# FYI



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

This is from CCA's Lateral Lines E-Newsletter, April 2009. In all fairness, I thought I would post it for those that don't get it.

Red Snapper Proposal Making Waves
Tag proposal for troubled red snapper fishery sparks healthy debate








​An innovative proposal for managing the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery is making waves in the saltwater recreational angling community. The idea has been hailed by some as a fresh new approach to the federal red snapper management debacle in the Gulf, which has been a dismal failure for more than 30 years. It has been reviled by others who apparently don't understand that the primary intent of the proposal was to challenge and change a failed management paradigm, and to demonstrate that there are alternatives to the same broken strategies that threaten continued recreational angler participation in the snapper fishery.
The tag proposal, which can be viewed *HERE*, is designed to spark debate on what to do with a fishery that has resisted improvement under every management regime since the mid-1980s. We face an unappealing landscape that spurred the need to move in a completely different direction on red snapper management. We need a system that allows recreational anglers to have fair and equal access to this fishery. And that won't come easy. 
The tag proposal takes a completely fresh approach to management of red snapper, one that is based wholly on the free-market system rather than an outdated sector allocation system. It relieves the federal government from managing recreational anglers, something that it has never shown itself capable of doing. 
In the end, as it says in the document itself, the proposal is a "discussion document" - a concept for debate. The document describes some of the downsides and problems in the concept, but it has strategic value and is clearly meeting the goal of stimulating fresh thought. The introduction of this document has opened a debate at the Gulf Council for the first time ever on Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) programs that don't just give the resource to the commercial sector but could distribute it to everyone in an open-market forum. 
This tag proposal may not be the final approach to red snapper management, but it is the only proposal yet aired that could level the playing field on IFQs and give recreational fishermen a chance to access the 51 percent commercial allocation. Whatever the final approach may be, it is certain that no other management measure adopted by the Council and NMFS has worked for recreational anglers.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

For starters, not only is that inaccurate, it's conceited.



> It relieves the federal government from managing recreational anglers, something that it has never shown itself capable of doing.


It will snow here in July before the feds get out of this. It's a huge federal program and there's absolutely no way they are getting out. Millions of dollars have already been spent on this issue and millions more are going to be spent.



> It has been reviled by others who apparently don't understand that the primary intent of the proposal was to challenge and change a failed management paradigm, and to demonstrate that there are alternatives to the same broken strategies that threaten continued recreational angler participation in the snapper fishery.


I am sure CCA has a vodoo doll of me they stick pins in every time I post something about them. An entire AP was formed to come up with new ideas and each and every idea they came up with was shot down by the feds. See my first quote. That's why.



> We need a system that allows recreational anglers to have fair and equal access to this fishery


one of the proposals the AP considered and sent up would have divided the Gulf into regions for management. In fact, that's been suggested for years by a large number of different groups.



> The introduction of this document has opened a debate at the Gulf Council


Like I posted before, it does NOT matter how the proposal gets on the table, once it's there, it's there for good. Back door, front door, slide it in during a break, it's all the same. Remember how many here refused to believe that CCA actually authored this? Hmm. What's that smell?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Yeah, but the press release sounds real familar. Where have I heard those comments before? Hmmmm. 

Wonder who wrote the press release? Do you think we know him or maybe he reads this board? Does he post here?


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

There is another article "What is Good for the Geese" in this same issue of Lateral Lines that addresses the fed's involvement in all fisheries, and why we might start thinking of managing our fisheries in the same manner as our land based wild resources. 
I'm just putting it out there. I don't agree with your take, but I do respect it.


----------



## Titus Bass (Dec 26, 2008)

CCA has had that same smell for a while......


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

> Do you think we know him or maybe he reads this board?


Are you kidding me? Of course they do.

OUCH! They just stuck my voodoo doll again 

Liz, I will give you an A+ for loyalty. That's worth something these days.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

I say "Bovine Excrement" the CCA has been caught red handed. 


Now how about changing the Law so we can fish before anymore "Ideas" surface from these folks.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

I just love it when somebody spews out an idiotic idea and tries to wash their hands of it by saying "I was only bringing it up for the sake of discussion", or when they insult you and follow up with the well used expression " I am just saying". 

If CCA is so opposed to the "failed" management policies, why are they the very first ones to jump on board whenever fisheries managers suggest closing down fisheries (as with the snapper in the south Atlantic (Georgia,Florida)), or non necessary reductions in recreational seasons and bag limits (see gulf red snapper)? 

The problem with the snapper situation is not a lack of ideas, especially bad ones (as this one most certainly is), so I do not see the benefit of this proposal. The real problem with snapper management is that there are too many douchebags involved, and that includes Crabtree, Pew Trust, Environmental Defense, Ocean Conservancy and CCA. Take these people out of the mix and things get better immediately. 

This proposal is kind of like the electric razor. Sounds different, new and/or fresh. Sounds like a good idea at first. But in reality, and practice, is a complete trainwreck and worthless. 

Since we are only bringing this up for the sake of discussion and such, I have a new proposal. Why don't CCA stay the hell out of the offshore fishery management game. Or at the very least, officially sever all ties with the recreational fishing community (no more star) and come out of the closet as the elitist environmental org that we all know they are. 

Disclaimer: I am just saying this to bring up healthy debate. LOL


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Mr. Smarr, I will say that you are persistent. It appears that the sum of your contribution to anything is to find any and every opportunity to bash CCA. Sometimes you are very careful with your wording and other times you don't hold back, but you are always waiting in the wings. Some wonder why CCA doesn't come on here to defend themselves but I would guess that they know they have absolutely nothing to fear from a dying organization whose Texas representative seems to devote his time to surfing message boards and not working to find a solution to the snapper issue. Oh, there is bovine excrement, but it's coming from another organization.


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> Some wonder why CCA doesn't come on here to defend themselves but I would guess that they know they have absolutely nothing to fear from a dying organization whose Texas representative seems to devote his time to surfing message boards and not working to find a solution to the snapper issue.


Why should they? They have you and Ernest to do their dirty work. You guys remind me of the song "Cripple Creek", by The Band.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Pocboy, you can say want you want about Smarr, but when you do, understand that he has been going to these meetings, hearings, ect., since he had hair and his Mercedes still had paint. He, like myself, does occasionally 'step in it', but unlike CCA, we both will normally concede that point and move on. I met Smarr many years ago at a meeting in Lake Jackson and I would venture a guess that he personally has more hours tied up in this issue than all of CCA put together. His whopping salary of $0.00 per year is what keeps him coming back. Yea right. 

You were saying something about this latest press release from your golden child? Dang, I must have missed it. Again.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Hmm*

If Jim Smarr spent less time worring about what CCA has done and has not done he'd probably still have all his hair. There is a reason why Mr. Smarr is not involved with CCA and it's pretty much the same reason he hasn't accomplished anything with the RFA or the snapper issue. Kinda reminds you of Obama, an ----- with a mouth! G


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

The Law POCBOY the Law POCBOY is the answer. We are working to change it and you aware of that as is CCA. Do not try and water down the only true solution to the Fisheries problem across the board. 

The last great idea was to sue the NMFS over a trumped up 80% bycatch number. NMFS allowed the enviros and cca to win as the NMFS new number was 26% at the time but NMFS did not correct the record for the Judge allowing a case to be decided on false data. Seems like the CCA is in bed with the other side way to much these days. Remember the lawsuit got us where we are today with 2 fish and a 60 day season.

POCBOY thank God Texas Saltwater Anglers and Anglers across the 
Gulf are seeing CCA for what it is. Now even Georgia is revolting on the Hulltruth site
against the shutdown on the Atlantic side of RED SNAPPER Fishing. Guess who is helping push the closure there. It is not the RFA.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I love how the CCA true and blue has yet to make one freaking comment on the CCA press release that Liz posted. Anyone that thinks it's wise to ignore what a large organization can and has done to the snapper issue doesn't understand how this fight works.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Gator- LOL You three seem to be here enough. Don't you two and another have a sword to to go fall on when world figures out what I did about CCA.

New Word for you "MULTITASK".

Below is from someone I admire.


"An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out." ~~ Will Rogers


----------



## tokavi (May 6, 2006)

I normally do not get involved in these little debates but here are a couple of pennies for you Pocoboy.

*Mr. Smarr, I will say that you are persistent.* You respond to almost every thing written about CCA, are you not just as persistent?

*It appears that the sum of your contribution to anything is to find any and every opportunity to bash CCA. Sometimes you are very careful with your wording and other times you don't hold back, but you are always waiting in the wings.* Do you not do the same in your reference to RFA?

*Some wonder why CCA doesn't come on here to defend themselves but I would guess that they know they have absolutely nothing to fear from a dying organization whose Texas representative seems to devote his time to surfing message boards and not working to find a solution to the snapper issue.* As an obvious card carrying member are you not defending CCA and bashing RFA? Are you not sitting at your computer surfing this message board? Are you doing anything to solve the snapper issue?

Maybe you should stop throwing stones from your glass house before you break a window and let the smell of "bovine excrement" out.


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

Mont said:


> I love how the CCA true and blue has yet to make one freaking comment on the CCA press release that Liz posted. Anyone that thinks it's wise to ignore what a large organization can and has done to the snapper issue doesn't understand how this fight works.


I didn't post the article from the Lateral Lines about the Snapper debate so Mr. Smarr could be called out. Like Mont said, loyalty means something. I do have a brain and can think for myself, I'm not blindly following CCA. I have done some independant esearch, and am willing to learn more on this subject, as I would hope any of you reading this would. That is why I posted it. I am genuinely interested in this issue from any and all perspectives. Thanks to this website and this forum, we are able to hopefully learn from each other.


----------



## muzzleloader (May 21, 2004)

The ripple in the water started with one pebble.

My pebble is *NOT *joining the CCA or the STAR tournament this year.

( nor my wife- that's two)

Anybody else voting like me ?

muzzleloader


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*A solution for what?*

The most important issue not being addressed by this proposal is the health of the fishery. From my personal experience, I believe there is absolutely no shortage of red snapper in South Texas, and while I can't speak from experience, it seems others feel that all up the coast, wherever there is suitable structure, snapper are as abundant as ever. If I did believe that the health of the fishery was in danger, I would support even more drastic actions than this, but I honestly don't believe that is the case.

Putting these snapper up for auction to the highest bidder does not address this part of the issue in the least. Why not address this issue by fighting for flexibility in Magnusson? I know Ernest says that that is a fight he doesn't believe is worth it, even though it is the fight that actually does address the issue. He says that he doesn't speak for CCA, but CCA's silence on that proposal leads me to believe that they feel as Ernest does. Am I wrong on that? I would think that CCA has enough weight to help make a difference if they used it to fight to ease restrictions.

If this proposal goes through, and NMFS does ever come to the conclussion that snapper stocks are healthy, will this snapper tags program be abolished? I doubt that. In fact, I am quite confident that if program goes through, we can soon look forward to bidding for tags for all species of offshore fish (and inshore fish as well).

The free market system is a great way to run the country's markets, but not neccessarily the way to allocate a limited public resource. Would public auctions be the best option to distribute food during a massive famine or medication in a pandemic? Undoubtedly some would say yes, but I'd vote against that kind of free market.

This proposal would not address fish populations or habitats, but only put added financial burden on recreational anglers to catch fish that are extremely abundant. Some may say that those tags would be a small fraction compared to what it takes to run 100 miles and catch snapper from their Bertrams or Cabos, but many of us fish offshore on a *much *smaller budget and cannot afford to keep adding tags for this and permits for that. This program would be a smokescreen to take away from what the real issue is.


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

If we are gonna invoke the songs of a great group like The Band on this pablum being put out by cca, I will vote for The Night They (tried to ) Drove Ol Dixie Down !


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

tokavi, I don't believe I've ever bashed rfa and I am only a member of CCA and am obviously not privy to their decision making process. Mr. Smarr is a well known representative of the rfa and is their "voice" in Texas. I have never questioned his dedication to the resource or his previous accomplishments in that regard. I am only commenting on the fact that as a representative of another org, albiet a much smaller one, that he does them no service by constantly engaging in negativity towards CCA. I don't represent CCA as I am just a member who appreciates what they do and sometimes feel it's necessary to defend them when they are being assaulted. Bottom line is perhaps I'm not the only one he is turning off of rfa.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


> Liz, I will give you an A+ for loyalty. That's worth something these days.


Yeah, and there were some loyal folks to the reverend Jim Jones in Guyana as well.


----------



## chad (Sep 7, 2006)

I think the sad thing is that we even need a .org to fight for our fishing rights. I just want to go fishing for crying out loud.

For the record I joined the CCA in the mid 90's for the sole reason of the star tournament. I went to the banquets and spent thousands of dollars on their auctions, well that all stopped a couple of years ago with their ridiculous stance on snapper.

As always everyone puts the cart before the horse...there is no shortage of snapper! Until this is recognized we can all argue all we want and continue to listen to ridiculous ideas of how to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

For the record I know Jim and he fights tirelessly for the fisherman and his rights. Keep up the good work Jim.

I don't have blind faith in anything like pocboy and crew due in CCA. If at some point in the future I feel that RFA has betrayed me and the money that I have donated you will see me bashing them here. So far they have a good track record.

Besides, as long as the wind keeps blowing like it has all the fish are safe anyways.


----------



## CSCHOOLFIELD (Oct 27, 2005)

One must remember that it is cool to drive around with a cca sticker on your truck. I remember when they made a difference as gca and helped with redfish issue and we still reap the benefits today. I feel like if you dont fish wearing a pressed shirt in matching shorts an a flats boat your outta luck. The sad thing is that we fall when divided and that will happen to all of us, because the liberal environmetalists hate us all and are right now playing us against each other. If you want to help take a bunch of kids fishing/hunting. If we all dont do that and recruit to our ranks it will be just like europe, the sport of a few eliteist and future generations will never feel a snapper pull or see a blue crash a bait, ducks cup to the decoys etc. etc. etc.:texasflag


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

As always, follow the money. I dumped CCA back when it was GCCA for the same sort of duplicity that we're experiencing now with snapper. Working in the organization there were folks that wanted real numbers on redfish and it was very do-able. All that needed to be done was to implant hatchery fish with micro tags and provide TPWD techs with readers for their ramp creel checks like what was being done on the West Coast with salmon. Then you would know for sure if populations were fishing or habitat limited. Since commercial netting had been all but completely shut down by legislative action independent of CCA action (it can't lobby) it was well better than even money that ecosystem degradation was the culprit for low populations. With that reality, not knowing that stocking effort was probably wasted money was politically and financially more expedient for the organization. The result was no tags, no readers, no knowledge. Yeah, that's conservation. It's a shame since those efforts and cash could have gone into something way more beneficial to restoring coastal ecosystems. Of course, restoring estuarine inflows, replanting seagrass beds, and the like aren't nearly as sexy as dumping truckloads of fingerlings into bays even if that effort is meaningless. The snapper deal is the same sort of situation. Pander to the largest revenue stream and smile for the photo ops. 

In my experience RFA is at the other end of the efficacy spectrum from CCA. It does exactly what it advertises and the results can be traced right to their doorstep. I was one of the earliest Texas members so I have watched the results for a while. When I first signed up RFA was small enough that I got a personal thank you call from Donofrio and it was an almost entirely an East Coast player consumed with the battle for stripers. It was easy to see that fight moving this way with only a change in target species so I started sending money. At their behest I even contributed to political campaigns in New Jersey for goodness sakes. These days fishermen are enjoying stripers there and it is largely do to RFA efforts. Political action yielded biological results by stifling commercial indulgence from titular managers. All CCA does is line their pockets and claim to have had an impact when in all likelihood they are beneficiaries of other actions and good timing. At least they don't spew that "Putting fish back where they used to be" drivel much anymore.

I'm sure that our loyal CCA friends here enjoy the social activities and networking opportunities that CCA provides. They may even believe that the organization really does increase their probability of a quality fishing trip, but the reality is that any good that is done by the organization is incidental to its actual purpose, financial growth.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Instigater*

So what you are saying is that the stocking program has done nothing for the Redfish population, that CCA has done nothing about freshwater inflow, has done nothing about seagrass restoration and did nothing when it came to banning commercial netting. Did I read that right....by the way hats off to the RFA for handling the Stripper issues on the East Coast, I never new they were a National organization, they do have something in common with CCA after all! Gater


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Mont said:


> For starters, not only is that inaccurate, it's conceited.
> 
> It will snow here in July before the feds get out of this. It's a huge federal program and there's absolutely no way they are getting out. Millions of dollars have already been spent on this issue and millions more are going to be spent.
> 
> ...


Conceited is not quite strong enough... arrogance doesn't even quite cover this. I hope they put out more press releases soon. They are on a roll.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

> They are on a roll.


Unfortunately for us offshore types, it's all been downhill and in bed with the likes of ED and the rest of them that would like to see the GOM turned into a giant petting zoo. When the day comes it's illegal to even fish offshore, I am going to make it a point to be the first one thrown in jail over it. That's where this is heading, and the handwriting is on the wall for those that can see it. Why CCA assumes an indefensible position, and still chooses to defend it, is a mystery to this card carrying member.


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

This is an offer to the other side to help you see the light! NMF says not enough 
Red Snapper in fed. waters. CCA says yeah! Not enough Red Snapper in fed. waters 
& we need our "new outside the box" thinking. I say you are both wrong! I know 
Red Snapper and fished in the 60`s & 70`s and there have never been more than now. Bring cameras and local news people & we will check out how stressed the fed.
Gulf waters reilly are. After our trip lets see how stressed it looks on camera! Rik
P.S. accept this offer (heck of a fishing trip/on camera!)


----------



## BEER4BAIT (Jun 24, 2005)

Rsnap knows snapper, believe that. 

I have watched him work


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

To translate for you gater, the gist of the post was that CCA is a flash over substance organization designed to make money. It has done very well with that business plan. I would prefer that substance is emphasized by the organization(s) that I support. For example, when I send money to an enviro group it's Nature Conservancy and not Greenpeace. That's just my preference. You may like the way CCA likes to take credit for things regardless of the veracity of the claim. It's a bit like Al Gore and the Internet. Al certainly supported other folks' efforts to get it done, but claiming that he invented it was slightly over the top. CCA has made photo op level efforts at a number of coastal environmental issues and they did dump a buttload of sciaenids into bay systems. It's just a shame that they didn't follow that effort with something that would reveal the source of the problem. TPWD should be a bit ashamed too in that they didn't do the follow up and continued to take money for the hatcheries from CCA. Hey, maybe it was all coincidental and a simple effort study never occured to any of those in charge, but that is unlikely. So, whether it's because they were duplicitous or just a bit incompetent is immaterial to me. I want my donations well targeted to get things that I want accomplished done promptly and well. In my estimation CCA is incapable or unwilling to do that. This snapper thing is just another chunk of evidence in a series of same.

Mont, you may have to race me for first arrest.


----------



## aggiemulletboy (May 31, 2006)

Changes in laws having to do with directed fishing, both commercial and recreational, are useless and won't rebuild stocks. Shrimping is the key. Get rid of high juvenile mortality as bycatch in trawls and you will increase recruitment and spawner biomass.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Schools in.......*

WRONG....that was the CCA mantra used in filing their little lawsuit that got us a 2 month season and 2 fish. IT MAY ALSO INTEREST YOU TO KNOW THAT THE JUDGE WAS NOT GIVEN THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE!

Complete crock...KATRINA, FUEL PRICES,ect. The search button is your friend.



aggiemulletboy said:


> Changes in laws having to do with directed fishing, both commercial and recreational, are useless and won't rebuild stocks. Shrimping is the key. Get rid of high juvenile mortality as bycatch in trawls and you will increase recruitment and spawner biomass.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Instigator*

You can use big words to make your point but you don't make much sense...probably because you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Not sure where you get your information but maybe you should do a little more research.

"It's just a shame that they didn't follow that effort with something that would reveal the source of the problem".

What exactly are you talking about in the above statement. Gater


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Instigator don't worry here are some facts for them*

Instigator-

:texasflagI was shocked to hear the Rockport TPWD biologist say to me at a Trout hearing in Victoria that a herd of Red Fish entering a natural coastal pass would out produce the entire hatcheries production for ten years with one spawn as they the wild fish knew what they were doing. There were witnesses to this very public statement. I was for one instance very proud of the TPWD crew out of Rockport for being truthful on a critical issue.
With passes like Cedar Bayou and Vinson's Slough closed by the Basses to benefit the Basses who have been given legendary Conservation status by CCA and TPWD for what. Destroying the best nursery grounds (23,000 acres per recent paid studies)in the USA on San Jose Island. The first fishing license was 50 cents in 1962 and was to be devoted to maintain the Historical Natural Fish Passes. Neither TPWD nor any other group except Save Cedar Bayou inc. has raised the question as we have of opening all passes closed due to an oil spill back in 1979 in Mexico.
It is time we as Saltwater Anglers push for real solutions to fisheries problems. Run the PhD crowd off and use common sense approaches to fisheries management. It is time to give the foundation prostitutes and their PhD's the pink slip. TPWD needs to get on board with the fishing communities not the Feds.
The Texas Great Barrier Reef has been attacked by the FEDS. We are working with TPWD to fill their spots. We have to have new progressive people sitting on Councils and in Federal Fisheries Management positions. We must fight hard to allow the offshore reefing, no we must demand offshore reefing. We need to wake up and vote out the current enviro whackos on the Councils. Recreational Anglers need to pay attention and get involved. You have to stand up and be heard now or the enviro crowd will speak for you. The Governor makes the final appointments to most Commissions and Councils. Make **** sure he knows what a million of us think. CCA is really a very small percentage of Texas Saltwater Anglers.
Let the Governor and TPWD hear you are tired of business as usual. Allowing others to speak for you has gotten us where we are.
 Restoring Historical Passes will improve fishing immediately. Fresh Gulf Saltwater is easy to come by. Fresh Water inflows are a pipe dream. Human upstream populations will always trump fish in the future. Makes good press but opening passes achieves almost the same thing with many more benefits. Without opening the passes fresh water causes blooms in vibiro the flesh eating virus. Remember the incident during the inshore portion of the "POCO" a few years back where the doctor from Houston needlessly died due to a vibro infection. A simple blister from a new wading boot allowed the infection to attack. There again cause and effect was not considered by CCA. Fresh water inflows with closed passes will explode the Vibro virus in our bay systems. Maybe we should restore historical passes to head off Vibro blooms due to floods and dropping salinities during the spring rains much less tropical storms. Dr. Rita Colwell has confirmed my thoughts on "Vibro and Closed Passes". I have her letter on letterhead as she is well respected as the authority for water born diseases in saltwater environments Globally .
I have been questioned as to my knowledge on many issues by the CCA crowd. I am first to say if we do not know everything we need to know we bring the man that wrote the book in as a former President Lyndon Baines Johnson always said if you don't know everything about a subject make sure you have a team on your side that does before you open your mouth for the record. 
I personally have read every piece of data 17 volumes which stacked are much higher than me being the administrative record for red snapper for a lawsuit we brought to shutdown the 18 INCH MINIMUM SIZE Red Snapper slaughter. I found where the Feds changed baselines to make the numbers work. I saw damning emails from many special interest groups. I have all the records marked up and saved for the day we use the data.
During this lawsuit my Attorney was asked to meet with CCA's Bob Hayes and their Attorney a man named Hann at their request at the Water Street Oyster Bar in Corpus Christi. My Attorney was told by Hayes he would meet with Jim Smarr also if my Attorney would stop at "Pets Mart" and get a choke collar and chain. I listened to Hayes baffling BS over dinner. I then asked him if he had read the Administrative record of 17 volumes dealing with the snapper issue or was CCA shooting from the hip again. He replied he had not read the data, but was siding with the FEDs to keep the season open. I asked him if a 200 to one kill ratio destroying millions of fish in Texas was worth keeping Florida and Alabama happy. He did not respond. They left shortly afterwards. The Federal Judge in the case admonished CCA for being on the wrong side of the lawsuit as he thought they were a "Conservation Association". 
I have read the studies on Cedar Bayou and Vinson's Slough some from the period where TPWD had an on site lab many of you saw for a 20 plus year period. B.D. King and Ernest G. Simmons reports talk about the importance of Coastal Passes. One study is 50 plus pages of hard data. I have the studies burned to cd. Lynn Edwards has managed against all odds to spend 500,000 dollars to study the passes. Mrs. Edwards has had her up and downs but is devoted to opening these vital passes. Many have targeted her for ridicule even me but guess what she is still working hard everyday. Never in history has the project been required as much money for studies as it once cost to restore the passes. Bass factor plain and simple.

I have read in detail the reports and plans. The act of closing Vinson's Slough has been classified criminal by two agencies one the Texas GLO via an environmental Attorney and One being a very high placed Law Enforcement person at the Commerce Department, yet the Bass influence has the Feds and State Agencies writing letters saying it would cause damage to a few oysters and some cord grass so the permit should not be issued. Seems thousands of letters of support with only Agencies saying no. This is a good example of why we need to get back in the game and speak as sportsmen and women for our selves. Do not trust that your wishes will be conveyed by everyone you trust to do so. 
The RFA is accustomed to high level attacks from CCA. Walter Fondren even demanded the RFA Board fire me and Jim Donofrio in person at a RFA National Board meeting. He was so upset he had a heart problem as I have been told on leaving the meeting. Well the reason for their being a rift comes from CCA top brass as we tried for years to work with them and were betrayed every single time at State and National Level.
The reason you do not see a lot of press about the RFA is because in Texas most of the sports writers get paid a handsome amount for writing their articles for the Tide or News Releases. When we have held fundraisers people have been told if they donated anything to us they would be " black balled" by CCA. Most told CCA to go to you know where. We had a banner "Join The RFA" 3 ft by 6ft outside at "Tackle Town" in Rockport when the previous owner Joe Stacy was visited by CCA big wigs and told take it down or get blackballed. Joe reluctantly took it down. Many of you remember the banner don't you?
I could write a book about the outside intervention from CCA in regards to very serious fisheries matters. Maybe I should as GCCA was a different group of men with a real mission statement. I was proud to support them back then. I donated sculpture that sold for years at their auctions. I no longer support their underhanded tactics. 
Your Fishery Access is at stake. Please make sure you are heard. Make sure your messenger is speaking in your best interest should you support a hired gun .org.


----------



## aggiemulletboy (May 31, 2006)

Hughoo222 said:


> WRONG....that was the CCA mantra used in filing their little lawsuit that got us a 2 month season and 2 fish. IT MAY ALSO INTEREST YOU TO KNOW THAT THE JUDGE WAS NOT GIVEN THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE!
> 
> Complete crock...KATRINA, FUEL PRICES,ect. The search button is your friend.


wrongo. Just did a full report on these suckers for the fisheries dept. at A&M. Even if we closed directed fisheries, according to every study I could find, it would be impossible to rebuild stocks. 25-45 mill fish are discarded as bycatch per year in the western gulf. Commercial and recreational anglers only take 3-4 million fish combined. You tell me where the problem is


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

The words weren't all that big Gater. The statement that you referenced was made regarding my first post. I didn't go into detail about the technique in either post since I figured that most folks reading it would be up to speed with that technology since it's been out for nearly 30 years now. The key element was that a simple magnetically coded mico tag is slipped into the cartilage tissue in the head of hatchery fish. That tag is easily and inexpensively read with a hand held device that could have been issued to TPWD techs who check you at the dock. All the study parameters, randomization and the like, have already been done for their ongoing catch per unit effort analysis. If a known percentage of the hatchery fish are tagged and released then it becomes a simple mark recapture study that will show not only how many hatchery fish go home in ice chests, as well as when and where they were released but it would be the key to the holy grail of accurate stock assessment for the population of fish in the bay. If a high percentage of tagged fish are caught by fishermen then it would indicate strongly that fishing pressure is the limiting factor and regulatory adjustments can be made accordingly. If a low percentage return occurs then those fish are either not recruited into the slot population (croaking before they get big enough to catch from whatever cause) or the population of fish is so big that most reach sexual maturity and leave the bay, in the case of redfish anyway.

As a concession to your estimation of my cluelessness, it has been awhile since I bothered myself with CCA activities. The historical actions are valid though. I do cruise the fisheries scientific literature from time to time looking to see if this study has been done, and if it has I missed it and apologize for my inaccuracy.


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

Aggiemulletboy, did you consider the dates on those bycatch studies? Things have changed dramatically in the shrimping world over the last 5 years and effort is now the lowest it's been since the 1950's. While most if not all of us on this board have eyewitnessed trails of pink from shrimper sterns, that plume of death is but a fraction of what it was just a few years back. With import and and fuel factors pinching shrimping from both ends it is unlikely that bottom trawling the GOM will ever return to even half it's peak. 

Given our observations, as anecdotal as they are, that snapper populations (plural as a nod to lack of migration even regionally) in the Gulf are at probable 50 year highs, at least in the Western Gulf, how can you reconcile the numbers in your literature survey. If what you are reporting is valid we should be seeing inverted population pyramids for snapper since they are long lived, yet our field observations show pyramids with healthy recruitment plateaus at each cohort. Given the nuisance level of large snapper for guys targeting AJ and grouper, growth overfishing isn't occurring either. Hopefully you earned an excellent grade on your literature review, but if you really want to know what is going on go back to those studies and finetooth the Methods sections of recent papers that invoke the bycatch claim. You may discover method based bias; it's pretty common. The real problem here is that overfishing is not impacting the snapper population in the Western Gulf and we are being hamstrung by modelling built on poor assumptions and worse input values. Unfortunately, even in the complete absence of conspiratorial activity it isn't good for government fisheries guys' carreers to take a mulligan, redo the science and reverse policy. That puts us in a tight spot.

Jim, thanks for letting me know that the TPWD guys are at least aware that the hatchery deal has limited value. And, for taking the time to write that lengthy history and analysis. It's very interesting, if a bit depressing.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

aggiemulletboy said:


> Changes in laws having to do with directed fishing, both commercial and recreational, are useless and won't rebuild stocks. Shrimping is the key. Get rid of high juvenile mortality as bycatch in trawls and you will increase recruitment and spawner biomass.


*GIGO*
* Too bad that data you used for your conclusion was/is not accurate.*

*PS: You do know what "GIGO" stand for?*


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*One more time....*

A report huh? Where did you get that outdated crappy info...The Ocean Conservancy or CCA?

I am trying to be polite...I was doing this when you were in grade school and happen to count among my friends and peers some of the top fisheries scientists out there as far as snapper are concerned.

Guess they failed to tell you that that data was tossed out in favor of better science....go read Dr. Bob Shipp's last paper or two. Then explain how your "report" works out when you put the fish back in that were not accounted for....that's right, they don't count fish over man made structure amigo...so the whole mess is poo-pooed anyways!:headknock

Old news....

Again...the search button is your friend.

Now lets not skew the message that CCA is hosing us all!:work:



aggiemulletboy said:


> wrongo. Just did a full report on these suckers for the fisheries dept. at A&M. Even if we closed directed fisheries, according to every study I could find, it would be impossible to rebuild stocks. 25-45 mill fish are discarded as bycatch per year in the western gulf. Commercial and recreational anglers only take 3-4 million fish combined. You tell me where the problem is


----------



## aggiemulletboy (May 31, 2006)

First, to snagged, yes I do know what that means. I'm not quite sure why you are calling the surveys garbage. Gulf stocks are at 6% of the target biomass in the most recent study I looked at according to fisheries independent data. What exactly is your conclusion? Where is your data from?

To Instigator: Surveys we looked at were no older than 10 years. BRD's had been implemented, but they show maybe a 40% mortality reduction, which still leaves a really high level of mortality. And I am still not sure where the 50 year high in snapper population numbers came from. From everything I have seen, stocks are not rebuilding. Fish landings and spawner biomass are still dropping. I'm curious what the problem is then, or is there even a problem? Sure modeling falls shorts, but you list that you have observations as well. Are they fisheries dependent or indenpendent? How do they lack bias? We had no questions from several well known fisheries professors concerning our report on the current problems with snapper, which I find strange if we were so off on our data and assumptions.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Dude...have you read any of the recent offshore reports....snapper thick as locusts, can't get past them...hello!!
How many hours have you spent fishing for them, ever earn your living fishing for them, how much time have you spent around the docks with charter captains...what do you really know other than what you have read on paper? The fish are THERE!



aggiemulletboy said:


> First, to snagged, yes I do know what that means. I'm not quite sure why you are calling the surveys garbage. Gulf stocks are at 6% of the target biomass in the most recent study I looked at according to fisheries independent data. What exactly is your conclusion? Where is your data from?
> 
> To Instigator: Surveys we looked at were no older than 10 years. BRD's had been implemented, but they show maybe a 40% mortality reduction, which still leaves a really high level of mortality. And I am still not sure where the 50 year high in snapper population numbers came from. From everything I have seen, stocks are not rebuilding. Fish landings and spawner biomass are still dropping. I'm curious what the problem is then, or is there even a problem? Sure modeling falls shorts, but you list that you have observations as well. Are they fisheries dependent or indenpendent? How do they lack bias? We had no questions from several well known fisheries professors concerning our report on the current problems with snapper, which I find strange if we were so off on our data and assumptions.


----------



## aggiemulletboy (May 31, 2006)

Hughoo222 said:


> Dude...have you read any of the recent offshore reports....snapper thick as locusts, can't get past them...hello!!
> How many hours have you spent fishing for them, ever earn your living fishing for them, how much time have you spent around the docks with charter captains...what do you really know other than what you have read on paper? The fish are THERE!


Fisheries dependent data doesn't mean anything. It is like the people that say flounder populations are healthier than ever. Yeah...ok. Fish aggregate. Just because you can find a set of rocks with a ton of snapper on it doesn't mean that the population overall is healthy.

And I have spent a ton of hours offshore fishing for snapper among other species. I have not made a living off of it as I am a full time student. Just because there are fish doesn't mean the population is ok because a charter comes back with a boat limit.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Aggiemullet boy*

The bycatch numbers according to NMFS are 26% and were never 80% as claimed. There is good money in bad fishing as the studies support millions of dollars in grant monies to the PhD crowd. Classic example of the tail wagging the dog so to speak. CCA made millions claiming 80% by catch. NMFS has corrected their current stance on shrimp bycatch. NMFS did so before the Judge ruled in the Houston enviro/CCA lawsuit against the Shrimpers. I wonder if the Judge would like it if she found out she was lied to. NMFS did not revise their data nor defend it so they are just as culpable as CCA and the enviros. Seems they all wanted the same outcome. Kill Recreational Access to the Red Snapper. 

FYI the real story is 2 years before bycatch reduction devices were implemented for the Shrimpers the 1 and 2 year old red snapper populations spiked to very high levels. Guess what happened to justify this spike. The longliners were moved to the 50 fathom curve allowing the sow snapper to reproduce without being slaughtered on the mudflats.

By product/catch of the move was devastating to the Recreational total allowable catch numbers as NMFS computer no longer saw dead breeders hitting the docks. MSY number crashed in the Computer Models. Our TAC was cut for no good reason. The sows were/ are still there on the mud flats. I asked the current South East Regional NMFS manager if he would do longline studies to reverse the negative trend shown even though we would murder breeders. He said he did not have funding. I laughed and asked if a one time permit could be issued to the Commercial Longliners to do the work for free allowing them to sell the fish after the NMFS survey observer counted the fish. I am still waiting for this free study.

Thirdly there are more zero to two year old red snapper around the Gulf Oil Platforms than NMFS gives credit for in the entire GOM. There are over 11,000 known wreck rock and reefs
In the "Hang Book" written by Gary Graham from your (ATM) Sea Grant program I believe. Seems there would be a few 0 to 2 year old red snapper found on these structures. Maybe even double the amount shown on the oil platforms. Seems the reefs of Alabama should have a few since 41% of red snapper come from there. Texas accounts for the highest Commercial landings if not mistaken. 

I saw data changed via a series of internal email as in baselines so the overfished status could be achieved by NMFS and the PhD crowd. Never mind what the facts are just slide the base line. You know where we need to be. This statement was from the SERD of NMFS Kemmner as my memory recalls.

Last but not least the control number on MSY was done on 30 to 40 individual fish as far as egg carrying capacity, Statistically for population dynamics the number should have been 300 to 400 according to experts in the field. If this group of fish had weighed one measly ounce more the overfished status thresh hold would have not been reached. 

There are many reasons we are in an overfished status any of the above data if corrected would solve the problem and we would be back fishing 12 months out of the year. There are many foundation Prostitutes in the Enviro Crowd and many PHd's making a good living off the Red Snapper. They will go to no end to keep the fisheries in overfished and undergoing overfishing status as there are big bucks to be had with anything classified as "BAD". 

There are many reports that have been recently reviewed and consider not worth the paper they have been written on. 

I would go toe to toe with anyone on Red Snapper facts. I can back up everything I have said with the cold hard facts.

Not to be combative but I read the entire record when you were 13. I appreciate your dedication to the fisheries but there is a wealth of data you may have not seen. The Shipp-Minton data is very interesting. You might consider some of the above emntioned solutions as well as to cause and affect.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Man, You rarely ever have any sort of valid point or arguement, thus little credibility. I am still trying to figure this one out for instance......

"Originally Posted by *gater*  
_
*Opening the passes is a great idea but you still need the fertilizer laden fresh water inflow which by the way is something CCA has been working non stop on the past few years. Gater"*_

_*Ever hear of low disolved oxygen content? *_
_*Now, go study up.*_



gater said:


> You can use big words to make your point but you don't make much sense...probably because you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. Not sure where you get your information but maybe you should do a little more research.
> 
> "It's just a shame that they didn't follow that effort with something that would reveal the source of the problem".
> 
> What exactly are you talking about in the above statement. Gater


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

And my garden has Tomatoes today but they could all die tonight....they ARE there in good numbers and _healthy_. Spin it...it will help you land that grant funded job for Pew, The OC or some other fruitcake .org.

Care to enlighten us as to the early 1900's snapper numbers in Texas prior to the oil and gas industrys rise and presence in the gulf...rigs ect?

You have a lot to learn....and it won't happen till you become a student of the resource and not just a scientist.

Can we get back to beheading CCA now...



aggiemulletboy said:


> Fisheries dependent data doesn't mean anything. It is like the people that say flounder populations are healthier than ever. Yeah...ok. Fish aggregate. Just because you can find a set of rocks with a ton of snapper on it doesn't mean that the population overall is healthy.
> 
> And I have spent a ton of hours offshore fishing for snapper among other species. I have not made a living off of it as I am a full time student. Just because there are fish doesn't mean the population is ok because a charter comes back with a boat limit.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

aggiemulletboy said:


> First, to snagged, yes I do know what that means. I'm not quite sure why you are calling the surveys garbage. Gulf stocks are at 6% of the target biomass in the most recent study I looked at according to fisheries independent data. What exactly is your conclusion? Where is your data from?
> 
> .


Hughoo and Jim have already pointed out the major problems with the input data.
In simplistic terms the data has been distorted to conform to a desired result.
Shrimping has long since been reduced by 85%, but current data still show the old false (post wings) bycatch numbers.
I think you have produced honest results according to the data you used and that is why I say GIGO.
Defend your paper, but proof you data. :brew:


----------



## aggiemulletboy (May 31, 2006)

Hughoo222 said:


> And my garden has Tomatoes today but they could all die tonight....they ARE there in good numbers and _healthy_. Spin it...it will help you land that grant funded job for Pew, The OC or some other fruitcake .org.
> 
> Care to enlighten us as to the early 1900's snapper numbers in Texas prior to the oil and gas industrys rise and presence in the gulf...rigs ect?
> 
> You have a lot to learn....and it won't happen till you become a student of the resource and not just a scientist.


And yet you haven't proven anything either. Not sure why I am the one being torn apart when you base your population assumption on the fact that charter captains that know exactly where fish aggregate and they are getting limits. That is by far the worst way to view a fishery, and many overexploited species still cough up good numbers to fisherman.


----------



## aggiemulletboy (May 31, 2006)

Snagged said:


> Hughoo and Jim have already pointed out the major problems with the input data.
> In simplistic terms the data has been distorted to conform to a desired result.
> Shrimping has long since been reduced by 85%, but current data still show the old false (post wings) bycatch numbers.
> I think you have produced honest results according to the data you used and that is why I say GIGO.
> Defend your paper, but proof you data. :brew:


Fair enough.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Aggiemulletboy*

Thanks for understanding the comment Snagged added. I could not expect you or anyone esle to understand a 30 year train wreck involving Red Snapper without knowing the back ground. I did not intend to be brutal. lol Just share valuable data.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Aggiemulletboy*

I can save your fingers some cramping here. You will never ever say anything here that makes any sense to these people. You understand that you don't need any scientific data to tell what the Snapper population is, all you have do is go fishing or diving. One trip can tell you the Snapper population for the entire Western Gulf. Yet we have some over educated fish guru on here telling us we need to plant gps chips in Redfish so we can tell how many there are swimming in our Bays. Smarr has all this data and all these documents and studies yet we are still in the same place. Aggieboy, if these guys were so brilliant and claim to have all the answers we would be Snapper fishing in the morning. What you will find here is a bunch of know it all's that really don't know a **** thing. So to make up for thier ignorance and inability to get anything accomplished they come here to bash whatever organization or individual that does not agree with them.

Hats off to you schooling and hard work!

Gater


----------



## aggiemulletboy (May 31, 2006)

jim smarr said:


> Thanks for understanding the comment Snagged added. I could not expect you or anyone esle to understand a 30 year train wreck involving Red Snapper without knowing the back ground. I did not intend to be brutal. lol Just share valuable data.


I'm just doing the best I can with what I learned and the data I have received for the past few years. I understand, and I'm sure you have more knowledge on the subject that I would ever care to (I would much rather work with herps than fisheries...Less fighting). When it comes down to it though, I guess the only thing I really want to get at is that fisheries independent data is the only data really worth looking at, and we can't just look at the guys coming in with full ice chests to predict populations.

On a side note, I did get to see you speak at the commission meeting in March. Good show.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

PM sent...don't care to fight...just educate. The data is there...just that some of it is wrong and it has hurt us.

My apologies if I seem brash...some of us are vested in this cause and passions run high as you can see.



aggiemulletboy said:


> And yet you haven't proven anything either. Not sure why I am the one being torn apart when you base your population assumption on the fact that charter captains that know exactly where fish aggregate and they are getting limits. That is by far the worst way to view a fishery, and many overexploited species still cough up good numbers to fisherman.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Gator-fyi*

Gator- lol- I just gave you the keys to fix the problem within the CCA and you show disrespect again. LOL The data I posted is well known by Bob Hayes and CCA higher ups. Knock yourself out getting them to listen to reality. I tried for years. Would love to see how far you, ernest and liz get with the CCA higher ups. 

You did ask why I left CCA so I will tell you. I simply asked the CCA to check into dumping by the Formosa Plastics company in Point Comfort. We had problems with monthly spills. Red Fish were swimming around disfigured from the spills. After asking Walter Fondron at three consecutive State board meetings to take up the issue I resigned as a Board Member. I asked Walter how much stock the then Texas Board Members owned in Formosa Plastics. I did not get an answer. Seems funny Coastal Conservation Association never protested Formosa permits to build the plant to my knowledge. Louisiana did not want them in their State as they were polluters of the worst kind. Funny CCA did nothing
when Formosa came to Texas and spewed chemicals in Lavaca Bay.


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

Aggiemulletboy, at the risk of following with a "what he said" post it's going to be difficult to outsnapper Mr. Smarr.

Your questions to me were answered in my post. I was not giving you statistics from a scientific study. I was, as advertised, reporting anecdotal information. We both know that is poison in a scientific setting but this is not that. The old saw about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence applies here. As an experienced snapper fisherman you know the patchiness of habitat, population and CPUE from trip to trip and that is good. You may not have been fishing offshore, keeping logs and standing around cleaning tables for quite as long as some of us, and it would be difficult for you to slap a trend line of best fit on your experiences due to small sample size. That's just an artifact of your age and not intelligence or ability. My 50 year nugget came right of the pile of uncontrolled personal experience as noted in the post and as such would be stricken from any peer reviewed submission as it should be. That does not make it valueless. What it should do is make the scientist in you scratch your head as to why numerous observations from experienced people are not lining up with your models. I'll take a line from almost every scientific paper ever published and say, "More research is needed" because it quite obviously is. However, the published peer reviewed scientific information is being selectively applied and that ought to make you wonder just a bit about what is going on. 

As for the response of your committee(?) to your literature review, you're kidding right? You have been in school long enough to know that just because something doesn't get criticized or gets a good grade it doesn't mean that it's perfect, or even 'A' level for that matter. Yes, I sit on the other side of the desk so I do have some experience here, from presenting a B.S. literature search seminar project like yours (mine was on euryhaline characteristics of red drum making them a candidate for freshwater stocking), sitting through M.S. and Ph.D orals as well as now evaluating student work. As eloquently as you present yourself here I feel certain that you know of what I write.

Now, you probably were aware that your older studies reflected a different era in GOM fisheries and you could probably cite the suspect ones from memory. Yeah, you needed them to build your case and while you were on top of their shortcomings that Lit Cited section did need fleshing out. Even if your audience did want to rake you over the coals it isn't the function of an undergrad presentation to be publishable so that level of anal retention wasn't likely to be expressed. If you had babbled some ridiculously erroneous conclusion from your search like shrimping effort is needed to support snapper populations, well then you would have gotten polished pretty good.

As for the BRD deal, most of us recall their original label, TEDs. First that label was for "Turtle Excluder Device" and later euphemistically changed to "Trawl Efficiency Device" to battle all the political whiplash from fishery lobbyists. It's not about those devices, they should have been labelled PPC's for "Pelagic Predator Cafeterias" for all the good they did on bycatch reduction. Just because the bycatch didn't hit the deck doesn't mean that all that biomass lived happily ever after. The real deal is getting those tickle chains off the bottom off the Gulf. That has been largely accomplished but with no thanks to regulators. Market forces to the rescue again. The 26/80% argument is simply an index for shrimping effort and neither accurately measure direct or indirect mortality from bottom trawling. What would help is recognizing the true abundance of snapper by acknowledging recently published work on anthropogenic hard surfaces building snapper biomass instead of serving only as an aggregating device. Bringing that biomass into the equation in combination with increased recruitment due to reduced bottom trawl effort would make the regulations based on earlier model runs look pretty silly.

As for your issue with fishery dependent/independent variables, from my earlier redfish ramblings on this thread you could deduce that I'm in your camp on this one. However, that doesn't mean that dependent efforts are meaningless. Gillnets come to mind. Again, the problem here isn't where mortality is coming from, it's accurately estimating stock and mortality. Nether is being done well at this time and it's a shame because there is enough data available to take a much better stab at it if it would just be used.

I'm guessing that your paper was probably an undergrad thesis in advance of an impending graduation.  If so, congratualtions!


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

You guys on the other side will never know when stocks re build. I have been to your meetings and looked at your "data" for years. Garbage in - garbage out!
I was fishing when it reilly was stressed. Fraid you would look too bad against
the backdrop of Snapper after Snapper, Port after Port spot after spot?
Reality is fed. waters are full of Red Snapper. That is how we will win! Rik
P.S. Snagged is right about shrimping/it is a non issue.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Rick-getting everyone plugged in and educated as to why we are where we are goes a long way. If a thousand plus people attended future Gulf Council Meetings and submitted a written factual statement to be burned into the record and coppied their Members of Congress and their Governors in all Gulf States things would have changed a long time ago. People mistakenly believe the .orgs can do the heavy lifting for them. Until this changes we will see more of the same. We have to have hand signed letters to public officials and now. We the people can take back what is ours
but not by waiting for someone else to do it for us.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*

Rik,

Good point!

I believe the regulators will be looking pretty silly when reality slaps them in the face regarding the actual numbers of snapper swimming out there.

Seems to me, that in this day of technology and the internet, that we don't need to rely on the NMFS to perform assessments of the fishery - there could be a grass-roots initiative to do an assessment of the fish not only being caught, but the fish still swimming out there by the fishermen and divers out on the water.

Cameras and videos with date/time stamps in the hands of recreationals fishermen and divers. Begin the process of documenting what you see out there EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU GO. *Imagine a Gulf-wide movement among fishermen and divers to catalog their experience/perspectives on what is actually out there - A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.*

How many snapper were estimated to be on this rig on that particular day? How many snapper on that particular rock? Yes, one spot covered with snapper does not make an assessment...but imagine 10's of thousands of documented snapper counts compiled over the remaining months of this year? That would be an incredible tool in this fight that would be impossible for the regulators to ignore or the enviros to dismiss.

That's how it could be accomplished, and that's how we will DEMAND accountability - not from the fishermen, but from the regulators. And that's how we will ensure a that there will be ACCESS to a fishery for us as well as our children and grand children.

Start documenting now! I am working on how to put all the pieces together as we speak, which could be in the form of an internet "you-tube" type of submission protocol so that EVERYONE will see the truth.

All the best,

Tom Hilton


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

Jim I know you are savy on politics. Lets go back and look at the record and use it.
Just after Katrina & Rita why did NMF extend comm. Season? Was it for the glut of 
Red Snapper the storms coughed up in Texas/La Gulf waters? Look at the lbs. of 
fish reported by comm. right after extention. Not long after NMF said hey you rec.
fisherman - Emergency! You are gonna have to change your overfishing ways!
NMF has never given us the exceptions our "51/49% partners" got many times! Rik


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

Right you are Tom! This is our winner! Lets use it! Rik
P.S. I do not recall any NMF photo proof!
Every trip is a Documentry!
Put em all together!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Amen Rik

That is one of many infractions we have suffered at the hand of NMFS or as it was once known as The Department of Commercial Fisheries or something like that. Seems like they changed names but not direction.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

I'm going to take the high road here and say that if the TPWD was to assist in collecting offshore red snapper population data, it could if it had the funds. Since the Texas area out to the Continental Shelf is so large, we'd need a few old crewboats to charter or but - TPWD has one used mainly for enforcement down here on SPI, about a 70-footer.

The next thing TPWD would do, or as I would imagine they'd do, would be to establish a survey sampling plan. This is a list of all the:


rigs
natural reefs
wrecks
artificial reefs
likely "flats"
Now you can't survey a good part of a million square miles of underwater so you'd invent a random survey selection method that draws from stuff on that list in the bullets.

Next you'd specify each jind of gear or method used to count red snapper. For example, the TPWD sometimes uses nets, underwater shocking devices, oxygen depleters, and other stuff - not sure what they'd do for the red snapper but I should imagine that divers might be useful.

The survey sample plan is then approved but NMFS and TPWD, including any commenting by the public and experts such as fish biologists. Then it gets funded and, weather permitting, start sampling.

I've done this kind of sampling many times although never for the fishing sector, but it works. The principle is that is you know how much area is being surveyed, "x' many acres, and how many "y" total acres you have, it is very easy to estimate the total amount of red snapper there are. It is very simple math and you don't beed a Phd for that.

For example, the TPWD recently saw a drop in speckled trout populations in the Lower Laguna Madre, based on a relatively few transects that they survey. They know their job, and consider extreme conditions of the weather, tides, winds, and so forth. I don't think anyone EVER questioned their survey methods - and most agree that these men and women are excellent officers and scientists.

Does it take some funding? Well yes, you have to add some manpower (that are certified by TPWD in some way) and get some boats. Gosh, I bet Tom Hilton would lease out that nice boat for a few weeks or a month so he could go find red snapper on his side-scanning sonar and help TPWD count the fishies. This is Texas. We know how to do it. It's high time to get-r-done and stop futzing around. -sammie


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)




----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*

Sammie,
Good points, but the "sampling" would be magnified thousands upon thousands of times by using on-the-water fishermen and (mainly) divers to document the populations via video. The result would be much more accurate representation of the true numbers of snapper swimming out there than sampling small plots.

Just look at the potential numbers;

Off of Alabama, there are about 50,000 reefs (public and private). 50,000 x 1,000 snapper each = 50 MILLION FISH.

There are about 4,000 oil platforms in the Gulf. 4,000 x 5,000 snapper each = 20 MILLION FISH.

Take into account the thousands of rocks, natural hard bottom, live bottom, artificial reefs outside of Alabama waters across the Gulf from Texas to Florida, mud flats, natural shell reefs, etc. etc. (I think you can see the picture) and it doesn't take too long before we could document numbers of living, swimming snapper out there that could approach 100 MILLION individuals which could equate into about 500 million pounds (based on a 5 pound average).

If there is truly 1/2 BILLION POUNDS OF SNAPPER swimming out there, why are the regulators placing these strangulating restrictions upon us? Oh yeah, as the SOS Plan states, it's about the *ACCESS to the resource* (and apparently not about the resource itself).

I'm not saying there is 500 billion pounds of snapper swimming out there - I'm saying that we have the tools at our disposal to document whether there is or not. The root problem to this whole fiasco has been the manipulation of the data - take that away doing our own assessment and the regulators won't have a leg to stand on when they claim that the snapper are "OVERFISHED AND UNDERGOING OVERFISHING".

Tom


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I knew it would happen but it took a little time. The previous 8 posts had nothing to do with CCA and had everything to do with solving the problem at hand. Good job and good luck.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Actually...we still want to behead the beast that helped create the problem! There goes the curve....
Thanks for the support.



Pocboy said:


> I knew it would happen but it took a little time. The previous 8 posts had nothing to do with CCA and had everything to do with solving the problem at hand. Good job and good luck.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

"Dr. Shipp's groundbreaking work is presented below, with his permission. It will appear later this year in the Reviews of Fisheries Science along with another paper by Dr. Benny Galloway which, Dr. Shipp tells us, will also interest anglers and management officials concerned with the embattled red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. Reviews in Fisheries Science is edited by Dr. Robert Stickney at the Sea Grant Program at Texas A&M University, 2700 Earl Rudder Freeway South, Suite 1800, College Station, Texas 77845.

*A Perspective on the Importance of Artificial Habitat on the Management of Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico* *By, Robert L. Shipp,* Department of Marine Sciences, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL 36688, USA, *and Stephen A. Bortone, Ph.D. *, Minnesota Sea Grant College Program , 2305 East Fifth Street, Duluth, Minnesota 55812 USA

Abstract.-The Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery has been declared as overfished, and overfishing is occurring. More stringent regulations, including reduced catch quotas and restrictions on the shrimp fishery to reduce bycatch of juvenile snappers are anticipated. However, with projected rebuilding, maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is estimated to be between 11 and 25 million lbs. This exceeds previously recorded annual yields from U.S. Gulf waters. The fishery began during the mid-nineteenth century off the northeastern Gulf coast with harvests of only about 2 million lbs. Even at this rate, the stocks were depleted rapidly, and the fleets moved further south and east to find new sources. Numerous exploratory cruises to the western Gulf in the late nineteenth century found minimal snapper populations, but high concentrations discovered off Vera Cruz, Mexico attracted fishers, and this area was the major source of snappers for more than a century. The deployment of petroleum structures in the mid-twentieth century in the western Gulf and thousands of artificial reefs in the northcentral Gulf have markedly increased red snapper habitat in those areas. Currently, snapper populations around artificial reefs in the northcentral and northwestern Gulf support the majority of the U.S. harvest. If habitat is limiting, the designations of "overfishing" and "overfished" may be misleading, and "unrealized harvest potential" may be a more accurate descriptor of the current status of the stock given the increased presence of additional habitat for red snapper. Decreases in these artificial structures (owing to natural degradation or removal) may decrease future harvest potential.

​
Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) stocks in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) have been declared overfished and overfishing is occurring (SEDAR7 2005). Currently, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) is in the thirteenth year of a 29-year rebuilding plan designed to remove both designations from this valuable resource. Although there are numerous regulations currently in place to aid in stock recovery, projections are that recovery by the target date of 2032 may not occur unless additional restrictions are imposed. An additional reduction in the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is under consideration and will impact the directed red snapper fishery. The TAC for the years 2001-2006 was set at 9.12 million pounds (mp) about equally divided between recreational and commercial harvest. Additional reductions were imposed in 2007, reducing quotas to less than 6 million pounds. These have resulted in shorter seasons, smaller bag and trip limits, and other related actions. In addition, there is a high mortality of age 0 and 1 juvenile snapper caused by trawl bycatch in the Gulf penaeid shrimp fishery. Thus additional actions are under consideration to reduce bycatch, including areal and seasonal shrimp fishery closures (GMFMP 2006). These suggested actions are being contemplated under the assumption that the red snapper fishery is currently recruitment limited.

Model projections of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) for Gulf red snapper stocks are between 11.3 and 25.4 mp annually (SEDAR7 2005). These constitute a marked reduction in hypothetical MSY from previous annual assessments. In earlier assessments, some MSY projections ranged between 40 and 60 mp, and the 1999 stock assessment projected an MSY of 205 mp (GMFMC 2004). The current smaller estimates reflect a "more realistic" estimate of MSY, but they remain far in excess of the actual historical landings for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. Although data from early years of the fishery are few and often subjective, the highest landings before 1970 were approximately 9 mp and in most years, landings were about 5 mp. Landings from the eastern Gulf of Mexico averaged more than double those from the western Gulf until the late 1950s when landings from both regions were similar until the mid 1960s, from which time western Gulf landings began to exceed those from the eastern Gulf and continue to do so (SEDAR 2007-RW-4:11).

This review briefly describes the history of the Gulf red snapper fishery and then describes the factors which may be responsible for the demographic changes in snapper stocks. These factors likely explain the geographic shift in catches from the eastern to the western Gulf. This has relevance to the management of the stock, and may result in changes in our understanding of the stock's limiting factors and model projections of stock characteristics.

*History of the Snapper Fishery, the First Hundred Years*

The Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery began in the mid-nineteenth century off the Florida panhandle and Alabama coasts. Until the availability of affordable ice (around 1869; (Collins 1887; Bortone 1997 et al.)) the fishery was limited to small vessels from New England, known as "smacks" because their live wells created a smacking sound of water (but see Bortone 1997 et al., wherein the term may be a phonetic spelling of the Dutch name for these boats.) These vessels were limited to catches of 5,000 to 6,000 lbs. With the availability of ice, catches well in excess of 20,000 lbs became possible, as did longer voyages. The early history of the fishery, as well as the status of the fishery to the mid-twentieth century has been well documented by Camber (1955) and Bortone et al. (1997).

A more detailed and revealing review of the early fishery was provided by Collins (1887) in a report to the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. He reported that the specific area between Mobile, Alabama and Ft. Walton (then Camp Walton), Florida constituted the origin of the fishery. He further noted that stock depletion was evident even in these early days of the fishery:

"The character of the snapper grounds, so far as relates to abundance of fish on them, and, of course, their consequence importance, has changed very materially, it is said, within the past three or four years.

"It is claimed that this change is still going on, and that localities that were remarkable for the abundance of fish on them only a year or two ago are now of comparatively little importance. The best evidence that can be adduced in support of this theory is the fact that the vessels are continually obliged to extend further off in order to meet with success, and at present we are told that it would be of little use to attempt to catch fish on grounds where they could be taken in great numbers in the early days of the business"(Collins 1887: 281).

Collins (1887) also mentioned that total annual catches were about 2 mp.

Collins (1887) alludes to rumors about snapper stocks off Campeche and Vera Cruz, Mexico but this major source of red snapper was unknown at this time. However, exploratory voyages were being made in search of new red snapper grounds. Particularly the western Gulf received much exploratory effort in the 1880s:

"It may not be out of place to say that quite extended researches have been made west of the Mississippi in search of snapper banks, the demand for fish in the Galveston and New Orleans markets, and the consequent high price often being paid, no doubt, an inducement toward making these investigations. As early as the fall of 1880, two smacks from Noank Conn., which were fishing in the Gulf, made a cruise off Galveston in search of fishing grounds, but found no bottom suitable for red snappers to live on. Mr. Sewell C. Cobb also tells us that he spent the entire month of July, in 1883, seeking for red snappers, and sounding along the coast, from the southwest pass of the Mississippi to a point off the center of Padre Island, Texas, a distance of about 450 miles. The bottom, over all this extent of ground, was mostly mud and broken shells, and totally devoid of any fish life, as far as he could tell.

"In the summer of 1884 the Pensacola Ice Company sent another schooner off Galveston for red snappers, but the voyage was a failure, the vessel not getting enough fish to pay her provision bill" (Collins 1887:280).

Collins (1887) also noted that the catches were dominated by relatively large fishes, often averaging ten pounds or more (Fig. 1)."

Following the Collins (1887) review, additional reviews of the snapper fishery in the nineteenth century were provided by Smith (1895) and Warren (1898), both describing the large catches off Campeche. During the early part of the twentieth century, Jordan and Evermann (1923:410) described the snapper fishery as follows: "Its centre of abundance is in the Gulf of Mexico in rather deep water in the rocky banks off the west coast of Florida and the coasts of Campeche and Yucatan." Gowanloch (1933:193) described the location of the snapper fishery: "The center of this fishery lies east of Louisiana." But perhaps the most comprehensive review of the first century of the fishery was contributed by Camber (1955). While a detailed discussion of this work is beyond the scope of this paper, Camber's summary of the fishery is extremely revealing. For example there are five references to the fishery off the west coast of Florida, seven to the fleet fishing off Campeche, and not a single reference to the north central Gulf west of Alabama and westward to Texas, despite the fact that much of the fleet claimed Mobile, Alabama, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Galveston, Texas as their home port. Camber does mention (Camber 1955:48) that "some of the larger vessels which normally fished Campeche occasionally also visited the 'Galveston Lumps'. However not many captains in Pensacola and Mobile were familiar with that poorly charted area and until depth recorders became available the number of trips made was small."

Camber (1955) provided a figure of the areas fished by the snapper fleet during those first hundred years, and it includes an area from the mouth of the Mississippi River westward to an area south of Galveston, termed the "Western." However, he made sparse reference to this area, noting that it was "all points within 10 miles on both sides of the 100 fathom line, between latitude 29.20 and longitude 89.20 and 98.00" (Camber 1955: 13). In addition, the Galveston snapper fleet was described in 1939 as spending from 14 to 25 days at sea with boats that "frequently sail to the Campeche shoals (HLPC 1939) although there was some hard bottom as close as 30 miles from shore." (Camber 1955).

The importance of the Campeche fishing ground is reflected throughout the body of the Camber work, and summarized in his Table 16. Red snapper catches from Campeche comprised about 75% of the landings reported from Pensacola, and about 50% of the landings reported from the Florida West Coast.

Thus it appears that the major red snapper fishing grounds from the industry's inception in the mid-nineteenth century until the mid-twentieth century was off the west coast of Florida, the Florida Panhandle, and the Campeche grounds, with relatively few landings off Mississippi and westward and southward to the Texas-Mexico border.

*Demographic Changes in Snapper Stocks During the Last Fifty Years*

The SEDAR7 (2005) red snapper stock assessment chronicled the historical landings of the U. S. red snapper harvest from U.S. Gulf waters from 1880 to 1970. These landings are in agreement with the above review of the fishery. From 1880 to about 1950, the harvest was principally from the eastern Gulf and Campeche. Total catch from these areas averaged about 3.5 mp annually, with a maximum annual catch of 6 mp around 1900. Catches during this period from the western Gulf were generally less than 1 mp. Red snapper catch changed radically in the 1950s, with the harvest from the western Gulf of Mexico equaling that from the eastern Gulf during this decade. By 1970, the red snapper catch from the western Gulf (about 5 mp) nearly doubled that from the eastern Gulf (Fig. 2). More recently, the red snapper catch from the western Gulf is currently estimated 6 to 7 times greater than the catch from the eastern Gulf in terms of virgin biomass (SEDAR 7-RW-4: 3

Interestingly, red snapper catches off Alabama have dominated the recreational harvest in the Gulf, even though this area represents less than 5% of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico continental shelf. The recent catch of red snapper off Alabama represents an estimated 40% of the total recreational catch from the Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 3) which is nearly equal to the total annual catch of red snapper from the Gulf in the 1880s.

*Habitat Changes Impacting Snapper Stocks During the Last Fifty Years*

In 1947, "Block 32", southeast of the northeast coast of Texas brought in a gusher of oil, and the full-scale exploration for petroleum in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico had begun (Yergin 1991). Over the next several decades, more than 4,000 platforms were deployed in the relatively shallow shelf area of the region, markedly transforming the available habitat in the Gulf (Fig. 4).Currently there are approximately 3,900 oil platforms still standing, with about an equal number (approx. 100) being constructed and decommissioned annually (R. Kasperzak, Louisiana. Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries, personal communication).Wilson et al. (2006) detailed the value of oil platforms as artificial reefs, concluding that they support fish densities 10 to 1000 times that of adjacent sand and mud bottom, and almost always exceed fish densities found at both adjacent artificial reefs and natural hard bottom.

Off Alabama, an artificial reef program was initiated in 1953 when the Orange Beach Charter Boat Association began depositing reef materials off that State's coast. In 1974, retired U.S. Navy 'liberty ships' were deployed at five locations in 24-28 m of water. In 1987, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a general permit to the Alabama Department of Conservation for reef siting off the Alabama coast. This permit is still extant and covers more than 1,200 square miles (3108 square km) of continental shelf bottom in depths of approximately 20 to 90 m . Altogether, an estimated 20,000 artificial structures have been placed in this area (MRD 2006). Previous to this reef deployment activity, the permit area was primarily sandy mud with limited hard bottom, nearly all of which was of low relief and dominated by diminutive fish species, chiefly sparids, serranids, and pleuronectids of negligible economic value (Shipp 1999).

Although the two habitat alterations described above are by far the most extensive in the Gulf of Mexico, supplementary additions of hard bottom through the permitted deployment of artificial reefs (including oil drilling platforms) have occurred in every Gulf state. While the fish demographic changes may vary, each state has expanded its artificial reef program in recent years, chiefly to enhance red snapper stocks (L. Simpson, Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, personal communication). *Discussion*

The debate regarding the status of red snapper stocks in the Gulf of Mexico is ongoing. Current models and assessments indicate these stocks in the Gulf are overfished and that overfishing is occurring (SEDAR7 2005). The assessment models are based on the premise that red snapper stocks are recruitment-limited, but there remains considerable uncertainty in the stock-recruit relationship. Of interest, the SEDAR7 (2005) report concludes that for more than a decade, recruitment levels have been far greater than would be expected from the estimated stock size. In fact, estimated recruitment since 1985 was, on average, higher than virgin recruitment despite the stock being estimated as highly depleted.

The information presented above suggests that habitat may be an important factor regulating stock size. Evidence indicates that massive areas of the northern and northwestern Gulf of Mexico were essentially depauperate of snapper stocks for the first hundred years of the fishery. Subsequently, areas in the western Gulf have became the major source of red snapper, concurrent with the appearance of thousands of petroleum platforms and other artificial reef deployments. This information argues persuasively for a reevaluation of the importance of habitat as a limiting factor for red snapper. Similarly, addition of an extensive artificial reef network on the nearshore continental shelf off Alabama has transformed the area from a relatively unproductive area for red snapper to one of the most productive red snapper areas in the Gulf of Mexico. The hypothesis that red snapper are habitat limited appears reasonable, especially if the alternative is to accept the idea that a grossly-depleted stock is producing higher recruitment than the virgin stock.

When one discusses these habitat modifications, the issue of attraction versus production is inevitably raised. One of us (RLS) discussed this issue at length (Shipp, 1999), and contended that, for the area off Alabama, an increase in total biomass was not what was relevant. Rather it was the transformation of the substratum from a predominantly sandy mud habitat to one having increased areas of hard bottom with high relief that relieved the "bottleneck" that had previously prevented red snapper from increasing in abundance.

Osenberg et al. (2002) indicated that artificial reefs can offer some species an opportunity for expansion if the artificial reef provides a means for relief from a "bottleneck" on life history features. Bortone (in press) presented a model that explains the advantage that artificial reefs may have in providing both attraction and production benefits to fishes that comprise demersal fisheries like red snapper. Artificial reefs may attract fish but, in addition, they may also provide increased habitat that relieves a "bottleneck" in the life history that previously restricted population abundance.

One may ask if it is simply a result of attraction, where are the snappers attracted from? There are no areas of the Gulf which have become less productive for red snapper in recent decades. And in fact, 1) recent landings data (1999-2002) from the Florida west coast (Fig. 3) when compared to landings data (1995-1999) provided by Schirripa and Legault (1999), 2) testimony by reputable commercial fishermen at GMFMC meetings (March, 2006), and 3) testimony by a NMFS scientist at the GMFMC meeting (November, 2006) using fishery independent methods all support the view that red snapper stocks in that area are increasing. In addition, mark-recapture data from recent studies off Alabama (Watterson et al. 1998, Patterson et al. 2001) demonstrated a prevalent west to east movement of red snappers from the Alabama area to the Florida panhandle and beyond.

Further evidence for the habitat limitation hypothesis rather than purely attraction, was provided by Szedlmayer and Shipp (1994). They demonstrated a marked increase in abundance of early juvenile (age 0) red snapper within the Alabama artificial reef permit area following large-scale reef placement. Thus the increased population in this area was likely attributable to a habitat-related recruitment increase, and not a result of migration from other areas.

One might also contend that during the early red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, the technology to locate additional hard bottom and the unexploited stock was unavailable. Had such technology existed, and had additional habitat been located, the relatively small annual landings of around 2 m lbs at the fishery's inception would not have depleted the entire stock. However, the recent tag-recapture studies cited above also demonstrate that red snapper stocks are redistributed during tropical cyclones. Data from 1872 to 1889 record landfall of eleven hurricanes between Gulfport and Pensacola (Dr. A. Williams, Department of Meteorology, University of South Alabama, personal communication). This is the precise area of the fishery's origins. Thus, occurrences of these storms would have replenished red snapper to the few known hard bottom areas from the more extensive but uncharted surrounding areas, had they existed.

*Conclusions*

The massive additions of artificial reef habitat preferred by red snapper during the last fifty years in the northcentral and northwestern Gulf of Mexico has corresponded with major shifts in harvest locations and areas of red snapper concentrations. This suggests that habitat was a factor that limited population abundance during the first one hundred years of the fishery. Current model projections of MSY at levels higher than have ever been achieved also suggest that increases in habitat have increased harvest potential. However, because current models are premised on a stock of red snapper that is recruitment limited, these stocks are considered "overfished and overfishing is occurring". Consideration of increased habitat would lead to a different conclusion (i.e., the stocks have an unrealized harvest potential). In addition, if the habitat limitation hypothesis is correct, it will be necessary to maintain, or even increase the amount of artificial habitat in the northern Gulf of Mexico to keep pace with fishing pressure. Programs such as the "rigs to reefs" efforts off Louisiana and Texas would have to be continued, as would the reef construction off Alabama."

And an ironic twist from the Alabama CCA in a letter to the Orange Beach Mayor 12/12/06...

"Additionally, CCA Alabama has Dr. Bob Shipp, head of the marine sciences department at the University of South Alabama and a renowned Gulf of Mexico marine scientist, on our staff as a consultant. Bob also serves on the National Marine Fisheries Service Gulf Council, and he is an effective spokesman for recreational fishing interests on the northern Gulf coast, especially Alabama. He is widely known as an authority on snapper, and he is a strong proponent of efforts to enhance snapper fishing in coastal Alabama."

Don't think Bob is still on the team....


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

Aggie mullet boy.

The main reason we are in this mess is the false assumptions of the overall effect on snapper mortality due to trawls here in the Gulf(and a little lawsuit based on those false assumptions). The Council gambled for over ten years on BRD's in the shrimp fishery, by keeping a 9 million pound TAC thinking that by-catch was the key to the puzzle. Now it seems that new light is being shed on compensatory mortality of the juveniles due to them being habitat limited. 

This looks to be the case with the trends we are seeing in the last few years of SEAMAP data that has come out. Out of all the species that are "negatively impacted" by trawling Red snapper juveniles are the only ones not exploding. Long spine porgies and Atlantic croaker, the overwhelming majority of fin fish by-catch in trawls, are through the roof, this with the rapid demise of the shrimp fleet. (In 2008 less than 980 federally permitted shrimp vessel landed shrimp, vs. over 5000 in the year 2000). Last year effort was down 81% in the 10-30 fathom zone in the western & northern Gulf vs. the 2001-2003 base line average(again effort was already declining during this time frame). Another thing that needs to be considered about shrimp trawl interaction with snapper is that their take of Sow snapper was virtually eliminated in 1989 when they were mandated to pull TED's. Those 25lb fish have a hard time making it past 3.5" bar spacing on a TED. This is critical due to them historically fishing on mud flats that these mega-egg-laying sows inhabit.

Again, with all of this, why are the 0-2 year class snapper not exploding? Because they don't have a home to go to. 

With the 9 million TAC and minimum fish sizes of 16" the management the directed (comm. &rec) fishery caught on average 27 million pounds of fish. With discard mortality rates finally shown to be over 80% in both sectors, we were killing over 23 million (includes the 14 million due to discard mortality) pounds to harvest 9. This was the problem. The best solution to this would have been to allow the first 4 or 5 fish concept to go forward in the rec end and to eliminate the size limits on both the sectors of the directed fishery. Well, they have a 13" limit with a hook size requirement which has drastically reduced the discards in the commercial sector. Seems they like the smaller fish as they get a premium for them because the fillets off a 14" fish "plate well". If this relieves a little pressure off of older fish, the better for everybody as they produce more eggs.


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

Mont we need to add audio smilies so willyhunting can hear my standing ovation. We done!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Amen*

We went to the NMFS New Orleans Stake Holders meeting and pushed hard to build support for a first 4 or 5 fish rule. We knew the mortality savings would offset the bag limit number retention increase. Jim Donofrio our executive director flew in to cut the deal with CCA. We were all pleased we had a firm deal with a handshake. Common sense was not to be that day as our partners backed out a minute before we went on the record. Seems killing 20 or 30 million pounds a year was the way the Conservation Association voted. We were and are still in disbelief. Figure that number time 12 years.

Regulatory discards are still mostly dead fish, were then and are today, with no chance to spawn. That was 12 or so years ago which means hundreds of millions of pounds of dead snapper. The computers at NMFS cannot seem to understand the reality of regulatory discards means Red Snapper dead in the West Gulf.

First four fish would have been and still is the best true Conservation plan.
We believed we could maintain a 12 month fishery with first four fish. We were right on. What happened was an idiotic 18" fish rule. We had as high as a 200 to one discard ratio under that rule. The Snapper Rodeo in Alabama and Florida Panhandle had to be saved at all cost and it was expensive. We are still paying for that move today. 

Bless you Willy for understanding what we saw so many years ago.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Hughoo222 said:


> Actually...we still want to behead the beast that helped create the problem! There goes the curve....
> Thanks for the support.


Agreed. If you cut off the head, the snake will die.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

hilton said:


> Sammie,
> Good points, but the "sampling" would be magnified thousands upon thousands of times by using on-the-water fishermen and (mainly) divers to document the populations via video. The result would be much more accurate representation of the true numbers of snapper swimming out there than sampling small plots.
> Tom


Well if it's in an approved sampling plan yeah. But just having a bunch of people send in their "fish stories" and pretty pictures about lots of red snapper just ain't going to cut the mustard. I can tell you right now that just ain't going to work.

Folks there is a mighty temptation to say "just get thousands of red snapper fishermen and divers reporting" so we can prove the NMFS is wrong, wrong, wrong. That's not how you do science and you're falling into a trap - because the authorities will never allow anecdotal information to be mixed with data collected by an approved sampling protocol. I'm sorry to be blunt but you're dead wrong on this one.

Stop thinking about "fish models" and bad NMFS data. We need to certify using trained experts what the heck the true red snapper population is. Every year we should survey the fishery to making sure it's not crashing, or as I sometimes think, growing so fast that the red snapper will eat up all the finger-sized fish in the Gulf including the triggerfish. Forget about all that and let's see what the "real" red snapper population is and where is it before we get too excited.

We've got a lot of smart brains, thinkers, and good people on this forum but what I'm saying is that you can't send Bubba out there with a twelve pack and a camera to "document" how many red snapper are in the NW Gulf. I mean lay off it, no statistician or state or federal agency would ever accept that kind of junk. If you can't accept that notion, well hey I'm not the final authority so don't take my word for it - let them tell you.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*

Sammie,
I hear ya, and I agree.

Perhaps if there was an effort to develop an approved Gulf-wide sampling plan that could be implemented by the many diving clubs across the Gulf, that may work.

All the best,

Tom


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

Swells said:


> Well if it's in an approved sampling plan yeah. But just having a bunch of people send in their "fish stories" and pretty pictures about lots of red snapper just ain't going to cut the mustard. I can tell you right now that just ain't going to work.
> 
> Folks there is a mighty temptation to say "just get thousands of red snapper fishermen and divers reporting" so we can prove the NMFS is wrong, wrong, wrong. That's not how you do science and you're falling into a trap - because the authorities will never allow anecdotal information to be mixed with data collected by an approved sampling protocol. I'm sorry to be blunt but you're dead wrong on this one.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

We've got a lot of smart brains, thinkers, and good people on this forum but what I'm saying is that you can't send Bubba out there with a twelve pack and a camera to "document" how many red snapper are in the NW Gulf. I mean lay off it, no statistician or state or federal agency would ever accept that kind of junk. If you can't accept that notion, well hey I'm not the final authority so don't take my word for it - let them tell you.[/quote]

Some very simple yet powerful "documentary" would help rally our side
and possiably create interest and doubt to even non fisherman. 
Of course CCA & NMF will say "Who you gonna belive? Your lyin eyes -
or our "data". I am not saying lets go th the NMF with our home movies!
Here is what I am saying! Lets use our combined brainpower & recource
to start! A killer Video from a "Fish Guru" might just help RFA and others
to get some "real" $$$ to fight this war! I sure want to do my part and
I am giving it my best thoughts and service! Rik


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

hilton said:


> Sammie,
> I hear ya, and I agree.
> 
> Perhaps if there was an effort to develop an approved Gulf-wide sampling plan that could be implemented by the many diving clubs across the Gulf, that may work.
> ...


It starts with groups of great ideas just like this! Over time you add
"Offical observers" & more. Along the way we add what is helpful to
the effort. Over time you sharpen your focus and just like fishing -
go with what works! Rik


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Rsnap said:


> We've got a lot of smart brains, thinkers, and good people on this forum but what I'm saying is that you can't send Bubba out there with a twelve pack and a camera to "document" how many red snapper are in the NW Gulf. I mean lay off it, no statistician or state or federal agency would ever accept that kind of junk. If you can't accept that notion, well hey I'm not the final authority so don't take my word for it - let them tell you.


Some very simple yet powerful "documentary" would help rally our side
and possiably create interest and doubt to even non fisherman. 
Of course CCA & NMF will say "Who you gonna belive? Your lyin eyes -
or our "data". I am not saying lets go th the NMF with our home movies!
Here is what I am saying! Lets use our combined brainpower & recource
to start! A killer Video from a "Fish Guru" might just help RFA and others
to get some "real" $$$ to fight this war! I sure want to do my part and
I am giving it my best thoughts and service! Rik[/quote]

Ric, I'll volunteer my boat and services for a trip or two to help with this effort. Can't hurt and would be fun. But after they (FEDS) trashed Dr. Shipp's factual, well documented, peer reviewed research as "not the best available science" I'm not too optimistic about the outcome.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*We have to change current law period to require flexibility first and formost*

The Shipp Minton paper shows NMFS will not take data. We must change the Magnuson-Stevens Act that gives NMFS the curtain to hide behind. I hope you all have written the letters to the Governors asking them and our Members of Congress to fix the Law. If not please do so today.


----------



## aggiemulletboy (May 31, 2006)

willyhunting said:


> Aggie mullet boy.
> 
> The best solution to this would have been to allow the first 4 or 5 fish concept to go forward in the rec end and to eliminate the size limits on both the sectors of the directed fishery. Well, they have a 13" limit with a hook size requirement which has drastically reduced the discards in the commercial sector. Seems they like the smaller fish as they get a premium for them because the fillets off a 14" fish "plate well". If this relieves a little pressure off of older fish, the better for everybody as they produce more eggs.


This actually was one proposal in our report to reduce discard mortality. I get the concept of it readily, and I have supported that idea since the first time I went on a party boat and saw a mile long line of improperly vented snapper affected by barotrauma floating for the kings and dolphins to pick off.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*

Rik,
We could use the Reef-Man vessel to take any media people - it's got plenty of room. Anybody got any media contacts? CNN would be good.

I am interested in looking further into the committee that concluded that the Shipp/Bortone info was NOT the best available science - anybody got that info who these people are?

Tom


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

WILL IT EVER END ?????? :headknock

*MB*


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

aggiemulletboy said:


> This actually was one proposal in our report to reduce discard mortality. I get the concept of it readily, and I have supported that idea since the first time I went on a party boat and saw a mile long line of *improperly vented snapper* affected by barotrauma floating for the kings and dolphins to pick off.


 Suggest that you check with Jim Smar, but I think there was a study done on venting and it showed venting was a failure also.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Y'all are right saying that we need " a groundswell of awareness" about the red snapper issue - there being so many of them you can't hardly target another kind of reef fish. You get the people, the media, the common person educated about the huge disconnect between bureaucracy and reality. That's a wee bit different than "the best science available" as Jim Smarr says, but you're right Rik and Tom, we need all the help we can get. I'm not dissing that in any way.

The issue is what the NMFS considers to be "credible evidence" regarding red snapper population estimates. There are been several peer-reviewed scientific papers done to establish present-day estimates - ones that were thrown aside by NMFS because they weren't "consistent" with the manner in which they estimate fish populations (which is mainly fish on sandy clay flats). So the NMFS won't even consider what "the best of the scientists" say. Wow, Houston we have a problem here! 

Have more "flexibility" in the definition in the Magnuson mandates is a start, but as long as you have the authorities saying that the numbers of red snapper are half or a third of what the experts think there are, we'll have this problem. Better ways of establishing daily bag limits won't solve the root of the problem. Counting fish on the dockside certainly won't, either. For all the great programs the NMFS has to sample and estimate fish populations, their disregard of "how to count red snapper" borders on the ludicrous and ridiculous. It's as if the Wizard of Oz was sitting behind a curtain pulling the switches on a complex computer model without the benefit of any "real world input."

The common person understands this intuitively and simply - let's go fishing! Gosh, you can't shake enough red snapper off your lines (long as you have some good numbers, Rik's book, and the honey-hole ain't been played out - another issue). One day last year on one 8-hour headboat trip I caught a hundred red snapper, and kept two. The poor captain had to go searching for A-J and macks because we had limited out so quickly. We even got sick of catching spadefish. It was quite depressing, the powerful feeling that "something ain't right here."

So we need to get that word out on the street. Summer recreational fishing is a huge industry and the red snapper is our most popular "meat fish" down here on the Gulf. But beyond that we also need a system to count fish that is recognized, replicable, valid, and right. I suggested allowing the TPWD to help count red snapper off the Texas coast because they do such a great job on most fish and game issues. I even suggested that folks like Hilton with his excellent boat could be used for TPWD charters so they can count fish on a nice ride. Of course, NMFS is skeptical about all that, and even distrusts any red snapper numbers that TPWD sends in every year. Folks, something has to change here. This isn't some game and we should be working together on this. -sammie


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

hilton said:


> Rik,
> We could use the Reef-Man vessel to take any media people - it's got plenty of room. Anybody got any media contacts? CNN would be good.
> 
> I am interested in looking further into the committee that concluded that the Shipp/Bortone info was NOT the best available science - anybody got that info who these people are?
> ...


Sounds good to me Tom. Charlie has some media contacts. Time to state 
the signs we all see right now of overprotecting Red Snapper - Fewer and
fewer Triggerfish. Swells hit the nail in that Large Red Snapper are now 
eating more smaller fish of all kinds. NMF has us feeding the smaller Snaps
to Dolphin. That is another fact not taken into consideration ( just like
the weather) as these slaves to Science tell us this is our best model!
The model will never reflect reality unless it includes reality! Rik


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

So we need to get that word out on the street. Summer recreational fishing is a huge industry and the red snapper is our most popular "meat fish" down here on the Gulf. But beyond that we also need a system to count fish that is recognized, replicable, valid, and right. I suggested allowing the TPWD to help count red snapper off the Texas coast because they do such a great job on most fish and game issues. I even suggested that folks like Hilton with his excellent boat could be used for TPWD charters so they can count fish on a nice ride. Of course, NMFS is skeptical about all that, and even distrusts any red snapper numbers that TPWD sends in every year. Folks, something has to change here. This isn't some game and we should be working together on this. -sammie[/quote]

Another great point and idea! Rik


----------



## Crossroads (May 21, 2004)

We have a limit of two red snapper and we get to fish a couple of months a year (yippee). I don't see how anyone can think the NMFS has done anything right since their venture into red snapper management. I don't understand how anyone can think they will do anything right in the future. For me it's just idiots with big egos ruining red snapper fishing now and the future. All those studies and all those papers that contradict what the NMFS decides are totally meaningless. I guess I'm sour on the subject.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Venting*

There is an old study out of South Padre on venting Red Snapper. Most died. Most regulatory discards die due to predators.

If you owned a saltwater aquarium you would understand what happens when you introduce a stressed fish into the tank. Immediately everyone else takes a chunk out of the stressed fish until nothing is left. Common Sense does not live within the rocket scientist at NMFS.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

hilton said:


> I am interested in looking further into the committee that concluded that the Shipp/Bortone info was NOT the best available science - anybody got that info who these people are?
> 
> Tom


I'm guessing CCA was not far away from it.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

jim smarr said:


> There is an old study out of South Padre on venting Red Snapper. Most died. Most regulatory discards die due to predators.
> 
> If you owned a saltwater aquarium you would understand what happens when you introduce a stressed fish into the tank. Immediately everyone else takes a chunk out of the stressed fish until nothing is left. Common Sense does not live within the rocket scientist at NMFS.


LOL, if they didn't float sideways in the aquarium, they'd get a disease we called "ick" which is caused by bacteria on your hands. Perhaps the larger fish over several pounds can make it back down OK. Of course, using the ice pick, knife, or marlin spike might have been a factor - you never know with these bad-boy SPI hombres, right? I hope you know I'm kidding ... 

But remember, venting is a catch 'n' release strategy, not a way to count fish. Great concept but it won't win the war.

Just to think of it ... when I started in this game they had this law about no drugs and marijuana on boats, not even a seed, so a bunch of boats had that sticker of a marijuana leaf with the red slash through it meaning "No Drugs." Now we're packing hypodermic needles! :work:


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*



Levelwind said:


> I'm guessing CCA was not far away from it.


Found it - it's the Science and Statistical Committee (SSC).

Who is on it?

If the Shipp-Bortone paper is not the best available science, what is?

Tom


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

There should be no releasing. First five fish and then target some other type of fish, perferably not a bottom dweller. Our use a larger hook bait combination for grouper if that is what you're after.

With the way our marine mammals around here have adapted to finding the easiest meal possible, a released fish is a dead fish.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Sammy LOL*

The release mortality studies used a needle. They even used tracking devices on the fish tossed overboard. Some specimens were even placed in suspended cages. They all died within 72 hours most very shortly after returning to the water without the protection of a cage.

At depth the water pressure filled the body cavity with water causing deaths if I remember correctly.

Matt Murphy was involved as I remember working with the fisheries service employees. Not very incouraging endorsement of venting then as now. I guess somehow this study was "lost" as it did not meet the stated goal. lol


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

Tom,

as far as the SSC goes, I think a lot of these guys have seen such drastic change in the way Red Snapper are understood that they can only take a little at a time. It has not been too long ago that the general concensus was that the life span of a snapper was 25 years or less. Now with olith splitting we have come to see some sows over 80 years old. This really changes the game, especially when they don't have any hope of adjusting their current "Models" to accomadate this or incorparating any of the new realities that I mentioned in my post yesterday.

Reality can be a beotch.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Is this going to be after you get those reefs put in the water?



hilton said:


> Rik,
> We could use the Reef-Man vessel to take any media people - it's got plenty of room. Anybody got any media contacts? CNN would be good.
> 
> I am interested in looking further into the committee that concluded that the Shipp/Bortone info was NOT the best available science - anybody got that info who these people are?
> ...


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*Reefs*



Hughoo222 said:


> Is this going to be after you get those reefs put in the water?


Could be a combo deal - put some new habitat out and go hit some existing habitats to document the abundance of Red Snapper on them.

May be just what the media is looking for.

Tom


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*SSC Membership FYI*

*SSC Membership List*

*Updated: 11/13/08*
*Standing SSC* 
Charles Adams
Luiz Barbieri
Harry Blanchet
Benjamin Blount
James Cowan, Jr.
Douglas Gregory, Jr.
George Guillen
Michael Jepson
Albert Jones
Walter Keithly
William Patterson
Joe Powers
Joachim Singelmann
Steve Szedlmayer
James Wilkins
Elbert Whorton

*Special Coral SSC* 
Thomas Cuba
Richard Dodge
Walter Jaap
Judith Lang
George Schmahl

*Ecosystem SSC* 
Vernon Asper
Columbus Brown
Felicia Coleman
Ken Heck
David Hicks
Stephen Holiman
Behzad Mahmoudi
Joe Powers
Ken Rose
James Simons
Carl Walters
Priscilla Weeks
Wei Wu

*Special Mackerel SSC* 
Jason Adriance
Karen M. Burns
Doug DeVries

*Ad Hoc Marine Reserves SSC* 
James Bohnsack
Columbus Brown
Billy Causey
Felicia Coleman
Christopher Koenig
Don Levitan
Walter Milon
SAC Hal Robbins, NOAA Fisheries
Stephen Thomas
John Tunnell, Jr.
Frederick Whitrock

*Special Red Drum SSC* 
Paul Cook
Jessica McCawley
James Tolan
Mike Buchanan

*Special Reef Fish SSC*
Robert Allman
Barbara Dorf
Bill Lindberg
John Mareska
Douglas D. Peter

*Special Shrimp SSC* 
Martin Bourgeois
Mike Brainard
Wade Griffin
Leslie Hartman
Karen Meador
James Nance
William Sharp

*Special Spiny Lobster SSC* 
Rene Buesa
John Hunt
William Carson Sharp

*Special Stone Crab SSC* 
Theresa Bert
Tom Matthews
Harriet Perry

*SMZ Monitoring Team* 
Mike Buchanan
Jan Culbertson
Jon Dodrill
Steve Heath
Mike Piccirilli
Pete Sheridan
Mark Sramek


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Right. just wondering about the Cowan reefs that were paid for last summer.

Maybe you will have better luck with the media than I did...sent out a few hundred emails a couple years back...told them the story and nobody really cared.



hilton said:


> Could be a combo deal - put some new habitat out and go hit some existing habitats to document the abundance of Red Snapper on them.
> 
> May be just what the media is looking for.
> 
> Tom


----------



## dogonefishin (Apr 8, 2005)

Texas Tech did a bunch of tagging down here in SPI about tens years ago. They inserted a yellow tag about 6 inches long that had an ID number and a phone number to call with the size of the fish,date caught, and location caught. One of the biggest problems with the procedure was they measured, took a DNA tissue sample, blood sample, and then vented the fish. his took about 90 seconds to 2 minutes to do. Most of these snapper just floated off or sank to the bottom with out a chance due to the time out of the water, multiple attempts to take blood or tissue samples. Do not call B.S. on this because I watched it happen. We even called one of the guys SHARKY becuase NOT ONE OF HIS FISHED EVER SWAM OFF. The university of Alabama did a study that showed the triggers ate the yellow tags off of the snapper as soon as they saw them. This study was done in tanks and in the wild. Yes some snapper will die after venting and some will make it. In my Twenty five years as a Captain(15 yrs) and deckhand (10yrs) I have released many fish and caught many snapper that have been tagged, previously vented, marked on the head with initials, and had huge bites out of their bodies. The red snapper is a lot tougher than some here think. 
Capt. Bobby Dunkin


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Hughoo222*

Hughoo222- Tom is an Aggie and an Engineer on top of that for heavens sake . LOL He is working on the boat. You know all contingencies have to be vetted you understand. Now a Longhorn like me would have just gone out there and sunk the deployment boat by dropping stuff off the rear end without understanding cause and effect of having a heavy object on a long cable tied to the transom. There are serious engineering formulas involved. Heck we want a lot of reefs not just the boat and one reef on the bottom. Lol The Germans had an engineering problem with one decimal point being lost. They could have had the atom bomb a year before we did had there not been a floating decimal in their equation. It cost them the war. Even for an Aggie I think Tom may figure this out soon. We do not want Tom going down with the ship so we will wait until he has his calculations are done. I am sure the entire ATM Engineering Department is working on the problem. Lol

I have it on good authority a fellow Longhorn sent Tom new batteries for the calculator and it is now working, Problem should be solved soon. The race will be on to surpass Alabama soon on Artificial Reefing.

Tom just kidding good luck. We await the word to deploy as it will be a great day for Texas. I know Jack Cowan will be smiling as he loved the idea even though he said , TGBR was a handful but a noble undertaking surpassing anything attempted in the name of Conservation or Fisheries Management.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Now back to fixing Magnuson. LOL


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*



willyhunting said:


> Tom,
> 
> as far as the SSC goes, I think a lot of these guys have seen such drastic change in the way Red Snapper are understood that they can only take a little at a time. It has not been too long ago that the general concensus was that the life span of a snapper was 25 years or less. Now with olith splitting we have come to see some sows over 80 years old. This really changes the game, especially when they don't have any hope of adjusting their current "Models" to accomadate this or incorparating any of the new realities that I mentioned in my post yesterday.
> 
> Reality can be a beotch.


willyhunting,
You obviously have a good handle on the situation and I appreciate your perspective. However, from what I have observed, the problem has been that there has been an ongoing archaic view of snapper that has NOT indicated a drastic change in the way they are understood. The enviros have made their case that the species is recruitment-limited, and that is how the NMFS counts the fish, how the NMFS manages the species. In fact, it is exactly the Shipp-Bortone type of research that would "change the game". If the species is not recruitment-limited and is in fact habitat limited as suggested in the Shipp-Bortone paper, then the species would NOT be deemed overfished nor undergoing overfishing (the rationale for the draconian restrictions placed upon the fishery today). The snapper would be considered to be in an unrealized harvest potential mode - provide more habitat, and that will produce more fish.

I see Steven Szedlmayer as a member of the SSC - he has produced complementary papers to Dr. Shipp's work detailing, over a period of 10 years, the benefits of providing artificial reefs as habitat for the fishery. He has concluded that Alabama has developed its own sustainable fishery. That's quite an accomplishment in itself, but when you consider that this small 50 mile stretch of coast has consistently produced 40% of the entire GOM recreationally-caught snapper, it's absolutely amazing.

I'm not sure why the olith issue would "change the game" at all relative to the habitat limiting factors illustrated in the Shipp-Bortone paper. If the species is habitat-limited, then providing more habitat would create many more "retirement communities" over time, right? Creating more habitat would relieve the pressure off of other heavily-fished sites, allowing more fish to grow older, right?

Additionally, although the paper is relatively new, what the paper shows is not - it is a historical account going back over 100 years detailing the history of snapper demographics. This is the type of data that shows the long-term beneficial effects of providing suitable habitat to the species that has been sorely lacking in the federal management schemes of the last 20 years or so. Although the Magnuson calls for enhancement of habitat, I don't believe any habitat has been placed at the direction of the MSA.

The Shipp-Bortone paper is, in my opinion, the best available science, but then that doesn't count for much does it.

All the best,

Tom

PS. Thanks for the kind words Jim. We are very close to deployment.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

jim smarr said:


> Now back to fixing Magnuson. LOL


 Can't we pick on the CCA some more? Pleeeeease:rotfl:


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

dogonefishin said:


> Texas Tech did a bunch of tagging down here in SPI about tens years ago. They inserted a yellow tag about 6 inches long that had an ID number and a phone number to call with the size of the fish,date caught, and location caught. One of the biggest problems with the procedure was they measured, took a DNA tissue sample, blood sample, and then vented the fish. his took about 90 seconds to 2 minutes to do. Most of these snapper just floated off or sank to the bottom with out a chance due to the time out of the water, multiple attempts to take blood or tissue samples. Do not call B.S. on this because I watched it happen. We even called one of the guys SHARKY becuase NOT ONE OF HIS FISHED EVER SWAM OFF. The university of Alabama did a study that showed the triggers ate the yellow tags off of the snapper as soon as they saw them. This study was done in tanks and in the wild. Yes some snapper will die after venting and some will make it. In my Twenty five years as a Captain(15 yrs) and deckhand (10yrs) I have released many fish and caught many snapper that have been tagged, previously vented, marked on the head with initials, and had huge bites out of their bodies. The red snapper is a lot tougher than some here think.
> Capt. Bobby Dunkin


I caught one of those fish about 4 years ago on the East Bank out of SPI. The fish was tagged the previous season on a Murphy boat the previous summer. Tech began doing their studies in shallower water to reduce the flipper food problem. BTW, the fish had grown from 12" to 16" and had moved a max of .25 miles in that year. I wonder if NMFS still think that snapper migrate?


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

it is interesting, but not surprising that 5 or 6 yrs ago, when the Gulf Council was doing the EFH (essential fish habitat) amendment in Tampa, Bob Shipp and I were the only people on the panel that supported the idea of oil and gas structures being essential fish habitat and thusly, the Council wouldn't consider it. Coincidentally or not, on that panel was an employee of Environmental Defense who voted against the motion.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Along with flexibility in the MSA, it is also time to put some heat on the SSC. These guys need to be called on the carpet for their agenda based junk science. They are a huge part of the problem.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Has anybody taken the Gulf Council or the NMFS to the Corpus Aquarium? They have a very good example of how rigs have a positive effect on habitat.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Think of best available science not as a position or opinion or a conclusion, but as a generally accepted process or methodology. To be considered as science, the studies must conform to basic practices, processes, or methodology which are termed "best available." 

Against this backdrop, we can have two studies, both of which can be considered "best available science," yet have the two studies reaching directly opposite conclusions. 

That say, once there is best available science in the record before the regulators, then the regulators issue regulations based upon that science. The regulators get to select among the conclusions or opinions expressed in the science to formulate the fishery plan. As long as there is some science to support the plan, the plan can be implemented. Stated slightly differently, the mere existence of one or two pieces of "best available science" that would suggest a different course of action does not mean that the regulators have to follow that science, as long as there is some "best available science" supporting the regulatory plan. 

Putting it all together, even if the Shipp material is considered "best available science," its merely one piece of best available science to be considered by the regulators. They can accept its conclusions or reject them. Thats their job. Select among best available science to formulate a stock rebuilding plan.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Ernest*

We do not have to accept the skewed thought processes spewed from a group of PhD's that want to keep us from fishing period. They are unwilling to accept that Alabama has taken the "Bull by the Horns" and fixed their fishery. If these same PhD's could study artificial reefing and acquire millions in grant dollars they would love reefing and the conclusions Dr. Shipp has arrived at. The entire problem is money driven. Look at how many people are employed by the Federal and State Governments much less Enviro whacko groups saying we have a problem with some type fishery. 

Ernest we have allowed these bureaucrats and their hired guns to manage the red snapper fishery for 30 years. Dr. Shipp and Vernon Minton are more qualified to speak on Red Snapper to the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council than any of the SSC folks. The track record for Alabama speaks for itself. 

Ernest I do understand there are those high brow thinkers that spend countless hours dreaming but the cold hard facts you need and your buddies at CCA need to understand are simply put.

1. Misstated facts in the Shrimper Lawsuit closed the door for Recreational Anglers.
2. Artificial Reefing built a World Class Fishery in Alabama.
3. NMFS has not pushed "Habitat" for Reef Fish-Alabama did it on their own.
4. Texas has been held back by NMFS when Artificial Reefing Permits were requested.
5. IFQ does simply steal a natural resource we all own and give the public resource to a few.
6. The time has come to just say no more- We as Recreational Anglers have to force issues forward that benefit Recreational Anglers. We have to pull the curtains back and show the fishing world what these Bureaucrats are proposing immediately be they public or private offenders. 



In conclusion we have to stand up and make our voices heard in Congress. Maybe an oversight hearing on the SSC would be in order to let them know they are not the fourth part of "The Holy Trinity". There is too much at stake to continue to allow the tail to wag the dog at any level.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Well, part of it is because you are staing the facts incorrectly. Lets take the lawsuit, for example. You keep saying that somehow the "misstated facts" got the result in the lawsuit. Thats simply wrong. Flat out wrong. 

When challeging a fishery management plan, one must accept the facts found by the regulators if the facts are supported by some evidence in the record. Here, the record is best available science, and there was best available science showing the 80% by catch number, and that was the number used to develope the plan. 

You DO NOT get to go to court and ever challenge the facts in that record. Hard stop. Any and all litigants must accept those facts because there in no court in this land that has jurisdiction to conduct a review of the factual findings of the regulators (assuming some evidence in the record to support the facts.) Thats the regulator's job. Make factual determinations from the record, and those determinations are not subject to review by a court if there is evidence in the record to support them. 

So, this whole crazy wingnut idea that someone should have told the Judge of new facts or new information (not contained within the record before her) reflects a complete misunderstanding of the process here. The Judge would have said, in nice words, are you a f'in crack head? I have no jurisdiction to review factual findings of the regulators and decide whether those facts are right or wrong, if there is any evidence in the record to support those facts. I similarly have no jusirdiction to review facts not within the record before the regulators. Here, there is evidence in the record to support this 80% number, so **** (but in nice, judge words.) 

Plus, and perhaps most importantly, once the by catch number moved from 80%, the TAC for recs and comms had to go down. Assumping they did not eliminate shrimping, once the by catch number goes down, the comm and rec TAC was going to be reduced. No, ifs, ands or buts about it. So, even if there was no lawsuit, we would be in this same basic position today. 


Habitat - they have no budget to build habitat, they have no power to order states to build habitate, and until very recently, there was no "best available science" even indicating the fishery was habitat limited. Might as well add - they have done nothing to end child **** or sex slavery. Like habitat, its essentially outside their budget and/or authority. 

If you are so hades bent on helping recreational anglers, why does the Flex. in Fisheries Act give 51% of the benefit in the red snapper fishery to commercial snapper fishermen? Why is it not written to give the flexibility only to recs and to deny that flex to the comms?


----------



## polloloco (Nov 1, 2006)

*Snapper*

You asked the question:

If you are so hades bent on helping recreational anglers, why does the Flex. in Fisheries Act give 51% of the benefit in the red snapper fishery to commercial snapper fishermen? Why is it not written to give the flexibility only to recs and to deny that flex to the comms?

Because of crappy run organizations like CCA and crooked council members who have been paid off by lobyists who are supported by commercial fisherman.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Dead on....*

Well said Jim, even if he fails to get it.

The Shipp/Minton work confirms what we have long believed...that reefs/structure are the cornerstone of a snappers "ideal" habitat.
Say we toss Ernest and a few buddies out in the Sahara and see how well they survive and populate. The history and evidence is there, whether anyone chooses to believe it is the obvious question. My guess is that when pressed some folks might squirm a wee bit. Things have changed in DC and the dynamic is not what it was say even a year ago.

The effort has been difficult in that most folks either don't know what the problem is, don't care...or just wont do much to fix it except whine. We have been out organized, out funded, out politicked, and what little power there has been got stifled by opportunists diluting the mission by seeking to line their own pockets! Now they sneak around here and read but never say a word as their little money game has run aground with the economy taking a dump and all. (yeah I said it)

I have a voice and maybe become a bit riled up at times... but I sure ain't sat around here for several years and screamed because my bank account was benefiting from it...actually it's been quite the contrary.

CCA is largely to blame for not only the problem but also playing tricks and spreading outright lies in order to further worsen the problem. CCA is not far off from the litany of corporate criminals in the news the last few years...bad part is they are using our resource to gamble with...our children's future...may sound cliche ....but really, think about it. CCA has long built a member base by making it part of STAR registration...how well would they be received in DC with a lot less members? Once the resource is divided up and sold off we will NEVER get it back!

Have a great afternoon!



jim smarr said:


> We do not have to accept the skewed thought processes spewed from a group of PhD's that want to keep us from fishing period. They are unwilling to accept that Alabama has taken the "Bull by the Horns" and fixed their fishery. If these same PhD's could study artificial reefing and acquire millions in grant dollars they would love reefing and the conclusions Dr. Shipp has arrived at. The entire problem is money driven. Look at how many people are employed by the Federal and State Governments much less Enviro whacko groups saying we have a problem with some type fishery.
> 
> Ernest we have allowed these bureaucrats and their hired guns to manage the red snapper fishery for 30 years. Dr. Shipp and Vernon Minton are more qualified to speak on Red Snapper to the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council than any of the SSC folks. The track record for Alabama speaks for itself.
> 
> ...


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*A few thought for Ernest-the hole you are digging will be dark soon lol*

Well, part of it is because you are staing the facts incorrectly. Lets take the lawsuit, for example. You keep saying that somehow the "misstated facts" got the result in the lawsuit. Thats simply wrong. Flat out wrong. 
Counselor even you should know if a material fact presented in a lawsuit much less the premiss for said lawsuit changes from 80% down to 26% during the time the lawsuit was being considered by the Federal Judge the fact should have been presented to the Judge..If for no other reason basic honesty to the Court.

When challeging a fishery management plan, one must accept the facts found by the regulators if the facts are supported by some evidence in the record. Here, the record is best available science, and there was best available science showing the 80% by catch number, and that was the number used to develope the plan. 
The number changedafter the lawsuit was filed changing the premise for the action before the Court.

You DO NOT get to go to court and ever challenge the facts in that record. Hard stop. Any and all litigants must accept those facts because there in no court in this land that has jurisdiction to conduct a review of the factual findings of the regulators (assuming some evidence in the record to support the facts.) Thats the regulator's job. Make factual determinations from the record, and those determinations are not subject to review by a court if there is evidence in the record to support them. 

So, this whole crazy wingnut idea that someone should have told the Judge of new facts or new information (not contained within the record before her) reflects a complete misunderstanding of the process here. The Judge would have said, in nice words, are you a f'in crack head? I have no jurisdiction to review factual findings of the regulators and decide whether those facts are right or wrong, if there is any evidence in the record to support those facts. I similarly have no jusirdiction to review facts not within the record before the regulators. Here, there is evidence in the record to support this 80% number, so **** (but in nice, judge words.) 
If material facts change the lawsuit if amended with 26% would have gotten the Enviro's and CCA laughed out of court. 

Plus, and perhaps most importantly, once the by catch number moved from 80%, the TAC for recs and comms had to go down. Assumping they did not eliminate shrimping, once the by catch number goes down, the comm and rec TAC was going to be reduced. No, ifs, ands or buts about it. So, even if there was no lawsuit, we would be in this same basic position today. 
False if the bycatch number goes down from 80% to 26% (66% or so less dead snapper) the TAC goes back up. 12 month season again with 5 fish.

Habitat - they have no budget to build habitat, they have no power to order states to build habitate, and until very recently, there was no "best available science" even indicating the fishery was habitat limited. Might as well add - they have done nothing to end child **** or sex slavery. Like habitat, its essentially outside their budget and/or authority. 
Alabama used private funds. NMFS could throw the door open to habitat enhancement. Money has nothing to do with reefing from NMFS. Seems NMFS does not like unnatural bottom enhancement due to Environmental Defenses objections. 

If you are so hades bent on helping recreational anglers, why does the Flex. in Fisheries Act give 51% of the benefit in the red snapper fishery to commercial snapper fishermen? Why is it not written to give the flexibility only to recs and to deny that flex to the comms?
We wanted to fix the plan to allow more than a 2 month fishery and a 2 fish bag limit. We are trying to undo the damage done by the CCA -Enviro lawsuit requiring a 2 year rebuilding plan timeline. 

Ernest I do believe you would argue with an oscillating fan. Lol BTW I just read three articles about IFQ's and ITQ's in the recent "Tide" magazine. Seems there is more to the story than I once thought. The CCA is neck deep in the selling of our resources to a select few.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Just in case you are all getting bored with the lack of CCA smack, here is a nice little nugget. The link below will take you to Environmental Defense fund's page where (surprise!!!!) they are proposing the same thing as CCA (among other things). Just go to the paragraph headed with "Fish Tags". Hummm. Smell familiar? It is as if they are working off of the same playbook. I bet they finish each other sentence's as well. How cute.

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1546

How do you CCA honks like to see your wonderful organization in bed with these wackos, or at the very least swimming in the same direction, or agreeing with them? I am sure it is way more than coincidence that they are both putting forth this idea.


----------



## Cat O' Lies (May 21, 2004)

CCA=Commercial Conservation Association


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Jim, you obviously don't understand the lawsuit or how the process works. The lawsuit challenged an existing fishery plan which was based upon specific factual findings by the regulators. Not a future plan based upon future facts which were not even in the record when the lawsuit was filed. Drrrrr.

Even if that number was before the Court in the record, it would not have changed the result. Far from being laughed out of court, it would have enhanced their likelyhood of sucess. I must assume from your comments you have not read and do not understand the lawsuit or the Order entered by the Court, cause what I hearing here is just crazy talk.

If the snapper mortality is not shrimpers (and the stock assessment remains the same), they have to go after comms or recs to rebuild. There is no other option. Those are the three primary sources of mortality, and if we reduce one considerably, without changing our stock assessment (including overfished and undergoin over fishing), then the other two have to bear the extra mortality burden. Further, the rosey assumptions about future reductions in shrimping effort will reduce future mortality and thereby enhance the population go out the window as well.

Jim, I believe you are an ocsillating fan. You will blow hot air from any direction as long as its pointed towards CCA.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Wrong tree hound dog...*

I do know some boys who can disect that lawsuit like a frog...and/or file another one.

Now go polish up all your hebrew-bad-boy guns and read the latest corporate lackey law review after you run by the cleaners.

Ernest, aside from being an attorney your problems are that you have no clue as to the life of an ordinary fisherman, blue collar folks...and you have NEVER offered a solution for the problem...and you do seem to always be on the defense for CCA.

You talk down to people as if "you" are the last word as far as the Snapper debate goes...but you still ride the fence and hide behind that thing hanging on your office wall...big deal, you can read and research...all required for an attorney. But until you actually DO SOMETHING either way...you really should just put a cork in it...counselor!



Ernest said:


> Jim, you obviously don't understand the lawsuit or how the process works. The lawsuit challenged an existing fishery plan which was based upon specific factual findings by the regulators. Not a future plan based upon future facts which were not even in the record when the lawsuit was filed. Drrrrr.
> 
> Even if that number was before the Court in the record, it would not have changed the result. Far from being laughed out of court, it would have enhanced their likelyhood of sucess. I must assume from your comments you have not read and do not understand the lawsuit or the Order entered by the Court, cause what I hearing here is just crazy talk.
> 
> ...


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Ernest*

20 years of 80% erroneous debits to the 0 to 2 year old numbers of Red Snapper should be credited back into the model with the correct number of 26%. Now you know why Red Snapper are everywhere. The computer at NMFS can't explain why all these dead fish suddenly appeared. Seems 80% less 26% is a 54% higher number than the SSC,SEDAR, NMFS, Environmental Defense, CCA or the last stock assessment show. Ernest I would not expect you to understand basic mathematics as you are a Lawyer. Seems we need a credit for the geometric progression of the 54% that only died on the NMFS Computer model. Your digging a deeper hole Counselor. 

Most people here understand that a simple credit is due when we have been charged with an erroneously inflated shrimp bycatch rate. That would take us out of an overfished and undergoing overfishing status. 

Maybe you should do as I did and take two weeks off and read the entire
17 volumes of the administrative record so you are up to speed on the Red Snapper issue. Until you have again I would not expect you to truly understand the many problems involved in a multifaceted style fisheries management program such as the Red Snapper issue. 

As far as the Lawsuit goes I understand it very well. We fish 2 months and get a 2 fish bag limit as does everyone else. I have read it believe me. I am still shaking my head in disgust.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Hughoo222 said:


> I do know some boys who can disect that lawsuit like a frog...and/or file another one.
> 
> Now go polish up all your hebrew-bad-boy guns and read the latest corporate lackey law review after you run by the cleaners.
> 
> ...


:cheers: :work: 







Can I get an amen from the congregation?


----------



## Tiny (Dec 19, 2006)

Snap Draggin said:


> :cheers: :work:  Can I get an amen from the congregation?


*AAAAAAMEEEEEEEENNNNNN!!!







*


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Wrong on all accounts. I have offered solutions. Done so years ago. Done so recently. 

Don't understand math, wrong again. I'm the guy who previously created multi-variable modeling programs in a for profit venture. So, none of this is new to me. I can do all the math and understand the statistics. So, to now suggest I don't get the math merely reveals the silly extremes some will go to avoid the issues. 

Don't understand blue collar fisherman, wrong for the hat trick. 

What does "hebrew-bad-boy guns" mean? Is that some sort of crack about Jewish attorneys? 

You guys are just miffed that I occassionally spoil your bogus little anti-CCA tales here on this board. My bad for bringing up stuff like the reality of the situation.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Ernest said:


> If the snapper mortality is not shrimpers (and the stock assessment remains the same), they have to go after comms or recs to rebuild. There is no other option. Those are the three primary sources of mortality, and if we reduce one considerably, without changing our stock assessment (including overfished and undergoin over fishing), then the other two have to bear the extra mortality burden. Further, the rosey assumptions about future reductions in shrimping effort will reduce future mortality and thereby enhance the population go out the window as well.


I understand your point, but it seems to me that you are assuming that the snapper mortality number is a constant, where only the percentage share of the mortality by sectors changes. If the share of the pie goes from 80 to 26 for shrimpers, then the percentage share must go up for the commercial and recreational sector to account for the total mortality. The size of the pie never changes.

I would argue that shrimpers killing far less small snapper would mean that the pie would get considerably smaller, meaning that overal snapper mortality would be much smaller. Percentages for commercial and recreational would go way up, but the actual poundage of snapper killed by the sectors would remain the same. I mean, if the shrimpers are killing much less snapper, then there should be way more snapper swimming out there than many of the regulators would admit to. I think this is what Jim is trying to say. If the overall snapper mortality is a lot less than the regulators, or SSC says, then that means that the snapper fishery is not experiencing overfishing, is not overfished, and there should be a lot more poundage added to the TAC, right?

I believe that you mentioned before that we must change the science. That is really what needs to be done here. It seems that the regulators can pick and choose whatever works for them best, with reality having no bearing on the situation. It seems that "best available science" is whatever findings show that the species remains classified as overfished or ongoing overfishing. Do we change the regulators, fight for oversight, conduct independent studies?


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

had snapper tacos, with wasabi' slaw last night!.............good


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

Ernest, let's say for the sake of non-argument that you win all points on stats, history and courtroom drama; it doesn't change the fact that CCA is spending effort and money to place recreational snapper fishing in dire jeopardy. Under the CCA/ED tag-auction proposition the rec sector will lose some unknown % of it's current allotment, _de facto_ at any rate. It will still be rec allotment, but in name only. CCA/ED _et al_ in the "conservation" business will no doubt scarf up all they can and commercial interests will purchase all that they can under financial prudency. The result is that current recreationals who already consider themselves wronged in a big way are going to take it in the shorts again, and the kicker is that it will be in large part at the hands of an organization that many of us have supported with excessive amounts of time, energy and cash in the past. Hell hath no fury, you know?

Now, CCA may have read the tea leaves and seen the demise of the STAR cash cow on the horizon (decline of prize quality as an indicator) and figured that pastures were greener on the enviro side of the fence. If so they're probably not worrying about lost revenue from disenchanted fishermen since stereotypically they're not big on enviro donations anyway. There will be plenty of soccer moms out there to take our place. Of course, the competition is pretty stout for that enviro dollar; CCA may yearn for the good ol days if they're not careful.

Regardless of how all this turns out, I'm pretty sure that CCA has exceeded the tipping point of our tolerance for duplicity with this action. You guys do your thing and we'll keep bashing CCA. After all, it's not like rec fishermen disenfranchised CCA, we're the injured party here. Hey, that's an idea. Anybody know a good personal injury lawyer?


----------



## Crossroads (May 21, 2004)

This thread kinda makes a recreational fisherman want to puke.


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Agree. And if I have asked it once, I have asked it a thousand times (and it has YET to be answered). Why isn't CCA using the same approach to dealing with this situation that GCCA used so successfully with the redfish? The commercial take is so much exploitation of the resourse for the benefit a so few, JUST like the redfish issue was. To attack the "unregulated" recreation guy and go thru all this BS rather than just do the most basic (and historically successful) thing: push for a game fish status. I'll tell you why. Because GCCA was run by volunteers, and CCA is run by paid lobbiest.

And don't go off on the restaurant business issue either. Not one restaurant went out of business because they stopped serving wild caught redfish. (okay, so I made that last statement up, but I bet it's true. )


----------



## Aggie (May 27, 2004)

*Proposal to CCA*

CCA, I would like to propose removing red fish from the game fish status and allowing 51% of the fish to be gill netted, trot lined, or purse seined from all the coastal waters.

The other 49% will have a lotery system for tags and the recreational fisherman can buy those....only iff they are able to get drawn in a lotery and then can afford the cost of the stamps. How would this sit with your bay fishermen????

Sounds stupid doesn't it!


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

> Why isn't CCA using the same approach to dealing with this situation that GCCA used so successfully with the redfish?


Either they lack the backbone to start and finish that fight or they aren't smart enough to figure out how fast that would fix things. 20 million and it would all be over tomorrow. It's chump change compared to the huge government program that's sprouted up and taken root around all this since that April 1rst joke that NMFS sprang on all us back then. CCA also is the single largest contributor to the bay shrimp license buyback, which has worked so well, it's just about over.


----------



## gulf_addict (Aug 26, 2005)

I wonder if CCA's membership is down because of their stance on the red snapper issue? Would make for an interesting survey.


----------



## polloloco (Nov 1, 2006)

Everyone that I know that has been or is a member is not renewing with CCA because they are not doing what the is in the Sports Fisherman's best interest. If their numbers are even right now - wait till a year passes. People are just now starting to get informed. I know several bay anglers who are appalled at how they are treating the snapper issue. Word of mouth my friends is better than any advertisement or any thing that money can buy. This summer when you are at a restaurant on the island or on the coastline at the bar ask the person next to you if they belong to CCA - tell them what they are doing and how it isn't in the best interest of the Texas Angler. These results may not be imediate but they will definately kill them in a year or two.

Talk to as many people about this as you can if each of us tell 10 people and those 10 tell 10 more, etc the word will get out.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I am not sure "killing" CCA is the answer. It would seem to me to be more productive as a member to raise holy h ell with them about some of their misguided offshore policies and see if we couldn't get them to use their all mighty pull in a better manner. I posted before about derailing a train on the wrong track. CCA could do us offshore guys a world of good if they would accept and act upon a little constructive criticism.


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Agree Mont. I was just thinking that myself. We need to RENEW our memberships with CCA, and raise hell with them on how they are pursuing this issue. I guess I just have a real problem giving them my money to pay their salaries. 

Interestingly, I tried to find out the Officers/Directors of the CCA online today, and I am pretty online savy. Could not find a single thing, other than Pat as a VP, which was simply a byline to an article he wrote. Nothing on their website for sure. Its like they don't want you to know who's in charge. And that is unusual.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Because snapper is being regulated by the Feds, while red fish was/is a state regulated fish. Same with shrimper licenses, it was a local Texas deal. 

Snapper is currently subject to Fed regulation which, long story made short, in part is designed specifically to protect commercial interests. Thus, very different process on the Fed. level. 

MITB - the growth of the fishery under a rebuilding plan is non-linear. It is akin to compounding interest. And, under the current plan, most all of that growth is in the future, not the past. Its projected, not realized. 

Thus, arguing about the size of the pie today, which is important for overfished/under going overfishing, is of considerably less significance in rebuilding. The rate of growth is critical, not the opening balance or today's pie size. 

Consider a 30 year bond that you are going to hold to maturity. 10% change in principle is virtually meaningless relative to a 10% increase in yield because of the long time horizon. 

The game here is the same its always been - forecasting future growth of the fishery to meet the mandated targets. 

The reduction in shrimper by catch numbers, when applied to a prior stock assessment, could arguably change the size of today's pies. But, thats a minor issue, at best. The open wound and rapidly bleeding from the head issue is we are now without that forecasted reduction in by catch that has to be made up some where else. 

Back to the bond analogy - The yield on the bond has gone from 12% down to 3%. So, I say anyone celebrating a simultaneous possible minor increase in the principle under the bond is a fool. Anyone suggesting its a good thing simply does not understand the game we are playing or how the compounding works. 

We need - a determination that the fishery is habitat limited AND credible indications that a massive forecasted increase in habitat will swell the populations to meet the required targets. We are missing both parts of this solution, and with the projected removal of rigs in the gulf, the second part will require huge dollars. 

Or - a huge increase in the stock assessment. Massive increase. Enought to over come the overfished/undergoing overfishing in the relatively near term. 

Changing the regulators merely means we potentially have different alternatives to meet the goals. The goals are dictated by science. All this change the regulators talk misses the point if we are under the same old yoke of overfished/under going overfishing. 

Check out who Ms. Fish just hired as her spokes-manhoe. Justin Kenny. And, these are the people that are going to cut us some slack here? Thats what we are counting on? Really? 

(Obviously, fish stocks are not interest or subject to compounding in a manner identical to interest, numbers are just made up for illustration purposes, never run with a knife in your hand, objects in the mirror are closer than they appear, YMMV, all actors are over 18 years of age, yadda, yadda, yadda.)


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

No bartender, I don't wanna have what Ernest is drinking today. 

Forget all that hooey about compound interest, shrimpers, and somebody's preconceptions about "the future." 

I've said it before, we need a proper stock assessment before you start estimating the take - being it by sector, by-catch, predation, or some stinkin' old shrimp boats. Stay on track man, stay focussed.

The logic is impeccable. If for some reason the red snapper start declining in the second or third year of the Annual Red Snapper Survey, you figure out if that decline warrants some further restrictions or not, and attempt to verify the possible causes. If the population is gaining, that is good and the bureaucrats can consider "making up the historical loss" or even relaxing the rules. I wish we were fighting over this latter aspect instead or all this dang Kool-Aid mumbo-jumbo and Jones poison.

And for folks like Ernest, I'm attacking the idea and not you ... you simply can't use a fish model based on artificial inputs for reproduction, survival, landings, and some crazy estimate of shrimp by-catch. I want a real survey, period. It's clean, it's scientific, and it's right. 

As the late Texas Senator Carl Parker (Port Arthur) said, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you."
sammie


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Sammy you know the late Senator Carl Parker was a smart man. 

Again a clean stock assesment with all the proper data cleaned up would be the "Holy Grail".


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

*Quote Mont: I am not sure "killing" CCA is the answer.*

How could killing or even attempting to weaken an organization that pumps $1.3 million into coastal conservation projects in Texas alone during the past several years ever be seen as a sound plan for fishermen to pursue?


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Ernest, I am not certain, but if the Red snapper is declared a game fish by the states bordering the GOM, doesn't that mean they cannot be legally landed/sold there? And wouldn't that effectively end commercial pursuit?

And back to my original comment about CCA, their very origins were due to fighting commercial fishing excesses. From their own website: CCA began in 1977 after *drastic commercial overfishing* along the Texas coast decimated redfish and speckled trout populations. Fourteen concerned recreational anglers created the Gulf Coast Conservation Association *to combat commercial fishing excesses* and conserve the resource.

So whether or not you agree with commecial fishing, CCA very beginning was to fight commercial fishing. They seem to me to be a long way from there today. I happen to have supported GCCA because I believe if there is any question as to sustainability of any resource, the first to go is those harvesting the resource itself to sell for personal profit.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> *Quote Mont: I am not sure "killing" CCA is the answer.*
> 
> How could killing or even attempting to weaken an organization that pumps $1.3 million into coastal conservation projects in Texas alone during the past several years ever be seen as a sound plan for fishermen to pursue?


CCA has outlived it's useful life.
$1.3 million is nothing compared to the amounts spent by rec fisherman, some where in the neighborhood of $1.7 BILLION per year.


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> *Quote Mont: I am not sure "killing" CCA is the answer.*
> 
> How could killing or even attempting to weaken an organization that pumps $1.3 million into coastal conservation projects in Texas alone during the past several years ever be seen as a sound plan for fishermen to pursue?


Well, speaking purely from the theoretical side, I could see killing an organization that pumps $1.3mm into conservation if in the process it removed $20 billion (or whatever the # is) of revenue from the economy and unreasonablly closed off recreational fishing.

By your logic, how can you weaken the environazi orgs, when they do so much to save the planet? Well, because they do more harm than good. Not saying CCA is there yet. But again, they sure do seem to be away from their roots.

Same thing happened to the Humane Society. I cannot tell you how many people blindly support that org because they provide shelter to puppies. How can you not support them? Well, because they are one of the largest anti hunting organizations on the planet. Charity orgs often morph into something many would no longer support if they knew how far the organization had moved from initial objective. MADD is another one.


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

It's elementary EJ, CCA is not acting in this group of fishermen's best interest. I, and I think others, are of the mind that considering overall CCA behavior that it is likely that hurting them financially will get their attention. Having meetings, writing nice letters and general gentlemanly appeals hasn't gotten it done. We're pretty sure that it isn't the education problem that we originally surmised. Yeah, they know what they're doing and it's throwing us under the bus. If you have some sway in the organization perhaps you can convince them that this selling off of the recreational allotment is a bad idea. It would sure be great if you could do that for us and you would be quite the celebrity around here. 

Oh, and your 1.3 statistic, over several years and several nameless projects doesn't quite have the panache that I think you were hoping it would. Now if they would write that check to Tom Hilton and get us the 1,300 Reefman reefs it would buy then maybe we'd be impressed.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

No, primarily a Fed. water fishery, and the activity is lawful under fed. regs. So, declaring it a state gamefish will not mean the comms would be prohibited from landing or selling snapper in Texas. Kings, spanish, and swords are all game fish in Texas, and unfortunately all three are available for sale in Texas. 

But, if the first to go are those harvesting for personal profit, who is the next to go? Thats the question. Headboats? Then, who is next? 6 pack charters? And, then the last would be private boat recs, right? Sounds alot like a maximize the economic impact approach. 

Round here, we call that the "elitest, probably owns a Mercedes, and personally filled in Cedar Bayou to kill cranes" approach. 

In that regard, I'm remind of the wise words of the military genius Col. Sanders, the hero of the Battle of Farnsworth Avenue Strip Center, who once said - I'm too drunk to taste this chicken. 

Words to live by there. Words to live by.


----------



## MarkD (Feb 15, 2005)

Swells said:


> As the late Texas Senator Carl Parker (Port Arthur) said, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you."
> sammie


When did Carl Parker die?


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

Mighty fine speech there Ernest. Of course that empathy for enterprise didn't stop CCA from slamming the door on commercial fishing for reds and trout. Oh yeah when they did that they had another initial.

Careful there Ern, you got a little spittle on your chin from all that gibberish.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Senator Carl Parker*

Seems he is alive and well according to Google. Sorry Senator for the "late" comment.

The quote was priceless that "OLE Sammy" posted up though.

JS

As the late Texas Senator Carl Parker (Port Arthur) said, "I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you."
sammie


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Instigator*

The STAR is not a cash cow and the prizes have not declined, I'm not really sure where you got that info.

Man, ya'll were doing so good there for about 24 hours. Some really good conversations going back and forth and then wham! I only guessing you ran out of ideas and the CCA bashing is better than repeating yourself. Gater


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

Gater since I don't get to see the CCA books, let's speculate on credible statements.

1) The Star tournament generates a good portion of CCA's annual revenues gained from the Texas area every year. 

2) It doesn't.

Should we construct one of those cool poll things and find out? We could even do it on a board that was more CCA friendly, although those might be getting scarce these days.

As for the prize thing, you might be right about that since I haven't checked for myself. I was just going by comments that I read about family boats being subbed for the more prestigious fishing boats offered in the past. There was some back and forth that I didn't participate in, but the consensus was that things might be going south due to the economy. that seemed like a reasonable, non bashing conclusion by guys that were in the STAR.

When organizations are not forthcoming about their officers or intent then public perception of them becomes the reality of their market. For a long time CCA has enjoyed having the public perceive them to be looking out for fishermen and the resource. For a number of us, that perception is changing.

Besides, they're fun to bash. It's like getting to swat at the pinata without a blindfold, they make it pretty easy.


----------



## MarkD (Feb 15, 2005)

Instigator said:


> Gater since I don't get to see the CCA books, let's speculate on credible statements.
> 
> 1) The Star tournament generates a good portion of CCA's annual revenues gained from the Texas area every year.
> 
> ...


Might as well have a poll. We'll have one to see how many snapper there are and then we can have another to see how much of CCA's annual revenue is from STAR. That ought to settle it.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

STAR

40,000 members.
 
Standard Membership $25
 
TEXAS STAR - $20

Nice little chunk of change for Texas alone.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> *Quote Mont: I am not sure "killing" CCA is the answer.*
> 
> How could killing or even attempting to weaken an organization that pumps $1.3 million into coastal conservation projects in Texas alone during the past several years ever be seen as a sound plan for fishermen to pursue?


Easy. When they work AGAINST the INTERESTS of fisherman, as they ARE, they are no longer a fisherman's organization and don't deserve their support. If they want to snivel about how environmentally sensitive they are and side with the commercials and the preservationists, they clearly are going after the bigger bucks.

Mont same as many of us loyal DU members rationalized, but the fact is that the top dogs didn't listen until they saw the membership going FROM DU and TO DELTA. The ordinary person can not imagine the arrogance of the people running large .orgs. Marie Antoinette had NOTHING on them.

GCCA did not save the redfish fishery. They swooped in after the fact and took credit. I'm not sure they've really done all that much good for the resource OR the recreational fisherman. I AM certain if they have done any (bay shrimp license buyback?) it's been mostly by accident and VERY economically ineffecient.

I'd be happy to dance on their grave.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

MarkD said:


> When did Carl Parker die?


Like Mark Twain, "rumors of my death have been highly exaggerated." He lost an election many years ago and last I heard Carl Parker was in law practice, one of the best in his field. Sorry!

As for designation of red snapper as a sports fish, pay no attention to Ernest because President Bush did just that for the striped bass in *federal* waters.

Don't cloud the issue by playing "Smoke on the Water," people.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Instigator and Mark D*

There is no need to have a poll, it's just another example of people running their mouths about something they know little about.

It has been mentioned here a gazillion times but just incase you missed it...The Star is a self sustaining organization, money raised by entry fees go back into the tournament as prizes and scholarships. NO money from the entry fees goes into the general fund.

As far as the prizes go, nothing major has changed. The prize money is still about the same, the scholarships are still the same, the only thing different is that the brand of boat's have changed. That is not uncommon, they have changed many times over the years for one reason or another.
No, there is not Contenders for the Offshore divisions but they are not pontoon boats either. The economy dictates alot when it comes to sponsorship money and I believe that may have played some part with this years change. Example: Bluewave, the number one selling bay boat in Texas, sales are down 70% in the last year and they will be limiting the sponsorship money, I would bet there are many feeling the pinch as well.

I think there are a few other things you may have missed from reading some of your comments. Maybe we can discuss them later, I don't want to overwhelm you with too much at once. Gater


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

Do you guys smell something burning? I think Gater's hair is on fire!

It's been fun guys, but I'm out for awhile. My only daughter decided to get married in Rhode Island of all places and as much fun as all this CCA baiting has been, there's bags to pack and planes to catch.


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

Gater,

NMFS wants to take away snapper fishing from the common person. CCA is right there encouraging them and finding/funding new proposals to do just that. You better believe that people are going to bash CCA!

Maybe Mont needs to start a pro-CCA Forum. Then you, Ernest, POCboy, and a few others can go talk to each other.


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Thanks Ernest. I stand corrected on the game fish issue.

However, to answer your second question: its purely academic. THere is no 'next to go' in the equation because there is no way the recreational fishermen can overfish this stock. The only elitiest scenario that could possibly develop is the very one CCA put forth for consideration on sell tags to high bidders! And even ithere was a need for more to go, then you regulate just like you do all the other game fish. It works for every other situation. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Market hunting waterfowl, venison, redfish, specs, etc., etc. Once you remove the very small, minor population placing the majority of the pressure on the resource the problem goes away, or at least becomes very manageable.

I see the arguements shooting themselves in foot. How is recreational fishing placing so much pressure? Someone said boat sales down 70% above. Two months season, with most weekends blown out. Polls showing that serious offshore fishermen brought home a rediculous amount of fish as compared to past. The only people out there fishing pretty much same as usual is the commercial folks. Hell, shrimping is a minor, minor portion of what it was.



Ernest said:


> No, primarily a Fed. water fishery, and the activity is lawful under fed. regs. So, declaring it a state gamefish will not mean the comms would be prohibited from landing or selling snapper in Texas. Kings, spanish, and swords are all game fish in Texas, and unfortunately all three are available for sale in Texas.
> 
> But, if the first to go are those harvesting for personal profit, who is the next to go? Thats the question. Headboats? Then, who is next? 6 pack charters? And, then the last would be private boat recs, right? Sounds alot like a maximize the economic impact approach.
> 
> ...


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Ernest*

Son crashing a fishery, killing 50 Whooping Cranes, losing 23,000 acres of wetlands-prime nursery grounds and the deaths and disfigurement of many Recreational Fishermen due to vibrio is no laughing matter. The matter is a very serious one down here in the Coastal Bend. FYI Counselor the act of filling Vinson's Slough has been called a criminal act by folks that can press the issue with Law Enforcement being Commerce Department and the GLO.

Elitist want to take a public resource and sell it to the highest bidder.

Elitist blessed us with all the problems we now face.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Cedar Bayou*

Cedar bayou is not open yet.....Jim you and that other woman have been working on that for what seems like 50 years. Why don't you just leave it to mother nature, if she wants it open she'll open it. They opened the Packery channel and it has all of the mid -coast screwed up. The vibro thing is pretty far fetched don't ya think. There have been Vibro cases in the Galveston area and it has the two biggest passes on the coast. I'll give ya one thing, you may not be any good at straighting out fishery problems but you are a master at coming up with some off of the wall *****. Gater


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

gater said:


> It has been mentioned here a gazillion times but just incase you missed it...The Star is a self sustaining organization, money raised by entry fees go back into the tournament as prizes and scholarships. *NO money from the entry fees goes into the general fund.*
> 
> Gater


I thought you had to pay a $25.00 fee to join CCA just to have the honor of paying $20.00 to play with the STAR??? Doesn't sound like a self sustaining organization to me... sounds more like bait and switch. What fund does the other $25.00 go to? Surely not "to the kids"...


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Gator*

I will have the last laugh on The Basses and their illegal closure-criminal act whatever you want to call it. The issue will soon be delt with. Tic Toc

RFA did not get in bed with the Basses. Seems we have morals. lol

How can you make light of human deaths and loss of limbs involving your fellow saltwater anglers. You might read Dr. Rita Colwell's letter on vibro before you dig a hole like your friend did.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

gater said:


> There is no need to have a poll, it's just another example of people running their mouths about something they know little about.
> 
> It has been mentioned here a gazillion times but just incase you missed it...The Star is a self sustaining organization, money raised by entry fees go back into the tournament as prizes and scholarships. NO money from the entry fees goes into the general fund.
> 
> . Gater


Repeat:


Snagged said:


> STAR
> 
> 40,000 members.
> 
> ...


 Also gives a false impression of indicating sportsman wishes, or politicial clout behind the name.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*STAR*

The $25.00 is your membership and the $20.00 is your entry fee. The $20.00 all goes back into the tournament. The STAR is a membership drive so yes you do have to pay the $25.00 to fish. The $25.00 whether your in the STAR or not is not part of the general fund it goes into a membership fund. It pays for your membership package with the biggest expense being the Tide, New Tide and Currents publications. Salaries, support or donations and other expenses come from the general fund. These monies are raised through the fund raising banquets. Gater


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Passes*

Jim that's a lovely letter....how much did the RFA have to pay her for that. Your chances of getting Vibrio are not much less than getting struck by lighting. 2/3's of Vibrio cases are from eating shellfish and you are just as likely to get it from the Gulf of Mexico as your from a back lake in 
Port O'Connor. The saltwater through the passes will not rid the bay system of Vibrio, if anything it may increase. It flourishes in saltwater and it has to have saltwater to survive and the saltier the better. I'm sure you were already aware of that though. I know the good doctor is alot smarter than me but I also believe she told ya pretty much whatever you wanted her to.......anything to get Cedar Bayou open....right Jim! Gater


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Come on guys. The CCA numbers are public record. As I indicated earlier, the membership dues are a small portion of their general revenue. So, dues paid by folks that only sign up to fish the Star is an even smaller fraction of that number. 

I love the mind set here - When one does not know the answer to a question, they just assume the answer to the question is consistent with their pre-existing biases. 

Jig - having allowed others - be they shrimpers or comms or whoever - to overfish the stock, recs are faced with the next question. We have been faced with it for years. As it stands now, if comm fishing was made unlawful tomorrow, and recs got 100% of the 2009 comm TAC, we are still only looking at something like 4 fish over a real short season (64 days or whatever). In 2010, we might be looking at even less. 

So, the logic works. The logic potentially represents the only reasoned manner to allocate this real small pie if one is seeking to maximize the economic benefit of the fishery. 

Yeah, we can simply ignore these tough questions. Or, do like Swells and make up some impossible standard for a stock assessment that will cost a small fortune and take years to complete so as to continue this pattern of denial. But, that does little to advance our interests. More importantly, its part and parcel of the failed strategy that has brought us to this sad state.


----------



## chad (Sep 7, 2006)

gater said:


> Jim that's a lovely letter....how much did the RFA have to pay her for that. Your chances of getting Vibrio are not much less than getting struck by lighting. 2/3's of Vibrio cases are from eating shellfish and you are just as likely to get it from the Gulf of Mexico as your from a back lake in
> Port O'Connor. The saltwater through the passes will not rid the bay system of Vibrio, if anything it may increase. It flourishes in saltwater and it has to have saltwater to survive and the saltier the better. I'm sure you were already aware of that though. I know the good doctor is alot smarter than me but I also believe she told ya pretty much whatever you wanted her to.......anything to get Cedar Bayou open....right Jim! Gater


Gator, I suggest you do a little research on vibrio and other flesh eating bacteria. Your way off base and appear to have no knowledge what so ever about the infections. I believe your above statements are at least 90% inaccurate.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Gator*

Do you guys know any smart people as I have to quote Senator Parker here "I can explain it to you but cannot understand it for you". Maybe they could explain to you Dr. Rita Colwell is the most respected expert globally on saltwater born viruses. She travels the world helping solve cholera type water born problems ie vibiro blooms. We simply asked her for her opinion on the Saint Charles Bay wetlands system. Seems we are floating in fecal chloroform. Dr Colwell was a keynote speaker at a symposium on the health of our bays. Rockport Beach Park was even loaded with fecal chloroform. We have had the highest number of vibiro infections of the entire Gulf Coast in our immediate area. 

Gator Dr. Colwell is unlike the PhD's in fisheries management she could not be bought at any price. Her character is sterling. Being told of her field of expertise we simply asked her about cause and effect given all the factors to improve our water quality in the 78,000 acre Saint Charles Bays wetlands system.

Unlike CCA we have taken the vibiro problem head on as we do not like the idea recreational anglers have lost life and limb by simply fishing around Rockport. 

Gator I am a reasonable man and give everyone the benefit of doubt to a point about their ability to be taken seriously. Even as easy going as I am I do believe you and your buddy Ernest have crossed the line. I could quote Ron White's by line but will not. I am sure if you ask around you will find someone that knows what I am talking about.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I think what Gater is suggesting here is that Vibrio doesn't have as much to do with the flow of water between passes because of the amount of fishermen who have been infected after fishing in POC. Remember Pass Cavallo and the ship channel? Plenty of water moving around there and still Vibrio.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Clean water and the lack of are the primary causes. Dumping the sewers into the bays is not going to cure thw problem.
Now get back to red snapper.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*And the answer is*

Port O'Connor is the first outlet North of the Closed passes on Saint Joseph Island to the South. We have the same problem to the South all the way to Port Aransas. Our bloom has to get flushed through those passes. We have infested all waters between the two major passes being Port A and Port O. Spring rains ie low salinities high water temperatures and fecal chloroform could be easily regulated with functioning passes. Gulf water temps are much cooler and would slow blooms. Open passes would quickly increase salinities due to spring floods also keeping vibiro in check. Texas State Health Department records prove our point despite what you may hear.
How about one other little thing restoring our migratory path for all living things in the bays Including sport fish like flounder, trout and redfish would be worth the effort. Blue crabs would once again be found in the bays around us.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

"Whatever your views on the Iraqi war, don't make the mistakes that were made in Vietnam, where we condemned the warriors, as well as the war. *This war may prove to be a tragic mistake, as Vietnam did.*"

Yeah, Ms. Colwell sound like a real salt of the earth kinda gal. This is just one example of the trash she spews at college graduations during a time of war!

I guess Patton would slap her with a bare hand, not just with a glove.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Amen on "Now back to Red Snapper"*

Thanks- you guys could burn some cel minutes by calling Toby Baker in the Governors Office since the wind is blowing to relate to him your feelings on Red Snapper and the need for Flexibility in Magnuson.
His number is 512-463-0130


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Hold up scooter...*

Having been admitted to UTMB on Thanksgiving morning 1994 with Vibrio, had surgery and nearly 2 weeks of serious antibiotics and IV painkillers in the hosp.(stuff hurts like hell)...I think I may be able to speak to the Vibrio thing.

You are wrong! Flow/Exchange is tied to the water conditions and quality.
Shallow avg bay depth, low flow/exchange and high temps dropping oxygen contents is the makings of a deadly brew....the there is that fertilizer ****.

I fished offshore out of GYB for work and got stuck by a snapper...next day I went bay fishing and the Docs said that was likely where it entered the open wound...a little fin poke can kill you!

And watch the LLM around the Arroyo...between the shrimp farm and all the other **** the ACOE allows downstream it is a nightmare waiting to happen. I have made agencies aware in writing and will hold them accountable in public.

And fyi go back and look, we have had this dicussion before....EJ and I went a few rounds.

Now back to the beheading...



Pocboy said:


> I think what Gater is suggesting here is that Vibrio doesn't have as much to do with the flow of water between passes because of the amount of fishermen who have been infected after fishing in POC. Remember Pass Cavallo and the ship channel? Plenty of water moving around there and still Vibrio.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

*Just so you are aware, here's what killing or weakening CCA places in jeopardy. These are dollars raised in Texas that went to work in Texas to improve Texas marine fisheries. *

*CCA Texas Conservation Dollars at Work 2006-2008: $1,572,350 *

$700,000 - CCA Texas Lab for Marine Larviculture - UTMSI Port Aransas
$250,000 - Shrimp License Buyback 
$98,352 - TPWD Game Warden Enforcement Equipment
$60,000 - Graduate-Level Scholarships at TAMU - UTMSI
$50,000 - Allen Jacoby Memorial Scholarship at UTMSI
$42,000 - Galveston Bay Sportsman's Road Marsh Restoration 
$40,000 - Bob Brister Memorial Scholarship UT - Austin
$37,000 - UTMSI Red Snapper Recreational Catch-and-Release Study
$35,000 - Bahia Grande Wetlands Restoration - Interior Channels Project
$32,900 - TPWD Game Warden Outpost Cabin - Lower Laguna Madre/Land Cut
$32,000 - TAMU - Harte Research Institute East Cut Study - Port Mansfield
$30,500 - UTMSI Snook Study
$25,000 - CCA-CPL Marine Development Center - Calorimeter Equipment
$25,000 - TPWD Goose Island Marsh Restoration Project - Rockport
$24,453 - TAMU Summer Intern Program - Corpus Christi, Dickinson
$20,000 - UTMSI Tripletail Fishery Study
$17,400 - TPWD Fisheries Management Division - Navigation Equipment
$16,000 - Perry R. Bass Marine Fisheries Research Center - Otolith Saw
$14,600 - CCA Texas Larviculture Lab - Micro-Controlled Feeding System
$13,875 - Sea Center Texas - Flounder Research Equipment
$6,470 - Crab Trap Cleanup Program
$1,800 - TPWD Flounder Broodfish Collection Project


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

We aren't placing them in jeopardy EJ, they plot their own course. That $750,000 a year figure is a drop in the bucket compared to the damage they are doing to coastal communities in Texas on the red snapper issue alone.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I think this thread has run its course. Let's move on to something new or at least a single topic thread.


----------

