# NMFS screws us ..... again



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

Our good friends at NMFS are at it again. This time they may have outdone themselves. Today at the Gulf States Fishery Foundation meeting, Dr. Crabtree told the state directors that since Texas and Florida refused to go along with the Federal regulations, NMFS has no choice but to shorten the 2008 Red Snapper season to last from June 1 to August 5 ! Good thing we can depend on a Federal agency to be above blackmail and extortion . NOT ! I hope our TPand W commision refuses to tuck their tails between their legs and give in to this madness, cause once the states start giving up their rights, it is never going to stop. I am going to lobby to go back to what we proposed at the Alabama Gulf Council meeting in Jan. 2007 . That is to completely close the Rec and Commercial Red Snapper fishery for 3 years and go back to a 9 million lb. TAC . There is no good argument in the world for accepting a Two month season for the Recs while the commercial sector is reaping the benefits of their IFQ gift.
I hope this is finally the straw that broke the camel's back and brings out the outrage of the recreational fishing community. If this doesn't do it..........nothing will !!!!!!


----------



## CaptBrad (Dec 29, 2007)

Any links or proof that they are doing this?
Something like this is unbeleivable and definitly will not go unnoticed. We all saw the turn out for the TPW meetings, This could turn ugly.


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

I agree NMFS The *( NO MORE FISHING SEASON )* Officials should live up to their stand, and ban all fishing for Red Snapper by everyone, but they should open the season on pochers. We get to keep the pochers take, and of cource get part of the bounty money as well.

What do you think?

*MB*


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

:headknock I thought all along that NMFS already deducted there count and thats why it was JUNE 1 thur SEPT. 31. Is there a way to IMPEACH CRABTREE? LOL


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Hopefully Mont and Jim will chime in on this one. I am pretty sure that the TAC is based on state water catches as it is and any further reduction in the season would be uneccesary.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

THe NMFS red snapper season was planned with Texas and Florida's current take on the books. We specifically asked TPWD this and thier answer was that NMFS's current quota took into account the current TPWD and FWD's current regs. There is NO reason for this cut other then to get back at the states for pushing back. I'm all for the Stated Attourney General filing a class action lawsuit for damages to the fishing communites.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

The "state" catch was included in the original TAC. I have that in writing. This is just the latest move in a very long game of sour grapes. Thankfully, Texas and Florida have effectively said "no" to the NMFS and their numbers game.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

The NMFS is out of control !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Jim,

What is next move on this issue?


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

I vote to impeach Crabtree!!!


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

We can't blame this entire situation on Roy Crabtree. I can't remember the man's name, but the Second in Command from NMFS was present at this meeting so it was definitely pushed down from above.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*nmfs*

Howdy,

Question: If they are reducing the recreational snapper seaon by such drastic measures, what are they doing to the commercial side?

It should be proportional, no?

Tom


----------



## Mike Jennings (Oct 11, 2005)

STxFisherman said:


> I vote to impeach Crabtree!!!


impeach a&^%#^%

you dont even want to know how i vote


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Angler 1*

We are looking at all options. As I said "NMFS is out of control".

TPWD and FFW need to stand firm!


----------



## CaptRickD (Aug 12, 2005)

*Govt*

Load Your Guns. ALL of them.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

What I want to know is how to get these perverts out of power.


----------



## capt.matt (Aug 20, 2005)

*NMFS has gone to far*

Well that's it ! It is time for action. These guys need there goverment desk jobs pulled right out from under them.


----------



## Slightly Dangerous (May 21, 2004)

Oh no...you are way wrong! They have not gone too far. In fact they have a long way to go before they achieve their goal of making the GOM only available to the commercial sector. These are "little men" with nothing to offer anyone beyond the power they perceive that they hold. They are worker-bees and you have a long way to go before you get to the queen.


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

Tom. As proposed, it will be nothing but a windfall to the commercials because nmfs is blaming the state waters for the "massive" rec overages and since there is no commercial catch in state waters, it would be grossly unfair to do anything to them. Business as usual.... nmfs style.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

It is a poker game at this point, there are only so many moves and counters until REAL changes are made. So they are ticked because we did not cave at the State level, well them and a few other folks who thought they had nothing to worry about.
Some of us have come to anticipate such knee jerk reactions and retaliations from NMFS and other players in this silly cat and mouse charade. 

I think recent and past events have raised awareness among our sector, making people aware of the problem is half the battle and getting them to act is the other half.

And we better start voting for people who support us, I can think of 2 members of Congress from Texas who could care less. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey both need their phones rung till they break! neither has lifted a finger to help and both have been pleaded with numerous times.

"The harder they come, the harder they fall"


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Remember all Politics are Local in the end. You are now seeing the results of the unholy alliances last year. 

We will need everyone focused from now on. We can not expect our elected officials to help unless we give them a wake up call. For to long a select few have spoken for the masses. The current NMFS actions should be the wake up call. 

We at RFA have been focused and will continue to be. We need your help.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

Fishing politics can get Crabtree, etal out of their seats. Let's do it!!

We need people that will listen to the majority of the fishing public...not the minority that are set on setting rules that are outrageous for those of us that pay lots of taxes to feed them. I want those that do not even want to take the time to listen to us out. Let them retire...or get another job. 

We work too hard to lose fishing rights!!! We only take away a very small percentage of fish from the Gulf....we have the right to have fun on our days off!!! "F" the guys like Crabtree that continue to take our rights away from us !!!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

I sent this thread to Congressman Lampson, Congressman Ortiz and Congressman Pauls
Chiefs of Staff.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Jim,
Can y'all circulate the form letters again to everyone we need to send this to as opposed to this action? Those seem to get the most response from folks on here to sign and email or fax. 

Thanks


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Can we invite the NMFS to go fishing?................................. They'd make good Mako bait.


----------



## bob zales II (Nov 16, 2007)

I got this report at 4PM today and it is a fact!!!
It has been reported that today, Dr. Crabtree told the Gulf of Mexico State Directors at a private meeting at the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission meeting at the Galveston Hilton Resort in Galveston, Texas that the NMFS will be modifying the red snapper recreational season in the Gulf for 2008. THE MODIFICATION WILL BE A SEASON FROM JUNE 1 TO AUGUST 5, 2008! The reason for this adjustment to a much shorter season in the EEZ is because Florida and Texas refused to adopt consistency rules with the feds (ALABAMA has also not adopted the consistency rules as of this date), and mostly because of the current law which requires all overfishing being done in any species of the United States, that the overfishing must stop by 2010. The gulf council cannot change the law. The NMFS is reluctant to address the issue because in my opinion, they are afraid of the environmental groups. The two U.S. House of Representatives bills (HR4087, Jones, and 5425, Pallone) do not address overfishing. I suspect the same rational for not addressing overfishing by our legislative leaders is because of the fear of the environmental groups.
FOLKS, IT IS TIME TO STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHT TO FISH, STAND UP FOR YOUR CONSERVATION OF OUR RESOURCES, AND STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT. IT IS TIME TO CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES AND REQUEST AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO RELAX THE CURRENT OVERFISHING REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY CONGRESSIONAL LAW. THE LAW HAS TO BE MODIFIED AND IT WILL TAKE ALL OF US TO WORK TOGETHER TO GET IT DONE. ITS UP TO YOU AND THOSE YOU KNOW WHO FISH, WHO CHARTER YOU, WHO FISH AROUND YOU, JUST FISH PERIOD. IF WE CANNOT BAND TOGETHER TO STAND BEHIND OUR LEGISLATIVE LEADERS AND COUNTER THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS WHO ARE DRIVING THIS EFFORT TO STOP FISHING THEN WE WILL BE FACED WITH EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS AND WILL BE FACED WITH VERY SHORT SEASONS AND VERY SMALL BAG LIMITS. 
Here is our proposed language which we need you to support.

*draft amendment*

*Section 3. Preventing Overfishing.*

For purposes of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et. seq., "overfishing" shall not be deemed to be occurring if the rate of fishing mortality does not exceed the annual replacement yield of the fishery. 

*Section 4. Rebuilding.*

 The fishery rebuilding level, target, or objective which may be established for a fishery pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et. seq., shall, in no case, exceed the historic level for that fishery.

We would love to have everyone as members of CCGF because we need the numbers and the money to carry this fight to DC. That is our only hope to change the current requirements. Even if you do not wish to join our coop, we must have the legislative support. You must contact your legislative leaders and tell them, don't ask, tell them you have to have relief with the overfishing requirement. We will be glad to provide the information to you, but you have to act and you have to act now!!!! HRs 4087 and 5425 will not solve this issue. They have to be modified to address overfishing. The 2010 date is too restrictive and unless it is changed we will be faced with little, if any fishing. Please act today!!!!!!
Bob
​


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

We need to get the current NMSF board members removed. Let fishermen pick our leaders. These guys are not playing ball. Out with all of them!


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Maybe a letter stating " Greetings you have been invited to the Southern District of Texas Federal Courts System". Judge Head will be hosting a reception for the NMFS in his Chambers sponsored by the Recreational Anglers of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Individual Fishing Quota's allow 365 days a year for Commercial Red Snapper Fishermen verses 65 days for the Recreational Fishermen.


----------



## KG2 (Nov 15, 2006)

well that really screws the partyboats


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

It put's the screws to a 4 billion dollar industry.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

Let's level the playing field!!!

Clear the slate....get the oldies out...they do not deserve to serve us.
We need to vote a new commission in to oversee the Gulf of Mexico....we have too many of our hard earned dollars supporting individuals that seem to be biased.....umm...I mean financially biased.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Let's get some tar and feathers.


----------



## thebach (Apr 13, 2005)

I would like to be the first to offer these gentlemen a free hunting trip !!!

So let me get this right com. fishermen fish all year and recs get 2 months ?

This is going to get real ugly, maybe a few boats will sink in the mean time !


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

thebach said:


> I would like to be the first to offer these gentlemen a free hunting trip !!!
> 
> So let me get this right com. fishermen fish all year and recs get 2 months ?
> 
> This is going to get real ugly, maybe a few boats will sink in the mean time !


 I would like to be the first to use them as targets.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Bob we have an open door. We have offered to help. We need the Pallone Bill. The RFA
started the move last year. I know we have talked to a lobbist supporting the FLA group associated with you...at National level. We welcomed your input although we know the Chairman will need to be convinced with your approach. He is willing to work with us on our bill. I am convinced the Pallone Bill will help us with current problems. The National Office will sort this out with you. 

We all remember Texas has gotten the short end of the stick dealing with the East Gulf for the last 12 years. We only have one species over here to go after for most of the year where you folks in the East Gulf have had many species to chase. We hope you and the East Gulf are ready to deal with RFA so you will have true National Representation.


----------



## squidmotion (Apr 5, 2007)

Individual Fishing Quota's allow 365 days a year for Commercial Red Snapper Fishermen verses 65 days for the Recreational Fishermen.

madness.....just madness....


this commercial fish backscratching has got to go. and what gets me is, why? so some slob who's never even slugged it out in 4-6 for mingos can have a nice snapper dinner? makes me sick. i say outlaw all gamefish from the commercial market, and shrimp as well. make 'em all eat farm grow 'tilapia' or 'whitefish' jonniemargarita can't tell the difference anyway. flounder are all but gone on the east coast, reds are getting totally wiped by gillnetting in NC and AL, it seems if texas and florida had listened to federal law, we would be totally screwed..... they are trying to take fishing grounds away from everyone in fla. and giving ours away here....i get so confused from all of the waffle talk and crab walking....

i don't know..... i still eat too much starkist.


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

Change the laws to the consumer side of the equation. Restauranerus will train their staff to say....."We're sorry, but red snapper is only available for dinner during the months of February and July. If you love to eat red snapper...get all you can get in February or July". Don't worry...we have cod, tilapia, trigger fish, barracuda, kingfish, or farm raised catfish...what would you like tonight?"

If you want to let a fish grow in a fishery....take the fish away from public consumption....not from recreational fishermen that work hard to pay for the boat, gas, fishing gear and all other costs involved in getting two red snapper or four snapper (state snapper) on the dinner table. 

FIX THE FISHING RULES!!!


----------



## squidmotion (Apr 5, 2007)

STxFisherman said:


> Change the laws on the consumer side. "We're sorry, but red snapper is only available your your dinner during the month of February. If you love to eat red snapper...get all you can get in February". Don't worry...you can have some tilapia or trigger fish, or farm raised catfish.
> 
> If you want to let a fish grow in a fishery....take the fish away from public consumption....not from recreational fishermen that work hard to pay for the boat, gas, fishing gear and all other costs involved in getting two red snapper or four snapper (state snapper) on the dinner table.
> 
> FIX THE FISHING RULES!!!


you said it bro!!!


----------



## STxFisherman (Jan 15, 2006)

I guess I meant restauranteurs.....


----------



## POC Transplant (Feb 26, 2008)

squidmotion said:


> Individual Fishing Quota's allow 365 days a year for Commercial Red Snapper Fishermen verses 65 days for the Recreational Fishermen.
> 
> madness.....just madness....
> 
> ...


Squid hit the nail on the head as far as outlawing game fish from commercial harvest. If the government needs proof that this would work, look at what outlawing commercial redfish harvest has done for Texas. However, this will never happen. There is too much beurocratic BS in Washington with the right people getting paid off. Its pretty obvious that the NMFS does not have a clue what they are doing. If proof of this is needed, how about the Supreme Court ruling in favor of CCA when they sued them for being negligent in their conservation efforts. Recreational fisherman take a few percent of the harvest compared to commercial fisherman. Lets not forget the shrimp draggers that kill an abundance of juveniles. This really burns my ***! I am 100% for conservation of our resources, but this is not conservation. It is screwing the little man. I just want to scream at these idiots!! :hairout:


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Richard you said a mouth full, the fishing rules aren't working for everybody.


----------



## Chase This! (Jul 20, 2007)

65 day season. What a joke. We better do something, for I fear other species will be next in NMFS's attempt to stick it to us.

Brandon


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I have asked everyone I know to call their congressmen or women that represent their district and ask them to vote in favor of HR 5425. I also asked them to tell everyone they know and so forth.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I find it mildy amazing that we spend 20K and upwards to have a meeting of the Ad Hoc Red Snapper AP each time. All is takes is one man to make a decision and the entire effort of the group is wasted. If this all comes to fruition, it will be no different than when the national 55 MPH speed limit was rammed down our throats. No one paid any attention to it and the same thing is going to happen on a lot of private boats out there. It's a shame we can't have realistic fisheries management. I am still up in the air on whether I want to waste another 3 days of my life going to Mobile on the 25th for yet another meeting. So far, the total accomplishment of that group has been to make a real nice 3 inch thick pile of paper.


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

Mont, you make a good point about the Ad Hoc. We may need to make some calls and see if we can get everyone but Donny Waters and the EDF posse to cancel . What is the point of discussing methods of regulating a 60 day season ?


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Capt. Mike, regulations and 60 day seasons are self exclusive for sure.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Has CCA commented on this? Their pride, not to mention their credibility was damaged when Texas declined to drink their Kool-Aide. I bet their snickering out loud and their apologists should know.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

How hard is it for those *N*imrods *M*anaging *F*isheries *S*tupidly to understand that if they would stop commercial fishing the stocks would improve greatly? This is not brain surgery.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Did not some people warn us of this potential result in advance of the hearings with the Texas regulators? 

I would bet those that warmed of this potential result are not snickering. Instead, they have been slapping their foreheads for about a month mumbling words to the effect of - you can lead a horse to water ....


----------



## Ono Loco (Aug 4, 2005)

June is still pretty windy so it looks like a 30 day season for the smaller guys..


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*federal nonsense*



Ernest said:


> Did not some people warn us of this potential result in advance of the hearings with the Texas regulators?
> 
> I would bet those that warmed of this potential result are not snickering. Instead, they have been slapping their foreheads for about a month mumbling words to the effect of - you can lead a horse to water ....


Ernest,

I don't share your view.

Sounds like you are towing the CCA party line again. So, in your view, it would be better to shut down the Texas fishery for *8 months* in order to let the federal waters stay open for 57 additional days? We are in fact, in this position Ernest, due to the CCA/Enviro lawsuit which is driving this madness.

Texas at least has some sense in its regulations - if the feds are going over the deep end, making decisions based on political rather than scientific reasons, then why follow them?

Tom Hilton


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Ernest everyone was warned when this all started a year and a half ago with the shortened rebuilding plan. It is a little late to give the dead horse water don't you think?

The master plan to get rid of the For Hire Sector was executed now we are seeing the results. It was very clear to some of us what the shortened rebuilding plan and IFQ's would do to the fisheries and those that participate in the fisheries.

365 day Commercial Season
65 day Recreational Season

We were right on target.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

There might be some tit-for-tat going on, which I don't understand because it seems as though the NW Gulf (Alabama to Brownsville) is doing fairly well on red snapper. It is difficult to believe there is any science behind what they're doing. For years the NMFS has wanted to usurp state rights to "unify" regulation of the waters ... and when states don't coorperate they get plain old political retribution. Somebody "Spitzer" this bloke who made the decision. /sam


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

What science is this season reduction based on anyway? What I have heard and read is that the amount of fish caught in state waters is a very small portion of the TAC anyway, especially considering that NMFS is going to make guides abide by federal regulations in state waters. Taking an entire month off of the season seems like a totally extreme measure and completely unjustified. If they take 1/3 out of the season, that will really lower our portion of the TAC considerably. Isn't there wording in the MSA that provides for an equitable distribution of the TAC between commercial and recreational interests and wouldn't a move like this violate that rule since it would lower our portion of the TAC to well below the 49% that we are allotted. Ono makes an excellent point by the way. Most of us will be stuck at the dock due to weather anyway in June, so our season will last about 1 month for all intents and purposes.


----------



## Ono Loco (Aug 4, 2005)

Jim - how many manufacturer's/dealers of boats and fishing gear offer support/backing durring these meetings? seems to me that they have the most to lose especially when you add in $4 gas. It's obvious that the for hire guys are all over it but don't read much about other industry types..just an observation..


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

What I heard from the head-boats and charters was they had to raise rates to cover fuel expenses ... yet get less fish. Many have diversified into deeper water trips for AJ and kings ... which takes more fuel. It's kind of a desperate situation. Some have elected to go into the excursion business, like evening sight-seeing tours, dolphin trips, that new pirate boat coming to SPI, Spring Break "booze cruises," or even freaking birds. Not sure what the manufacturers think about this because people seem to be unloading boats, not buying them. Be careful if you walk into a boat showroom with a fistfull of hundreds - you might be mobbed!


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Tom: 

I have no clue what the CCA party line might be. But, its clear we were all warned of this potential result. 

How can you disagree with the plain fact we were warned? A simple search of this very board will reveal that basic truth. 

Further, the CCA/Ocean Cons. lawsuit merely threw out a fishery management plan which was in violation of the law due, in summary, to fundamental assumptions that had a less than 50% chance of coming to pass. The result in that case was after the IFQ's were adopted, and years after the basic fishery managment laws were passed. 

Strange how some folks screaming for more law enforcement now want to claim that its good news that the NMFS had previously had a managment plan which failed to conform to the law and want to throw rocks at those that forced the NMFS to comply with the law.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

screw it, if we are only getting a 2 month season, let's just shut the whole **** thing down for everybody for 3 years and be done with it. What is the point anyway? Hey I bet the enviros and CCA would even like that.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*federal nonsense*

Ernest,
No, the enforcement issue hasn't gone away - it is still very much alive, which will be illustrated soon. Giving commercials 365 access on the honor system looks good on paper, but in reality, in the Gulf, is a disasterous plan.

The CCA/Enviro lawsuit was based on non-factual representations...80% of all year 1 snapper are killed as shrimper bycatch, and the silly 3% of historic levels claim are both fiction. That is clear and undeniable.

We were *ALL* cognizant of the possible consequences of Texas standing up (rightfully so) for its state's rights - that's not anything new. Saying "I told you so" is not something that you, or CCA, can take credit for.

The NMFS' own statitician has shown that the total amount of snapper caught in both Texas and Florida state waters is neglible, statistically insignificant, and that these were accounted for in the 6.5 million TAC allocation. To claim that they must reduce the season by 50% again due to Texas and Florida not subjucating their states' rights is another example of a non-factual representation. That can be easily proven.

Ernest, you never answered my question - you are saying that it would be better to close the Texas fishery for *8 MONTHS* in order to keep the federal season open for an additional 57 days?

That doesn't seem to be a good deal to me.

Tom


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

So what did we lose, a couple weeks of the fed season? They had already hosed us, so why not find a lame excuse to hose us some more. Yeah Ernest, you had warned us about this extortion, but I'll gladly trade a couple weeks from the fed season to maintain our year-long state season. The head boats in SPI have been able to stay in business because of this state season.

I made it out to the Steamers yesterday and there were plenty of nice snapper, so I would like to thank the clear heads at TPWD for allowing our season to remain intact.

I have a proposal. Shut down fed waters for snapper (for recs and comms) for a few years and leave the state season as is.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

it is a wee bit of a turn-off. It is such a shame to go out fishing the grounds and rigs and throw back so many red snappers. On an average state or fed trip I'm throwing back 20-30. You limit out early and then pray for a grouper or a spade fish, which rarely show. Since fishing is so good, perhaps we should just give up the fight and stay home. Yup, and wild hogs are "good" for my garden too ...


----------



## OffShore Man (Jan 10, 2005)

I don't think anyone was "surprised" by this new proposed reg change by NMFS. My only question is how are they going to skew the numbers for the 49/51 split and take into account the statement "in writing" they made about state waters being insignificant to the total TAC. It would seem to me that they are leaving there A#$ unprotected. Hopefully RFA and the other groups can make this a political nightmare for this group of misfits.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Tom, 

Sorry. I took that as a rhetorical question. 

Personally, I would take a longer Fed. season (depending on # of days and where they are on the cal.) as opposed to winter snapper fishing. But, thats just me. Some guides I know would take that trade as well, depending on the days (meaning, to get Memorial Day and/or Labor Day). Some would not. I have not polled this issue. 

But, very little of this has to do with what you or I want. My desires do not define reality. Wish it were otherwise, but, its not. 

Again, you continue to mis-state what the lawsuit was about. The Managment Plan adopted by the NMFS was based upon certain conclusions by the NMFS about shrimper by catch. CCA and Ocean Conserv. had to use those conclusions from the NMFS in order to demonstrate that - based upon the NMFS's own conclusions - the Plan violated the law. Thats how one goes about taking issue with a regulatory agency. One cannot just show up with new or different conclusions based upon some science, or one will be quickly shown the door.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

CaptBrad said:


> Any links or proof that they are doing this?
> Something like this is unbeleivable and definitly will not go unnoticed. We all saw the turn out for the TPW meetings, This could turn ugly.


my question too, is this a threat or a fact ??????

.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

CCA and the Ocean Conservancy... real nice. Maybe they can get Al Gore to speak as one for them.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Ernest, 

Although some could argue that it is quibbling over semantics, we weren't WARNED. We were THREATENED with irrational, very probably illegal, and at the very least extremely prejudicial actions like this. As Monty has wisely predicted, non compliance is the most likely result, to the point of civil disobedience assuming this attempt at churlish, petty revenge by CCA and NMFS is not derailed (which I believe still stands a fair chance).


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Well, I wish y'll the best of luck in those endeavors. I sincerely hope, in the end, the cost benefit balance is in your favor.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*federal nonsense*

Ernest,
I'm surprised you are not upset with our government refusing to use the best available data to make their decisions.

They are claiming that snapper caught out of Texas and Florida state waters during the 8 months of federal closure is justification for reducing the (already reduced) federal season in the entire Gulf of Mexico by almost 50%. The NMFS' own data says otherwise, yet they still cite this as justification.

Looks like a ripe fruit for the picking if there are any lawyers willing to initiate a class-action lawsuit here. Charter companies, boat and motor companies, tackle companies, etc. should all be involved in supporting a lawsuit of this nature, not to mention the thousands of affected fishermen. There are substantial damages that will be associated with this action.

Tom


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Well, thats the difference between those that actually pick fruit for a living and those that have merely seen fruit picking on TV. 

Best of luck in collecting damages from the NMFS or the Fed. gov. Might want to bring an apple or two, cause they will not be serving any fresh fruit any time soon.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I don't know how this upcoming change will work technically. In theory, http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2008/FB08-006 A27_14 final rule v2-1.pdf
is the final rule for this year. Maybe Bob Zales or Smarr might know. My only guess would be some sort of emergency rule.

I also went back through 500 emails to dig out exactly what I was emailed from the Gulf Council and can only shake my head and wonder how we got from this point to the point we are at in under 4 months. The email came to me on 11/7/07



> Based on what I think your question is from what you wrote in the message board, when a TAC is set, all fish caught from that stock are counted against the TAC, even if caught in state waters. This is because the TAC represents the "TOTAL" catch from that stock that can be taken irrespective of political boundaries. Normally, the Council will ask each of the Gulf states to adopt compatible regulations, but if that doesn't happen, as has been the case with Florida and Texas for red snapper regulations, the federal regulations may reflect that and be set so that the projected total catches stay within the TAC. Although, as I recall, the total amount of state-caught red snapper from Florida and Texas combined is not enough to have much of an impact on the federal regs.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

Ernest said:


> Did not some people warn us of this potential result in advance of the hearings with the Texas regulators?
> 
> I would bet those that warmed of this potential result are not snickering. Instead, they have been slapping their foreheads for about a month mumbling words to the effect of - you can lead a horse to water ....


Ernest it was DOCUMENTED that NMFS current projections were based on Texas and Floridas current laws. There shouldn't be any difference.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Mont said:


> I don't know how this upcoming change will work technically. In theory, http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/bulletins/pdfs/2008/FB08-006%20A27_14%20final%20rule%20v2-1.pdf
> is the final rule for this year. Maybe Bob Zales or Smarr might know. My only guess would be some sort of emergency rule.
> 
> I also went back through 500 emails to dig out exactly what I was emailed from the Gulf Council and can only shake my head and wonder how we got from this point to the point we are at in under 4 months. The email came to me on 11/7/07


Yes, Mont, 
There are always provisions for emergency rulemaking which bypass the public comment period and any required economic and enviromental impact. However, in the rulemaking I deal with routinely, there are very specific (and narrow) criteria for it based not only on the importance but the need for immediate action. This would not qualify.


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

Unless something changes I belive that NMFS actions are going to make non-complaince very normal. Fine with me. I know they can not enforce this. They have tried to grab too much. More than they can hold. Rik


----------



## Ono Loco (Aug 4, 2005)

yup rsnap - there are posted speed limits to.. my guess is the state water rigs will be producing "alot" of snapper this year..


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

Thats Right! Everybody watch out they do not tear off a mattress tag. Its the Law! Rik


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Ernest said:


> Well, thats the difference between those that actually pick fruit for a living and those that have merely seen fruit picking on TV.
> 
> Best of luck in collecting damages from the NMFS or the Fed. gov. Might want to bring an apple or two, cause they will not be serving any fresh fruit any time soon.


Ernest,

I guess we all set our own limitations.

Tom


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

manintheboat said:


> screw it, if we are only getting a 2 month season, let's just shut the whole **** thing down for everybody for 3 years and be done with it. What is the point anyway? Hey I bet the enviros and CCA would even like that.


The biggest problem with stating this, is you admit to having a problem.

No one can convince me the red snapper are in need of this kind of action. If they were the comms would have to be the first to go. They did it with red drum!

Get better science and lets go fishing! They ARE out there!


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Too funny. 

Have a good one Tom.


----------



## MAHI (Sep 26, 2005)

*Feds*

Yes 
How Many Days Will The Rec Fisherman Get To Fish Anyway Wtih The Weather And Hurricane Season In These Months Mother Nature And Old Man Sea Controls Alot Of What We Can Do Already .the Feds Need To P-ssoff
Sorry If Some Already Metioned This


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Mont

NMFS can via the Secretary of Commerce implement a rule in an emergency without hearings as I understand. 

That does not preclude the Fishing Communities from asking for Judicial Review of any such action. The Enviros did with faulty data and killed us. Maybe we need to revisit the issue in Federal Court. The entire Management Plan should be reviewed for Red Snapper IFQ's, Red Snapper Historical Numbers being 3% and even the Bogus 80% shrimp bycatch numbers that got us to this point.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Captn C said:


> The biggest problem with stating this, is you admit to having a problem.
> 
> No one can convince me the red snapper are in need of this kind of action. If they were the comms would have to be the first to go. They did it with red drum!
> 
> Get better science and lets go fishing! They ARE out there!


I agree with you. My post was mainly out of total frustration with the system. The problem is that the enviros have hijacked the system and the managers are doing everything they can do to screw us over. As for getting better science, there is no real motivation to do so. In fact, the screwed up science is working just fine for folks like Crabtree, Pew Trust, Ocean Conservancy, CCA, etc. It supports their position that recreational fishermen are the devil and must be kept in check. They seem to be fine with the whole "sky is falling" rhetoric about the red snapper fishery. They have the media in their pocket to preach their doom and gloom, partly because that is the kind of stuff that sells newspapers, not "well the fishery isn't in that bad of shape". Whether it is true or not is irrevelant. Heck if the truth got out that the fishery was not in such bad shape as they say, it would negate many of their positions and make their positions weaker. They will not stand for that. Bottom line is we are not going to get a fair shake and common sense and reality will have no bearing on how the fisheries are managed as long as the current players are involved.

Once again, isn't there language in the MSA that states that the TAC must be split equitably between the user groups? If they cut our season down from 3 months to 2, that would knock our TAC well below 49% and that is at worst illegal, and at best completely immoral and corrupt. Of course our politicians will not help us, so we are on our own.


----------



## rodwade (Feb 13, 2007)

So let's say this....unless they can prove we met our TAC this year the commercial catch should be reduced by the same "proportional" amount. Basically what NMFS is saying is that Texas and Floridas state water catch accounts for 50% of the Rec TAC. If we don't meet your TAC then due to the "inequitable" season. Commercials LEGALLY should be reduced to the amount of TAC we caught. OR we should have the balance of our TAC added on to the next years quota.


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

Well, this situation bites! But I am willing to stand with a group that is willing to stand up for what they believe in, even with big brother and his cronies threatning them. I am proud of my State's and the RFA's stance on this issue. While I am against breaking the laws of our country. I am not againsted civil disobedience on this issue. After all the Feds wanted the State of Texas to Enforce their laws because they can't.
"HAHAHA I told you so I told you so HAHAHA" I have already fired some shots across your coward org's bow. You have single handledy given me the resolve to try to sink it. It's bound to be full of other vermin such as yourself! Now what you need to do is beg your wife or a friend to go buy you a set of T's so you will be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the fisherman and fight for what is fair. I don't possibly see how you can sleep at night. But, thanks for the wake up call on what you guy's really stand for! 
I think we need to fight to fight fire with fire. If the feds want to maintain the 60 day season then we move to close it for 3 years to everyone. I have stated from the beginning the Commercial sector will have to go before it is all over. There is too much money involved here for all things to stay above board. And what a better gift to give the gulf council than no snapper fisfery to manage for 3 years. With less work to be done some high salery folks could be laid off saving the tax payers money .Way cool idea right?


----------



## B-Money (May 2, 2005)

Looks like I got out of the fish business just before the crash! I knew this finance degree would pay off.


----------



## team axis (Jan 24, 2008)

Does Anyone Now The Amount Of Red Snapper The Recreationals Catch? How Does Nmfs Account For The Amount Of Red Snapper The Recs Catch, We Dont Have To Fill Out Paper Work Or Let Anyone Know What We Catch, We Just Go Out And Catch Em. Whos To Say We Catch 3 Million Pounds Of Red Snapper A Year Or 6 Million Pounds There Is No Way To Know Exactly How Many We Catch.


----------



## capt mike (Sep 8, 2005)

Data for the Recs is collected by the MRFSS survey and by the TPand W data collection in Texas. The commercials are loving this little NMFS ploy because it involves state caught snapper.... therefore it doesn't impact the commercial catch because they aren't commercial fishing (supposedly) in state waters. Mag Stevens doesn't mandate equal splits between commercial and rec, some species are as much as 84 % rec and 16 % commercial. In the case of snapper, I believe that congress rather than nmfs is the only people that can reallocate, but I may be mistaken.


----------



## team axis (Jan 24, 2008)

so they get there info by the tp&w people that you see in the marinas once a week asking every othere boat questions. i just think the nmfs is screwed up all around they have poor info. they need to get on a real boat with a captain that knows what he is doing and go to places and show them all the red snappers out there. they are everywhere, illegal fishing is down the shrimpers are gone with the high fuel cost, this is the best year i have seen in a long time. reminds me of the mid 90s. i dont know of any commercials that fish inside of 9 miles they normally run out to deeper water


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

They don't fish in state waters because they only get 4 fish per person. :biggrin: 
They would have to be pretty stupid to risk it now with new laws on TPW's books this year enhancing the ability of Texas enforcement officials to prosecute cases in Texas courts by adding language in the Statewide Hunting and Fishing proclamation mirroring federal rules for the red snapper commercial fishery individual fishing quota (IFQ) program. This will allow state officials to make state cases when the case would otherwise not meet the profile/economic level to warrant federal prosecution. Meaning no more slow justice with a slap on the wrist, they will not fare well I can assure you.

QUOTE=team axis]so they get there info by the tp&w people that you see in the marinas once a week asking every othere boat questions. i just think the nmfs is screwed up all around they have poor info. they need to get on a real boat with a captain that knows what he is doing and go to places and show them all the red snappers out there. they are everywhere, illegal fishing is down the shrimpers are gone with the high fuel cost, this is the best year i have seen in a long time. reminds me of the mid 90s. i dont know of any commercials that fish inside of 9 miles they normally run out to deeper water[/QUOTE]


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

4395 views. I hope you are telling your Member of Congress what you think.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Not completely, there are laws about slander and deflamation of character.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

And I seem to recall Judge head being the one who told Crabtree if he ev er saw him in his court again over a similar issue he would "break bones".

I will wear my best tie for that court date.



jim smarr said:


> Maybe a letter stating " Greetings you have been invited to the Southern District of Texas Federal Courts System". Judge Head will be hosting a reception for the NMFS in his Chambers sponsored by the Recreational Anglers of the Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> Individual Fishing Quota's allow 365 days a year for Commercial Red Snapper Fishermen verses 65 days for the Recreational Fishermen.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

Ono Loco the trades guys are seeing red. They are getting involved.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Do-little*

So the arbitrary attorney seems to think sitting on our hands is a solution. Ernest tell them they will have plenty more to slap their foreheads over soon, people are sick of their enviromentalist-the sky is falling-bad science and spineless sabatoge of the recreational sector. Tell them to spend their time and money making snapper a game fish and putting the commercials out of business.
I'll bet CCA can retain the enviro's lawyer they used in New Orleans to screw the recs (pro bono).



Ernest said:


> Did not some people warn us of this potential result in advance of the hearings with the Texas regulators?
> 
> I would bet those that warmed of this potential result are not snickering. Instead, they have been slapping their foreheads for about a month mumbling words to the effect of - you can lead a horse to water ....


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

Hughoo222 said:


> They don't fish in state waters because they only get 4 fish per person. :biggrin:
> They would have to be pretty stupid to risk it now with new laws on TPW's books this year enhancing the ability of Texas enforcement officials to prosecute cases in Texas courts by adding language in the Statewide Hunting and Fishing proclamation mirroring federal rules for the red snapper commercial fishery individual fishing quota (IFQ) program. This will allow state officials to make state cases when the case would otherwise not meet the profile/economic level to warrant federal prosecution. Meaning no more slow justice with a slap on the wrist, they will not fare well I can assure you.


Hughoo,
Don't fool yourself. There are commercials fishing state waters - I have reports from people that witness them doing it - every month.

They know that the enforcement isn't there to stop them.

I believe the pendulum will swing only so far on this issue before it HAS to swing back to center. Give the fisheries managers enough rope, and they will certainly hang themselves. As the LSU professors correctly pointed out recently...you can only cry wolf for so long before it catches up to you. History will not back kindly on the NMFS on the Gulf red Snapper issue, I assure you.

Tom


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Tom, you know me, I don't believe in the easter bunny either. I am sure there are the special few as always. WhatI was saying is they are stupid for risking it, cause when the DO get popped it aint gonna be like the days of old I can assure you. Somebody will leave a mark and make an example this summer I imagine. TPW is ramping up efforts I am told.



hilton said:


> Hughoo,
> Don't fool yourself. There are commercials fishing state waters - I have reports from people that witness them doing it - every month.
> 
> They know that the enforcement isn't there to stop them.
> ...


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*tpwd*

HugHoo,
Yes - I have great faith in TPWD as well. Let's hope they leave some very large marks!
Tom


----------



## Jackson Yacht Sales (May 21, 2004)

Snagged said:


> Not completely, there are laws about slander and deflamation of character.


Truth is a defense Snagged 

The best legal outcome is an injunction in lieu of money damages. Unfortunately, the recs lack standing to file suit seeking money damages.

Didn't Judge Head order an injunction the last time the NMFS was in his court a few years back over basically the same issue (reduced limits and faulty science)?


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

I think nmfs act of retribution will be met with an attitude of "ok just watch how we run things down here." This is an opportunity for TPW to stand firm and work with the public to build a world class fishery in Texas waters. We can "lead by example", though others such as Florida, Alabama and several east coast states have managed to out do us to date. This will just add to the number of fed up recsis and raise more awareness this summer. Lets hope those in the charter biz can hold on.



hilton said:


> HugHoo,
> Yes - I have great faith in TPWD as well. Let's hope they leave some very large marks!
> Tom


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

Well, don't you think they add more days if we Recs dont get our days in because of bad weather, you know like they gave the Comms after Katrina and Rita. surely they will. WW


MAHI said:


> Yes
> How Many Days Will The Rec Fisherman Get To Fish Anyway Wtih The Weather And Hurricane Season In These Months Mother Nature And Old Man Sea Controls Alot Of What We Can Do Already .the Feds Need To P-ssoff
> Sorry If Some Already Metioned This


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Levelwind, manintheboat, and Hugho222, why don't y'all stick to what you want to accomplish and stop your petty attacks and jabs at CCA? Nothing was accomplished earlier when y'all tried this and nothing will come of it now. Please stay on track with your goals and keep the real problem in your sights. If you want the war to start all over then keep veering off course. Tom


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

screw CCA


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Yeah, that's the attitude. Your true colors are showing now. But wait...they were always there anyways. Way to stick to the cause and show what your real concerns are.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

yeah and you are the voice of reason. Nobody cares what you think anyway, so buzz off.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Not reason, just trying to be reasonable and I won't be buzzing off anywhere.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

Whatever mensa. If actually read my posts, you would see that my main issues are with the enviros and nmfs. Trust me, CCA is part of the problem on THIS ISSUE, but the bigger part of the problem is the eniviros and anti-recreational fishing crowds and their influence on the decision makers. 

I am not going to debate this with you, so don't bother addressing me again on this point. Ever.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

We do have a problem. The NMFS Statement is going to forever change the Texas Coast. This is no drill this is the real attack on the for hire sector. Unless you own a boat you will not be bluewater fishing in a few years. This has been a cold and calculated attack.

I believe the Texas Scoping Meetings speak volumes as to where Texas stands on the
Red Snapper issue. Only one voice in public hearings supporting Fed Regs in State Waters 400 plus against.

Footnote- normal attendance is less than 20 for a NMFS scoping meeting. I have seen as few as 3 attendees.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Man, I agree that your main issue is with the enviros and the nmfs, but when you and others continue to swipe at CCA then I'm going to step in and make a comment. If you want me to go away then stick with the issue. BTW, have a great weekend.


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> Not reason, just trying to be reasonable and I won't be buzzing off anywhere.


The "reasonable" thing to do is get the CCA to join forces with other groups who have a clue! I would like to see you expend more engery trying to get them onboard than defend them at every turn.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Capt., I'm just a peon in a large organization and I have stated in the past that I do not like their stance on this but jabbing at them will not help the bigger issue here. Tom


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> Capt., I'm just a peon in a large organization and I have stated in the past that I do not like their stance on this but jabbing at them will not help the bigger issue here. Tom


I have never taken a shot at them or any org, but I do hope some of the negitivity gets them on-line with the other orgs. and fight this ****!


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Capt. wasn't including you in the "jabbing" comment.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

POC Boy, did you say that you have been to scoping meetings, have written letters to your members of congress, made a call to your CCA expressing your concerns.

Furthermore, CCA has more than once tried to lead us all to slaughter, they have backed out of more than one deal on Capital Hill at the last minute leaving their supposed partners in the lurch, wasting a good deal of time work and money.
When groups work together towards goals for a time and then CCA turns tables and drops them in the fire it leaves an impression. So continuing to drink the kool aide would be the definition of stupidity. I am a grown man with the inherent right to choose whom I support just as you and anyone else, and I am just as entitled to choose whom I will not support. Burying our heads in the sand and acting like PC crybabies is not going to solve the problem.... and WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM. 

CCA has made rounds in Washington hand in hand with the enviros and the commercials, rather than adress the outlaws and give no quarter to the clowns they get 365 days a year to fish....we get 65? OH yes CCA is doing a fine job.

Please tell them we appreciate the shorter season, the billions of dollars we spent will likely be missed in our coastal communities and maybe the commercials will keep those local bait shops, tackle shops, cafes and motels from going under...we all know what fine upstanding folks they are.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Pocboy said:


> Nothing was accomplished earlier when y'all tried this and nothing will come of it now.


Well, Pocboy that's not true. A lot of previously uninformed people were educated, and former CCA supporters became of the organizations involvement in bluewater matters.



Pocboy said:


> Please stay on track with your goals and keep the real problem in your sights. If you want the war to start all over then keep veering off course. Tom


Thank you for your advice and have a nice day. CCA's duplicitousness in this matter working against Texas sportfishermen, IS a LARGE component of "the problem".

Please keep your threats to yourself. If you think a little disgruntled talk on an internet board regarding a controversial stand by a .org is "war"


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

"this attempt at churlish, petty revenge by CCA and NMFS is not derailed" What exactly did you mean by that comment Mr. Levelwind? When I said "war" I was talking about what occurred here several weeks regarding this same issue. If you stick to the goal you have in front of you and stop sniping along the way you might just garner more support and less confrontation.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

wet dreams said:


> Well, don't you think they add more days if we Recs dont get our days in because of bad weather, you know like they gave the Comms after Katrina and Rita. surely they will. WW


I'm guessing that you were being sarcastic? More likely, if we don't meet our quota, they'll add that to the comm's quota.


----------



## Steelersfan (May 21, 2004)

Is there a process for a state to legally extend its seaward boundary? Texas already has a 9 nautical mile boundary which is larger than most states. Is it even possible to go through a process to legally extend this boundary to say, 50 miles? I know, it is crazy, but it sure would be fun to try!


----------



## 86228 (Apr 28, 2006)

I am not after the cca! I am after its members who want a change in policies and want someone to stand up for them. The cca can stay right where it's at with it's head in the sand or worse. And the cca members with thier heads in the sand need to stay with the cca. They will just be standing in the middle of the road crying and blocking traffic when the going gets tough. If you don't stand and fight you just might be considered a coward by youe peers.


----------



## Captain Randy (Sep 16, 2005)

Well when everyone is finished with their rants please call your congressman.
If anyone knows some media types I'm sure NMFS would love to sit down with every paper in Texas one at a time and explain the reasoning on this rule. 

Randy

And yes I've already sent out some e-mail to congress.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Huh, 86? Ok so we're going back to the rfa vs. CCA again. You are not helping your issue by starting that up again. I can see that a few here are again using this issue as a guise to attack CCA. BTW, can someone please post a link or form letter so we can contact someone regarding this issue.


----------



## Javadrinker (Feb 13, 2008)

I'm not a member of either organization, I have called and sent email to my congressional representatives.
I have followed the GCCA/CCA and seen that where it has bailed out and sided with enviros leaving others groups stranded. No sniping, a fact.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Umm java, your misguided sniping aside, how does that post help what is going on with this issue right now?


----------



## fishedz (Sep 5, 2004)

Anyone have pics of Crabtree using the Emporers Club VIP on our dime ? Maybe Ashley Dupre can help with the removal.
*
*


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

*It's started.*

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=155108


----------



## Javadrinker (Feb 13, 2008)

Pocboy said:


> Umm java, your misguided sniping aside, how does that post help what is going on with this issue right now?


Not sure I really need to respond as my orginal post stated I had already called and emailed my congressional representatives, that is how my post helped with the real issue at hand.
Thank you.


----------



## hstnboatguy (Aug 5, 2004)

This is the bluewater forum. The you can fnd the general fishing forum from the main page.. Oh thats right you don't fish offshore and haven't seen our fisheries first hand. When are you going to take me up on offer to go see for yourself?



Pocboy said:


> Levelwind, manintheboat, and Hugho222, why don't y'all stick to what you want to accomplish and stop your petty attacks and jabs at CCA? Nothing was accomplished earlier when y'all tried this and nothing will come of it now. Please stay on track with your goals and keep the real problem in your sights. If you want the war to start all over then keep veering off course. Tom


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

hstn, I do not have a problem understanding the issue at hand here. I have stated in the past that I do not agree with CCA's stance on this issue. I have fished offshore and don't need to go with you to see anything for myself. I did not realize that specific areas of this board were off-limits unless you actively pursue that activity. I'll go back to my original issue and state that I do not see how attacking CCA here, on this site, regarding this specific issue helps in any way the problem which this thread was created to discuss. Tom


----------



## hstnboatguy (Aug 5, 2004)

When is the Last time you were fishing in federal waters?


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Pocboy said:


> "this attempt at churlish, petty revenge by CCA and NMFS is not derailed" What exactly did you mean by that comment Mr. Levelwind? .


I meant the declared intention to shorten the recreational Red Snapper season when it's a matter of record that state water harvest under current framework was accounted for in the TAC calculations to begin with. Since that's the case, it's an obvious attempt to punish recreational snapper fishermen gulfwide because Texas and Florida declined NMFS/CCA's position. This threat was issued, and the validity (scientific and legality) was explored prior to the states decision by none other than our own Monty Weeks, among others.



Pocboy said:


> When I said "war" I was talking about what occurred here several weeks regarding this same issue. If you stick to the goal you have in front of you and stop sniping along the way you might just garner more support and less confrontation.


I can multi task, but thank you for your concern.

I had actually hoped that now that CCA had their payoff for throwing Texas fishermen under the bus in favor of Florida's commercial grouper fishermen that they would at least just butt out of bluewater affairs altogether. However I now suspect their credibility was so damaged by being flatly turned down by the recreational fishermen and the commission, that they have to encourage and crow about this final desperate attempt to kill the for hire sector and thus put 75% of recreational red snapper fishermen out of the game.

POCBOY, I have nothing personal against you. But I am an offshore fisherman who has put deals, compromises, and cooperative efforts with regulatory agencies together in Washington (legally and in my opinion morally). I know basically how this is done although I'm sure NMFS operates quite differently as do the consumer and trade organizations. You are not a stake holder, except to the degree you might buy some snapper in a restaurant, in this event which is crucial to many of us on THIS board.

If you want to continue to cry "Don't criticize, CCA,. they are great and you are stupid, waaa waaa waa" fine. It's a free country and Monty and his moderators obviously deem your posts inoffensive and O.K. But the more you defend that organization on THIS board, the longer the threads will become.


----------



## MAHI (Sep 26, 2005)

*Buyout?????????*

WELL If the nmsf offers a boat buyout I'll be ALL-IN 
Then they can tell me what kind of hooks to use,where to fish when to fish,how to fish ...you get the gest of this I hope . but this is serious **** they are pulling on all the Offshore rec fleet


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

I like longer threads and I don't feel my posts are anymore offensive or inoffensive than yours or anyone elses. I appreciate your passion for this issue but don't expect me to sit back and watch while you and others spread fuzzy truths about CCA.


----------



## Captn C (May 21, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> fuzzy truths about CCA.


Poc,
Could you please de-fuzzy the the CCA position on the NMFS use of bad science and bias toward comms?

Thanks


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Captn C said:


> I have never taken a shot at them or any org, but I do hope some of the negitivity gets them on-line with the other orgs. and fight this ****!


Unfortunately that will not happen. They are never going to align with any other organization because they do not have to. CCA is way too large and ran like a dictatorship. They will decide what is good for their members, not the members themselves.


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Don't be too shure, Snap. You're describing Ducks Unlimited until they finally p'd off enough members, and Delta Waterfowl came along. They have improved dramatically since then. Of course, I don't think they ever WERE as arrogant as the current CCA leadership, but sooner or later "what goes around comes around".


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

I can't wait until it comes back around!


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

CCA is not deciding what is good for their members. They are deciding what is good for the leadership's personal agenda. Unfortunately, the Gestapo is now in control of the leadership.


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

2wahoo said:


> CCA is not deciding what is good for their members. They are deciding what is good for the leadership's personal agenda. Unfortunately, the Gestapo is now in control of the leadership.


OK you are right. You got me there. Maybe I should have said they are deciding what is good for the ones that finance the hypocritical machine.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Actually, history seems to suggest the CCA will align its self with other orgs. Seems like I read that on this very thread.

I think its kinda like dating. It might make _you_ feel real good to claim - Oh, the girl that just turned me down is a lesbian. Its tougher to face the reality that she loves guys. Just not you.

So, in the end, perhaps folks might consider a make over before they start screaming - she is a lesbian.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

2wahoo said "*CCA are a bunch of liars and cheats!" *When he gave me a red earlier. Not so vehement with your opinion here or do I just bring out the best in you?


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Please Ernest elaborate in your history lesson.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

the easiest way for the feds to regulate anything is to make it illegal, then there is no grey area........

it is far easier to enforce/monitor/regulate illegal activity, than "might be legal in some areas" activity.........

if they had their choice, you wouldn't be hunting or fishing for anything, less manpower needed, less paperwork , etc. and the enviros would be off their back,......same thing has been going on with waterfowl for years...

Dept of Commerce...>.....NOAA..>>..NMFS..>>>...Gulf council...

these are commercial regulatory agencies .........we are and always will be in constant conflict........we are in their way...........plain and simple.

if you don't like a .org, don't join , but at least get organized and do your part, then at least you can say you tried instead of just finger pointing...........


----------



## OffShore Man (Jan 10, 2005)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> the easiest way for the feds to regulate anything is to make it illegal, then there is no grey area........
> 
> it is far easier to enforce/monitor/regulate illegal activity, than "might be legal in some areas" activity.........
> 
> ...


I thought you were going to join Ocean Consvatory?


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

OffShore Man said:


> I thought you were going to join Ocean Consvatory?


must have been last week ???

i do read their website though, never hurts to be informed from all sides.....


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

2wahoo said:


> CCA is not deciding what is good for their members. They are deciding what is good for the leadership's personal agenda. Unfortunately, the Gestapo is now in control of the leadership.


Mr. Wahoo, CCA is doing exactly what they say they will and are doing in there website and mission statement. They are *for the fishery*. They are going to do what is best _*for the fishery.*_ Crying and blaming CCA for something that NMFS is doing is _*accomplishing nothing!*_ Stating that they are deciding what is good for the leadership's personal agenda is a pretty blind statement and shows you really don't know what you are talking about. If NMFS is caving to pressure, it is from the commercial interests, their pockets are very deep.


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

United We Stand...................................... Divided We Fall :headknock

I believe *ALL* fisherman have to *STAND TOGETHER TO WIN*.

To fall into sniping at each other ( is entertaining ), but distracting.

Brainstorming on ways to *Reduce Funding* to these people and identifying the most effective conclusions, and than *Being Committed to the Implementation* of the conclusions can produce some amazing results, but this would have to be done as a *UNITED FRONT*.

IS THIS POSSIBLE ?..........I think so.

What do you think the Parks & Wildlife's response would be if most of the fisherman did not renew there fishing license?

There making us all criminals...........Why pay for the privilege.

What do you think ?

*MB *


----------



## OffShore Man (Jan 10, 2005)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> must have been last week ???
> 
> i do read their website though, never hurts to be informed from all sides.....


It would have been funnier if I could have found the thread but I am only messin with ya. I know you are not an OC supporter.


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

*Ss*

Actually, being called the Gestapo is quite a bit worse than being called liars and cheats. Obviously, it went a bit over your head. Sorry. I'll try to keep it simple.



Pocboy said:


> 2wahoo said "*CCA are a bunch of liars and cheats!" *When he gave me a red earlier. Not so vehement with your opinion here or do I just bring out the best in you?


----------



## Animal Chris (May 21, 2004)

jim smarr said:


> Maybe a letter stating " Greetings you have been invited to the Southern District of Texas Federal Courts System". Judge Head will be hosting a reception for the NMFS in his Chambers sponsored by the Recreational Anglers of the Gulf of Mexico.


Jim, Here's a pretty sound idea that would get all the cards laid on the table...under oath. Very similar situations and potential for bad results.

"_John Coleman, who founded the cable __network__ in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits_"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

It's a sad situation in which only reenforces the adage that "Money Corrupts".


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

2wahoo said:


> Actually, being called the Gestapo is quite a bit worse than being called liars and cheats. Obviously, it went a bit over your head. Sorry. I'll try to keep it simple.


call'em 'slick willies'.... everyone oughta be able to relate to that

they probably DIDN'T inhale, have sex, or put they're own agenda ahead o'members

I'm pretty sure they didn't cuz someone said so


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*We have asked- No reply yet*

On the Red Snapper Texas RFA would welcome CCA and SEA to come on board. I am Texas State Chairman so I speak with clout. We have asked CCA at National Level to support the Pallone Amendment to allow flexibility. We are still waiting to hear back. We have asked everyone across the Gulf to support the Pallone Amendment.

This is a huge statement for me to make as I have been very displeased with our numerous previous attempts to work together on fisheries matters and Red Snapper in particular with CCA. I am willing to work with any group for flexibility in the Magnuson as is our National Office at RFA.

The entire Red Snapper Recreational Fishery is at stake. Once the infrastructure is lost it will be gone forever.

There have been big wounds opened up over this issue for years. Again I can assure everyone we have opened the door for talks. CCA has our National phone number.

609-404-1060


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Capn,
"Poc,
Could you please de-fuzzy the the CCA position on the NMFS use of bad science and bias toward comms?"
The CCA used the science that was available to them, and everyone else. What I was referring to was the misguided and outright untruth that CCA is aligned with the enviros. Let's also not forget the comments stating that CCA is against rec fishing. No one said you couldn't be mad but you can't just type lies and expect to gain support from it. (not you Capn).


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Jim, apparently CCA does not like RFA in the world according to Ernest. I say like or not the best way is for EVERYONE to pull together. Instead CCA is too busy trying to make themselves look good by stabbing the backs of the organizations that are asking them to join hands and work together. Just my opinion.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Snap are your speaking for rfa when you make those statements? Are you their lapdog spokesman who says what others won't. It's hard to pull together when all you are hearing is negativity. No one here is saying anything negative about any organization except CCA. Now with that same tongue you are wondering why they don't join you and rfa. Come on now! Ok, I'm through for a while since I'll be at POC next week with my kids enjoying some prime fishing. Tom


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

It would be a very interesting piece of information to see where CCA stands on the Pallone amendment. Maybe one of you CCA guys can call someone over there and see where they stand on this. Let us know what you find out. I really hope that they are for it. You know, they don't really have to work with RFA, be friends or whatever. What is important is that they rally their membership to contact their congressmen to support Pallone as an independent action. Heck if CCA is instrumental in getting this amendment passed, they can take all the credit for all I care. 

We know which group opposes Pallone, and that is the enviro groups. If CCA supports the Pallone amendment than you can throw that in the face of every CCA basher on this board. If they are opposed to it, then it validifies those who say that CCA has aligned with the enviros because this is a very important topic and is aimed directly at the environmental influence of the fisheries management.

It would be nice if they would work with us, but they should not be working against us like they have in the red snapper fishery. It kind of reminds me of a certain Pacino quote in Glengarry Glenross, "you are here to help us. To help us. Not to f us up".


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Pocboy,
When is CCA going to get onboard with the rec fishermen or tell them to buzz off?
When is CCA going to answer members questions?
When is CCA going to stop supporting the commericial's and start supporting the rec?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Can't speak to CCA's views on the proposed changes. 

But I can say the comms I have spoken with love it. Simply love it. 

They believe its going to up their quotas considerably. They think they are going to get out from under the current strict management, see a very long and real slow re-building period, and best of all, all this runs thru the Secretary. So, they have opportunity to let their money do their talking. 

And, that makes good sense. As long as their slice of the TAC remains the same, they are all in favor of making the TAC as big as possible. 

Did not Pallone himself indicate that commercial interests were one of the parties specifically intended to be protected under his proposed legislation? 

So, remind me again, who is doin the bidding for the comms on this go round?


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*federal nonsense*

Howdy,
What needs to be examined here is what powers Crabtree possesses, and the reasoning behind what he is trying to do. Here are some bullet points from Bob Zale's post;

He has the power to close, change bag limits, and/or adjust fishing seasons *when* the completed analysis supports doing so. He *cannot*, however, arbitrarily choose to adjust any management measure based on incomplete data. It can be documented that the NMFS' own data does not support this absurd proposal of a 65 day recreational snapper season.

* He has refused to submit the analysis that resulted in the determination to reduce the rec season to 65 days when asked for it by Bobbi Walker - she was on her way to chair a public hearing in Florida for the council and wanted the information to relay to the public.

* He did ask Bobbi Walker if she would explain to the Florida citizens who attended the public hearing that they needed to contact the FWC to rescind their recent action to not be compatible with federal regulations on red snapper.

* He made this August 5th determination to shut down the fishery at a private luncheon with representatives of the 5 Gulf State's Marine Resource Agencies this week, yet has denied having this private talk.

Interesting that he already has a specific date in mind for closing the fishery, yet cannot produce the documentation justifying that.

Sounds fishy to me. 

Despite what Ernest has intimated, I don't care who it is (even if it is the federal govt), if they are performing actions that cause damages without justificable cause, then there are legal remedies for that. The FRA (Fishing Rights Alliance) was successful in defeating the NMFS not too long ago regarding closure of the red grouper season.

Tom


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Pocboy said:


> Capn,
> "Poc,
> Could you please de-fuzzy the the CCA position on the NMFS use of bad science and bias toward comms?"
> The CCA used the science that was available to them, and everyone else. What I was referring to was the misguided and outright untruth that CCA is aligned with the enviros. Let's also not forget the comments stating that CCA is against rec fishing. No one said you couldn't be mad but you can't just type lies and expect to gain support from it. (not you Capn).


Who is the liar, boy?


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Tom:

I was not intimating nothing. I was _saying_, you ain't gonna collect jack as damages from the NMFS on a claim relating to bag limits or fishing days. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Its called sovereign immunity. Unless waived by the Fed. Gov. in a statute, you can't sue them for money damages. You can sue to enforce a law - like the CCA sucessfully did - but, you are not getting any cash for losses or injury.

With respect to the Red Grouper litigation - in which the CCA was a party along with the Fishing Rights Alliance - they were not even able to recover their attorneys fees. CCA got all of $250.00, as did the FRA, for costs. $250.00, for costs.


----------



## MB (Mar 6, 2006)

I like it ........ I'm for *" Ernest The Intimater "*to lead the charge,and stop the Crabtree.

let's all say it out loud....Ernest......Ernest......Ernest.....Ernest.....Ernest.....Ernest

*MB*


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Pocboy said:


> Snap are your speaking for rfa when you make those statements? Are you their lapdog spokesman who says what others won't. It's hard to pull together when all you are hearing is negativity. No one here is saying anything negative about any organization except CCA. Now with that same tongue you are wondering why they don't join you and rfa. Come on now! Ok, I'm through for a while since I'll be at POC next week with my kids enjoying some prime fishing. Tom


Poc I see you are still playing devil's advocate. Do you think we would be writing negative things if CCA would try to work with everyone? The way you are stating it CCA is not doing the "right" thing because of people saying negative things about them. That is totally absurd. Get a grip, open your eyes, ears and mind, and see things for what they actually are!


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*Ernest, I got your point!*



Ernest said:


> Actually, history seems to suggest the CCA will align its self with other orgs. Seems like I read that on this very thread.
> 
> *I think its kinda like dating. It might make you feel real good to claim - Oh, the girl that just turned me down is a lesbian. Its tougher to face the reality that she loves guys. Just not you. *
> 
> So, in the end, perhaps folks might consider a make over before they start screaming - she is a lesbian.


Wow! Spend the afternoon fishing and see what you miss. Reminds me of the time I was away from the trailer park/marina for two months and came home to a frosty reception from my Guatamalen Mormon stripper neighbors.

While this whole process may leave me feeling like a maturing grouper quesioning my orientation, I have to admit we kinda still need CCA (There, I said it), but can we turn them again after they've been turned once. I mean I'm not all that fussy about whom I crawl in to bed with, you know, and just 'cause she's switched sides once, if she comes back to my side, I'll still have her because I really do think that, in her core, she still wants our kind and so it would be worth having her back despite the past choices she's made.

Am I the only guy that feels this way?


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

chicapesca said:


> Mr. Wahoo, CCA is doing exactly what they say they will and are doing in there website and mission statement. They are *for the fishery*. They are going to do what is best _*for the fishery.*_ Crying and blaming CCA for something that NMFS is doing is _*accomplishing nothing!*_ Stating that they are deciding what is good for the leadership's personal agenda is a pretty blind statement and shows you really don't know what you are talking about.* If NMFS is caving to pressure, it is from the commercial interests, their pockets are very deep.*




Chicapesca, yes the comm's have very deep pockets. Just because NMFS may have caved to their pressure, why then does CCA still support their position? Why wouldn't we want CCA to stand up against the commercial interests as they did in the past.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

http://jones.house.gov/release.cfm?id=595


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*Why*



Ernest said:


> Tom:
> 
> I was not intimating nothing. I was _saying_, you ain't gonna collect jack as damages from the NMFS on a claim relating to bag limits or fishing days. Zero. Zip. Nada.
> 
> ...


Ernest, any idea on why CCA doubts NMFS's science on red grouper, yet backs their science on red snapper? It could just be me, but my cynical side has to wonder if they are more concerned with a more powerful constituency in Florida (where red grouper are plentiful) than in Texas (where red snapper are plentiful).


----------



## justhookit (Sep 29, 2005)

Pocboy said:


> Snap are your speaking for rfa when you make those statements? Are you their lapdog spokesman who says what others won't. It's hard to pull together when all you are hearing is negativity. No one here is saying anything negative about any organization except CCA. Now with that same tongue you are wondering why they don't join you and rfa. Come on now! Ok, I'm through for a while since I'll be at POC next week with my kids enjoying some prime fishing. Tom


I still don't understand why you're posting in this thread.

Oh, wait . . .this post got deleted. http://2coolfishing.net/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=149984&page=5&pp=10


----------



## justhookit (Sep 29, 2005)

this works better
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Pocboy*
_Thank you Mr. Jennings for your brilliant response. I appreciate such a profound statement to an honest question. As a site sponsor you should be proud of yourself. In addition Mr. Jennings, I don't remember ever offering any opinion as to any fishery as I will admit *I'm not very familiar with offshore issues.*_



> Originally posted by *justhookit*
> Then why exactly do you continue to post on the CCA/snapper posts on the BLUEWATER board?
> 
> Look, I understand your defense of CCA because of the many good things they have done in the past. This argument between you and some others on this board is over ONE issue - CCA's stance on red snapper. Since you are not very familiar with offshore issues, it might behoove you to have stated your case for CCA and then dropped it, instead of resorting to questionably witty comebacks attacking some people who DO know these issues, and DO care very much about offshore fishing.
> ...


You're a smart guy and we'd still love to take you fishing, so don't consider my comments to be anything other than an honest question.

Everyone has gone overboard on this issue.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

*Here'a another quote for you!*

Dang hookit, get to sleep dude. Now I do know that this is a public board and everyone has access to all threads and posts and are able to voice their opinions on whatever they feel. Just because *I don't fish offshore anymore* (there's another quote for you to use in the future) doesn't mean I don't have the right to post on the issue. Now I like hunting, but I don't bowhunt anymore, so are you saying I can't look at or post a comment to someone about their bowhunting thread. The Bluewater board is about *fishing, *albiet offshore fishing and as a fisherman I enjoy reading about all kinds of fishing. Now as to why I feel that I need to comment on this particular Issue? When some writes that CCA dropped the ball on the snapper issue , I think...yeah, they probably did. When someone writes that CCA should do more and help make a stand, I think...yeah, I wish they would at least make some kind of a comment and be heard. When someone writes that CCA needs to change the way they make decisions, I think...it's worked for this long so why change it. (but they probably should). However, when someone writes that CCA is against recreational fishing, I can't not say something about such an ignorant statement. When someone writes that CCA and nmfs are in bed together, I cannot let such blatant untruths go uncontested. When someone writes that CCA should go away, despite all of the multitude of good things they have done, then I cannot keep my mouth shut and I will post and reply to that on whatever board it happens to be on. Let me say this one more time here and now...CCA is not perfect, I wish they did a lot of things in a more public manner and with more member participation. They need to make their stance on the snapper issue more in line with the recreational fishermen and they need to work with other organizations (the ones that respect CCA) to help solve this proble. I am not a CCA homer, but they are better organized and do more and have done more for our fishery than any other organization out there. Ok, I feel better now. Tom


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Solutions are being looked at*

Pallone Bill HR5425 Flexibility for Magnuson brought to us by Jim Donofrio and RFA.
Federal Lawsuit to challange NMFS on their overall Red Snapper plan including IFQ's giving away a National Asset (51%) to a select few Commercial fishermen being 80 or so when there are 5 million plus Recreational Anglers fishing Saltwater.

Full Blown Congressional Hearings as Bob Zales has requested in Florida. RFA National can get real political real fast as we are a National 501-C-4 Political Action.org We have also called for hearings. Everyone across the Gulf should hound their Congressman to do the same.


----------



## Angler 1 (Apr 27, 2005)

Someone a while back posted a list of all the congressman in each area. would be nice to have that list posted here again.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Sammy's two cents - has anyone asked our US Senators Hutchinson and Cornyn (sp) about their views on this? Seems like any legislation would have to pass both houses, maybe go to a joint resolution committee, right?
-sam


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Both have been pounded with letters in the last couple of years over several similar issues, they have never helped! KBH was a co-sponsor of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2005, so it is clear she has no true understanding of what has been going on, she in effect helped bend us over.

They both need an especially large stack of emails and faxes, maybe we should invite them along with the media and Crabtree for a trip on a party boat???? Let them get a firsthand look at the current situation, with media coverage they would be pressed to take action. Of course I doubt they would ever agree.

QUOTE=Swells]Sammy's two cents - has anyone asked our US Senators Hutchinson and Cornyn (sp) about their views on this? Seems like any legislation would have to pass both houses, maybe go to a joint resolution committee, right?
-sam[/QUOTE]


----------

