# 2013 Red Snapper Season



## ROBALO23 (Jul 7, 2011)

Well looks like a sit by the fireplace type of day. Anybody ready to predict what the season will be like this year? One Snap?? Happy New Year !


----------



## snapper slapper lures (Jul 6, 2004)

1/3 of 1 snapper. You have to leave it in water long enough to get ate by sharks or cuda. The trick is to get them to bite it a exact 1/3 or you will be breaking the law. LOL



ROBALO23 said:


> Well looks like a sit by the fireplace type of day. Anybody ready to predict what the season will be like this year? One Snap?? Happy New Year !


----------



## thatRobguy (Jan 31, 2006)

And you can only keep the tail section. Happy New Year to all !!


----------



## Chula Vista (Jun 2, 2004)

*Sue in Federal Court*

We Should get our 4 fish(15"), for Six Months
April to Oct. BACK,,,,

and Crabtree and Co. Should Go To Prison,,,,:work:

A Federal Judge should Issue the order,

Pat


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

The trick is going to be getting the correct 1/3rd, because if any of the total 1/3rd's when combined make up the resemblance of a snapper then you will have exceeded your whole snapper per boat quota aggregate

The fine will be $2,000 per fish and 20 hours community service blowing and dismantling non-producing oil rigs


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Well with the half an AJ and a third of a snapper regs, I'm going into Big Uglies and Gafftop Slimers. Hate it when I catch speck trout and reds instead, maybe a dang release tarpon but hey, you gotta roll with the flow. Getting tired of fishing offshore and throwing everything back! 

At least with Big Uglies you get some decent skettie worms to gross out the family, and a bucket of snot from the Slimers.


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

Sad to say, and hopefully it is just my conspiracy side coming out, but not just with fishing regulations, it even happens in the work force, I have seen employees harassed so much they quit their job instead of getting fired so the company doesn't have to pay unemployment if they get fired/laid off

It seems to me that instead of just saying all fish are catch and release, they are going to make it so prohibitive that people just start giving up, which is already happening

If it was a true conservation effort, there would be a long term plan, say 5 years, or make all these so called endangered species completely off limits for 5 years to both commercial and recreational fishing, or even offer red snapper tags like what is done with red fish and/or deer, just say you can have 25 red snapper tags yearly

It would not be any of this wait until June 1st midnight each year to see what the season will be, make it out to be some huge secret mystery, or changing the regulations throughout the year so every time you go fishing you have to study for an exam

Why is it you can only keep 2 snapper during a short 6 week season, yet I can go to the fish market and buy 100 lbs of snapper fillets? Why not limit the store purchases as well, only 6 weeks and can only have 10 lbs of fillets in possession


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

4 per person, per day 24/7/365 for me this year.


----------



## McDaniel8402 (Dec 7, 2011)

TXFishin said:


> Sad to say, and hopefully it is just my conspiracy side coming out, but not just with fishing regulations, it even happens in the work force, I have seen employees harassed so much they quit their job instead of getting fired so the company doesn't have to pay unemployment if they get fired/laid off
> 
> It seems to me that instead of just saying all fish are catch and release, they are going to make it so prohibitive that people just start giving up, which is already happening
> 
> ...


Oh geeze! Don't dare offer up any common sense ideas on the matter. The attack on rec fishermen is about as sensible as the attack on law abiding gun owners. It has no base, and there is an agenda being pursued by a select few in govt. The best we can hope for is that the officials driving these fishing regs get exposed for what they are.


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

They are definitely not common since or logic, so the only thing there is $$, and the way the quota's are done the bigger the snapper get the less you can keep, so I guess if they said total allowed was 700,000 lbs for commercial and 300,000 lbs for recs, if you caught one snapper 1 million pounds, they would close the season


----------



## ROBALO23 (Jul 7, 2011)

Yep all "state" water for me this year .4-20lbers and head to the house!


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

Jolly Roger said:


> 4 per person, per day 24/7/365 for me this year.


I say do it !!!

We know it is a scam. It is our civil duty to be disobedient.


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

Have a "1 Million Snapper March" protest, just pick the first decent day, all the boats go out and fill them up, safety in numbers



capt4fish said:


> I say do it !!!
> 
> We know it is a scam. It is our civil duty to be disobedient.


----------



## lite-liner (Mar 15, 2005)

capt4fish said:


> I say do it !!!
> 
> We know it is a scam. It is our civil duty to be disobedient.


Yes!


----------



## snapper slapper lures (Jul 6, 2004)

*put your pirate patch on like joly rodger and snapper slapper*

Ditto



Jolly Roger said:


> 4 per person, per day 24/7/365 for me this year.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I predict it will be closed in federal waters due to the regulatory discards. Each year the fish are getting bigger, so it takes less of them to make the quota which is measured in pounds, not by fish count. The bus left a very long time ago on this trip and it's just about to come to the end of a dead end road. If not for '13, then for sure in '14. They won't set it at 1 fish and that's the number their computer model is going to spit out.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

With the lack of red snapper now in the Gulf, the mangroves have certainly gotten much larger. Don't leave port without your can of gray spraypaint.


----------



## prokat (Jul 17, 2010)

When are they going to close our state water snapper fishery down?...you think thats coming???


----------



## Ex Boat Capt. Carp (Jul 19, 2011)

There was a 2013 Snapper season!!???


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

That's why they been pushing so hard for Texas to mirror federal regs in our state waters.

Could cause problems for them if and when they close the federal red snapper season with state waters still open year round.


----------



## acoastalbender (Jul 16, 2011)

Hope this doesn't get any more depressing....


.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

hilton said:


> That's why they been pushing so hard for Texas to mirror federal regs in our state waters.
> 
> Could cause problems for them if and when they close the federal red snapper season with state waters still open year round.


In all honesty, I don't see how it's any different than it is right now, Tom. It was open less than 20 fishable days last year. "State snapper" are counted in the landings right along with the "federal" snapper. They are the very definition of regulatory discards. If anyone thinks for one minute that there would be any state snapper with a year around open federal season, you are kidding yourself. When push comes to shove, it's going to sound like a good idea to close the federal season down completely in order to speed the recovery. That's how it's going to be sold anyways. In what is usually called anecdotal information, most of the for hire guys I have spoken with favor a shutdown over a 1 snapper season. Let's face it, for hire calls the ball for the rec side. NMFS has flat out lied to me personally on limits. I sat in a meeting at Hobby Airport years back and we were told that a 2 fish limit would result in a year around season. It's easy to see how that worked out. In the entire history of management of this species, the only thing that has happened is lower limits. There's only 2 choices less than 2 fish and my money is on 0.


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

It might be a stupid question, and probably discussed in many forums, but why is it that a handful of people who may not have ever fished are deciding all of this, and why are more people not getting together to do something about it?


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Doesn't bother me one bit, since I don't target snapper, grouper, and AJ anymore. Too depressing. Most of the nasty rules are on offshore ground fishing, and there's plenty more fish in the sea than those stinkin' snapper. 

I don't know why everyone is so surprised - for the last two decades, the ground fishing and reef rules have gotten tighter and tighter. Trolling, sight-casting, kites, balloons, topwater drifting, potlicking shrimpers, sharking ... it's all good.


----------



## mredman1 (Feb 4, 2007)

*Regulations*

Remember, the coast guard and the game wardens are just doing their jobs and will be checking boats. I have been boarded five times in the last two years out of Freeport and each time I have been clean.

Too many people are boasting about their 15 pound average catches of red snapper. The Feds monitor this site.

I have chosen not to post photos of red snapper this past year because the information only serves to hurt us.

Mike


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Mont,
Are you saying that if the feds shut down snapper in federal waters that Texas wouldn't have the right to keep the season open in state waters?

Not only have the feds' attempted to usurp the US Constitution by trying to force federal regs on the states, apparently there is pressure being applied for the upcoming scoping meeting to address making it easier to prosecute fishermen in STATE court for fish caught in FEDERAL waters. Infractions normally handled by federal courts but apparently with not enough convictions to satisfy some people.

The feds pass laws they are unable/unwilling to enforce so they deputize State wardens to enforce their laws for them. Now they want our state courts to do the same. 

Texas needs to stand firm in maintaining our state rights by continuing to manage our state waters with TPWD standards - not failed federal management policies.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

can someone tell me what a red snapper is?? please.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

hilton said:


> Mont,
> Are you saying that if the feds shut down snapper in federal waters that Texas wouldn't have the right to keep the season open in state waters?
> 
> Not only have the feds' attempted to usurp the US Constitution by trying to force federal regs on the states, apparently there is pressure being applied for the upcoming scoping meeting to address making it easier to prosecute fishermen in STATE court for fish caught in FEDERAL waters. Infractions normally handled by federal courts but apparently with not enough convictions to satisfy some people.
> ...


Tom, no, you are misreading me. Texas can do what it wants, but only to 9 miles. NMFS counts landings (counts is a loosely defined word with them) regardless of where they are caught. Our state snapper catch is going against the federal TAC. The best thing that could happen is for TWPD to take over out to 200 miles and get NMFS out of our business. Anyone that thinks the guys in Mobile are catching the same stock at we are in Texas hasn't fished much, if ever.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

What would be the mechanism to empower Texas to control out to 200 miles? I'm all for it.

If "regional management" means Roy gets to dole out how many pounds each region gets, then forget that. He has already stated that if we go the regional route, that the very first thing would be to hold Texas accountable for its year-round season and reduce ONLY our fishing days accordingly.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

hilton said:


> *What would be the mechanism to empower Texas to control out to 200 miles? * I'm all for it.
> 
> If "regional management" means Roy gets to dole out how many pounds each region gets, then forget that. He has already stated that if we go the regional route, that the very first thing would be to hold Texas accountable for its year-round season and reduce ONLY our fishing days accordingly.


That falls under hellifiknow stuff, Tom. Just watch for the sales pitch to close things down completely to speed up the "stock recovery". That's gonna be how they sell it and once the bait is taken, they set the hook and the fat lady sings.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Mont,
There could be some precedence to the 200 mile control theory with the shrimping industry - doesn't Texas control shrimping well outside of state waters in federal waters to the continental shelf?

Why couldn't Texas do the same with snapper?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

The Feds control the waters beyond 9 miles. End of story. 

The Feds also control basically all the navigable waters near the coast under the Commerce Clause. Thus, they can impose a whole bunch of restrictions on the waters/activities within 9 miles of the coast. 

All this have the Feds surrender authority to the states talk is kinda pointless. 

Tom, the precedent here is the Clean Water Act under which the Feds control massive amounts of tidal water ways located within the various states. Or the Federal Waterways regulations which include the ICW.


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

Same here, I would like to know what fighting powers the fishing community has to address this...:texasflag



hilton said:


> What would be the mechanism to empower Texas to control out to 200 miles? I'm all for it.
> 
> If "regional management" means Roy gets to dole out how many pounds each region gets, then forget that. He has already stated that if we go the regional route, that the very first thing would be to hold Texas accountable for its year-round season and reduce ONLY our fishing days accordingly.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

mredman said:


> Too many people are boasting about their 15 pound average catches of red snapper. The Feds monitor this site.
> 
> I have chosen not to post photos of red snapper this past year because the information only serves to hurt us.
> 
> Mike


Nah, Feds doing a wonderful job red snapper are recovering great. You can catch a limit of 15pound snapper in state waters out of any port in Texas.

Post up the pics, let them see there hard work paying off.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Ernest said:


> The Feds control the waters beyond 9 miles. End of story.
> 
> The Feds also control basically all the navigable waters near the coast under the Commerce Clause. Thus, they can impose a whole bunch of restrictions on the waters/activities within 9 miles of the coast.
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought.

The feds surrendering their authority to the states will never happen.

The states surrendering their authority to the feds should never happen either, yet the feds are sure pressing for that to happen.

I think sometimes they forget that this is the United *STATES* of America, and that according to the US Constitution, the powers not delegated to the feds by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I believe there is a way IF we had the right attorneys working on it. 









Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Tom, I wish you the best regards and god speed in finding the "right" attorneys to unwind the last 80 years of expanding Federal Power under the Commerce Clause or with respect to Federal waters. 

It goes without saying that this project is ideally suited for your considerable talents.


----------



## mredman1 (Feb 4, 2007)

*Stock Recovery*

That time has come!



Mont said:


> Just watch for the sales pitch to close things down completely to speed up the "stock recovery". That's gonna be how they sell it and once the bait is taken, they set the hook and the fat lady sings.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Ernest,
You're right - it is simply not possible to find an attorney willing to fight the feds - why even attempt it?

If only we had some attorneys who like to fish offshore who would be willing to fight the good fight. But alas, no - it's time to succumb to despair, as apparently no such honorable men exist.

I MUST agree.


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

Like the economy and everything else, I believe that the general population can still control this situation, just seems no one realizes they can, and it is just a matter of what sacrifices everyone is willing to make. 

If the fish are so endangered that there is no way to develop a long term solidified recovery and the quotas have to be spoon fed like some super top secret project, then completely stop all commercial and rec fishing for 5 years, stop ordering snapper in the restaurants, impose the same limits and possessions be it caught or bought, introduce snapper tags or reef fish tags, the list goes on, I still believe the power is in the people they just don't utilize it.

I could call 200 people i know, say lets all get the boats out to protest or sit on the front lawn of the lawmakers until they change their mind, and most of the responses will be "oh, sorry, have a football game and BBQ, or have to go pick up my BMW from the shop, or I have a ski trip planned sorry can't make it.

When it gets bad enough people will speak up and changes will happen


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Tom, there are an endless number of attorneys that will fight the feds. No doubt about that. 

Whats in serious doubt is the willingness of anglers to fund an effort that most folks reasonably familiar with the situation would describe as tilting with windmills or an exercise in absolute futility. 

So, get about raising say 500K is cash, and I promise you that you will be able to find an attorney to pizz away that money in short order on a losing effort battling the Feds.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

iridered2003 said:


> can someone tell me what a red snapper is?? please.


IN about 1986 tons of spring breakers started coming to South Padre Island, including an entire sorority of red-head girls. By mistake, one of them got drunk (imagine that) and tried to kiss a Big Ugly Feech.

The Uglee Feech bit her on the kisser and she threw it back into the water in disgust, befo' calling Daddy up in Austin. Lord be known, that one fish multiplied up and down the coast into millions of them, which turned a distinct redhead coloration. It was all a big drunken mistake.

Meanwhile the Fed'ral gobbermint decided peoples were discriminatin' against them red snappuh, and decided to protect 'em under the "equal protection" clause in the You-Ess Constipation, or some old document that some old farts drew up in the Stone Ages. "Vee haff to brang these endangered Snappuh back to their hysterical levels," they said.

Now what happened was them redhead feech got older, made millions of babies worse then a trailer park, and got fat. This technicamally is called "bio-moss," which is prolly from over indulging in shramp, Cheetos, and Meeler Lite. Well lookee here, the NMFS now reg'lates bio-moss. Thems Snappuh is packing some mean bio-moss these days.

Since 1986, them Raid Snappuh done expanded out to the coast of Mexico, all the way to Florida and up the Atlantic coast from the Keys, and everywhar in b'tween. All from one beesh here down at Louie's on South Padre Island who kissed a fish, got slapped by a horny dude named "Woodie," and went on a binge like yo ain't never seen. Spring break. It's comin' baaack. sad4sm


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

Swells said:


> IN about 1986 tons of spring breakers started coming to South Padre Island, including an entire sorority of red-head girls. By mistake, one of them got drunk (imagine that) and tried to kiss a Big Ugly Feech.
> 
> The Uglee Feech bit her on the kisser and she threw it back into the water in disgust, befo' calling Daddy up in Austin. Lord be known, that one fish multiplied up and down the coast into millions of them, which turned a distinct redhead coloration. It was all a big drunken mistake.
> 
> ...


spring break,hot chicks and red snapper go hand in hand, add some cold beer and its a real party.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Ernest said:


> The Feds control the waters beyond 9 miles. End of story.
> 
> The Feds also control basically all the navigable waters near the coast under the Commerce Clause. Thus, they can impose a whole bunch of restrictions on the waters/activities within 9 miles of the coast.
> 
> ...


Perhaps the federal 55 MPH national speed limit that tricky Dick imposed on this date in '76 is a better example for precedent examples class counselor. Power was eventually ceded back to the states to the point we now have 85 MPH speed limits here in the Lone Star state. You know what they say about saying never, fighting the devil on ice skates and all that.

Point is, we could single out a species for exclusion from federal management, especially with the State providing enforcement, compliance, reporting and court money. We both know that the real deal is always the money. The key to getting NMFS (or any other agency) out of state issues is shutting down funding. Considering the current economic climate, and the fact the NMFS is one giant money pit, who's to say. Happy New year.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

The state of Texas tells the Federal government no all the time and takes power from them. Texas tells the EPA no often and one of the more public examples.... But happens on all fronts, consent power struggle between state and Feds with money most often being the deciding factor.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

I guess if you want to be all serious about it, Texas owns the natural resources out to 9 miles and there have been some heated Supreme Court cases about that, such in 1952 when Governor Alan Shivers got to keep 100% of the oil & gas royalties within 9 miles.



> The most important issue faced by Shivers was his defense of state claims to the Tidelands, off-shore oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. Texas had held title to the submerged lands of the Gulf since the Republic of Texas days, and had dedicated its revenues to the public school fund. After oil was discovered offshore, federal officials tried to seize the Tidelands of Texas and other oil-producing states. This action precipitated a crisis between state and federal authority. In 1952, Shivers broke with the national Democratic party over the issue and helped deliver the state's electoral votes to Dwight Eisenhower, the first Republican to carry the state since Reconstruction. Finally, the Tidelands were returned to the states through federal legislation. -TX Archive Resources Online


Same for snapper, shrimp, and all kinds of stuff.

We're the only complete state that can do this, three leagues or 9 nautical miles out to sea, so we're something of an oddity. We'll probably be able to fish those waters forever because of that one man, Alan Shivers. :cheers:


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

I probably made some secret watch list, and maybe just blowing in the wind, but I sent an email to NMFS and have a conference call scheduled with NMFS/NOAA to discuss their logic on fish management for the Gulf of Mexico

Trying to be optimistic and although I already know the answers just by their actions, if enough people speak up and inquire to the regulations as opposed to giving up or going with the flow maybe things will change, or at least make things more straight forward


----------



## Jonas Grumby (Apr 3, 2005)

Swells said:


> I guess if you want to be all serious about it, Texas owns the natural resources out to 9 miles and there have been some heated Supreme Court cases about that, such in 1952 when Governor Alan Shivers got to keep 100% of the oil & gas royalties within 9 miles.
> 
> We're the only complete state that can do this, three leagues or 9 nautical miles out to sea, so we're something of an oddity. We'll probably be able to fish those waters forever because of that one man, Alan Shivers. :cheers:


I don't know what you mean by a "complete state," but Florida's state water jurisdiction in the GOM is to 9 miles also.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

There's 2 meetings in Texas this month if anyone wants to enter their comments on the record. I will be honest and tell you I haven't read any of the scoping documents yet, so I don't have any opinion one way or the other on whatever they are proposing. I am planning on making the one in Texas City on the 14th and sometime between then and now will read over the documents. It's kinda like voting, don't complain if you don't show. And, just like voting, it doesn't mean things will turn out your way either.


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

X2



Mont said:


> There's 2 meetings in Texas this month if anyone wants to enter their comments on the record. I will be honest and tell you I haven't read any of the scoping documents yet, so I don't have any opinion one way or the other on whatever they are proposing. I am planning on making the one in Texas City on the 14th and sometime between then and now will read over the documents. It's kinda like voting, don't complain if you don't show. And, just like voting, it doesn't mean things will turn out your way either.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Ok back to guessing the number of days Red Snapper season will be open.

Write it down folks. 27 days


----------



## acoastalbender (Jul 16, 2011)

Mont said:


> Perhaps the federal 55 MPH national speed limit that tricky Dick imposed on this date in '76 is a better example for precedent examples class counselor. Power was eventually ceded back to the states to the point we now have 85 MPH speed limits here in the Lone Star state. You know what they say about saying never, fighting the devil on ice skates and all that.
> 
> Point is, we could single out a species for exclusion from federal management, especially with the State providing enforcement, compliance, reporting and court money. We both know that the real deal is always the money. The key to getting NMFS (or any other agency) out of state issues is shutting down funding. Considering the current economic climate, and the fact the NMFS is one giant money pit, who's to say. Happy New year.


'74...the bum resigned just after this...Ford in '76.....

I cannot figure out why the Feds can regulate reef fish, they might as well regulate largemouth bass in Lake Houston...

.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*Regional Management*



Ernest said:


> The Feds control the waters beyond 9 miles. End of story.
> 
> The Feds also control basically all the navigable waters near the coast under the Commerce Clause. Thus, they can impose a whole bunch of restrictions on the waters/activities within 9 miles of the coast.
> 
> ...


So, the question begs;

Why is the Council looking at regional management?

You would think that by suggesting "regional" management (by the states) that this federal entity would be considering relinquishing their authority to manage the federal waters offshore of each state, right?

Or are they? Here are some thoughts on the subject for those of you planning to attend the upcoming scoping meeting on the subject next Monday in Texas City;

Would each individual state set the quota for their state each year or would Roy dole out what his computer models say each state gets? Where would the $$ needed to perform this research come from?

Would each individual state have the ability to develop their own systems for determining recreational effort and landings or would Roy still hold the keys to that? Where would the $$ needed to do this come from? I know TPWD currently tracks private rec/cfh rec landings, but SERIOUSLY doubt that Texas headboats account for about 2/3 of ALL red snapper caught offshore of Texas as the numbers currently show. I don't think TPWD tracks recreational effort currently, but would like to know for sure if they do or not. If they don't, they seriously need to think about doing it to serve as check and balance against what the feds claim.

Would the states be responsible for performing the necessary assessments to determine the number of fish swimming in the water offshore of their states, or would Roy still control that? Where would the needed $$ to perform these assessments come from?

I believe it's probably all smoke and mirrors to make it look like they are ceding their authority when in reality they are not. It's like giving us the authority to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, and that's about it.

I believe they will use regional management to beat Texas over the head for our refusal to "comply" with federal regulations in our state waters and reduce ONLY our quota accordingly. Never mind that their own numbers show that Texas state-water-caught snapper are negligible.

See you in Texas City.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## fishball (Dec 28, 2011)

Regional management will be explained in great detail on the 14th surely. Everyone can grill Emily and the council to their hearts content.

Currently the council should be considering these options in Mobile: 2 fish/27 day or 1 fish/41 days. It will be a heated debate between 2 options that will not work well for anyone. The council seemed pretty split in Tampa over it... For year fishermen have gone to Crabtree asking for more "days", hence the 1 fish bag limit and guaranteeing more "days". I believe they will recommend 27 days, BUT full council will decide that.

For regional management, depending on how it plays out, each state/region will adopt their own method making the devil in the details.

In other new being considered, and likely decided in Mobile:

In the case of a state/states going no compatible/non compliant with the federal regulations, the Regional Administrator would have the authority to close the EEZ (federal waters) off that state.

Federal season could be very interesting! 0 days! 

How's that for conspiracy theory?


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Louisiana will be implementing their new snapper season this year, every fri-sun from March until the end of September, 3 fish per person.

They are simultaneously extending their boundary to 9 nm.

If they do this, their 27 day federal season gets cut to 14 days. Looks like a Great deal for Louisiana anglers.

Kudos to the Ldwf commissioners for taking a stand for their fishermen!

Perhaps Texas should do the same thing, except extend our boundary to 40 nm - same thing La is doing - overlapping federal waters and setting their own season/bag limits.

Let the feds totally close the federal season off of Texas - who cares?

Every state in the Gulf should follow suit.

Enough of the lunacy already - it's time for the states to make a stand.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

> If they do this, their 27 day federal season gets cut to 14 days. Looks like a Great deal for Louisiana anglers.


So how does that work with one federal season in the GOM, Tom?


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

It's a grey area - unlike Texas, La doesn't have jurisdiction out to 9 miles - there is a large question of how this would be enforced. Likewise if Texas extended theirs to 40. I'm suggesting this tongue in cheek, but there are very real similarities.

If I understand this correctly, if they do the march to september weekend only season, that would provide La anglers 93 days to fish state season, 14 days federal season, which of course would overlap.

The 14 day federal season came from the snapper meeting this week. Unsure if they implied it being inside their 3 mile line or not. Louisiana is looking to allow fishing out to 9 nm I believe.

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/revised-louisiana-gulfward-boundary

I just found that La IS claiming the right manage their resources out to 9 nm, so the Texas 40 mile comparison would not apply.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

ah, the NMFS shades of grey  Strictly out of curiosity, which regional division plan do you favor?


----------



## fishball (Dec 28, 2011)

If they close the federal waters off Texas, who cares?

I didn't know you supported Sector Separation Tom! 
Federally permitted charterboats are subject to rule 30b, thus no Red Snapper season. In Texas: Commercial guys fishing, private recs fishing, charterboats not.

FL, AL, MS, go non compliant and shave a few more days off the fed season, possibly to 0.

Gulf-wide: commercial guys fishing, private recs fishing, charterboats not.

Maybe that's sector segregation though, not separation hahaha


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

I don't see any advantage to regional management the way they are proposing it. Looks to be a mechanism to apply punishment to states individually, specifically those who refuse to adopt federal regs in their state waters. Texas' season would most likely be 17 to 18 days instead of 27 if we had regional mgmt this year due to our "non-compliance".

Regional mgmt would absolutely GREAT IF each state were to control the natural resources brought back to the dock regardless of where they were caught, be responsible for monitoring effort, landings, and assessments without federal interference.

What do you see as the benefits currently offered by regional mgmt?


----------



## wLeeBull (Oct 22, 2010)

C


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

hilton said:


> What do you see as the benefits currently offered by regional mgmt?


Scroll on down to page 28. I am going with what I voted for in 2008.

ftp://ftp.gulfcouncil.org/Briefing ...ping Doc RF 39 Reg Mgmt Rec RS 12-31-2012.pdf


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

The ONLY thing that I see could be different with regional management as proposed is for the states to determine how they want the days applied.

Hypothetical example for 2013 based on the 27 day/2 fish limit; Texas gets penalized for non-compliance and is allotted 18 days to fish in the federal EEZ. Texas then elects to do 9 2-day weekends to extend it out over 2 months, but then Roy comes back and says that the allotment was not calculated to be weekend-only (which would have more fishing pressure) so the number of days is again reduced to 10 days, or 5 weekends.

Regionalization does not mean more regional control - that will still remain firmly in Roy's (and his computer modeling) hands, giving him even MORE tools to put the whip to us.

Maybe I'm missing something here - what exactly are the advantages of regionalization in your eyes?


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

hilton said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here - what exactly are the advantages of regionalization in your eyes?


The 20 years of one size fits all federal management hasn't worked. It doesn't matter anyways. It didn't happen 5 years ago and it's not going to happen now, next week or next year. Capt. Mike has been at this a lot longer than I have and we both agree that the decision has already been made. He was one of the seven in 2008 if memory serves. These public hearings/scopings/whatever you want call them, are to satisfy a legal requirement. It's going to be closed either this year or next year. There's already people in favor of that posting right here. That's the end game. Closed.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Well, I guess if they outlaw Snapper, then only outlaws will have Snapper.

The feds did such a GREAT job with Prohibition after all, and they are doing an even GREATER job with the drug war.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Something about this whole deal bothers me, and maybe you fish gurus have an answer. The NMFS insists that the snapper is not over-fished but is undergoing over-fishing, or something like that. So how much time does it take to have zero landings until the fishery gets better? 

Are they expecting some kind of population crash from them being so large? Why don't they shut down the commercial red snapper fishery if things are so bad? I'm kind of lost here and need some help, because when I fish a snapper hole, it's like BOOM I've limited out in 20 minutes. What the heck do they want?

If the idea is just to shut down the recreational side, well that's illegal as hell. Magnuson and all the agreements are for recreational and commercial access to the fish, in this case 49% recreational and 51% commercial. Maybe that's why the NMFS was serious when it proposed that we catch half a snapper? Hey-hey, it's a non-zero number, right?

Forgive me for wanting to plow old ground or sound like an idiot ... many captains have told me that. But something isn't right here, in a very fundamental way. I mean is this black helicopter stuff or what?


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

Previously mentioned as well, it doesn't make sense because you are thinking logically. If it was true conservation effort they would have a long term plan, 5 or 10 years, not some mystery that changes adhoc, just issue snapper tags like red fish, then they could actually monitor the fish with less resources. Using the weight limit method is rediculios

It boils down to money, think of all the millions of tax dollars spent on the CG cutters and crews boarding boats checking limits.

If so endangered and can only keep one or two, then why are you aloud to go buy 1,000 lbs of fillets as the fish market



Swells said:


> Something about this whole deal bothers me, and maybe you fish gurus have an answer. The NMFS insists that the snapper is not over-fished but is undergoing over-fishing, or something like that. So how much time does it take to have zero landings until the fishery gets better?
> 
> Are they expecting some kind of population crash from them being so large? Why don't they shut down the commercial red snapper fishery if things are so bad? I'm kind of lost here and need some help, because when I fish a snapper hole, it's like BOOM I've limited out in 20 minutes. What the heck do they want?
> 
> ...


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

The problems I see with regionalization, for Texas anyways, is that I don't see any upside to it other than being able to pick and choose the actual dates that are fished - weekends only federal seasons or something like that. But that too would come with the cost of fishing fewer days than if the days were contiguous.

The potential downside of regionalization includes reduction of our federal EEZ season by about 40% and increased pressure to mirror federal regs in state waters. Texas is acutally benefitting from the management of the stock in a Gulf-wide mode, as Roy can't currently single us out to punish as he so desperately wants to do.

Never mind, that according to his own numbers, that *total* landings of Texas state-water snapper for the last few years have accounted for about 0.03% of the total Gulf TAC. Bogus, and as Dr. Shipp described (while at the reef fish meeting), that what Roy is doing is *OBSCENE*.

I agree Dr. Shipp.

Roy is all for regional management - that should tell you something, right there.

Can anyone offer some specific advantages to regionalization that I am apparently missing?

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Wasn't RFA requesting regional management of snapper? I recall Mr. Smarr inquiring about that/asking for that at the meetings. 

Wonder what his take is on this. Is he still around? Have not seen him post in awhile.


----------

