# What red fish crisis?



## seaweaver (Mar 14, 2009)

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=288665

I be available for next Legislative year too.
cw


----------



## ratherbefishin (Mar 14, 2009)

They sure know how to blow things out of proportion don't they. And the deal about people selling redfish I don't see it happening. I hardly ever see anyone specifically targeting redfish unless it's a tournament. I figure most are caught by chance while fishing for trout. And from what I seen this previous year there is no shortage on redfish either.


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Mar 16, 2009)

Congrats.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 16, 2009)

Nice.  Is there an online version we can peruse?


----------



## Redbow (Mar 16, 2009)

There ain't no shortage on Redfish up here, but we can only keep one fish per day per person between 18-27 inches! They are fun to catch though!


----------



## MudDucker (Mar 16, 2009)

Status as a game fish has nothing to do with a crisis.


----------



## DiscoDuck (Mar 16, 2009)

Just look at the ban they just put on Red Snapper beginning June 1st. Chris what scientific data did those morons use to substantiate the red snapper ban?


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 16, 2009)

I think they placed observers at  The Liberty county boat ramp to count the catches.

I'll post the art. when the next mag comes out.
cw


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Mar 17, 2009)

Seaweaver, I have thought about this and I agree with you. We need to keep government out of everyhting we love. After watching this freaking finacial crisis and how the government has handled it. I agree they dont have a clue and dont need to mess around with our fisheries. They will just screw them up.


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 17, 2009)

Not entirely, ideas/plans just need proper vetting, based on proven techniques, with emphasis on the results, not the intentions. They call it eco science, and political science...w/o the science you just have eco politics.
cw


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 18, 2009)

MudDucker said:


> Status as a game fish has nothing to do with a crisis.



I agree and really want to see them added to the gamefish list.


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 18, 2009)

why?
cw


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 18, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> why?
> cw



#1- They are.
#2- There shouldn't be any commercial harvest of them.
#3- It means a lot to the neighboring states and we only have 90 miles of shore line.

I have been fishing Savannah since 1998. And HHI. The difference between the two then was night and day. SAV had much better fishing. Now. SC has hands and above a better fishery than SAV. But people run to HHI and all over there catch a GA limit and run back. It happens A LOT. We should be respectful and reflect our neighbors who have far more coastline and more experience with Reds than we do. FL and SC have been managing them for much longer.


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 19, 2009)

where is the commercial harvest?

I think line of sight is a bit short to discern a change in management from HHI to Sav.

Is the Fl and Sc ecosystem more like Ga than La?
How should respect factor in when the ecosystems are not comparable?



cw


----------



## MudDucker (Mar 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I agree and really want to see them added to the gamefish list.



Only group that doesn't want them there is the commercial fishing group.

Why, because it protects the fishery from commercial exploitation.  That fishery has been exploited almost to the point of extinction in the gulf.


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 19, 2009)

what commercial fishing group?

cw


----------



## grim (Mar 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> what commercial fishing group?
> 
> cw




Just wait until one establishes itself.  Once they do, you will never be able to shut the door.  Regulators protect the commercial interests at the expense of the recreationals.  Just look at grouper and snapper - recreational seasons closed to protect the allocations of the commercial fisherman.   Once one target species becomes unprofitable, a new  one is targetted.  It doesnt happen gradually, it happens overnight.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> where is the commercial harvest?
> 
> I think line of sight is a bit short to discern a change in management from HHI to Sav.
> 
> ...



You are kidding right??? That might be the most ridiculous thing I have heard. Our 90 miles is more diverse and different than SC or FL...

Just go ahead and say you would rather people sell reds at Publix than your kids be able to catch them later. 

And again we are just being poor neighbors.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

grim said:


> Just wait until one establishes itself.  Once they do, you will never be able to shut the door.  Regulators protect the commercial interests at the expense of the recreationals.  Just look at grouper and snapper - recreational seasons closed to protect the allocations of the commercial fisherman.   Once one target species becomes unprofitable, a new  one is targetted.  It doesnt happen gradually, it happens overnight.



Right you are. If we don't do this we can end up easily being held captive by some judicial hitler like happened on the grouper and snapper in Florida.


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 19, 2009)

you do know there are commercial regulations in place now?


Celtic... did you understand my post correctly?

cw


----------



## Paymaster (Mar 19, 2009)

Remember folks, keep it civil. _*So far so good.*_ This Redfish debate gets almost as bad as dog shoot'n and bait'n debates.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> you do know there are commercial regulations in place now?
> 
> 
> Celtic... did you understand my post correctly?
> ...



#1 please try not to be condescending. I've worked on this particular issue for a number of years in SC. 

#2 Yes. But minimal. I will never support a gamefish being available to commercial harvest. Whether by netting or any other type of commercial harvest. I cannot support nor will I support the same people who view long lines as ethical or dregging for shrimp within sight of the beach.


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 19, 2009)

I am trying to keep this a dry and as simple as possible.


did you not understand my post? you reply suggest you did not as you agree w/ me....

_
You are kidding right??? That might be the most ridiculous thing I have heard. Our 90 miles is more diverse and different than SC or FL...[/I]


exactly why I asked the question:
Is the Fl and Sc ecosystem more like Ga than La?

because you point at what they are doing....and that we should....respect what they are doing and do the same....in light of completely different ecosystems.....makes no sense.



You think the commercial regulation is minimal?
then where are they, who are they?
if we have minimal regulations...should we not be able to point at them? should commercial interests not be here?

This is what the representatives asked. And they could not be given even a source of commercial sales.
Even the DNR could not do this.

so I ask, where are they?

as no one else knows...and thus cannot get leverage w/ the legislature....again.
I submit...if we cannot find them...there must be regulation in place to make it not worth the effort.


cw_


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

Keep twisting it and I am sure everyone will thank you when this goes down. I mean after all you really do know best... Half science half conjecture and all ANTI recreational fishermen. 

So let me get your position straight. 

Let the commercial harvest go... Even though it has been proven to a point to be detrimental in FL and SC. 

Err on the side of the commercial fishing interests till we have to drop back and scramble to keep a viable fishery... 

Don't worry about it... Our DNR has everything under control. Even though we don't even have wardens in every county any more and not enough to do the job on the coast much less Lake Sinclair. 

Just so we are all clear here. You are against granting and agreeing with the Federal Govt on Gamefish status for Reds. Hummmmmmmm......

Guess we all know who to blame in a few years.

Cause what those of us for the gamefish status are erring on the side of caution. You are not. You are encouraging the pillaging of our resources. With little to no data to back it up. And all the experience of FL and SC and the rebound that has taken place in those states is phenomenal. 

But I guess we can keep spending all our money to travel to FL to fish for great reds. Cause you certainly won't support the effort to bring that fishing to GA. 



seaweaver said:


> I am trying to keep this a dry and as simple as possible.
> 
> 
> did you not understand my post? you reply suggest you did not as you agree w/ me....
> ...


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 19, 2009)

You have made 6 incorrect assumptions just in your last post and how you arrived at them I have no idea.

I'm sorry, I don't think I will be able to rationally discuss this with you .....if you are going to apply positions and characteristics to me.... to bolster your point...over an assumed position of mine.


carry on.

cw


----------



## ratherbefishin (Mar 19, 2009)

I am inclined to agree with seaweaver. Where is any proof of this so-called commercial fishing for redfish in GA? I fish inshore probably 30-40 times a year and I have seen no such. I think I'd get something to back up my argument before going off like that.


----------



## DiscoDuck (Mar 19, 2009)

ratherbefishin said:


> I am inclined to agree with seaweaver. Where is any proof of this so-called commercial fishing for redfish in GA? I fish inshore probably 30-40 times a year and I have seen no such. I think I'd get something to back up my argument before going off like that.



Same here. There is NO commercial fishing for Reds in GA. Who goes to FL to catch their 1 red a day? I would say stupid is as stupid does.  There are more redfish in GA than ever, and yet you ecomaniacs want to socialize everything from fishing to candle making.  Celtic, the laws in place simply need to be enforced, should there EVER happen to be some commercial fishing in GA. Where is the Commercial Redfishing in FL? I have never seen a redfish at the Fish market or grocery stores. You ecomaniacs go from 1 species to the next with falsified,desktop science, and ruin things for everyone. It would be so simple to solve all our fishery problems. TAKE THE FISH OUT OF THE STORES. Let all WILD fish only be caught recreationally for 1 year, or 2 years, whatever is necessary for the ecomaniacs to be satisfied we have reds jumping in the boat at the ramps when splashing our boats.  
    Gamefish Status is a useless JOKE in GA. Celtic get over it.


----------



## MudDucker (Mar 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> what commercial fishing group?
> 
> cw



Give me a break, I'll not answer any more nonsensical posts as this.


----------



## MudDucker (Mar 19, 2009)

grim said:


> Just wait until one establishes itself.  Once they do, you will never be able to shut the door.  Regulators protect the commercial interests at the expense of the recreationals.  Just look at grouper and snapper - recreational seasons closed to protect the allocations of the commercial fisherman.   Once one target species becomes unprofitable, a new  one is targetted.  It doesnt happen gradually, it happens overnight.



Exactly


----------



## MudDucker (Mar 19, 2009)

ratherbefishin said:


> I am inclined to agree with seaweaver. Where is any proof of this so-called commercial fishing for redfish in GA? I fish inshore probably 30-40 times a year and I have seen no such. I think I'd get something to back up my argument before going off like that.



There was none in the Gulf until some chef in New Orleans dumped a bunch of seasoning on a red fish fillet and called it blackened redfish.  Within a few short years, the netters had nearly netted out the breading population. 

I can't decide if this debate is based upon ignorance or arrogance?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

MudDucker said:


> There was none in the Gulf until some chef in New Orleans dumped a bunch of seasoning on a red fish fillet and called it blackened redfish.  Within a few short years, the netters had nearly netted out the breading population.
> 
> I can't decide if this debate is based upon ignorance or arrogance?




The problem is the arrogance of those opposed to offering a fish we pursue and that offers great economic potential gamefish status.

Seaweaver- You are proposing a fraud. 

Keep on.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

DiscoDuck said:


> Same here. There is NO commercial fishing for Reds in GA. Who goes to FL to catch their 1 red a day? I would say stupid is as stupid does.  There are more redfish in GA than ever, and yet you ecomaniacs want to socialize everything from fishing to candle making.  Celtic, the laws in place simply need to be enforced, should there EVER happen to be some commercial fishing in GA. Where is the Commercial Redfishing in FL? I have never seen a redfish at the Fish market or grocery stores. You ecomaniacs go from 1 species to the next with falsified,desktop science, and ruin things for everyone. It would be so simple to solve all our fishery problems. TAKE THE FISH OUT OF THE STORES. Let all WILD fish only be caught recreationally for 1 year, or 2 years, whatever is necessary for the ecomaniacs to be satisfied we have reds jumping in the boat at the ramps when splashing our boats.
> Gamefish Status is a useless JOKE in GA. Celtic get over it.



Nope. And all i can say is that you must be new. The fishery has declined dramatically in the last few years alone.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

I've got a great idea.

Let's take gamefish status away from Bass. Largemouth, Smallmouth, Spots, Redeye, and Shoal. I mean there is no commercial fishing of them so why do they need it.


Because they benefit and we all do from it. Why is this even an argument on a sportsman forum? I mean I would think protecting a resource is priority here.

Guess I am wrong.


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 19, 2009)

Well being that I have spoken to the head of the fisheries at DNR, head of Parks and Game, The Representatives that control such matters in the State,  CCA members and former members....


I fell pretty good about my position being based on intelligence...gathered.
No one is forcing you to answer any "nonsensical questions" MD.
You are safe.


I'll look to see if the New mag is out. if it is I'll post the art.


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Nope. And all i can say is that you must be new. The fishery has declined dramatically in the last few years alone.




citation please.


cw


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> citation please.
> 
> 
> cw



Easy. Look at the take records...

Oh that's right GA doesn't keep any. 

You keep on and I will keep encouraging my reps and senators to follow the wisdom of people who spend all their time on the water. 

I am also for a Saltwater license in GA too. We need to know who is using the fishery and how much. 

But let me put it this way from 1998-2006 I documented 600 days on the water both inshore and off in the savannah area. North and South of the river.

How much time do you have?

Just admit that you are comfortable with siding with commercial fisherman and against your brothers and sisters who are sportsmen. Can't figure out why anyone would not back this.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Well being that I have spoken to the head of the fisheries at DNR, head of Parks and Game, The Representatives that control such matters in the State,  CCA members and former members....
> 
> 
> I fell pretty good about my position being based on intelligence...gathered.
> ...



The CCA not fully backing this is the #1 reason why I am no longer a member (and I am a former CCA chairman). Who do you think pushed it thru SC and got the net ban in FL??? The CCA. But our GA branch has been useless.


----------



## ratherbefishin (Mar 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Easy. Look at the take records...
> 
> Oh that's right GA doesn't keep any.
> 
> ...



Can we see some observation charts from that 600 days?


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

ratherbefishin said:


> Can we see some observation charts from that 600 days?



Sure. Come on over. You can look at a scrap book of mine filled with Reds. You can talk to clients. You can talk to guides. 

For the life of me I can't figure out why ANYONE is opposed to this. Look north and look south. FL and SC. Yet we know best???


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 19, 2009)

I spent every day for 6 months on the Savannah river collecting data for strippers for the USFW. I have lived in an Island for 40 years, I currently own 14 boats. I work on boats for a living...since 89. I might have a bit of insight.

You say..."look at the data"
when I asked the Head of the Fisheries dept if he had any data of a decline...he said he had no data to suggest a decline.
If You have data Spud Woodward doesn't have perhaps you share it with DNR Brunswick as they do not have any.

Lack of Data was the  reason the Legislature tuned this down, for the second year.

If you have any data, they might have thought differently. 
I'm not sure how the SC legislature works, but I really am happy the Ga Legislature sought evidence before fomenting action on feelings.

Perhaps you should share what data you have, I might change my mind.

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Lack of Data was the  reason the Legislature tuned this down, for the second year.



That's a broad statement.

The "Legislature" has not turned 'this' down.

Redfish is a game fish by definition, logic and law in most places including Federal waters and all our neighbors.

It will soon be a game fish by law in Georgia.


----------



## MudDucker (Mar 19, 2009)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> That's a broad statement.
> 
> The "Legislature" has not turned 'this' down.
> 
> ...



I am willing to bet that red fish will get game fish status soon.  Oh and I know how the Georgia legislature works, have represented two past members of the DNR board and consulted with several in the legislature over the years.  Not about this issue.  I figured that our representatives didn't need any prompting on this no-brainer, but if they do, I don't mind giving them a shove.

Oh and I know another fellow that lived on an island for a long time.  This thread brings him to mind. Lets see, it all started with a 3 hour tour.


----------



## celticfisherman (Mar 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> I spent every day for 6 months on the Savannah river collecting data for strippers for the USFW. I have lived in an Island for 40 years, I currently own 14 boats. I work on boats for a living...since 89. I might have a bit of insight.
> 
> You say..."look at the data"
> when I asked the Head of the Fisheries dept if he had any data of a decline...he said he had no data to suggest a decline.
> ...



You own 14 boats. Those wouldn't be commercial fishing boats would they?

The DNR has done a admirable job in the Savannah River with Stripers considering that people like this still stand in the way of removing the tide gates and everything else that needs to be done to continually improve their habitat.

Just keep on backing the commercial guys and when we can't find a red fish with a magnifying glass and a team of urologists we will know who to blame. But I will continue to give my money and support to those who do something. The Florida WRD and the SCDNR. I buy multiple licenses and spend thousands each year chasing reds there. Why... Cause guess what? Despite all your objections and touting this and that... Reds aren't here like they were. They are increasing in FL and SC. Why??? Maybe it has something to do with the measures.

When you decide to help and become real sportsmen then maybe something will change. Until then... I guess me and ALL those like me will continue to spend money else where. Like FL. Shoot an hour more than it takes me to get to SAV and I can be casting to thousands in FL either gulf or Atl. 

Continue to live in the dark ages my friend. And the money will continue to leave the state.


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Mar 19, 2009)

Way to go Seaweaver!!!!   Glad to see you took it a step forward from just bantering back and forth from the ONLINE Experts and posed the question to the general population who are not on Woodies or ONLINE Experts.  I am proud that your keeping sportsmen and women in the know with this.  


Drive on man!!!  Need help, let me know.


----------



## DiscoDuck (Mar 20, 2009)

Celtic, I know you cannot produce ANY facts, since you haven't in numerous threads, and posts. You mention the Gulf. You apparently don't know anymore about the Gulf than you do the Atlantic. You can go to MS & LA, and keep one 31"& over fish. Now you can catch hundreds of them in one day if you want to. I guess the DNR in MS & LA, apparently missed your fact sheet on their declining numbers as well.  You ecomaniacs who want Socialized fishing, MOVE to CUBA.


----------



## grim (Mar 20, 2009)

DiscoDuck said:


> Where is the Commercial Redfishing in FL?



Banned for over 20 years.  The stocks are just now coming back from the damage caused by the commercial fisherman.  Both as a targeted species and as a by catch from the netters.


----------



## MudDucker (Mar 20, 2009)

DiscoDuck said:


> Celtic, I know you cannot produce ANY facts, since you haven't in numerous threads, and posts. You mention the Gulf. You apparently don't know anymore about the Gulf than you do the Atlantic. You can go to MS & LA, and keep one 31"& over fish. Now you can catch hundreds of them in one day if you want to. I guess the DNR in MS & LA, apparently missed your fact sheet on their declining numbers as well.  You ecomaniacs who want Socialized fishing, MOVE to CUBA.



You are clueless.


----------



## Paymaster (Mar 20, 2009)

We are walking the edge here. Remember,don't make it personal or it's gone again.


----------



## DiscoDuck (Mar 20, 2009)

MudDucker said:


> You are clueless.




If I am clueless, you are factless. Please produce the facts of shortages of stocks, otherwise your cry for socialized restricted fishing is a mute point. You cannot produce facts or scientific data, because there is none to support your conservative and ignorant approach. The commercial fishing is what is wrong with ALL fishing. Take the snapper and grouper off the market, and watch the immediate difference in the stocks.  Look at how fast swordfish returned after being long lined to death. The NMFS opened that fishery back up to Recreationals without letting the commercial  longliners in.  All commercial fishing takes in over 90% of catches, while contributing less than 10% of the overall income derived from fishing. Simply stop the commercial fishing and you ecomaniacs will have to start trying to get game status for wild hogs & oppossums.


----------



## DiscoDuck (Mar 20, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> I spent every day for 6 months on the Savannah river collecting data for strippers for the USFW. I have lived in an Island for 40 years, I currently own 14 boats. I work on boats for a living...since 89. I might have a bit of insight.
> 
> You say..."look at the data"
> when I asked the Head of the Fisheries dept if he had any data of a decline...he said he had no data to suggest a decline.
> ...



I spent every day for 6 months on the Savannah river collecting data for strippers for the USFW

Chris did you mean you spent every day for 6 months collecting data from strippers on River street? That should be some juicy data.


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 20, 2009)

Pay master I don't there is any we involved.

when people distort others position's and seek to negate any reply by  attempting to disqualify a counter point by labeling it as nonsense, or they are clueless....they are quite easy to identify. 

By attempting to disqualify the person instead of the point is a time honored tactic of dodging the point, either due to  lack of counter, or the initial point cannot be dis proven.  It was the same tactic many liberals used against GWB by labeling him a fool, moron and such instead of having to respond to his position.

This is the simplest of school yard tactics, but effective as the responder has to defend their point and their credibility.
This tactic is the first insertion of emotion into the debate as it is not a rational response and tends to drag down the conversation.

This is an issue that should be judged based on science and nothing else. Points and counter point should be rational and grounded in fact, not speculation and conjecture.

Paymaster I appreciate having this forum to share these ideas. But I would hope not to be included in anyone attempting to get the thread locked down. That behavior is easy to spot.
Thanks
cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 20, 2009)

DiscoDuck said:


> If I am clueless, you are factless. Please produce the facts of shortages of stocks, otherwise your cry for socialized restricted fishing is a mute point. You cannot produce facts or scientific data, because there is none to support your conservative and ignorant approach. The commercial fishing is what is wrong with ALL fishing. Take the snapper and grouper off the market, and watch the immediate difference in the stocks.  Look at how fast swordfish returned after being long lined to death. The NMFS opened that fishery back up to Recreationals without letting the commercial  longliners in.  All commercial fishing takes in over 90% of catches, while contributing less than 10% of the overall income derived from fishing. Simply stop the commercial fishing and you ecomaniacs will have to start trying to get game status for wild hogs & oppossums.



Your personal punches seem to create that assumption that you are in favor of a continued commercial fishery for redfish.

However, the rest of your post would signal all the reasons and logic that it should not be allowed to continue. All good capitalists will certainly be enamored by your statement that "All commercial fishing takes in over 90% of catches, while contributing less than 10% of the overall income derived from fishing".

The dollars our state can gain by a burgeoning recreational fishery is outstanding and the game fish status for redfish will be yet another tool with which to build that economic engine.

Of course, we could simply leave redfish in the same hands that presently clutch the snapper and grouper fishery. After all, that is working out great, isn't it? 

Most of your post supports the initiative to give legal game fish status to redfish.

Excellent post!


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 20, 2009)

_Your personal punches seem to create that assumption that you are in favor of a continued commercial fishery for redfish.

However, the rest of your post would signal all the reasons and logic that it should not be allowed to continue. All good capitalists will certainly be enamored by your statement that "All commercial fishing takes in over 90% of catches, while contributing less than 10% of the overall income derived from fishing"._

I think that is an assumption on your part Jeff.
Just as the assumptions made against me that I too work for, lobby for the commercial industry.
That is Not the case at all.

Too many assumptins are being made on peoples position and FAR to much reading INTO posts thing that are simply not there.

The Position I Take and that DD has a too (and others), is the current law shows no sign of Failure.

None.
There is no evidence that current law will lead to failure.
There is no empirical evidence that stocks are threatened.

The proposal to do something when there is no justification is shallow.
We simply ask for evidence other than feeling and emotion that it is necessary.

cw


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 20, 2009)

IF one person could show me scientific evidence that current law is failing I would stop beating this drum(no pun)

NO ONE from any corner has been able to do that.
Not  the State, not CCA, Not anyone.

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 20, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> _Your personal punches seem to create that assumption that you are in favor of a continued commercial fishery for redfish.
> 
> However, the rest of your post would signal all the reasons and logic that it should not be allowed to continue. All good capitalists will certainly be enamored by your statement that "All commercial fishing takes in over 90% of catches, while contributing less than 10% of the overall income derived from fishing"._
> 
> ...



I have made no assumptions. DD stated that he is against the game fish status and then made a post that supports game fish status using logic.

I did not 'read into" his post anything which is not clear on its face.

You are whirling around creating a sense that someone has claimed a 'redfish crisis' when nothing could be further from the truth.

The facts are very simple. Red Drum is a game fish. It is protected as such in all waters in the southeast with the exception of a small strip on Georgia's coast and a very tiny few miles in Mississippi.

Game fish status is a tool to protect a great fishery and to assist recreational fishermen and charter captains in protecting and growing that fishery.

It is cost effective commonsense.


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 20, 2009)

So you make no assumption that because he is against (key word here) STATE GAME FISH STATUS....that he is pro commercial?


State status is dead. There is a Federal designation.....Only...yes that is a simple fact...
You do not mean to imply otherwise do you? to imply it is a GaState designation would be disingenuous.
_
You are whirling around creating a sense that someone has claimed a 'redfish crisis' when nothing could be further from the truth._

Whirling?  If asking rational questions such as where is the evidence the current regulations are failing to support an action by the Government....then I will whirl away.



Can you provide such Data Jeff....
Please....someone .....anyone....

show me where current regulation is failing...then I would be more than happy to move on to the other aspects.

To provide such data would instantly elevate a persons position....AND give the DNR the evidence they NEED.

please...Show me.....so that I may share w/ the DNR.

They NEED this evidence...Please do not Hold back if you posses this data that Current Law is Failing or Stocks are in Decline.

Please...it's very important.

if we can just verify this information...we can move on.

I hope there is no one holding such important data to themselves.






cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 20, 2009)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> You are whirling around creating a sense that someone has claimed a 'redfish crisis' when nothing could be further from the truth.
> 
> The facts are very simple. Red Drum is a game fish. It is protected as such in all waters in the southeast with the exception of a small strip on Georgia's coast and a very tiny few miles in Mississippi.
> 
> ...



Read it again Chris.

You failed to comprehend the first time.


----------



## MudDucker (Mar 20, 2009)

DiscoDuck said:


> If I am clueless, you are factless. Please produce the facts of shortages of stocks, otherwise your cry for socialized restricted fishing is a mute point. You cannot produce facts or scientific data, because there is none to support your conservative and ignorant approach. The commercial fishing is what is wrong with ALL fishing. Take the snapper and grouper off the market, and watch the immediate difference in the stocks.  Look at how fast swordfish returned after being long lined to death. The NMFS opened that fishery back up to Recreationals without letting the commercial  longliners in.  All commercial fishing takes in over 90% of catches, while contributing less than 10% of the overall income derived from fishing. Simply stop the commercial fishing and you ecomaniacs will have to start trying to get game status for wild hogs & oppossums.



You sir are the ignorant one.  The facts are there about redfish population being ruined in the gulf.  Fully documented.  The facts are there regarding the ruining of the mackeral stocks in the gulf and the Atlantic as well.  I'd bet googling this would bring up hundreds of hits.

I lived through it.  I don't need someone who obviously has NO experience with these fisheries to tell me what the facts are.  I caught thousands of redfish before blackened redfish and since then the catching has been poor at best.  It is coming back in Florida, but it is nowhere like it was back in the 70's.

You must be far too young to know the truth or just purposefully ignorant.  Either way, what you think means nothing to me.


----------



## MudDucker (Mar 20, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> IF one person could show me scientific evidence that current law is failing I would stop beating this drum(no pun)
> 
> NO ONE from any corner has been able to do that.
> Not  the State, not CCA, Not anyone.
> ...



You are trying with hyperbole and exaggeration to declare victory over a subject that you have a very myopic view.  

You are ignoring the past and what happened to this redfish and mackerel fisheries in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas in the past.  It happened there because sportsmen were behind the curve, reactive, rather than proactive.  If you say there are no facts to support the decline in the gulf from commercial fishing, then you are not being truthful at all.  There is nothing wrong with sportsmen learning from that mistake and being proactive rather than reactive.  Those who do no study the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.  You can beat your drum all you want, but your drum misses the beat and is dangerous to our fishing heritage.

You may have done a short study, but I have lived with these fisheries for nearly 50 years.  My data is real time fishing experience.  It is also confirmed by scientific data.


----------



## Paymaster (Mar 20, 2009)

Stick a fork in it. It is done!


----------

