haven’t had a detailed plan for what state-based management would look like,” said Patrick Murray, president of Coastal Conservation Association. “Under this approach, we are confident that management outcomes will begin to align with the health of the resource and anglers’ access to it.”
“Gulf red snapper is incredibly important to the economy of coastal communities throughout the Gulf of Mexico region, and attracts anglers from all across the country,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “It’s abundantly clear that the states are best equipped to manage this valuable fishery. It’s time we give them that opportunity.”
-end-
Washington, D.C. – March 13, 2015 – In a move long-awaited by the recreational fishing and boating community, the directors of the state fish and wildlife agencies from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas announced an agreement for state-based management of Gulf of Mexico red snapper, which in recent years has experienced increasing privatization of this public resource and decreasing recreational fishing opportunities. The announcement was greeted with strong enthusiasm from the recreational fishing and boating community, which has supported greater state control of Gulf red snapper.
“Throughout the country, states have proven to be highly successful at fish and wildlife management in a way that conserves natural resources while allowing for reasonable public access,” said Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Coastal Conservation. “The Gulf states are among the nation’s leaders in marine fisheries management, which is why we have continued to look to them as the vehicle for managing Gulf red snapper going forward to get us out of the current mess created by federal mismanagement.”
Gulf of Mexico red snapper is presently managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, under the National Marine Fisheries Service. The states’ agreement, which is predicated on transferring management authority away from the Council, describes the key elements of a plan in which the Gulf states would coordinate management of red snapper throughout the Gulf of Mexico through the proposed Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority.
“Coordinated management among the states is the only solution to an unaccountable federal system of fisheries management,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane. “Faced with an untenable situation, the states have risen to the challenge and collectively identified a clear path to a more balanced fishery.”
Under this management structure, each state would have authority to manage red snapper out to 200 miles off its coastline. Each state would be responsible for developing and implementing a red snapper management plan for its waters, which would be approved by the rest of the states.
“We have long pushed for the states to take over Gulf red snapper, but until now, we haven’t had a detailed plan for what state-based management would look like,” said Patrick Murray, president of Coastal Conservation Association. “Under this approach, we are confident that management outcomes will begin to align with the health of the resource and anglers’ access to it.”
“Gulf red snapper is incredibly important to the economy of coastal communities throughout the Gulf of Mexico region, and attracts anglers from all across the country,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “It’s abundantly clear that the states are best equipped to manage this valuable fishery. It’s time we give them that opportunity.”
-end-
Re: Red Snapper meeting
Interesting idea, and I suppose it is modeled after the striped bass act, which helped recover the fishery on the east coast. I was an Atlantic States Commissioner that handled this challenge. I wrote "suppose" because the circumstances are different. In the case of striped bass it was necessary because state management had failed, not federal management. And, as far as I know, the states agreeing on principle does not change a federal law.
Did I miss passage of Magnuson Act amendments? These days, the congress can't agree on recognizing Mother's Day.
Hope the concept has more legs than a press release.
Did I miss passage of Magnuson Act amendments? These days, the congress can't agree on recognizing Mother's Day.
Hope the concept has more legs than a press release.
-
Steve Sutton
- Posts: 29
- Joined: January 15th, 2015, 9:36 pm
Re: Red Snapper meeting
While many would never agree with this.....and to a degree I don't.....this line...
"That's a pretty long winded explanation for the mess, and I bet I screwed up something in my monologue, but that is what I think it is".
makes things makes abit more sense t me regarding fish like Red Snapper......never thought about it beyond the "ME" and how closures effected "me" personally.....
Makes it one of those "think Globally not Locally" things.....galling to "locals" for sure but it isn't, and shouldn't, always be just about "me".....
Before someone lops my head off I'm not saying the Fed's did this right and that it's "fair" just that the explanation that included that quote explains the issue(s) far more "understandable" and I appreciate having read it....
Steve
"That's a pretty long winded explanation for the mess, and I bet I screwed up something in my monologue, but that is what I think it is".
makes things makes abit more sense t me regarding fish like Red Snapper......never thought about it beyond the "ME" and how closures effected "me" personally.....
Makes it one of those "think Globally not Locally" things.....galling to "locals" for sure but it isn't, and shouldn't, always be just about "me".....
Before someone lops my head off I'm not saying the Fed's did this right and that it's "fair" just that the explanation that included that quote explains the issue(s) far more "understandable" and I appreciate having read it....
Steve
Re: Red Snapper meeting
Like most issues in natural resource management, what seems fair depends on your (and my own) point of view. In my own world of comparison, I ask folks to remember how other wildlife and fish are managed in the U.S.
Long ago, the decision was made to phase out and eventually almost eliminate commercial harvest of most wild game and fresh water fish species. These days, we think of this as "normal", but at one time it was not. Wild ducks, quail, dove, fresh water fish such as black bass, and deer were captured and sold commercially. Most of us would think the idea of a commercial harvest of wild ducks today as basically nuts, but we think commercial fishing for wild fish where there is a limited fishery (such as red snapper, gag grouper, cobia, amberjack, etc.) as "different", somehow. So commercial guys have us convinced that they are harvesting cobia for Aunt Minnie in Iowa since she can't afford to come down and go out on a boat for herself. Cute, but if that is a valid argument, then the same goes for deer, hog, duck, and the rest. I personally don't own a deer rifle or have a hunting lease, but I am not able to buy deer hunted by Billy the deer hunter and sold to me just because I don't want to make the personal effort to hunt deer myself. This old argument for continuing commercial wild game and fish hunting/fishing just doesn't fly, IMO, unless there is a surplus, or the resource is so far out of reach or so hard to capture that it makes economic sense. For example, I am not complaining about commercial boats off Alaska trapping king crab and selling them, because circumstances for "sport fishing" for wild Alaskan King Crab are pretty extreme, and anglers in Alaska are not complaining they aren't able to fish privately for crab because of a limited season.
Of course, the situation in the Gulf of Mexico is entirely different. Individuals are limited to a few days and a few fish.
I believe we have already reached the tipping point where most commercial fishing for wild gulf fish needs to be phased out.
EJ
Whoa, I almost fell off that soapbox!
Long ago, the decision was made to phase out and eventually almost eliminate commercial harvest of most wild game and fresh water fish species. These days, we think of this as "normal", but at one time it was not. Wild ducks, quail, dove, fresh water fish such as black bass, and deer were captured and sold commercially. Most of us would think the idea of a commercial harvest of wild ducks today as basically nuts, but we think commercial fishing for wild fish where there is a limited fishery (such as red snapper, gag grouper, cobia, amberjack, etc.) as "different", somehow. So commercial guys have us convinced that they are harvesting cobia for Aunt Minnie in Iowa since she can't afford to come down and go out on a boat for herself. Cute, but if that is a valid argument, then the same goes for deer, hog, duck, and the rest. I personally don't own a deer rifle or have a hunting lease, but I am not able to buy deer hunted by Billy the deer hunter and sold to me just because I don't want to make the personal effort to hunt deer myself. This old argument for continuing commercial wild game and fish hunting/fishing just doesn't fly, IMO, unless there is a surplus, or the resource is so far out of reach or so hard to capture that it makes economic sense. For example, I am not complaining about commercial boats off Alaska trapping king crab and selling them, because circumstances for "sport fishing" for wild Alaskan King Crab are pretty extreme, and anglers in Alaska are not complaining they aren't able to fish privately for crab because of a limited season.
Of course, the situation in the Gulf of Mexico is entirely different. Individuals are limited to a few days and a few fish.
I believe we have already reached the tipping point where most commercial fishing for wild gulf fish needs to be phased out.
EJ
Whoa, I almost fell off that soapbox!
Re: Red Snapper meeting
Mr. EddieJoe, all of your points are well made. I now believe there shouldn't be fishing for profit when sportsmen can not fish for recreation and keep some of their catch for dinner.
-
Dixiewreckd
- Posts: 36
- Joined: September 5th, 2012, 10:44 am
Re: Red Snapper meeting
I love EddieJoe opinion. That is an excellent, well thought out point/Idea.
-
crappielimits
- Posts: 254
- Joined: July 11th, 2007, 7:31 pm
Re: Red Snapper meeting
Tags solve the problem. I 100% agree with the abolishment of commercial fishing. These guys have more hooks on one line than 10 recreational fisherman keep fish all year.
Re: Red Snapper meeting
On tags, be real careful,what you wish for.crappielimits wrote:Tags solve the problem. I 100% agree with the abolishment of commercial fishing. These guys have more hooks on one line than 10 recreational fisherman keep fish all year.
The Feds and some others like tags as a means to implement catch shares, which would be a system where the harvest would somehow be divided up among the U.S. Population. I suppose everyone might be allocated a fraction of a fish and then to go fishing for yourself you would need to buy out other shares on a market. Sort of like lobster tags for commercials in the keys.
It kind of sounds interesting over a beer but then the idea sinks in as it might apply to all other fish and wildlife. Want to hunt deer, hog, squirrel, ducks, etc? Gotta buy up, first.
EJ