# Day one results from the Ad Hoc, Red Snapper Advisory Panel meeting



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

This is going to be the short version of things that happened today and I won't be able to answer a lot of questions about things until I get back to ther office on Thursday. I am planning to leave the meeting tomorrow at its conclusion scheduled for 5 PM and point the big Dodge west into the sunset until I hit the house. 

First, I don't condone hassling Roy Crabtree or anyone at NMFS, or the Gulf Council for what is going on. We have other Gulf Council members here that have done an adequate job of explaining the situtation. Sure, it stinks. But, they have to follow the law and the law is quite clear.

Here's the situation in a nutshell. NMFS is required by law to end overfishing of red snapper by 2010. Very strict regulations are going to be in place to accomplish that until then. 

Step away from fisheries for a moment and consider a judge telling you to personally not go within 2000 feet of a certain point on a map. Go there, and you go to jail. Stay away, and you don't have to worry about anything. Get within 1999 feet and have at least 3 whistleblowers document that and turn you into the judge. NMFS is currently in a similar position. 

Again, I think that situation stinks, but it's going to require a lot of legal work to change anything, and it's an election year with a lame duck president on his way out.

Now, off to today's meeting.

A total of 5 motions passed and will be sent up to the Gulf Council for consideration. 2 relate directly to most of us here, the rec fisherman. 

1 will establish a reef fish permitting system for private recs with a red snapper endorsement.

2. will establish a manadtory reporting system for all for hire recs.

NOTE: These are motions, not laws, not anything but suggestions being sent upward in a very long process. The have no weight of law, nada. They are just suggestions for the Gulf Council to consider.

Tomorrow should see us more in the meat of things and I plan to introduce 2 motions personally that would provide most of us with nearly immediate increases in our seasons. The charge of this AP is to do that, and there are at least 2 ways I can see to do that very quickly.

More as I know it, and again, it's not a good idea to read more into my post than it's my personal experience being posted publicly.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Mont, Just wonder where NMFS got there % numbers for the fish caught in Texas State waters?


----------



## Ragman (May 21, 2004)

Thanks for your continued commitment and providing information.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Angler 1 said:


> Mont, Just wonder where NMFS got there % numbers for the fish caught in Texas State waters?


dockside creel surveys conducted by TPWD. Remember, if you land a fish and state to those running creel surveys it was caught in State waters, it gets allocated as coming from there. I have been checked 3 times personally at the ramp for this particular issue.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Yep, I see the part time guys from time to time doing the surveys.. Hard to believe the numbers though. Some of the kids I see doing the survey, I wonder if they know how to...well never mind 


Mont, Thanks for standing up for everyone.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Guys, the number I would have questions about is the amount of red snapper caught in Florida state waters. That number is the one causing all the chaos, and the new shortened season. Sure, the TX number is still there, but it's small compared to the FL number. I have no knowledge nor understanding of how FL reports or records that number if it's even them that does it.


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

> 2. will establish a manadtory reporting system for all for hire recs.


i personally have no problem with this.

i may get beat up for this , but here goes.

we constantly ask how they come up with the numbers in there stock assessment , and complain about the fact that NMFS doesnt count fish around artificial structure,

if we could get them to fix the way the assess the stock numbers, and impose mandatory reporting across the board , including all rec boats, not just the for hire sector, i bet it would shock them.

think about this for a minute,, would you be willing to report your catch , especially if it could possibly show that we are not actually reaching our Quota in two months or that the resource is not in as much trouble as they think according to there current junk science and so called educated guess.


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

Mont said:


> dockside creel surveys conducted by TPWD. Remember, if you land a fish and state to those running creel surveys it was caught in State waters, it gets allocated as coming from there. I have been checked 3 times personally at the ramp for this particular issue.


i never thought about it that way, and now that you say that,

i get hit by those surveyors often, but it is in the dead middle of the summer. and i can guarantee you that very few if any of the snapper come from state waters, does that mean that the AJs and Warsaw's came from state water as well, simply because they were landed in Texas.

you know your participation in those surveys is not mandatory.
you can tell them No.

makes me wonder if we hurt ourselves in the long run through our participation.


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

I would definitely report if things were on the up and up.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*nmfs*

Mont,
Thanks for your time and effort doing this.

What happened to the statistician who said that the amount of snapper caught in FL and TX state waters was insignifcant? Have you spoken with Mr. Atran?

Tom


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Tom,everything is under a microscope as for numbers right now. TX state water take is a pretty small number. 1 MP of state caught FL red snapper is a large number.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*

Mont,
I have a hard time believing that Texas and Florida accounted for 65% of the total recreational TAC in the GOM last year.

That being said, I have talked to A LOT of FL west coast fishermen who have commented on how the snapper have appeared from nowhere - there are tons of fish now where there were none before. Could it be that the fish stocks are not in as bad of shape as the fishery managers would have you believe?

Makes you wonder.

Tom


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Tom, another theory on the sudden appearance of snapper in W FL could be the recent storms. Testimony submitted today showed storms can move them hundreds of miles. Just going by what I heard.


----------



## Slightly Dangerous (May 21, 2004)

Snapper always go to structure. Instead of spending all the time and money on these NMFS people why not just invest all that time in drumming up income for artificial reefs (like Tom has done)? I truly do appreciate all the effort from Mont and the RFA and all the other concerned citizens and agencies but the fact remains that snapper (as with most species) will not congregate on a bare muddy bottom. Give us the Texas ARP and we will be just fine and can tell the feds to go do the big nasty with themselves.

As a diver for more than 38 years I can say with authority that any time you put any kind of structure in place you will get fish...and quick. Structure comes in all shapes and sizes and can be placed just about anywhere from 6 feet to 6000 feet deep. I promise you that the combined salaries of all the "experts" would put enough artificial reefs on our coast (and Florida) to sustain any kind of fishing we could do. However, the sad fact is that we would do it ourselves if the TPWD and Feds would just let us do it.


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

Thanks for your work Mont!

For me this FL/TX thing really drives home the thought that the GOM cannot be managed as a whole, The gulf is very diverse with different types of bottom, structure, and fishing presures. Untill we stop looking at the whole and start micro managing and studying different areas we will never get a handle on the fishery. What if Texas or Bamie had 80% of the commercial pressure and say FL had 50% of the rec pressure, Things just arent going to work very well and will put one area in a deficet and another in glut of fish. (Please don't tell me Snapper migrate 1000 miles).


----------



## LanceR (May 21, 2004)

*TPWD Creel Surveys & snapper*

Mike Jennings et al. The TPWD creel surveys seperate fish caught in state waters from those caught in federal waters based on what the angler tells the interviewer. If you return from an offshore trip and are intercepted during a creel survey the surveyor will ask whether the fish you retained were caught inside or outside of 9 nm. If outside then they're recorded as coming from federal waters. If multiple species are landed coming from both state and federal waters the surveyor, working with the anglers on the boat, will try to determine which fish came from what area and record the data accordingly. We have to rely on what the angler tells us.

Even though we collect data from thousands of individual fishing trips in a given year (bay and Gulf) there is no way to be at every boat ramp or marina along the Texas coast every day of the week. Therefore total annual landings are estimated based on the relative fishing pressure of each survey site (based on pressure estimates generated from monthly roving surveys we conduct for both weekdays and weekends), the type of fishing activity (Gulf of Bay), and actual landings data collected from creel surveys. We also identify trip activity - e.g. whether the trip was a guided trip, private, tournament, etc., etc.

We believe this sampling program is very robust and is one of the best (if not the best) monitoring programs of this type in the country, due to the dedication of staff conducting the surveys and the willingness of anglers to provide the data. This standardized monitoring program has been in effect for over 30 years providing a wealth of information on the utilization of our fisheries, both current and historical.

Lance Robinson
TPWD - Coastal Fisheries
Dickinson Marine Lab


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

Lance 
i know your guys from the Dickinson office work hard, shoot, i know a couple of them personally, so i know you definitely have a difficult job.









seriously Lance i have no doubt that you and TPWD can run the best data collection and monitoring program in the country with half your brain tied behind your back. 
i promise you that was not my point, 
i cannot help but wonder though , if the data collected is at time used against us on the national level. such as catch too many and we have to cut you back , or don't catch enough, and the stock is in danger of collapse.

i never meant to make light of the hard work your guys do every day.

i also know that how that data is used once it leaves your office or is passed on by Austin,is not compleatly under the controll of TPWD

i do get surveyed often and i feel that i can almost recite there questions in order. 
even the one when they ask my customers to rate the trip .
i honestly don't remember being asked if they were caught outside of 9NM, but that doesn't mean they don't ask.
now i know that i have never been asked to separate state and federal water fish.

but anyway i guarantee you that my eariler comment were not directed at your office, or your staff.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Lance your Department has been the best program in the entire Gulf of Mexico according to NMFS and we at RFA agree. I wish they(NMFS) could remember they said you guys and gals at TPWD had the best plan in place to monitor our fisheries of all the Gulf Coast States.

Jim Smarr
RFA Texas


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*fish*

Howdy,

I've always wondered why Texas landings data is separate from the combined landings data from the other 4 Gulf states.

Tom


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

Mont,

Thanks for the clarification on Mr. Crabtree. I have been bashing him throughout this ordeal...and unrightfully so. I did not know the facts...and let my knee jerk reaction to the ridiculous situation that we recreational fisherman are facing take over my judgment. 

I recently spent a pile of money on a fishing boat and am very sensitive to the impingements on my personal fishing rights. I just feel like we are getting screwed.

I hope that you and all others that are fighting for our rights have some success in bringing some sense to the table. Good luck Mont....your efforts are definitely appreciated!


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

STxFisherman said:


> Mont,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification on Mr. Crabtree. I have been bashing him throughout this ordeal...and unrightfully so. I did not know the facts...and let my knee jerk reaction to the ridiculous situation that we recreational fisherman are facing take over my judgment.
> 
> ...


Don't feel so bad there StxFisherman, That Jack*** made his bed and is currently lying in it, If he had done his job better in the first place he would not be in the spot he is in. I know it must be hard on him to continue to protect the comm interest and hand down these devistating and unfair regs to the rec sector. SCREWEM!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Monty,

I understand the remark about the Fact of Law. Remember that the reason we are where we are is one the recent lawsuit and number two is the next four items-
1. MSY -low due not counting large sows on mud flats-NMFS does not count live fish
2.Not counting fish over artificial structure
3.Not estimating 0-2 year old fish numbers properly- more around oil rigs than the entire stock assement shows for the other 11,300 known rocks ,wrecks and reefs in the hang book.
4. Overstating shrimp bycatch by at least 50% and using it against Recreational Sector for 15 plus years.

Dis- allowing the data to be brought into the 21st Century is a NMFS Problem for sure.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

I thought the Texas 4 fish year round limits were already included regarding the setting of the seasons. Why now are they using it as the reason to shorten the season ??

Also a nice article in the Galveston daily news this AM by Joe Kent the fishing reporter regarding the runaway NMFS.

Charlie


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

Check out this article from the pan handle of Florida. They have some pretty interesting ideas on artifical reefs. It also suggests that the "new" red snapper in Florida are coming from the all the artifical reefs in Alabama. It states that they have to move to find food because there are more snaps than groceries to feed them. I can see storms pushing them around, but if that was the where they came from wouldn't someone be missing some snapper????poor fishing???? I'm not seeing that from anywhere on the gulf.

http://www.floridasportsman.com/features/0709_red_snapper_fishing/

Any way pretty good read and info. I really like the idea about having the reef areas closed to shrimping and being able to legally make private reefs.


----------



## seaplay (Nov 1, 2005)

*creel survey*

I also appreciate what the state does in regards to surveys. I see the guys in Bridge Harbor pretty regular.I also see the guy's walking the docks doing what looks like counting empty slips? Hopefully by counting empty slips it isn't thought that represents boats gone fishing.The marina has been in decline for some time now and probably enjoys less than 50% oppucancy. Just wondering? SeaPlay Sportfishing.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

If you want really "screw" data, just go to individual reporting and recording system, scenario, " Let's see, if I report that I caught a bunch of fish, then the agencies will state that we are catching to much and something needs to be done or the stocks will deminish, now if I consistently report bad catches the agencies will report that the stocks are way down", reporting, gathering data, making computer models etc.. will never be exact science, it can't be, we are dealing with a product of "mother nature", I've seen good data go bad in the shrimping industry, no different in this monster that you are dealing with now, solution- I can think of none, but I will contest that there are more snapper in the Gulf than anyone of you can imagine, that measily little rec. limit aint' hurting a thing............... LK


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Well I am a little concerned about the statement or saying to well leave Crabtree alone. I still hvent heard a reply to my question "wasnt Texas 4 snapper limit and year round fishing included in the original decision setting the snapper season"?? Someone "splain" that one to me. Am I wrong ?

Charlie

Charlie


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Yes, the fish caught in Texas state waters are included in the TAC. Yes. 

What original decision setting the snapper season - the 5.0 million TAC number or a different number?


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Here is another question. If the 66 day season is unavoidable, is it possible to start it later? Usually early June can be pretty windy. Personally, I would much rather have the calm days of August to fish for snapper. June 15th - Aug 20th would be preferable for many small boat guys I would think.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Thanks Ernest

The original setting of the closing of the upcoming season was Sept 30 now its changing to Aug 5th. Season now going to be from June 1 to Aug 5 that correct ??

Another question is there any way to force or get any accountability out of the NMFS other than a lawsuit ? They seem untouchable.. Ernest ???

Charlie


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*

Howdy,
We fished under a 9.12 million pound TAC for years, and yes, the state water snapper were accounted for in that TAC.

Then in 2007, they changed the TAC to 6.5 million pounds, and yes, the state water snapper were accounted for in that TAC.

Now in 2008, they set the TAC at 5.0 million pounds with a season running from June 1 to September 30 - AND SOMEHOW THEY FORGOT TO INCLUDE STATE WATER SNAPPER, SO NOW THEY HAVE TO RE-ADJUST THE SEASON BY 1/2?

Again, doesn't pass the smell test.

One thing to remember, is that this is a 10th Amendment issue - the MMS doesn't control oil issues in state waters, because they just have jurisdiction in federal waters. I believe the NMFS should do the same.

In addition, snapper are different than migratory pelagic species - by and large, they have a strong site fidelity...in other words, they ain't swimming that far from their home base. The feds are trying to exert control where it ain't needed.

Tom


----------



## Capt. Steve (Aug 29, 2005)

I say we just move the TX waters out to 40 Miles. Texas could do a much better job managing the resource and could probably turn it into big profits. I don't know much about the federal program but I would bet it is run by tax dollars and turns 0 profit. Look how much money they have left on the table over the years by not having a federal fishing license, the post offices could have sold them and made millions for the fishery.


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

Mont, I completely disagree with the opinion that nmfs is just doing their "jobs" carrying out the mag ste reauth mandates. Had they wanted to give their best effort for the fish and the fishermen, they would have taken into consideration that Fla cut their bag from 4 to 2 and the impending reduction in effort due to fuel costs for everyone on the gulf. Believe me, they have adopted more risky managment scenarios than this in the past. Instead, what we have witnesses is a bunch of vindictive little men that had to break something to show their displeasure over the states failing to submit to their will .


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Well as I see it now and I may change my mind or have it changed by others it seems clear. We have tried every avenue available with really not much results. If all the numbers and info I have seen are anywhere close it seems to me our only recorse is a lawsuit (and I hate that word). Seems to me there are enough recreational fisherman throughout the Gulf to raise enough money to fund that. Seems to me that through any other means NMFS is untouchable..just thinking out loud

Charlie


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

I have neen attending hearings and sitting on panels representing the Port Aransas Boatmen Assoc for over 14 yrs. Do not let anyone convince you that Dr. Crabtree, NMFS or the great majority of Gulf Council members are worthy of your sympathy and understanding. They have done their best (or worst) to put the rec sector in the position it is intoday. People that are apologizing on this site for "bashing" Crabtree must have been doing it without any knowledge at all because there is certainly nothing to apologize for.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Amen Mike


----------



## flymost (Nov 6, 2006)

I still don't see why the Comm's get to fish year round, while they keep shortening our season??? They must be pretty niave to believe that the Comm's are reporting all of their snapper. Maybe they should just issue each rec fisherman a quota and have us report our catch as well. They would probably say that we are not as trustworthy as a Comm fisherman.


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

Thanks Mont for the report! I know how tough it is just to attend as it can be somewhat thankless. I don`t know how this will all end up but I know NMFS will only help us if we 
force them. Just follow what they have done and where we are. Even if we force them on one issue or a minor point we still have the same people in place and to me that means no serious effort on their part and their same slanted approach. Rik


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Mont what about closing the commerical season for a year or two instead? I mean why take away from people paying to catch fish rather then people making money from catching them.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*

Mont,
I noticed on the federal register describing your AP meeting that there was going to be clarification on referendum requirements pertaining to possible changes in the red snapper allocation. 

What is on the table regarding reallocating the TAC? If we could get a 70% rec / 30% commercial, that would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

Let me ask everyone one question:

What one thing has turned around every specie (cod, swordfish Redfish and such) that has been in an over fished status?

Closeure of commerical fishing!

I think we need a buy-out program to buy out permints or something along that line like TP&W do with their shrimping permints


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

Captn C said:


> Let me ask everyone one question:
> 
> What one thing has turned around every specie (cod, swordfish Redfish and such) that has been in an over fished status?
> 
> ...


Captn C- I don't mean to burst your bubble, but the buy-out- on shrimping was voluntary, imports killed the shrimping industry, those of us who chose to "sell" our Bay or Bait lic. did on our own accord, measily amount of money too!, snapper, you just aint' got enough money for a voluntary buy-out, and for the record, a large percentage of the buy-out on shrimp license were bogus, some of the boats that retired their lic. were'nt even working, some sitting in pastures with tomatoes growing in em', boy, TP&W are smart.......


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Captn C, could not agree more. This is such a no brainer IMO, but apparently there are some pretty strong lobby activity for the commercials. It never gets discussed as an option, and it has cured every single over harvest situation that I have ever heard of, including game animals. I am sure the market hunters were unhappy when the were cut off from killing thousands of ducks/geese at a time. See any parallell to this current situation?

If you closed the commercial, the rebound would be almost immediate IMO. Of course, same for closing the rec side. However, you do not need to close both, and the rec side contributes to way more benefit for the economy. And these days especially, thats high on everyone's mind.


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

Leemo said:


> Captn C- I don't mean to burst your bubble, but the buy-out- on shrimping was voluntary, imports killed the shrimping industry, those of us who chose to "sell" our Bay or Bait lic. did on our own accord, measily amount of money too!, snapper, you just aint' got enough money for a voluntary buy-out, and for the record, a large percentage of the buy-out on shrimp license were bogus, some of the boats that retired their lic. were'nt even working, some sitting in pastures with tomatoes growing in em', boy, TP&W are smart.......


This would be too...I mean you couldn't force them to "sell out".

I know a bunch of the permints they bought out were idle and even non-functional boats were involed, but they are gone and gone is gone from the fishery.


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

jig said:


> Captn C, could not agree more. This is such a no brainer IMO, but apparently there are some pretty strong lobby activity for the commercials. It never gets discussed as an option, and it has cured every single over harvest situation that I have ever heard of, including game animals. I am sure the market hunters were unhappy when the were cut off from killing thousands of ducks/geese at a time. See any parallell to this current situation?
> 
> If you closed the commercial, the rebound would be almost immediate IMO. Of course, same for closing the rec side. However, you do not need to close both, and the rec side contributes to way more benefit for the economy. And these days especially, thats high on everyone's mind.


Yes, but don't you think the swordfish boats had some money behind them? I guess some moved north or moved outside the closed areas, but the swords have come back. I would think even a temp shut down would help.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Circumstances make people willing, especially when they are broke! This little ruling will also hit them hard....one step closer maybe?


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

$3.00 to $4.00 fuel cost has the Commercial sector scratching their head like us. $1.89 per pound Red Snapper dock prices are not working for them right now. Economics may be the biggest problem for them.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*

Smarr,
Where did you get this $1.89/pound figure? I have talked with some people in the know, and I think it's somewhere between $5 to $8 a pound.

If anyone knows what the going price is for snapper, I would appreciate some feedback. If it is $1.89, I would like to know that as well.

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

jim smarr said:


> $3.00 to $4.00 fuel cost has the Commercial sector scratching their head like us. $1.89 per pound Red Snapper dock prices are not working for them right now. Economics may be the biggest problem for them.


1.89- I got some Ocean Front property in Arizona I'll sell ya', 1.89 now that's funny..................


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Last time I heard Tom it was $2.50 a pound in the round (not cleaned). They get a little more selling direct to the restaraunts.

Charlie


----------



## rudy justin (Jan 23, 2008)

jim smarr said:


> $3.00 to $4.00 fuel cost has the Commercial sector scratching their head like us. $1.89 per pound Red Snapper dock prices are not working for them right now. Economics may be the biggest problem for them.


Your right on fuel prices. Try more like $5.00 per lb dock price! Lack of enough quota is the problem,just as you all are complaining about. I think if everyone would just chill,the NMFS will raise the quota back up. Just as they said the vermillion snapper,red grouper etc.. was overfished and now they say there not. They cant admit they made a mistake or they might not get their money or maybe someone may be jobless. JUST MY 2 CENTS!


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

Rudy J., check your pm's....


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

CHARLIE said:


> Well as I see it now and I may change my mind or have it changed by others it seems clear. We have tried every avenue available with really not much results. If all the numbers and info I have seen are anywhere close it seems to me our only recorse is a lawsuit (and I hate that word). Seems to me there are enough recreational fisherman throughout the Gulf to raise enough money to fund that. Seems to me that through any other means NMFS is untouchable..just thinking out loud
> 
> Charlie


No, no, no, Charlie. Now, unlike you, I don't really have a problem with lawsuits, in general, but in this case I believe they'd just muck up the works.

What we need is a player.

*The universe changes for political appointees November fourth. IF those organizations which make all the noise in order to get our money are close to being worth their salt, Dr. Crabtree and his staff will be "pursuing other interests" on 11/5/08. *

*This needs to be the top, number one priority of the .orgs and if names are not being added to and crossed off, a list, as we speak, well, folks, what you're getting for your money is a hat a magazine and a bumper sticker. Maybe a fishing tournament. *

Lawsuits, softening legislation, etc. are all good in the short term. But the real push needs to be REAL lobbyists, with REAL influence, with ALL the candidates prospective chief of staffs, putting big black asterisks by names like Crabtree, Murawski, and Rauch.

They need to be replaced with names like Minton, Shipp, and Robinson.

*This is NOT HARD.These are LITTLE PEOPLE politically. If we cannot force this , we had best resolve ourselves to getting leftovers forever. . *
*because you can bet your arse the commercials can put whomever they want wherever they want, and have. *

And I believe Monties point was probably that personally harrassing Dr. Crabtree and/or his staff is counter productive, with which I would agree.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I just got back home and considering it's the end of a 19 hour day, I am going to hold most of my comments until tomorrow. I will say we are now heading down a very slippery slope and that IFQ's are going to be "explored" across the board on the rec side. Another very close vote that went the wrong way in my opinion was that the AP asked the full Gulf Council to revoke the state limits/rights in state waters. There were lots of 8/6 votes today and lots of wrangling, revotes, recounts, you name it. We should have held the meeting in the land of the hanging chad, aka, Florida  At the end of the day, the majority is still the majority, but that doesn't mean it was ever even close to unanimous. I did what I could with my vote. Trust me when I say the GC and NMFS holds Texas in "special regards" 

In anything you happen to decide to send/post/email or comment about Dr. Crabtree, remember, he is a federal employee. A word to the wise.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

CHARLIE said:


> Last time I heard Tom it was $2.50 a pound in the round (not cleaned). They get a little more selling direct to the restaraunts.
> 
> Charlie


do a little math and deduct fuel and crew expenses.

Gross and Net are a little different


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

Thanks for your hard work, Mont.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

levelwind

I hear you but, if you had been at this for as long as I have and seen no progress nothing but decline I see no where else to turn. In a perfect world you are correct and I have always believed in that approach. Regarding NMFS it has been a total failure. Seems no way these folks can be held accountable for their actions. Somehow it must be exposed but politicians dont seem to care. When you provide the politicians with terrible inaccurate numbers as NMFS has with no one being accountable whats the use? Explain to me what you mean by "we need a player". 

Regarding threating Crabtree thats no good but holding him accountable is something else.. I have talked with him face to face and on the phone before with no problems. Being a federal employee does not make him any different than you and I. He has a job. He either does it well or he is a failure.

Charlie


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*state water rights*



Mont said:


> I just got back home and considering it's the end of a 19 hour day, I am going to hold most of my comments until tomorrow. I will say we are now heading down a very slippery slope and that IFQ's are going to be "explored" across the board on the rec side. Another very close vote that went the wrong way in my opinion was that the AP asked the full Gulf Council to revoke the state limits/rights in state waters. There were lots of 8/6 votes today and lots of wrangling, revotes, recounts, you name it. We should have held the meeting in the land of the hanging chad, aka, Florida  At the end of the day, the majority is still the majority, but that doesn't mean it was ever even close to unanimous. I did what I could with my vote. Trust me when I say the GC and NMFS holds Texas in "special regards"


Aren't there any law firms out there that would be interested in taking this case to ensure that Texas State Rights are not subjugated to federal takeover?

Would TPWD be willing to fight this legally?

The 10th Amendment needs to be fiercely fought for here, in my opinion.

Enough is enough.

Tom


----------



## fishrmn27 (Mar 23, 2008)

I work offshore and can see what the commercial industy is doing to our snapper population. When you have a commercial snapper boat come out to a rig and watch him drop six to eight lines with 20 -25 hooks on each of them, turn around and reel up a full line of snapper, it is hard to see how the recreation fisherman is affecting the population. They will stay on location for up to three days in the same spot. This occurs months before the recreation season begins. I haven't heard anything about strict regulation of the commercial industry. What is being done to keep the commercial industry in check, not to mention the bycatch of shrimp boats?


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

hilton said:


> Aren't there any law firms out there that would be interested in taking this case to ensure that Texas State Rights are not subjugated to federal takeover?
> 
> Tom


I am pretty sure our TPWD commissioners aren't going to take this lightly. I have my doubts as to whether it will actually happen. NMFS would have to demonstrate that overfishing is still occuring with a completely closed recreational season, which I consider highly unlikely. In other words, it would be the very last fishery management measure to be implemented. Ironically, if NMFS did close the rec fishery entirely, it would be the fastest way to a complete recovery.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Mont,
Any luck on the 2 motions that you introduced? And could you tell us what they where. Again thanks for everything.



Mont said:


> Tomorrow should see us more in the meat of things and I plan to introduce 2 motions personally that would provide most of us with nearly immediate increases in our seasons. The charge of this AP is to do that, and there are at least 2 ways I can see to do that very quickly.
> 
> More as I know it, and again, it's not a good idea to read more into my post than it's my personal experience being posted publicly.


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

Mont said:


> Ironically, if NMFS did close the rec fishery entirely, it would be the fastest way to a complete recovery.


Monty,
I know you have done and spent a ton to help us on our snapper issues and I wanted to say thanks.

Thanks!

Could you explain how that would help in real terms. I'm not talking about making someone feel better...I talking real actual help closing the rec season. This guy Cowan that is involed in the thread on FS claims to be one of the guys who is gathering info for NMFS. He has stated that the real problem is the shrimping industry, which I heard a couple years ago at the meeting Galveston. At that meeting they (don't recall who "they" were) said the snapper fishery will never recover until the shrimp boats are stopped or by-catch reduced.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper*



Mont said:


> I am pretty sure our TPWD commissioners aren't going to take this lightly. I have my doubts as to whether it will actually happen. NMFS would have to demonstrate that overfishing is still occuring with a completely closed recreational season, which I consider highly unlikely. In other words, it would be the very last fishery management measure to be implemented. Ironically, if NMFS did close the rec fishery entirely, it would be the fastest way to a complete recovery.


What is interesting here, and which seems to fly in the face of the Magnuson, is that the NMFS can shut down the recreational sector, yet leave the commercial sector operating as usual. I wouldn't think that would be fair and equitable as required by the MSA, would it?

If they are going to close the rec season, they should close the commercial season - plain and simple.

Tom


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Tom, try and zen this. The com side has half of the TAC and has to document that catch, so in the eyes of the regulators, it's easy to confirm compliance. On the rec side, we get the other half of the TAC, but it's regulated through catch and bag limits. Right now, those are the only two ways to control it. So, shorter seasons and lower bag limits are the only way to do that. Last year, the rec side went over by 1 million pounds, so that has to be taken out of this year's limit. Screwy, yes, but it's the law.

Capt. C., at the point that trips become so ludicrous to run (a 1 fish limit for example), it would be quicker for all involved to just shut it down on the rec side and go for the fastest possible recovery. All ready, head boat operators are shutting down temporarily and moving into other fields, waiting on the TAC to be raised again in 2011. 

This is my personal opinion, but I suspect we will see a complete closure on the rec side before it's all over. If that happens, and overfishing is still occuring, look for NMFS to go for the state right's overthrow and get state waters shut down.


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

What about the commercial boats? Will they still be fishing if it goes that far, a complete recs closure?


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Captn C said:


> What about the commercial boats? Will they still be fishing if it goes that far, a complete recs closure?


yes sir, because they are regulated by a IFQ system. In other words, they quit fishing whenever the quota has been met.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

Captn C said:


> What about the commercial boats? Will they still be fishing if it goes that far, a complete recs closure?


What would you rather account for, or what is cheaper to regulate, 25 chickens laying eggs in a hen house or 500 chickens running free in the neighborhood laying eggs in the bushes, simple-commercial catches are easier to tally than recs....


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

So they will still get to fish until they reach the IFQ? I guess that makes sense because they will be fishing for other specie and will have Red Snapper as a by-catch. No since feeding them to flipper.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Leemo, that's a good comparison. 

Capt. C, yes, until the poundage quota is met, they fish.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Mont said:


> Capt. C., at the point that trips become so ludicrous to run (a 1 fish limit for example), it would be quicker for all involved to just shut it down on the rec side and go for the fastest possible recovery. All ready, head boat operators are shutting down temporarily and moving into other fields, waiting on the TAC to be raised again in 2011.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

MIB, I don't have my notes right now, but will post that later. The big variable is the 2009 Stock Assessment and what it shows.


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

I think the real answer is to get laws passed in the State of Texas banning the commercial sale and transportation of Red Snapper. This means they don't move through Texas or it's waters. And hope other states follow suit.
Oil companys pay the government lease money and royalties, why should commercial fishing operations in the EEZ be any different?
As far as Crabtree goes, If you want the fame, glory and bucks of the job he has you better be able to fade the heat. As a public servant he should be held accouantable. If you can't fade the heat stay out of the kitchen or, turn the fire down. 
As I read other posts I see people that have come to the end of thier rope over this snapper issue. They are tired of the take take take. These appointated officials evidently are unable to read into all of this that the public is tired of thier BS and are not going to take anymore without a fight. As I see it alot of them need to be kicking rocks or seeking a new career in the aluminum farming business (unemployeed picking up can's)


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*nmfs bs*



Leemo said:


> What would you rather account for, or what is cheaper to regulate, 25 chickens laying eggs in a hen house or 500 chickens running free in the neighborhood laying eggs in the bushes, simple-commercial catches are easier to tally than recs....


So, you're saying that you keep the 25 chickens laying in the henhouse, and it's OK to slaughter the 500 other chickens to keep them from laying?

Just because it's easier to regulate does NOT justify prohibiting TOTAL ACCESS to one sector while still allowing the other sector to continue to operate business as usual.

*How is that fair and equitable as demanded by the MSA? *

*Magnuson-Stevens; 98-623​*

*​*​​(1) Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving,on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.​
(2) Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best scientific information available. ​(3) To the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.​(4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges.​​

The commercial entity would be acquiring an excessive share of the fishing priviledges, if they are allowed to continue fishing, and the recreational sector is not allowed access to fishing privilidges.

Tom


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Tom, just a couple of points. First, the MSA 1-4 listing you quote is to be done in that exact order. The highest priority is ending overfishing, then if that can be done, on to point 2, then 3, then 4.

The com sector is only getting 51% of the resource, the other 49% is rec. But the harvests are controlled by 2 completely different mechanisms. Com is IFQ poundage weighed at the docks. Rec side is bag and length limits. In Texas and Florida, the season is open year around. Being that 1 MP of this years rec catch has already been caught last year, the season had to be shortened. If NMFS numbers show the shortened season along with the state catches still causes the rec catch to go over, then the season or bag gets shortened to account for that. Once that season or bag is down to 0, then they have to go after the states catch.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Mont said:


> MIB, I don't have my notes right now, but will post that later. The big variable is the 2009 Stock Assessment and what it shows.


got it. thanks. Hopefully there are tons of snapper out there, especially where the eggheads are counting.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Mont said:


> Tom, just a couple of points. First, the MSA 1-4 listing you quote is to be done in that exact order. The highest priority is ending overfishing, then if that can be done, on to point 2, then 3, then 4.
> 
> The com sector is only getting 51% of the resource, the other 49% is rec. But the harvests are controlled by 2 completely different mechanisms. Com is IFQ poundage weighed at the docks. Rec side is bag and length limits. In Texas and Florida, the season is open year around. Being that 1 MP of this years rec catch has already been caught last year, the season had to be shortened. If NMFS numbers show the shortened season along with the state catches still causes the rec catch to go over, then the season or bag gets shortened to account for that. Once that season or bag is down to 0, then they have to go after the states catch.


I would bet that with the season shortened to 2 months we will be getting WAY less than the 49% allocated to us. That is unless they are catching snapper like crazy in the Florida panhandle state water area.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

I think what Mont is saying NMFS says oh oh we made a mistake(after the fact) last year regarding the recreational catch it was 1 million pounds more. Therefore we must reduce the recreationals catch this year. These new numbers just "came up" after Texas and Florida did not take the bait.. What a bunch of you know what.

Charlie


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

Mont said:


> MIB, I don't have my notes right now, but will post that later. The big variable is the 2009 Stock Assessment and what it shows.


You know....the thing that is still eating at me...we have to go by "their" stock assessment!

They already say there are no snapper and we know thats not true. If they were really in trouble I bet you would see a lot less people getting excited about this whole thing.

OMT- I know I've touched on this before, but if Alabama has aprox. 900 artifical reefs and there are nearly 4,000 oil rigs in the gulf, plus who knows how many wrecks...where are they getting the "historic population" for Red Snapper. They are reports from Florida (an area they are calling the Middle Bank...I think) that people are seeing snapper where there was no historic population to begin with.

Here we are getting ready to roll over-without any lube again and take one for the team!


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

CHARLIE said:


> I think what Mont is saying NMFS says oh oh we made a mistake(after the fact) last year regarding the recreational catch it was 1 million pounds more. Therefore we must reduce the recreationals catch this year. These new numbers just "came up" after Texas and Florida did not take the bait.. What a bunch of you know what.
> 
> Charlie


I am sure it was just a honest mistake and they corrected it as soon as they found it, Charlie. haha.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*nmfs bs*



Captn C said:


> You know....the thing that is still eating at me...we have to go by "their" stock assessment!
> 
> They already say there are no snapper and we know thats not true. If they were really in trouble I bet you would see a lot less people getting excited about this whole thing.
> 
> ...


Hey Charles, I got an extra FootCush if you need it! lol

BTW, Alabama has somewhere around 15,000 artificial reefs offshore of that 45 mile stretch of sand.

Referring to the Florida Sportsman forum - I know this is just one guy, but it's interesting that he states;
_I have never in my 28 years seen the quantities of Red Snapper as Ive seen in the last few years. I see schools of small snapper <16 inches as well as schools of snapper far in excess of 24 inches on a very regular basis.
I also see schools of various size snapper although its more typical for snapper to be the same size when schooling.IMO
Some of the Snapper I saw this year in the middle Grounds were well over 20 pounds.
These schools of snapper are steadily moving closer and closer to shore every year and abundance is rapidly increasing every year.
I believe by next year it will not be unusual to catch/see snapper inside State waters._

Why should it be unusual to see snapper in their state waters if state water snapper are accounting for 53% of their total catch?

Tom


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

CHARLIE said:


> levelwind
> 
> I hear you but, if you had been at this for as long as I have and seen no progress nothing but decline I see no where else to turn. In a perfect world you are correct and I have always believed in that approach. Regarding NMFS it has been a total failure. Seems no way these folks can be held accountable for their actions. Somehow it must be exposed but politicians dont seem to care. When you provide the politicians with terrible inaccurate numbers as NMFS has with no one being accountable whats the use? Explain to me what you mean by "we need a player".
> 
> ...


Charlie, by a "player" I mean a lobbyist, perhaps a strategist with a small lobbying team. And MONEY. You don't EVER win these things with data. You ALWAYs win with money. Unless you have other forms of influence.

Charlie, do you know who Ray Gutierrez is ? Neither does anybody else. He's the Seccy of Commerce, only about *50-60 rungs* above Dr. Crabtree on the org chart. Dr. Crabtree is what Blue Duck might have called a "chigger". Dr. Crabtree reports up through three or four people at NMFS, Lord knows how many at NOAA (their org charts are indecipherable), and probably seven or eight more directs in Commerce.

Every four years, D.C., Georgetown, McClean, all undergo this metamomorphisis. Apartments turn over, lots of used cars on the market, ho hum.

If you wonder why virtually every decision has gone against recreational fishermen, it's because the same guys have been making the decisions. And it is so easily rectified it is pathetic. BUT it takes a little money, a little influence, (not a lot), AND an acceptable replacement. And once the new administration sits down and starts checking off, it will be TOO late.

ONCE AGAIN I SAY, if you want bumperstickers and tournaments fine. If you want some relief, any .org that wants some money had best step up and get this relatively simple task done.

Just so I am not misunderstood, this is in no way a threat. Change is needed and the only change we will see, if this power structure remains intact after the election, will be for the worse.


----------



## Javadrinker (Feb 13, 2008)

Gentlemen, this is a very interesting thread and I've followed it from the start. I've read this thread and also the one posted from Florida, and it seems to me that what everyone questions is "the numbers"; the number of snapper seen in the fishery and the number of snapper reported.
I understand, and perhaps mistakenly so, that all snapper fishermen , both commercial and recreational, are saying that there is more snapper in the fishery and that there is no need to reduce the bag limit or shorten the season. 
I think the commercial catch is more accurately reported; # of lbs. weighed at the dock, etc. 
Now, IF there were a million more lbs. taken by the recreationa fisherman in 2007 that apply against the 2008 season then either there is more available fish in the fishery then is known, or there is over fishing.
Correct me if I am wrong, but until there were more structures offshore; rigs, well heads, wrecks, reefs, etc.; snapper were caught at "known" structure. I know that people have gone out to the places were "we just slayed them yesterday" and nothing caught there today. If it is all structure related then there ought to be much more snapper and dispersed over a much wider area with the explosion of rigs, wrecks, artificial reefs and wht not in the GOM.
I thought of the recruitment issue and the numbers stated, and also the mortality numbers put out there, alot of blame has been put on the shrimpers for declining numbers and I'm sure that process is partially to blame, I'm sure overfishing is also partially to blame, but the fact that snapper are being reported in places they have not been reported before really makes me think migration/dispersal, and it would be to your advantage to investigate that angle.
My apologies for a rather long post. I hope I don't get flamed.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Sorry, Secretary Guitierrez first name is Carlos. I had a friend named Ray Gutierrez. 

See.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Levelwind

For the record I know who he is. I have sent letters to him but to no avail. I agree again with what you are saying but I have been through this apparently (but I dont know for shure) long before you became involved and I am not trying to be hard to get along with. I have been around and attended meetings with NMFS and councils every since NMFS took over management of our stocks. This includes administration changes from Democrats and Republicans and the outcome is always the same. No accountability. Im sorry I am tired of the ivory tower attitude it is true they are un touchable but only as you say who puts up the money. Real management or someone in the power position really doesent care or have a clue as to what is really going on regarding our Snapper fishery. They need to be exposed but its not going to happen. Sorry for the rant Im just tired of all the talk, letter writing, and no action. Good fishing.

PS I once took the directior of NMFS snapper fishing and showed him all about the sow snapper where they lived etc. and he didnt have a clue he didnt even know this group of fish existed and they are still not counted in stock assessments (what few are left after the illegal longliners get them)and it made absoloutely no difference. 

Charlie


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

hilton said:


> So, you're saying that you keep the 25 chickens laying in the henhouse, and it's OK to slaughter the 500 other chickens to keep them from laying?
> 
> Just because it's easier to regulate does NOT justify prohibiting TOTAL ACCESS to one sector while still allowing the other sector to continue to operate business as usual.
> 
> ...


 (4) (A)- Fair and equitable- you had your chance to get in the commercial market yrs. ago, if your a rec. fishermen and chose not to commercial fish and get on the band wagon before IFQ were issued etc... tough poo!, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the way it is, just the same as Limited entry into the shrimping industry, every single Texas and out-of State resident had a chance to purchase a Texas Bay, Texas Bait and Texas Gulf lic., before limited entry went into effect, same as the resident Oyster lic., is it Fair and Equitable, YES, you had a Fair and Equitable chance to participate..... LK


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Leemo

I read your response to Tom many times and I think I understand what you are saying . Is it really that we recreationals should have become commercials so we could fish ??

Charlie


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

CHARLIE said:


> Leemo
> 
> I read your response to Tom many times and I think I understand what you are saying . Is it really that we recreationals should have become commercials so we could fish ??
> 
> Charlie


Exactly not, but life is not always fair, it's the choices we make under the circumstances, this argument is not about "fish", it's about two totally different interest groups with differing opinions on an allocation of a natural resource available to everyone, now, I cant' and never did participate in the Alaskan fishery, am I mad because I feel left "out", NO, it was my choice in my younger days to go and fight the cold, everything is regulated in different ways, just because you and I are sportsman, recs., or commercial fishermen does'nt mean that everything in the "eyes" of the law will be kosher, look at regulations on shrimping in Texas inland waters, spring season in the bay for commercials is a daily limit of 600#, sportsman I believe is 15# and a sportmans must pull a smaller net and the list goes on and on, whay is'nt anyone complaing about that, BECAUSE it is of NO interest to anyone, simple, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, so what's next for the recs., keep digging, and like we use to say on the radio, "sharpen the plow".


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Leemo

I think you hit the nail on the head"doesent mean that everything in the "eyes" of the law will be kosher". I think thats one of the main issues.

Charlie


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*nmfs bs*



Leemo said:


> (4) (A)- Fair and equitable- you had your chance to get in the commercial market yrs. ago, if your a rec. fishermen and chose not to commercial fish and get on the band wagon before IFQ were issued etc... tough poo!, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but that's the way it is, just the same as Limited entry into the shrimping industry, every single Texas and out-of State resident had a chance to purchase a Texas Bay, Texas Bait and Texas Gulf lic., before limited entry went into effect, same as the resident Oyster lic., is it Fair and Equitable, YES, you had a Fair and Equitable chance to participate..... LK


Leemo,
That's laughable.

It reminds me of the fight we were having against this airport near us. The airport owner wanted to expand the airport, which would have required the bulldozing of our home. We fought it, and the County Judge at the time (who was pro-airport) said; "Didn't you know there was an airport there when you moved there?"

In other words, just because the airport existed, the Judge was inferring that it had the right to expand and bulldoze my home, and that I should have realized that. The Judge found out just how wrong he was.

It's not about whether or not you are commy or recreational, it's about assigning fishing priviledges *(access to the resource is a priviledge to fish that resource)*. If you don't grant access to the resource, by closing the season to fishing priviledges to one sector yet continue to grant access to another sector, that is not fair and equitable. The law states that this access should be fair and equitable - this clearly would not be.

The law also states that the law should be carried out in such a manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acqures an excessive share of such priviledges - the commercial sector would be acquiring this excessive share through the prohibition of recreational participation...it is no longer 51%/49%...it becomes 100%/0%....just because they claim they can account for their catch easier.

That's how I read it anyways, which BTW doesn't have a lot of pull with the policy makers.

Tom


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

hilton said:


> Leemo,
> That's laughable.
> 
> It reminds me of the fight we were having against this airport near us. The airport owner wanted to expand the airport, which would have required the bulldozing of our home. We fought it, and the County Judge at the time (who was pro-airport) said; "Didn't you know there was an airport there when you moved there?"
> ...


Thanks for the reply, time will tell, to much to discuss punching a keyboard, it's not always the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.. good day! LK


----------



## rudy justin (Jan 23, 2008)

There is not a closed season on catching snapper any where. You just cant keep them.Catch and release.There are plenty other species that you can retain for eat!Recreation is for the fun of it ,I thought.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*nmfs bs*

Rudy,
Not good for the snapper to catch and release them usually - large discard mortality issue. Besides, I like to eat snapper - that's part of it.

Majority of snapper are caught on party boats/charter boats - these patrons want some filets to take home with them...they are not on some eco-tourism nature-watching tour.

Tom


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Leemo, did my 8 year old neice have an opportunity to buy a commercial license? What about that now 18 year old? I shouldn't have to purchase a commerical license to fish.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

rodwade said:


> Leemo, did my 8 year old neice have an opportunity to buy a commercial license? What about that now 18 year old? I shouldn't have to purchase a commerical license to fish.


No she did'nt, but I did'nt get to hunt buffalo with the Indians either, makes no difference, things change in time!


----------



## rudy justin (Jan 23, 2008)

Tom, 
I agree with you totalll on the discards. They(NMFS)should lower the size limit on recs so there wont be as many discards.That said,they should up the amount of fish they can keep.WE are being watched at the dock so closely that every fish that I take home to eat is also weighed against our quota also,so that means I paid 5.00 per lb for fish that we eat.
Your numbers on the comm side dont make sense to you on how we make a living is because you divide the # equally between the shareholders and that is not how it works.
Each individual fisherman got a different quota based on past history in the industry. The people that had 200 lb permits basically got screwed on their allotment.NMFS has literally forced those people out of business with the VMS requirements not being feasible to maintain the cost of it compared to the few pounds that they got.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

rudy justin said:


> There is not a closed season on catching snapper any where. You just cant keep them.Catch and release.There are plenty other species that you can retain for eat!Recreation is for the fun of it ,I thought.


Oh, so now only commercial fishermen should be able to catch fish to eat?


----------



## rudy justin (Jan 23, 2008)

Take it how you want it Snap Draggin, but thats not what I said. We must abide the law or suffer the consequence.


----------



## texasfisherman (Mar 9, 2007)

What a Quagmire. And I don't mean "Giggity-Giggity". First off, thanks Mont for all you do. Unfortunately, most of us guys can keep up with these issues from day to day and we appreciate what you are doing. All I can say is that if the snapper really are overfished and it needs to be shut down for a year or two - so be it. A lot of guys are going to heed your counsel on that Mont - at least I will. On the other hand, if it needs to be shut down then the comms need to be shut down too. Leemo, you're out of line buddy. Your analogy of not getting the hunt buffalo with the indians dosen't hold water. That would be like me saying "you could have had the chance to hunt buffalo if the commercial buffalo skin traders had not slaughtered the population". If we followed your way thinking my argument would be just as valid as yours but I won't go there because it is ridiculous. I don't want to bust your chops too bad and I respect your right to make a living through the resouce but we have every right to fish public water. You are the one who chose to try to make your living in the public domain.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

texasfisherman said:


> What a Quagmire. And I don't mean "Giggity-Giggity". First off, thanks Mont for all you do. Unfortunately, most of us guys can keep up with these issues from day to day and we appreciate what you are doing. All I can say is that if the snapper really are overfished and it needs to be shut down for a year or two - so be it. A lot of guys are going to heed your counsel on that Mont - at least I will. On the other hand, if it needs to be shut down then the comms need to be shut down too. Leemo, you're out of line buddy. Your analogy of not getting the hunt buffalo with the indians dosen't hold water. That would be like me saying "you could have had the chance to hunt buffalo if the commercial buffalo skin traders had not slaughtered the population". If we followed your way thinking my argument would be just as valid as yours but I won't go there because it is ridiculous. I don't want to bust your chops too bad and I respect your right to make a living through the resouce but we have every right to fish public water. You are the one who chose to try to make your living in the public domain.


My point about the "buffalo" is that laws change with time, they have to, so everytime a new generation of fishermen come of age we regress or move forward, the hunting was inferred as a grain of salt, and no I'm not out of line, but I do like to constructively argue when I know what I'm tackling, sometimes my points might be made in humor, none the less, I'm entitled to them. LK


----------



## texasfisherman (Mar 9, 2007)

My point about the "buffalo" is that more times than not, when a species is in trouble, and commercial harvesting is stopped the problem is cured. Indians hunted buffalo for many generations and never depleted their own stock. Buffalo hide harvesters destroyed the buffalo population in one generations time. That's my point and I'm entitled to it.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

texasfisherman said:


> My point about the "buffalo" is that more times than not, when a species is in trouble, and commercial harvesting is stopped the problem is cured. Indians hunted buffalo for many generations and never depleted their own stock. Buffalo hide harvesters destroyed the buffalo population in one generations time. That's my point and I'm entitled to it.


Snapper pops' are not in trouble..


----------



## texasfisherman (Mar 9, 2007)

I hope not, buddy. That would be the best outcome to all this. Good rappin' with ya.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Rudy Justin*



rudy justin said:


> There is not a closed season on catching snapper any where. You just cant keep them.Catch and release.There are plenty other species that you can retain for eat!Recreation is for the fun of it ,I thought.


The Commercial Boys need a catch and release open season and see how you like it. Once the beans are off your table it would not be cool beans to play internet mind games with us here.

Most of us are tired of the Commercials 12 month season of which you all make
money year around and the Rec for Hire go broke watching you fish.

Enjoy your freedom to do as you wish as your side is due a direct hit from regulators to balance the sales.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

rudy justin said:


> Take it how you want it Snap Draggin, but thats not what I said. We must abide the law or suffer the consequence.


The bad thing about it is when you commercial fishermen break the law you do it to the tune of thousands of pounds. One boat can come in 10,000 - 20,000 lbs over the limit, and that is more than every recreational fisherman combined that launches out of Sabine Pass will ever catch in an entire year. Regardless of whether you get fined, the fish are stil dead.

The bottom line is, if the stocks are in trouble it is because of being overfished. If they are being overfished it is due to commercial fishing, same as the buffalo analogy. I do not have huge ice boxes on my boat. Judging by the size of my fish boxes I could probably only hold 50 or 60 total Red Snapper on my boat. How many do you think yours will hold? Bottom line, if they made Red Snapper a game fish the stocks would improve dramatically and rapidly. It happened with Red Drum and can happen here as well.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

jim smarr said:


> The Commercial Boys need a catch and release open season and see how you like it. Once the beans are off your table it would not be cool beans to play internet mind games with us here.
> 
> Most of us are tired of the Commercials 12 month season of which you all make
> money year around and the Rec for Hire go broke watching you fish.
> ...


Jim, a couple of months ago I visited the RFA website along with the Texas Chapter, I beleive in the sub-forum of FAQ's there was a distinction section that set RFA apart from other active orgs., it stated somehting to this effect, and correct me if I'm wrong just trying to clear the air " RFA- does not go after or discriminate against anytype of fishing as long as it complies with the law", I just went to the RFA website, Texas Chapter and scrolled over to the FAQ's section; I got page under construction, did something change? or did I read something different 2 months ago? thanks for clarification. LK


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

Lemo, I want you to remember this and where you heard it. Sell your snapper scow now while you can. Because we the " Rec Fishermen" are going to do everything in our power to give you and your type a limited exit from the snapper industry! When the shoe gets on the other foot we will see who is laughing then.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

The RFA defends the rights of RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN.

*The RFA Mission*







*Safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers *








*Protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs *








*Ensure the long-term sustainability of our nation's fisheries *

Commercial fishermen and environmentalists are pushing their agenda on marine fisheries issues affecting you. The RFA is in the trenches lobbying, educating decision makers and ensuring that our interests are being heard loud and clear too!​​FWIW I could care less if the commercials never fished another day for Red Snapper, some may find this extreme but contempt prior to investigation would be unwise here.​​​The feds will actually help by shutting down the rec sector thus causing a backlash like none seen since the shrimper wars, we have the numbers...they just aren't mad enough yet. Once the money stops in our fishing towns the tide will turn.​


Leemo said:


> Jim, a couple of months ago I visited the RFA website along with the Texas Chapter, I beleive in the sub-forum of FAQ's there was a distinction section that set RFA apart from other active orgs., it stated somehting to this effect, and correct me if I'm wrong just trying to clear the air " RFA- does not go after or discriminate against anytype of fishing as long as it complies with the law", I just went to the RFA website, Texas Chapter and scrolled over to the FAQ's section; I got page under construction, did something change? or did I read something different 2 months ago? thanks for clarification. LK


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

> On the other hand, if it needs to be shut down


guys, don't get me wrong, I am not saying it needs to be shut down. I am simply trying to explain *why* it is being sharply cut and my reasoning as to why it may be completely shut down in the future.

As a fisherman that mostly fishes offshore, I have good years and bad years, and so do the fish. Personally, the largest problem I see with the snapper are the people regulating them and that includes the politicians that appointed those same folks. 
I can say this much, by the time the fish regulators get done with all this, thousands of jobs and millions of dollars will have been lost to questionable "science".


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Snap Draggin said:


> One boat can come in 10,000 - 20,000 lbs over the limit, and that is more than every recreational fisherman combined that launches out of Sabine Pass will ever catch in an entire year.


Hey not to be picky, but the average 50-foot bandit boat has a fish hole of about 12,000 pounds including ice, maybe a ton of that ice. That's a big fat bandit/long-line boat like the Broadfires used in Florida (shaded deck in front of the wheelhouse). Most fish holes on the skinnier boats are about 5,000-7,000 pounds on deck ... and don't forget the ice.

I think you might have meant on an annual basis, maybe as some kind of over-fishing by a few fish pirates, right?


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

August 23 2006 TPW Commission Meeting
RFA Board Member Speaking to Commission
"I'd like to first commend you guys on the work Texas Parks and Wildlife has done to apprehend those illegally harvesting Red Snapper in the Texas Gulf. I'd also like to address the enormity of the problem that still exists by reading from a Houston Chronicle article that was published on the 17th by Shannon Thompkins. This cites a few of the violations that we've had in the recent past on the Texas Gulf.

"The morning of November 1, 2005, officers attempted to stop and inspect the Caitlin May on the Gulf of Galveston. The commercial vessel attempted to elude officers. During the resulting chase, officers said the Caitlin May rammed the patrol boat and the vessel's crew threw about 1,000 pounds of fish overboard. When the agents finally stopped the boarded vessel, they reported finding more than two tons of reef fish, including 3,659 pounds of snapper aboard the boat. Much of the catch, one law enforcement officer said, was stowed in a hidden compartment on the vessel."

The second one was earlier this year. "The captain of a Galveston Bay commercial vessel was sentenced to 30 months in prison and a crew member 21 months in prison, in a case involving more than 2.5 tons of illegally taken snapper. In that case, agents seized 5,641 pounds of Red Snapper found in what was described as a hidden compartment in the vessel. More than 2,700 of those snapper were under the legal minimum length."

The third incident, in June, "Wardens acting on a Operation Game Thief tip stopped and boarded a commercial fishing vessel they documented fishing inside state waters in the Gulf off of Corpus Christi. Wardens found more than 800 snapper weighing a total of more than 2,000 pounds aboard the vessel. They issued citations for 26 fishing regulations violations to the vessel's captain and crew. A Parks and Wildlife news release on the incident noted that the captain and crew of the vessel had 62 prior violations for game and fish law violations. One of those charges had 45 pending cases involving illegal take of Red Snapper."

You know, since it seems that the folks at NOAA and the NMFS are bogged down in the usual bureaucratic mud that's kept them from moving forward for years, I'd like to appeal to you and the great state of Texas to support the Texas Reefing project and support game fish status for Red Snapper in Texas state waters to end commercial

overfishing. I would also like to state for the record that I'm opposed to a two fish snapper limit as it would have a massive negative economic impact on our coast. For what it's worth, I figured today that I spend about $750 to take my boat and my kids to the coast for weekend of snapper fishing and I'm one of just tens of thousands of recreational snapper fisherman in Texas.

Again, I'd like to thank you as a Texas sportsman and as a parent that wishes to instill in my children the same values that my grandparents instilled in me. Thank you.



Swells said:


> Hey not to be picky, but the average 50-foot bandit boat has a fish hole of about 12,000 pounds including ice, maybe a ton of that ice. That's a big fat bandit/long-line boat like the Broadfires used in Florida (shaded deck in front of the wheelhouse). Most fish holes on the skinnier boats are about 5,000-7,000 pounds on deck ... and don't forget the ice.
> 
> I think you might have meant on an annual basis, maybe as some kind of over-fishing by a few fish pirates, right?


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Swells said:


> Hey not to be picky, but the average 50-foot bandit boat has a fish hole of about 12,000 pounds including ice, maybe a ton of that ice. That's a big fat bandit/long-line boat like the Broadfires used in Florida (shaded deck in front of the wheelhouse). Most fish holes on the skinnier boats are about 5,000-7,000 pounds on deck ... and don't forget the ice.
> 
> I think you might have meant on an annual basis, maybe as some kind of over-fishing by a few fish pirates, right?


Swells "not to be picky" but several snapper boats were caught "full" of snapper after they had already made thier quotas. THIS WAS IN FEB or MARCH...meaning they had caught thier IFQ and were still fishing when boarded with full fish holes.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)




----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

An improvement on the 25 chickens in the hen house reasoning. Stop all commercial fishing. Give thier IFQ to the Rec's. At a 50-50 split of the TAC this would give two options. (1) Rec's could keep two fish for 122 days (2) Rec's could keep four fish for 61 day's. The best part would be that with either a two or four month season we would be able to cut the payrole on the Gulf Council by a minium of 2/3's saving enough money to pay for a credible fish count. And then in 2011 if the Gulf Council say's everything is ok we let the commercials back in with 4 fish per man per day 8 possesion limit if 2 Lic. Capt. are on board. No more than 3 hooks per line. And Nemo you thought we didn't like you.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Aye, then fish pirates they are! I hope they were summarily busted. One was busted down here near SPI with tilefish covering out-of-season red snapper, a haul of maybe 3,500 pounds total. Last year it was several "longas" from Mexico busted with nets and bilges full of red snapper (a longa is a shark boat exactly like a panga hull). 

My point was merely that most boats have a fish hole limit on a per-trip basis.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Just imagine what would happen if we got Texas to declare snapper a gamefish.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

86228 said:


> An improvement on the 25 chickens in the hen house reasoning. Stop all commercial fishing. Give thier IFQ to the Rec's. At a 50-50 split of the TAC this would give two options. (1) Rec's could keep two fish for 122 days (2) Rec's could keep four fish for 61 day's. The best part would be that with either a two or four month season we would be able to cut the payrole on the Gulf Council by a minium of 2/3's saving enough money to pay for a credible fish count. And then in 2011 if the Gulf Council say's everything is ok we let the commercials back in with 4 fish per man per day 8 possesion limit if 2 Lic. Capt. are on board. No more than 3 hooks per line. And Nemo you thought we didn't like you.


I'll just get some chickens that lay more eggs, and I am a likable guy, just ask Rudy Justin..


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

I think I saw those guys on the wall at the post office!



Mont said:


>


----------



## Rack Ranch (May 25, 2004)

NUF SAID!!!



Mont said:


>


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

Leemo said:


> I'll just get some chickens that lay more eggs, and I am a likable guy, just ask Rudy Justin..


I bet you could. You probably allready have some hens laying more eggs than they are supposed too! I am sure you are a like able guy and I hate to see likeable guy's having to get into the aluminum farming bussiness.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Mont said:


>


But wait, according to Leemo and Rudy there are very few that break the law as opposed to the multitudes of law abiding commercial fishermen. *NOT!!! *LMAO!!! The sooner Red Snapper is declared a game fish the better!


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

I think the President can do that by executive order - red snapper as a game fish. George Bush loves to fish, don't forget. He might go for that one, seriously.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

WATCH THE GAMEFISH ISSUE!

That means we can't spear them either! So be sure to add a spearo provision for us! I don't even own an offshore fishing pole!


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Those snapper caught off Louisiana are not really there because they were caught at a rig so therefore NMFS doesent count those. By the way no VMS either.. Hmmm

Charlie


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*nmfs bs*

Howdy,
Here's a post from another fishing forum by a guy who has *20 years in fisheries law enforcement* that I think hits the nail on the head. *Note that he says that fishing is a priviledge, not a right. The commercials think they have the right to do what they want.* He also points out the probability of recreationals not following the law due to the unfairness of the law coupled with lack of enforcement. We should do a federal recreational snapper stamp (just like the duck stamp) required for anyone fishing for snapper, which in my opinion whould give the researchers a better idea of how many anglers actually are fishing recreationally for snapper.
Thanks,
Tom

_I spent 20 years in the Coast Guard. Most of that time was on the north central Gulf Coast doing fisheries law enforcement. My experiences with the charter boat fleet were largely very positive. There were a few exceptions running out of the Biloxi area. My experience tells me that charter captains always leave the fish biting. They cannot afford to fish out "their" spots. _

_*Right now commercial snapper anglers have almost nothing to stop them from harvesting as many snapper as they want to. NOAA/NMFS law enforcement presence is almost non-existant.* The Coast Guard doesn't spend much of their limited underway time engaged in fisheries enforcement in federal waters. The states do a fair job of enforcing federal regulations with their JEA money. *If I were a commercial angler, I'd have no reason at all to not keep over my allocation...NONE. Same for a recreational angler (and this includes me). More and more recreationals are willing to break the law because the laws aren't fair and aren't enforced.* It's different with charter captains. Unless they know every person on their charter, and know them well, they are taking a serious risk by violating the law. _

_Shrimp boats take an incredible toll on juvenile snapper. When fish excluder devices are working they are not too effective. Shrimpers often disable their FEDs. Enforcement here is sorely lacking. _

_It is RARE that federal fines are levied for minor violations for recreational or commercial anglers. Minor is described as less than 20 illegal fish. The chances of getting boarded are very slim. The chances of having a violation detected is slim if the offender attemts to hide the illegal catch. _

_Good science is not driving policy and regulations. _

_This, in a nutshell, accurately depicts the current state of the red snapper fishery. _

_Here is my solution to strengthening the fishery. _

_Draft a law requiring a federal recreational fishing license. Charge $50 for a license that lasts 2 years. It can be sold in the same way federal duck stamps are. Use the money to buy better enforcement. STRICTLY enforce the law and take HARSH action against violators for anything but the most minor infractions. Minor violations would be things like fish that are an inch or less short, or one or two fish over the limit. Break the law one time, get you heavy fine. Break it a second time, lose your privilege for a year. Three strikes you are done for life. *Fishing is a privilege not a right.* Load the Council with scientists/marine biologists, not fishermen. Let fishermen have a voice, but not a majority voice. Let them make the laws based on science._


----------



## Crossroads (May 21, 2004)

There are many solutions and good suggestions. The fact is, none of those happening and the above post hits the nail on the head with enforcement. I would rather close the Gulf to red snapper fishing for everyone for at least a year than have an ignorant 2 fish limit. Maybe that would at least drive some commercials out of business.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

> We should do a federal recreational snapper stamp


 The AP sent a motion up to do just that, on Wed. It went up in the form of either a sticker similar to the "tuna" sticker or individual registrations.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Another means of tracking red snapper, in addition to better enforcement, is to sell snapper stamps. Think about it, snappers are a free resouce even if you pay thousands to get out there and fish them. The commercial IFQ permits were based on historical catches and while there are some costs and permits can be traded for big bucks, they're basically free fish! I'd pay a little more on a per-snapper basis. You print "x" many snapper stamps and monitor whether you want to print and sell more, or roll over existing stamps to the next year. Easy.

I suggested this to the Bahamian Ministry for control of spiny lobster and Queen conch and of course I was laughed off the planet. Prolly the case here too.

But pay 'n' play makes sense to me, and for a few bucks I get the PRIVILEGE to catch whatever is in my book of stamps. Maybe we could also have "Texas artificial reef stamps" or something as well. OK, you can stop laughing now, but in theory it makes a wee bit o' sense ... /sam


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*snapper stamp*



Mont said:


> The AP sent a motion up to do just that, on Wed. It went up in the form of either a sticker similar to the "tuna" sticker or individual registrations.


Mont,
I like the idea of individual stamps to put on your fishing/hunting license - it would seem to be a more accurate data collection system.

Take the money generated and dedicate it towards enforcement.

Tom


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

rodwade said:


> WATCH THE GAMEFISH ISSUE!
> 
> That means we can't spear them either! So be sure to add a spearo provision for us! I don't even own an offshore fishing pole!


I'll give you one of mine. Just step into the light.


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

Swells said:


> Another means of tracking red snapper, in addition to better enforcement, is to sell snapper stamps. Think about it, snappers are a free resouce even if you pay thousands to get out there and fish them. The commercial IFQ permits were based on historical catches and while there are some costs and permits can be traded for big bucks, they're basically free fish! I'd pay a little more on a per-snapper basis. You print "x" many snapper stamps and monitor whether you want to print and sell more, or roll over existing stamps to the next year. Easy.
> 
> I suggested this to the Bahamian Ministry for control of spiny lobster and Queen conch and of course I was laughed off the planet. Prolly the case here too.
> 
> But pay 'n' play makes sense to me, and for a few bucks I get the PRIVILEGE to catch whatever is in my book of stamps. Maybe we could also have "Texas artificial reef stamps" or something as well. OK, you can stop laughing now, but in theory it makes a wee bit o' sense ... /sam


notta bad thot, but i like the idea of'em being 'issued' and non-transferable with a year end survey (like migratory waterfowl)

what was your take?
how many days did you go?
how many were unused?
blah-de-blah/yadda yadda yadda (?!!)

having to pay more in fees to fish is sorta like caving into to these overzealous morons (imo) that oughta be using summa our tax dollars they've already collected

i mean my tax dollars go 'tward a lotta cr^p i don't care about........ how about someone elses tax dollars going 'tward my interest for a change?

(but understand that i have no idea what i'm talking about....... it's just that it's nearly april 15th and time to blow off some steam! )


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

hilton said:


> Mont,
> I like the idea of individual stamps to put on your fishing/hunting license - it would seem to be a more accurate data collection system.
> 
> Take the money generated and dedicate it towards enforcement.
> ...


Maybe the goverment can implant a chip in our brain that just makes it feel like we went fishing.


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

wacker said:


> Maybe the goverment can implant a chip in our brain that just makes it feel like we went fishing.


no way they can have my tin-foil hat 'til they pry it off my cold dead head!!!!*

















*(charlton heston?)


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

Bill Fisher said:


> no way they can have my tin-foil hat 'til they pry it off my cold dead head!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: Too funny Bro!


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Well I see your point ... last year spent about $300 on snappa trips and got mebbe 6 "lip stretchers" barely over the line. That's $50 bucks a feesh. Prolly 3 pounds whole and 1 pound dressed and fillet, too small fer throats. Yep, about $50 a pound sounds about rite. If it wasn't for a few ling and dodo I think I would have committed sooey-cide. -sammie


----------



## rudy justin (Jan 23, 2008)

Jim, your beans dont come from fishing evidently,but some of us fortunately do get our beans from it.12 month fishing season is a joke,as internet mind games is also.Dish it out but cant take it is the way I see it. I started stating facts on this board at first and then started getting bashed by this group. I can see you dont know as much as you think you do, so I think I'll stop imforming you of the facts.


jim smarr said:


> The Commercial Boys need a catch and release open season and see how you like it. Once the beans are off your table it would not be cool beans to play internet mind games with us here.
> 
> Most of us are tired of the Commercials 12 month season of which you all make
> money year around and the Rec for Hire go broke watching you fish.
> ...


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*ifq bs*



rudy justin said:


> Jim, your beans dont come from fishing evidently,but some of us fortunately do get our beans from it.12 month fishing season is a joke,as internet mind games is also.Dish it out but cant take it is the way I see it. I started stating facts on this board at first and then started getting bashed by this group. I can see you dont know as much as you think you do, so I think I'll stop imforming you of the facts.


Rudy,
Give me a VMS and an IFQ permit. I will bet you that the system can EASILY be circumvented, and will go out and prove it. I will show that I can harvest as much snapper as I like without detection.

Care to bet?

That gives me an idea - what about taking a qualified observer along (such as a sitting member of the Snapper AP...hint, hint), video-tape the whole process then make a presentation at a Gulf Council meeting. What do you think? The fish would be given to charity or something like that.

Tom


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy

You don't know me or anything about me. I have read 17 volumes of the Administrative record on Red Snapper. I do know a little bit about what has happened in the fishery.

I don't like IFQ's that gave your sector "Ownership" of a fishery that belongs to everyone. Our side is going broke while your side is making money hand over fist thanks to the enviro's that helped you guys. 

My income has taken a big hit 75% as I am not paid for the untold hours I spend protecting Recreational Fishing Rights. I am in the Securities Business as in Money Management showing people how to avoid Taxes on long term savings. Taxes will kill baby boomers now retiring in later years with traditional retirement programs as tax rates sky rocket upwards to support Government Entitlements. Should not happen if planned properly. I have sacrificed a bunch to do what I do for our side and am proud to say we have made a big difference. It has been worth the personal sacrifice. I chose my path and you chose yours. 

Good Luck as I am going to try to even the scale of Justice in the Red Snapper Fishery.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Hey I'm talking about a major *RED* here because you're arguing about things you can't control. We're fighting amongst each other because we don't know what can happen or if it's all going FUBAR. We need leadership to step up to the plate with clear principles and to include the commercials. Sadly, we do not have that mix today, and no offense to Mr. Smarr.

And Hilton, I was definitely surprised by your acidic response to Rudy when I thought you were a fairly balanced man who posts here on 2Cool who promotes good things like artificial reefs and such, a major *GREEN*.

Ladies and gentlemen we have to solve a problem cause by the US Congress as implemented by the NMFS and its mandates for the regional fisheries, which aren't regional enough (there are only 8 for the entire US including Alaska and Hawaii). That's how we ended up with 2010 deadlines and catch limits that applied to the entire US Gulf of Mexico waters. Well, that was stupid, and stupid is as stupid does.

You know, you can launch verbal missiles to try to fry people but those little electrons and words don't mean squat to a red snapper. Go for the jugular, write like you're kick-boxing with a kidney punch, I don't care. Your words are wasted on us local boys who know better than that. Infighting is what the NMFS expects and wants, plain and simple. And dammit, we're doing exactly as they expected.

We need leadership to address and help heal the commercial, charter, and recreational aspects of the Gulf fisheries. But if we fall into those traps where the opposition wants us, we will all lose, and nobody will be to blame but ourselves. -sammie


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Sammie

How about HR 5425 that is leadership in working with the entire Recreational Fishing
World across this Nation. As far as working with Commercials to hell with them Sammie
as we have to save our butts. I will am not pleased with your saying we are not trying to fix the problem.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Swells said:


> And Hilton, I was definitely surprised by your acidic response to Rudy when I thought you were a fairly balanced man who posts here on 2Cool who promotes good things like artificial reefs and such, a major *GREEN*.


Sammie,

Sorry - I didn't mean to be acidic - I was basically calling it as I saw it. Rudy and Leemo claim that they are having it so hard with IFQ's.

The bet still stands. The idea is that the enviros have convinced the Gulf Council that IFQ's are a great thing...everybody claims that the commercial catch is much more easily monitored and verified, therefore they can keep fishing while the recreationals see their season ever-shortened or even closed.

Give me a VMS and an IFQ permit, and I will show how easy it would be to take as many snapper as I want, and there is no way the feds would know by depending on some high-tech gizmo. It looks good on paper, but in reality is a disaster, and I'm willing to prove it. If I could illustrate that, it could be a rationale for abandoning IFQ's here in the Gulf.

All the best,
Tom


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Sammie, I have a couple of simple questions for you. How many boats do you own? What type of fishing do you do?


----------



## 007 (Mar 11, 2008)

Roger that!! Bill Fisher!!!! Someone phone home??!!



Bill Fisher said:


> no way they can have my tin-foil hat 'til they pry it off my cold dead head!!!!*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

rudy justin said:


> Jim, your beans dont come from fishing evidently,but some of us fortunately do get our beans from it.12 month fishing season is a joke,as internet mind games is also.Dish it out but cant take it is the way I see it. I started stating facts on this board at first and then started getting bashed by this group. I can see you dont know as much as you think you do, so I think I'll stop imforming you of the facts.


Rest assured Rudy that we are all well informed on here. One more thing you can rest assured of is that NOBODY on here will stop until Red Snapper is declared a game fish!! Any questions??


----------



## 007 (Mar 11, 2008)

Snapper? a game fish?? Can't recall last time a snapper smoked the line off my reel??!! HA!!HA!!



Snap Draggin said:


> Rest assured Rudy that we are all well informed on here. One more thing you can rest assured of is that NOBODY on here will stop until Red Snapper is declared a game fish!! Any questions??


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

mwb007 said:


> Snapper? a game fish?? Can't recall last time a snapper smoked the line off my reel??!! HA!!HA!!


Maybe you should stop using big game tackle for them then, or maybe, just maybe you have never caught one larger than a barely legal keeper.


----------



## 007 (Mar 11, 2008)

The biggest snapper i've ever caught was on a drift line on a ribbonfish!! 24lbs at the VAFOGG!!!! 007!!!












Snap Draggin said:


> Maybe you should stop using big game tackle for them then, or maybe, just maybe you have never caught one larger than a barely legal keeper.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

mwb007 said:


> The biggest snapper i've ever caught was on a drift line on a ribbonfish!! 24lbs at the VAFOGG!!!! 007!!!


Well then if you had reasonable tackle that fish should have fought you REAL hard. I have had them break me off on 40lb test like it was 2lb. With that said I am not sure where you came up with that nonsense about snapper as a game fish.


----------



## 007 (Mar 11, 2008)

Ithought it was an AJ or something. I was 22 years old! Way before any regs. were ever in effect!! Now I somewhat regret taking all the fish that we did!! It was nothing to fill up 2 161s full of 50# kings & snapper back then!! There should have been a limit then too!!!











Snap Draggin said:


> Well then if you had reasonable tackle that fish should have fought you REAL hard. I have had them break me off on 40lb test like it was 2lb. With that said I am not sure where you came up with that nonsense about snapper as a game fish.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

mwb007 said:


> Snapper? a game fish?? Can't recall last time a snapper smoked the line off my reel??!! HA!!HA!!


I have a question for you. How many Redfish or Speckled Trout have you caught that smoked the line off your reel?


----------



## 007 (Mar 11, 2008)

I don't inshore fish! So, the answer is none!!



Snap Draggin said:


> I have a question for you. How many Redfish or Speckled Trout have you caught that smoked the line off your reel?


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

"That's how we ended up with 2010 deadlines and catch limits that applied to the entire US Gulf of Mexico waters. Well, that was stupid, and stupid is as stupid does."
Quote Sammie


Sammie a Lawsuit gave us the 2010 rebuilding deadline via a Federal Judge as I remember it and the rest of the offshore fishermen around here. Something to do with 80% shrimp bycatch when everyone including NMFS understood the number was in the 26% range then. I am tired as I just made a round trip to the Border today. I still believe I'm close with the above statement. LOL


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

mwb007 said:


> I don't inshore fish! So, the answer is none!!


OK, well do you fish fresh water?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

If you do you fish fresh water a Lagemouth Bass does not smoke line off your reel, but it is a gamefish.

I also want to reiterate what you just said about the large Red Snapper you caught. You said you thought it was an AJ or something. HELLO!!! An AJ is one hard fighting fish. Just because a fish does not peel line out on 18lbs of drag does not mean it is not worthy of game fish status. 

The answer to Redfish and Trout is they will peel line out, but not smoke it like a Kingfish, but they are gamefish. A large Red Snapper will pull somewhat like a large Redfish on the same tackle. I have caught both, and even large Redfish on light tackle. I have caught Red Snapper up to 12 lbs on light tackle and they pull somewhat like Redfish in the same weight class. I have caught larger Redfish and Red Snapper on heavier tackle, and again they both pull about the same.

With all that said I again want to say that your comments about Red Snapper as a gamefish are ludicrous and nonsense.


----------



## 007 (Mar 11, 2008)

No!!! That's the same thing as fishing in the bay!! I have always fished by the rule; If I can see land, I do'nt want to fish!! No offence to you inshore trout/redfish guys, I just prefer to fish offshore. In the offshore season I like to snow ski (ON A MOUNTAIN!! for you wise guys) and play golf. And, it's a good time to re-rig the boat& get ready for the next offshore season!!! I have a lot of friends that strictly inshore fish, and I fully support them! (They also like to sneak in an offshore trip with me any time they can!) Can't a guy be funny with out attracting all the right wing nuts??!! 007


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I did not see the humor in your comment.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Hey Snap I think he was saying that he likes the offshore more than 12 miles so you can't see land and you're headed to blue water fishing grounds for something other than just red snappas. Let's talk YTF, marlin, sails, huge A-J, giant mako, fast weehoo, and other various reel screamers. Yeah, let's put the clicker on and have a good time OK?


----------



## 007 (Mar 11, 2008)

If you have been fishing offshore as long as your profile says you have been alive, then you did the same exact thing as I did when you were younger! If not, then either you just started fishing offshore, or you are a liar! We didn't know any better back then, or, we would have done something about it! 007



jim smarr said:


> "That's how we ended up with 2010 deadlines and catch limits that applied to the entire US Gulf of Mexico waters. Well, that was stupid, and stupid is as stupid does."
> Quote Sammie
> 
> Sammie a Lawsuit gave us the 2010 rebuilding deadline via a Federal Judge as I remember it and the rest of the offshore fishermen around here. Something to do with 80% shrimp bycatch when everyone including NMFS understood the number was in the 26% range then. I am tired as I just made a round trip to the Border today. I still believe I'm close with the above statement. LOL


----------



## 007 (Mar 11, 2008)

Roger that Swells!!



Swells said:


> Hey Snap I think he was saying that he likes the offshore more than 12 miles so you can't see land and you're headed to blue water fishing grounds for something other than just red snappas. Let's talk YTF, marlin, sails, huge A-J, giant mako, fast weehoo, and other various reel screamers. Yeah, let's put the clicker on and have a good time OK?


----------



## Bubba T. (May 27, 2004)

*you will have to take the grill!*

i know this is simplistic, but, since snapper fishing is primarily for the eating, you will have to cook them out there before you come in, at least your jones will be satisfied. lol

sorry: i could'nt resist


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

LOL, it's illegal as heck, but nothing, simply nothing beats the smell of red snapper marinated with butter and lemon and peppers cooking over a charcoal fire off the arse-end of a boat way out at sea.


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

'cept maybe jewfish


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Swells said:


> LOL, it's illegal as heck, but nothing, simply nothing beats the smell of red snapper marinated with butter and lemon and peppers cooking over a charcoal fire off the arse-end of a boat way out at sea.


unless something has changed that I am not aware of, each person on a boat can have 2 pounds of fish for personal consumption on board as long as there is a way to cook it.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

mwb007 said:


> If you have been fishing offshore as long as your profile says you have been alive, then you did the same exact thing as I did when you were younger! If not, then either you just started fishing offshore, or you are a liar! We didn't know any better back then, or, we would have done something about it! 007


What is this all about please explain- Was this directed at me or someone else.


----------



## awesum (May 31, 2006)

mwb007 said:


> In the offshore season I like to snow ski (ON A MOUNTAIN!! for you wise guys) and play golf. And, it's a good time to re-rig the boat& get ready for the *next offshore season*!!!


 Next offshore season?

There is no "off" season.sad3sm


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

Mont said:


> unless something has changed that I am not aware of, each person on a boat can have 2 pounds of fish for personal consumption on board as long as there is a way to cook it.


Mont,........ not to be too knit-picky but it's 1.5/lbs per person (as if someone's gonna be out there with a postage scale weighing their dinner)

and they don't bother to say if that's raw or cooked weight

page 19........ head and fins attached rule http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/recbrochure2008web.pdf


----------



## Crossroads (May 21, 2004)

Mont said:


> unless something has changed that I am not aware of, each person on a boat can have 2 pounds of fish for personal consumption on board as long as there is a way to cook it.


Yep and that's exactly what I intend to do. I bought a 34 foot trawler style boat to completely change the way I fish. No more quick day trips for me. For now on I'm either firing up the gas grill or genset with frydaddy and eating fresh snapper until I'm tired of it. Then I'm setting anchor for for the night to get rested so I can catch some breakfast snapper before trolling for 'Hoos.


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

Bill Fisher said:


> page 19........ head and fins attached rule http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/recbrochure2008web.pdf


and the way that rule's written, it appears you could actually return to shore with an extra pound and a half of fillets per person if your boat is equipped with a way to cook it........ there's no mention of how the headless/finless fish apply toward daily bag or possesion limits (that i see)

typical of the council to leave the interpretaion of the rule to the possum cops and the recs to argue about betwixt each other

and, of course, that's fish caught in federal waters........ wonder if there's anything about fish caught in state waters?

(don'tcha just love a clear-cut set o'rules to follow)........ before long i guess fishermen are gonna have to start taking f lee bailey out there with'em


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Bill Fisher said:


> and the way that rule's written, it appears you could actually return to shore with an extra pound and a half of fillets per person if your boat is equipped with a way to cook it........ there's no mention of how the headless/finless fish apply toward daily bag or possesion limits (that i see)
> 
> typical of the council to leave the interpretaion of the rule to the possum cops and the recs to argue about betwixt each other
> 
> ...


uh, don't try it. Fish LANDED in Texas must comply with texas law. And Texas daily bag limits are 4 snapper, period. No provision for filets.


----------



## rudy justin (Jan 23, 2008)

hilton said:


> Rudy,
> Give me a VMS and an IFQ permit. I will bet you that the system can EASILY be circumvented, and will go out and prove it. I will show that I can harvest as much snapper as I like without detection.
> 
> Care to bet?
> ...


What you don't understand is that we give 3 hour notification before we can hit the dock and when we get there the law is waiting for us. And they don't leave until there are no fish left on the boat. Then we go online and tell NMFS how much snapper was unloaded. They give us a code that stays with that fish till retailed. So then my buyer can be audited or stopped on the road and they better not have any more or any less fish than what I told NMFS they had.

Maybe someone could find a way to beat the system, you need a crooked fisherman and a crooked buyer, because they are also registered with NMFS, but a thief is a thief. There are crooked cops, crooked doctors, and crooked auto mechanics but if they get caught, they are out of a job and its the same way with permitted snapper fisherman.

By the way I will be taking a NMFS observer with me during the months of April, May and June. I am sure their video tape will be rolling and crew quarters will be tight. But you are welcome to come along after that. And you are welcome to bring your camera so you can figure out how you would beat this system. Just as long as you don't test your theories when you are out with me.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Levelwind said:


> uh, don't try it. Fish LANDED in Texas must comply with texas law. And Texas daily bag limits are 4 snapper, period. No provision for filets.


That is very true, that fish landed in Texas must comply with Texas regulations. There is considerable law-making behind this.

Here's an illustration with speck trout. The regs for the Lower Laguna says 5 specks a day in the bag per person below somewhere on the bay from Port Mansfield. However, fish from the jetty or surf and you can have ten. No problem, right?

Wrong! Go out on a boat out in the surf and jetties and catch 10 per person and land them at a dock inside the Laguna Madre, you're busted. It all goes with where the fish hit the dock or dry ground, which is why they're called "landings" anyway.

This gets interesting because states such as Texas have delegated authority over boats registered in Texas even when fishing in Federal waters. But I ain't no sailor-lawyer and can only guess that confusion rules supreme, as always.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*ifq bs*

Rudy,

I understand completely.

Since there is a profit motive with the commercial snapper sector, coupled with a 365 day season AND no on-the-water enforcement, there will be people who will (and are currently) cheat the system. This is exacerbated when the TAC is set at 5 million pounds or lower - there is no way people can pay for the cost of their boats, crews, etc based on such a low TAC. I will post the percentage of IFQ allocations when the NMFS responds to my request.

What I am proposing is not to break the law for personal gain, but to illustrate that it is extremely easy to circumvent the sytem, and the there is a market for the fish whether it's reported ot not.

Tom


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

As you can see from this email, Jerry Anderson and Environmental Defense and others are actively working for IFQs for headboats and charterboats. Apparently they are even now working to stop CCGF as I assume the ref to "gulf fishermens coop" means CCGF. He refs CCGF having a strong connection to CCA. Clearly he has no clue as to the real world. CCGF has and is seeking cooperation from all groups, rec, com, enviro, everyone. Apparently, Jerry and others are suggesting that after the initial 5 years of the red snapper commercial IFQ has passed and after Jan 1, 2012 anyone can then purchase red snapper IFQs and that they then can use them as they please. Guess what, no they can't. You see the commercial guys, you all know who they are who were active in getting the IFQ plan passed and approved along with environmental defenses help, they carefully crafted language that yes anyone can buy after 2012, but you must hold a commercial reef fish permit and a red snapper IFQ endorsement in order to use them!!!!!! I have pasted a response from Mike McLemore, NOAA General Council, to my question about this issue. It is plain and simple. So, when someone from Jerrys new group or ED talks to you and tells you how great IFQs will be for us and then tells you the com guys will be able to sell or lease you shares after 2012, ask them how you will be able to use them. As I have said many times, get the full details about any plan before you add your support to the idea!!!!

*There is no use or lose with regard to shares; allocation, however, does not carry over from year to year - it expires if unused. As I said below, in order to possess, land, or sell IFQ snapper a person would need the share and allocation, as well as a commercial reef fish permit and red snapper IFQ vessel endorsement. 
Private anglers and anglers on charter boats would be subject to applicable bag limits. I think in order to convert commercial IFQ snapper to some use by the recreational or charter sector the council would need to amend the plan. The regulations (see 50 CFR 622.16) explicitly say the IFQ is for the commercial fishery, and keep in mind there are separate quotas - the IFQ applies to the commercial quota.*

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: 3/24/2008 11:11:42 A.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Separate For-Hire Sector


I enjoyed meeting and talking with you and Kelly. I've got two party boats in PC and have snapper IFQ shares also on a 65 ft commercial boat, LISA ANN. I grew up on a party boat with my brothers and father. I've been in the commercial end mostly until 10 years ago when my brother and I bought the two party boats, GEMINI and OCEAN QUEEN. 
It's refreshing to see someone step up and express what I've been saying for the past six months in the for-hire sector. 
I do not think the new Gulf Fishermens Coop conservative group is ever going to progress in a positive way. The leadership of the two Bobbys is totally opposed to any talk of separation from the rec sector or any type of Limited Access Programs. The old concept of "Don't worry, I'll take care of it, we'll go to congress, give me more money" has proven to be a dismal failure. It appears there is a strong connection between them and the CCA. 
Three of us on the rec ad- hoc recreational panel are pushing for accountability with tag programs for the general public and pursueing different ideas for the for-hires, however we are in the minority and are being stonewalled by the for-hire reps from Destin and Gulf Shores. As long as they are controlled by Walker and Zales there is not much hope anything will be accomplished. 
We will form our own group like we talked about and move forward. The ones that want to remain in the "Black Hole" of the recs with zero accountability can certainly stay there.
Hope to see you soon in Destin at our first meeting in the near future.
 Best Regards, Jerry Anderson

​


----------



## rudy justin (Jan 23, 2008)

hilton said:


> Rudy,
> 
> I understand completely.
> 
> ...


You said there will always be people who cheat the system. Problem is that putting the comms out of business will not stop these people. Outlaws will continue to outlaw. Its not comms, its people. I've seen plenty of recs try to sell their fish to the fish houses. That doesn't mean all recs break the law, most don't. And its the same with the comms. There will always be those that choose to operate outside the law, no matter what the law is. 
And there is on the water enforcement, I am boarded by the coast guard often. How often do recs get boarded? There is much more enforcement on the comm side than the rec side where it is virtually non-existant.


----------



## wacker (Mar 22, 2006)

Well Idunnow were you get your info from but ya need to get your money back for that. I was checked 8 out of nine trips on my boat last season, Thats a pretty high pecentage if ya ask me. The only time they didn't check me was when I had a swordfish to show off.:headknock


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*ifq bs*



rudy justin said:


> You said there will always be people who cheat the system. Problem is that putting the comms out of business will not stop these people. Outlaws will continue to outlaw. Its not comms, its people. I've seen plenty of recs try to sell their fish to the fish houses. That doesn't mean all recs break the law, most don't. And its the same with the comms. There will always be those that choose to operate outside the law, no matter what the law is.
> And there is on the water enforcement, I am boarded by the coast guard often. How often do recs get boarded? There is much more enforcement on the comm side than the rec side where it is virtually non-existant.


Rudy,
The point is that, by and large, the system is based on the honor system for the commercials.

A bad idea when there is a profit motive involved.

IFQ's have taken away what few law enforcement tools we had (10 day seasons and trip limits) and replaced them with a 365 day season and a high-tech gizmo - looks good on paper, but is the worst thing to happen for the fishery.

In addition, last time I checked, there was a large number of commercials who did not have the required VMS - the Gulf Council approved IFQ's before adequate infrastructure was in place.

Also, there is no public accountability - nobody has access to your allocation percentage - why? If that was public knowledge, the public would have more confidence in the system.

Here's a sample scenario; OK, you call NMFS before you go fishing...you head out 50 miles offshore and anchor on a spot. You catch 5,000 pounds of fish and call your buddy who has a 36' Contender - he meets up with you and you offload the fish onto the Contender, excepting about 300 pounds. The Contender heads into Matagorda, you go back into Freeport, calling the appropriate authorities to meet you at the dock. You register your 300 pounds towards your quota. Your boat was monitored continuously by whoever is overseeing the VMS network (somebody in St Pete looking at a computer screen?)

Your buddy offloads at his pier on the Colorado river under the cover of darkness and without any detection whatsoever. 4,700 pounds at $3/pound = $14,100...not a bad night's work. OK, maybe they get caught once in a while - not a bad penalty for the profits they are reaping.

The fish are sold at the back door of restaurants and other establishments - it's been going on even before IFQ's.

The process is repeated the next night or next week, except the Contender goes into Sargent, or San Luis, or wherever, they choose. The Texas coast is too vast with too many inlets for an effective, ACCOUNTABLE IFQ program.

Tom


----------



## rudy justin (Jan 23, 2008)

hilton said:


> Rudy,
> 
> The point is that, by and large, the system is based on the honor system for the commercials.
> 
> ...


Tom,
I still dont get the honor system. Its the quota system.
You can create all kinds of scenario's,but nobody is slick enough or dumb enough to do this.

We caught way more fish when we were derby fishing than now.
I assure you that all comm vessels catching snapper do have a VMS.The ones that dont are inactive fishermen,thats why there was about 140,000 lbs of comm IFQ that wasnt caught last year.
There is a list available of IFQ holders but their quota shares is confidental. You wouldnt publish how much money you make either to the general public. There is a cap of how many shares that one entity can own.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*ifq bs*



rudy justin said:


> Tom,
> I still dont get the honor system. Its the quota system.
> You can create all kinds of scenario's,but nobody is slick enough or dumb enough to do this.
> 
> ...


Rudy,
Since you make your living taking from a public resource, that should be part of the package...everyone knows how much the President, Vice-President, County Judge, etc. makes - why not you guys? Besides, the IFQ system was designed to prevent the problems associated with that.

You are incorrect - many snapper vessels did not have VMS last year, that WERE fishing. I'm not sure about this year's numbers.

*What? 140,000 pounds of commercial quota that WASN'T caught last year? That don't make sense with a 365 day season in in 2007.* In addition, 33% of the commercial quota has been used for 2008 thus far, and we are only 25% into the year. Based on that rate, the commercial quota will have been caught by the end of September of this year. I'll bet they don't quite catch all of their quota again this year - we'll see!

*What? NMFS just now realized that the recreationals caught 1 MILLION pounds OVER their TAC last year?* Also doesn't make sense.

I do see a pattern here though - under-reporting of commercial landings (as illustrated in my previous example) and over-reporting (using flawed data) of recreational landings..

Here's a listing of some of the IFQ violators from the last 3 months of last year - While I do commend the enforcement shown here, but believe there is a much larger picture that is missed here due to lack of adequate enforcement. It DOES show, Rudy, that some people fishing IFQ's will do anything for money, especially when the risk of getting caught is somewhere between zilch and nada.

Note that the fines are inconsequential to the potential reward involved;

All the best,
Tom

*October 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007*

E0701928FM Martin Arnold SIR MARTIN E GOM FFWCC NMFS fail to comply with Gulf red snapper IFQ program (fail to provide advance notification of landing) $1,500.00 $208.00

SE0702007FM Malakia, Inc. Rickey Lineback MISS IRENE GOM NMFS fail to comply with Gulf red snapper IFQ program (failure to validate transaction report by providing unique PIN) and/or failure to provide accurate location of landing $1,000.00 $558.75

SE0703607FM William Sexton Sexton's Seafood, Inc. SEXTON'S SEAFOOD, INC. GOM NMFS 1) fail to comply with GOM Red Snapper IFQ program (possess IFQ red snapper without transaction approval code) 2) fail to comply with GOM Red Snapper IFQ program (provide inaccurate location of landing notification) 1)$10,000.00 2) $1,500.00 $1,413.00

SE0703800FM Martin E. Arnold Lloyd Cuthrell, Jr. SIR MARTIN E GOM FFWCC NMFS fish without permit (Gulf reef fish and IFQ red snapper vessel endorsement) $3,750.00 $1,576.00 sanctioned 15 days


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

rudy justin said:


> And there is on the water enforcement, I am boarded by the coast guard often. How often do recs get boarded? There is much more enforcement on the comm side than the rec side where it is virtually non-existant.


Wrong!! TP&WD are almost always at the jetties when I am coming back in. I have been boarded several times and they always look in all my fish boxes and coolers.

The fact is Rudy that when commercials break the law they do it to the tune of hundreds and even thousands of pounds. I do not even catch one thousand pounds all year!

I asked you this before without an answer. Maybe you will answer me now. How large are the fish boxes on your vessel? How many Red Snapper will they hold?


----------



## rudy justin (Jan 23, 2008)

hilton said:


> Rudy,
> Since you make your living taking from a public resource, that should be part of the package...everyone knows how much the President, Vice-President, County Judge, etc. makes - why not you guys? Besides, the IFQ system was designed to prevent the problems associated with that.
> 
> You are incorrect - many snapper vessels did not have VMS last year, that WERE fishing. I'm not sure about this year's numbers.
> ...


Tom,
As you posted,they are enforcing the laws.
When they put this system in place,the active fishermen all had to order VMS's.It took a while to get the system up and running. Permits are not renewed without the VMS sending a signal now.
The Quota that was not caught last year was inactive fisherman that didnt fish (FOR EXAMPLE THE PEOPLE THAT USED TO HAVE 200 LB PERMITS THAT DIDNT RECIEVE MANY LBS). We are currently trying to buy those people out.
Currently I have caught about over half of my quota as the fish prices are better during LENT. Unless I purchase or lease more fish,we will slow down on production unless buyers offer more money. I also shrimp from July through Oct. Just because it is open 365 that dont mean we fish every day.

Snap,
My boat holds about 10,000 lbs for whatever that matters.
I used to fish a much smaller boat but derby forced us to go bigger as we had to fish bad weather alot.


----------

