# RedFish Scam



## seaweaver (Jan 16, 2009)

http://georgiaredfish.org/?q=node/12
That's what I think it is...
a petition to list Redfish as a Gamefish.
The original thread was deleted as I asked the poster too many questions that he had no data to reply with.
I see this as a group of chicken littles clamoring about nothing.

Their petition has 3 points, 2 are covered by law already.
They had a art. in GON and they say the sky is falling...yet they provide no data. Not on their web site, Not in the TIDEs magazine either.
I have spoken to 4 Captains about this. All inshore fishermen and none of them like it.
Rather than produce data to show that redfish stocks are being abused...at any level... the authors of the Petition use speculation and hearsay to promote their push for legislation.
I see this much like the anti gun crowd pushing law on lawful citizens to address a problem w/ lawbreakers

I have no idea what other motive the authors may have. I have been told that one of the Authors gets upset when he sees others keeping reds.
A Quote from a RedFish Tour Pro on their blog site says Reds are too valuable to catch just once...
I understand that as a willingness to see current creel and slot limits reduced something I do not want to see.
I have posted my questions on their web site and I am waiting for a response. I hope they can clarify their intent prior to Monday as I will be taking this to the airwaves. If anyone does have data to show that stocks are:
1.in decline
2.threatened by poaching
3. being sold commercially (illegally) to any level
I would love to see it.

The original poster pulled his thread but these word belong to me.
Here are some of my excerpts:
-Are we experiencing a decline in stock? I have seen nothing of the sort and I fish the sound w/ arguably the most pressure on the coast.
Are we asking to Increase the Power of Government ... to save us from ourselves?
Can you cite the catch data on cast nets?
Can you cite data on decline in stocks?
Can you assure me this motion does not give rise to MORE control to bureaucrats?
It is political if you like it or not.
There ARE REGS in place. Are You looking for more?
How about a Red Fish Tag (TAX)?

-Please show the failure of law currently in place before promoting more, and demonstrate that it is not a failure of enforcement of current law.

-If it can be proven that stocks are in decline then perhaps I could support such notions. But as I see it the stocks have rebounded from what they where in the 80's.

-I note there is no data in the sites resources section.
I just spoke to a Charter Capt. here and reds are his lively hood and he has basically the same questions I have and concerns of regulation.


-I just spoke to someone who say Capt. Scott Wagner is a fly fisherman who is known to get irate when red fish are kept at all...
I'm waiting to hear back from Brunswick.

-It is my understanding that (per Cathy at DNR r.Hill and Brunswick 912 264 7237):
Is illegal to commercially sell w/o a commercial harvest ticket....in response to petition: prevent the commercial sale of recreational caught native red drum

and...
it is against the law NOW to catch and keep red w/a cast net or gig...in response to petition: allow harvesting of red drum by hook and line only.

soooooo the only thing not addressed by law left on the petition is....
_boost public confidence in the management of Georgia's state saltwater fish._
and that is not accomplished by the state legislature...

-I just got a call from another Capt. who heard from the first guy I called and he  questions the intent as well. He asked me a good question : "what rights(read limits) that the public ever gave away have been returned by the government?"
None that I can think of....
I take that back...striped bass here...but that fishery was hammered...by Government action.
I'm sorry your understanding of the Machine limits your ability to see that the seemingly minor "upgrade" of status, gives the leverage to bureaucrats to further increase control upon us.
The title of this thread is (was)Save Ga RedFish, yet the threat was never exposed.
Save them from what? where is the threat? There is none.
Not here, not on the redfish site.


From the website
_Clearly Redfish are too valuable to be caught just once
-Mike Lott
IFA Redfish Tour_
What does that mean? caught just once?

cw


----------



## Paymaster (Jan 16, 2009)

I pulled the previous thread due to rules violations, not for any other reason. If this thread descends to the depths of the previous one it will have the same fate.


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jan 16, 2009)

Look guy's go to the GON home page read the article and make up your own mind. He makes some good points but, some of the things you need to read and decide for yourself. The GON article states that with a cheap commercial license you can harvest and sell redfish. Opposite from what he is saying. Bass, Bream and lots of other freshwater fish are Game fish. I read thats all they want to do is make them gamefish. But, seems to me he has went overboard with this. Making it sound like its a conspiracy of peta and Democrats to take control of the redfish in Georgia. As I said before I cannot site numbers on castnet data, creel limits, over harvesting or illegal harvesting. Because for one how many times have you heard of people cast netting reds besides locals hearing stories about it. I know I hear them. Second I never seen any creel studies for reds. Leads me to believe no one knows. Third if you live close to the saltwater and know any fisherman that fish alot you hear lots of stories and see lots of fish that shouldnt have been kept. No, I did not turn these people in. Judge me as you will for that I dont care what you think. If you read the title thread here you will see lots of political jargon. Like some sort of big conspirecy theory. I think he is funny. Anyway take it for whatever you like. I personnell am for anything that benefits the saltwater fishery. I dont think making the redfish a game fish hurts anything. If nothing else he seems to be extremmely motivated and will find out the favorite color of all these guides that like to catch and release if nothing else.......lol  More than likely though he will digg up some good info on this tpic.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 16, 2009)

_Because for one how many times have you heard of people cast netting reds besides locals hearing stories about it. _

None

_No, I did not turn these people in. Judge me as you will for that I dont care what you think._
wow...and you had no problem running me down for asking simple Q's....like wheres the data...

Creating hype and then formulating labels and law from hype is not what is needed.
I ask for data from the Org. I will repost what they deliver.
Clarity is what is needed here not wild speculation.
Not more law
Not more taxes.
The "saltwater fishery" benefits from regulations that are a result of Data which is missing in the GON art, the TIDES art, and the Web site.

I think there are are x,y,and z happening. That is no basis for creating a foundation upon which to build law.

I live on Wassaw sound, I have a degree in Biology, I spent a year studying striped bass in the Savannah River basin for USFW & UGA and I fished this network for 34 years. W/o data to show me otherwise, the redfish stock is in fine shape from my personal experience. Much better than it has been in years.
Anyone that doesn't think that a game fish status will not provide leverage to Bureaucrats....doesn't know Bureaucrats. They are NOT benign.
Look to Florida. Look at the regulation/taxes there. We have not 1/10th the pressure and 1/200th the access...and there are days I cannot catch a fish that is notToo big.
And they need saving?
If they can provide me data,I can change my mind. But, they have had ample opportunity to post data and they have not.
I know what a rat smells like. From statements over there and from those that I have heard of one of the authors, only leads me to think they will ask for more restrictions next. 

cw


----------



## savreds (Jan 16, 2009)

Well I haven't had the time to read all the posts and articles on this but I for one don't see where giving gamefish status to redfish is a bad thing.
 The feds have allready given it gamefish status along with some other states. The reds were almost wiped out in Florida back in the 80's by the commercial guys and thanks to new protection they are back. I don't think we would have that problem here, but you never know.
I've lived and fished here my entire life and I remember the way it was when i was kid and people would keep everything they caught. Unfortunately some people still have that mentality and just hope they don't get caught. If we still had that going on now with the number of people I see out fishing we would really be hurting.
I don't see this as giving up our rights or liberties, I just see it as a way of protecting a very valuable resource.
This is just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions... they're just like uuhhh,ummm, well you know...everybody's got one and they all stink!!!


----------



## Paymaster (Jan 16, 2009)

Now this discussion so far is civil. Nothing wrong with differing opinions so long as it don't get personal.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 16, 2009)

Say thanks Kdawg!

SR But...there are laws in place now..._that address the concerns of the petition_. Outside of any data that can be presented to show things are going south...what is the point of increasing the status?
Criminals don't follow law. Piling law on top of law affects only the law abiding.
I have never seen a politician not jump at the chance to pinch a dollar from anything that has elevated status.  You make something special...and extra special...they suddenly see a revenue stream.
Take vanity tags. I have one. I pay an extra fee every year for manufacture...even though all I do is ad a decal to the same plate.
No one has shown me where this elevated status is warranted, what it will do to those already abusing the laws, and that the politicos will not milk the attention.
Yes it seems innocuous, but every minute step we yield to a politician or worse...a bureaucrat we never get back.
Hogs are not game animals, yet there is rule and regs applied to them and many Georgians view them as game and actively hunt, spend money and time doing so. What happens should we raise them to game status? More rules, more regs, and you are forced to purchase a big game tag(tax)...to simply hunt hogs...which are not threatened stock in this state.
I see NO failure of existing status, regulations on red fish.
The proposal implies there is, yet evidence is purely anecdotal.
There is no data that this valuable resource is threatened at all.

Unfortunately some people still have that mentality and just hope they don't get caught.
They will continue to do so no matter if we pile enough law on the water so that we can walk for IOH to Raccoon Key. Laws are not made for criminals, they are made for the rest of us. Ban Redfishing altogether and they still will not stop.
I'm saying before we pile on this "feel good wagon" let examine what we have, and what will be. The road to purgatory is paved w/ good intentions. I say keep what we have, enforce existing law, and turn in those you know to be breaking it. Not make it shiny to catch the eye of someone to take advantage of it and us...as we ARE playing by the rules now.

cw


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Jan 17, 2009)

Georgia has a very liberal limit on both redfish and trout compared to Florida. 5 reds in Georgia compared to 1 in Florida, 15 trout compared to 5 in Florida. Redfish are already protected in federal waters where the breeding occurs, and protected in coastal areas by slot limits. They are a valuable asset to Georgia and though I don't fish coastal Georgia from what I read the population is strong and in good shape. Of course there are folks who don't think redfish  should be kept, there are also folks who think AR's shouldn't be allowed for hunting. Every sport has elitest including fishing. If you don't think the  gooberment will mess something up just look at the Gulf of Mexico with a 2 fish snapper limit when they are thick as thieves, the new 2 gag regulation, and only 1 red grouper. Keep the politicians out of it. I'm with Seaweaver, before any changes I want to see sound biological evidence. Not guesses or opinions, because once the gooberment takes something you hardly ever get it back.


----------



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

seaweaver said:


> Say thanks Kdawg!
> 
> cw



?????


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 17, 2009)

well uh say.."Im sorry" and I'll say thanks! (for keeping it clean)


Parker here is the link to the article in GON.
http://www.gon.com/article.php?id=1824&cid=83

Notice they provide no data, just fear.

they do add:
_Under the Gold Dome, the Department of Natural Resources has remained neutral on game-fish status for redfish since it lacks definitive proof that sales are a threat to the species. However, Woodward admits that the agency’s records probably don’t tell the whole story._

However...Spudy fails to tell the whole story either.

In this current political crunch season where every politician is looking for a way to attain revenue either via a bailout or tax....and the most dreaded for a politician... a cut back in spending, any extra source of income they can create to spend as they will... is alluring.
I do not want them w/ their hands in anyone's pockets.
Not only do I foresee an extra tax, I see reduced slot limits and creel sizes...so these fellows "feel" better.

They have yet to reply back to me, neither a few of the captains I emailed that are behind this push.

cw


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 17, 2009)

CLICK

Redfish tag (Tax) +
Spud Woodward, head of marine fisheries management for DNR’s Coastal Resources Division. “However, it’s hard to document this behavior since catching folks in the act of making multiple trips is very difficult, especially for our understaffed law-enforcement section.”

= $$$$$ for understaffed law-enforcement section...

How many does it take to stop this Unknown quantity???
Why it could take 30. Yes...then a Redfish tag would cost $82.75 
Or 2...if the Fee(tax) is $10.. But for 2 extra officers investigating an unknown quantity of poachers to be effective .... the season must be reduced to September only.
Could this be logic? 
It's just a speculative as their's .
But if you know government...any reduction of freedoms is possible. They certainly have no been in the business of promoting more since the revolution.


----------



## ratherbefishin (Jan 17, 2009)

*Leave it alone*

Most anglers seldom limit out or keep a limit of redfish anyway. The population is doing fine and the fish are healthy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We have too many laws and regs. already, don't take away more of our freedom.


----------



## Nautical Son (Jan 17, 2009)

I agree with ya Rather, I have only limited out twice in the past year and since August I have only caught fish that were too short to keep. I don't believe half of what I read on none of what I hear until I read it.

If they want to waste taxpayer dollars they will "find" evidence to support their theory.

I really don't want to quit fishing but what with all the regulations and rules I have to remember I may have to if they keep writing these ridiculous laws that can't be backed up by scientific proof.

Chris, what does the CCA have to say about this? 

As you have already stated the laws are only there for the people who obey them, poachers and the like don't care what the rules are. Just like the proposed gun laws they really don't affect the law abiding people other than an increase in the price of guns and ammo. I think I may take up some hobby that doesn't have a whole lot of "big brother watching out for me to keep me safe" anybody got any ideas ? maybe basket weaving ?


----------



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

seaweaver said:


> well uh say.."Im sorry" and I'll say thanks! (for keeping it clean)
> 
> 
> 
> cw



Boy you got some nerve. I meant everything I said in the other thread. You see the boat in my avatar. If you ever see it stop me and I'll thank you personelly. 

I do believe they said that the slot was stiff. That tells me they dont want to change that. All they wanted was to make them a Game fish because the laws all ready set in place for game fish will provide better protection. I didnt read anywhere that they want to stop people from harvesting there limit of fish. Nor did I read they were after a season or tags for Reds. Just Gamefish status. By what I am hearing in this forum is people believe that Gamefish staus is a bad thing. Lots of popular fish all ready carry that status. Bass, Bream etc..... I dont see how that has had a negative impact on those fish.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Jan 17, 2009)

I wondered what happened to that other thread.  I really don't feel like trying to discern an answer from the posts either, but:

K-Dawg X2000743 - what is the reason for the desire to bestow gamefish status on red drum?

I looked at the website that you initially provided and all I can find is something we all need to urgently address.  Best I can tell is to have greater numbers of reds for charter captains to use.  If that's the reason, will you admit it?  If not, I'm interested in why. Thanky.


----------



## XTREME HUNTER (Jan 17, 2009)

Parker Phoenix said:


> because once the gooberment takes something you hardly ever get it back.



Aint that the truth


----------



## The Fever (Jan 17, 2009)

i have limited out many times int he past few years? what i mean is i could have easily caught and kept my limit. Every spring i go out and catch redfish till im to sore, and i come home, and most of them are over 25 inches that i catch. the redfish population is fine leave it alone


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 17, 2009)

TG,I am waiting for a reply from CCA, but as the article says they too tried to initiate this same type of action and failed due to not being able to produce data to support it.
The CCA is much better funded than Ga Redfish.org...and they failed. But now we exist in a climate of "ccchange" and politicians are angling for any money they can get.

KD, read the GON art you provided again.
_Spud Woodward, head of marine fisheries management for DNR’s Coastal Resources Division. “However, it’s hard to document this behavior since catching folks in the act of making multiple trips is very difficult, especially for our understaffed law-enforcement section.”_

and

_Duckworth and his associates admit that game-fish designation isn’t a magic bullet to correct the behavior of rogues and outlaws. The best solution for that is the intolerance of other anglers and a fully staffed and fully funded law-enforcement section. However, game-fish status can be another tool in the conservation box._

Another tool....to impose law/tax.
Tax to fund more enforcement to deter a perceived, undocumented threat.
I don't know how the status helps or hinders freshwater species. I would have to know what it was like Prior to...and have to enjoy the taste. Also be aware that freshwater ecosystems are nothing like the estuaries. Fresh water systems are generally closed ecosystems and are subject to forces that are absorbed in open systems.
Apples and oranges.

_Best I can tell is to have greater numbers of reds for charter captains to use_
THAT is what I think is a primary motive behind it.

Fever...23inches is the max....

I spoke to another angler today that spends more time in the water than all these captains combined. He was pretty mad. He indicated he Knew Spud and was going to grill him.

Here is my email that I sent to all Republican state senators.

I understand there is a move afoot by a group seeking to list Redfish as a game fish.
http://georgiaredfish.org/?q=node/12
Points:
prevent the commercial sale of recreational caught native red drum. 
allow harvesting of red drum by hook and line only. 
boost public confidence in the management of Georgia's state saltwater fish.
I oppose this on grounds that they provide no data to show that:
1. stocks are in decline
2. increased law and regulation will curtail the activates of poachers.

Per the DNR Brunswick the first two points are protected by current law.
The third point is nonsense.

From an article in GON:
http://www.gon.com/article.php?id=1824&cid=83
_Spud Woodward, head of marine fisheries management for DNR’s Coastal Resources Division. “However, it’s hard to document this behavior since catching folks in the act of making multiple trips is very difficult, especially for our understaffed law-enforcement section.”_
and:
_The best solution for that is the intolerance of other anglers and a fully staffed and fully funded law-enforcement section. However, game-fish status can be another tool in the conservation box._

This sounds like a plea for more money for enforcement. Elevated status will provide the leverage ( the tool)for an additional tax to harvest Redfish. 
And since manpower would limited by the price of the Tag and volume of purchase, I foresee a reduced season, creel limit and slot size to compliment enforcement.
Neither of which I want to see happen.
If it can be proven there is a problem and that it can be solved via elevated status and regulation I would like to see it. As it stands now I see this as a opportunity to create a revenue stream, and reduce the freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding fishermen. Paving the waterways with law and taxes will not stop poachers no matter how high the hypothetical incidence occurs.
Please take a moment and review their proposals and lack of data.
I would hate to see an additional tax be levied upon the citizens for a crisis that cannot be proven to exist.


cw


----------



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

K-DAWG XB 2003 said:


> Look guy's go to the GON home page read the article and make up your own mind. He makes some good points but, some of the things you need to read and decide for yourself.



I'll stick by what I said earlier. Read it and make up your own mind. I aint try'in to be a spokesman for anything. If you like it sign it if not don't. Either way I dont care and wont lose any sleep. Sea dude will soon have called everyone in the state and should have lots of good information, If its credible or not who knows it's another one of those "take it for what you think its worth" deals.


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jan 18, 2009)

seaweaver said:
			
		

> The original thread was deleted as I asked the poster too many questions that he had no data to reply with.
> 
> *No, I didnt pull the thread a mod deleted it. I did delete my first 5 or 6 posts because I wasnt interested in arguing with you. You are a very persistent person. I havent seen you post facts to support all of the things you have claimed. Lots of speculation for you view point also.Where is your data? I havent seen you post any data to support what you say other than some guild you claim to have talked to and your personnel experience fishing. I take it personnelly because you chose to single me out in your posts. How many times do you say KD or the original poster. How do you know it isnt a good thing. After you put your spin on it. I havent seen ant proof giving gamefish status will change creel limits, add tags, or change slots.  Other than your wild speculation. Show me some proof of these things you say. [/I] *
> 
> ...





I can tell you this with this post I am done with this thread. I have no wish to argue with you or anyone else I dont know. If you see me around and wish to discuss this further, cool. Until then good luck with your quest of whatever you are looking to accommplish. I am not and never have been affiliated with the redfish organization with the petion. I am not soliciting signatures for there cause. I know as much about this as anyone who has read the posted information. I only posted it for people to read and decide for themselves. If you like what they are doing good for you. If you dont good for you to also. I cannot answer anyones question on what gamefish staus will do fo redfish. I posted the information for everyone to read and sign if they wish to. Read it and decide for yourself. Why SeaWhatever his name is has made it a personel quest to make it sound like I am the author and flag bearer for this redfish cause is beyond me. I guess he just needs a patsy to lay it on.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 18, 2009)

KD I really don't care about you. You want to take it personally , well I cannot help that. You found something you thought to be good for all, and by taking a second look I have found it not to be a good thing for all. _If_ you feel foolish for climbing into the boat, I understand. I have done it too.
I am Glad you brought this to my attention.
Very glad and THANK YOU kindly.

If you can browse this board, you can research the subject just as EZ as I did. If you or anyone will ask the same basic questions that I did...I do not know.

KD/All, we have a group telling us we gotta have something
They say they are scared, but they cannot show us why.
They ask for support and empowerment which leads to Control.
That should not be something taken lightly.

The Group is Ga Redfish .org. They want support to allay their fear. They have a nice cry baby story to garner sympathy and they appear to be doing just that as somehow they are gathering support. 
I do not know if those that have signed on share the Groups motives, or just thought they were doing something good and did not ask where the boogeyman was, and what he looks like.

I have seen No Sign of him(.....DATA....)

Now I am off to fill my creel w/in the slot limits while I still can!

cw


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 18, 2009)

I have a question;

How many members on here are commercial fishermen?


----------



## Nautical Son (Jan 18, 2009)

My take on it is this, KD saw something online about saving redfish, He presumed it was a good thing and didn't read the fine print, or didn't think about the consequences that may be attached to such an action. He posted it here and now that he is being questioned for data to support the cause he can't produce. 

The old saying "Don't shoot the messenger" comes to mind.

SW, is trying to protect his right to fish and has a very valid point, If we all "sign" on to this giving "gamefish status" the only people who it affects in the short term are the commercial fishermen, then we are gonna be "coaxed" into paying for the DNR or feds to enforce the rules on the commercial guys, therby drawing more attention. The powers that be will then see an opportunity to make a dime for their coffers and VOILA we get hit with something along the lines of redfish tags or a redfish stamp on our licenses.

I just bought my 2009-10 license and the 3.25 "convienence" fee is a joke. I laughed when the girl told me I had to keep the paper dry, I told her exactly what I'll tell the DNR when they can't read the crumpled up runny inked paper, "At least the old stuff was somewhat waterproof.........Now go look on the computer and find somebody who didn't pay for the convienence....... See ya in court officer"


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 18, 2009)

I support the motion to give game fish status to the redfish.

Why?

Because it is a game fish.


----------



## Ta-ton-ka chips (Jan 18, 2009)

Jeff Young said:


> I support the motion to give game fish status to the redfish.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because it is a game fish.



Why do you support more growth in Govt?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 18, 2009)

Ta-ton-ka chips said:


> Why do you support more growth in Govt?



Why do you support shooting game fish with archery equipment?


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Jan 18, 2009)

If folks don't think this is a hot topic just research what is happening to the grouper/snapper regs. Commercial fishermen have the upper hand, why you ask. the answer is simple. the government got involved. Commercial fishermen have the connections to make all things one sided for them. Keep the government out of everything we can and protect what few rights we have left. Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave if he could see how the government has taken over every aspect of our lives, shredding our individual freedoms, taking away an individuals incentive to suceed and therefore taking care of himself. Now the government  wants to control what fish we catch and dictate what they say is best for us. Buy in to it if you choose, I'll fight tooth,fang, and claw to keep them out of everything I can.


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Jan 18, 2009)

Jeff Young said:


> Why do you support shooting game fish with archery equipment?



C'mon Jeff, how many redfish have you seen taken with a bow? Besides, dead is dead, whether taken by bow or hook,line, and sinker. No difference between an arrow or a speargun. After redfish will grouper,snapper, and AJ's be classified as gamefish so divers will be prohibited to kill them with their weapons of choice?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 18, 2009)

PP, 

I have seen people hunting them. I've never seen anyone actually shoot one.

I do know that the survival rate for fish with an arrow or spear in its head outside the slot is not good!

I like the idea of limiting redfish to hook and line only and prohibiting them from commercial sales.

This proposal is far from the "punish the recreational fishermen in lieu of the commercial fishermen" regulations recently placed on snapper and grouper.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 18, 2009)

BTW, there has been some misconceptions as to CCA's stance in this matter issued in this thread.

CCAGA supports the move to officially recognize the red drum as a game fish and have asked members to send in petitions to the office.

This may be viewed at www.ccaga.org


----------



## XTREME HUNTER (Jan 18, 2009)

Jeff Young said:


> PP,
> 
> I have seen people hunting them. I've never seen anyone actually shoot one.
> 
> ...



I've never seen anyone hunting Red Fish, I have seen people hunting Flounder but never Red Fish.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 18, 2009)

XTREME HUNTER said:


> I've never seen anyone hunting Red Fish, I have seen people hunting Flounder but never Red Fish.



I've seen people spearing flounder. I've never seen anyone shooting flounder with archery equipment.

You can easily look at a flounder and determine if it is legal when you are snorkeling with a spear. However, when you see a redfish tailing I would think it would be quite difficult to determine if the fish fit the slot.

Not to become to fixated on that part of the issue. Prohibition of commercial sales is big to me. Remember that is what nearly eliminated the fishery in the first place. 

A little lobbying by the commercial industry pointing to improved stocks as reason to allow intensified catches and we could soon be right back where we were.


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Jan 18, 2009)

LOL.. I get your drift Jeff, now if we could just get them to make grouper a gamefish.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 18, 2009)

Dadgum... Jeff and I agree on something.


CCA and people like that can't give the data cause the rely on the DNR for the data and guess what. The DNR isn't gathering it.

My support for this is based simply on our Redfish regs do not reflect our neighbors and we have only 90 miles of coastline. I KNOW FOR A FACT people leave out of and return to SAV with limits caught in SC waters that are illegal there but inside GA waters they are legal. Same thing in St. Mary's to FL. It's a matter of we have a small coastline and need to support those who have made the move around us. Be a good neighbor.

And Jeff is right. It is a gamefish and therefore deserves the respect.


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Jan 18, 2009)

Man...what a bunch of whiners. 

TGattis, Seaweaver....i thought you guys were better than this low pond scum stuff.  Anyway, thanks for combating the gooberment on this issue...it is just one more thing for them to regulate.  Wish they would regulate letting stupid people breed.  If they did that, there would not be as many stupid "the sky is falling" crud all over the world like this redfish thing...


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

I have met only one commercial fisherman on this board and that was in the hunting section.

The CCA does support this action and per the article attempted to gain this status in the past and failed due to no data to support their fear. If the DNR has data that support this fear..CCA would have it. FOIA...and CCA money would get it. Besides Spud is DNR and why would he sit on info to help get him money.

You cannot take Reds w/ archery equipment.

These tails of knowledge of violations never end w/ a call to turn in poachers...why is that?

Now for the morning sarcasm
One picture of a Mother Redfish drifting on a small iceberg w/her fry in a desolate ocean leads to... 
"I'm from the Government, I'm here to help, Give me_ more_ money...I'm going on your fishing trip".


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 19, 2009)

Jeff Young said:


> I support the motion to give game fish status to the redfish.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because it is a game fish.




X2


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

Ga Redfish.org has purged my questions from their blogs.


That says a lot to me.


cw


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 19, 2009)

Through the many threads and posts regarding this subject on Woody's over the last few days, I seriously doubt that anything will be resolved over the issue.

One side is passionate about it, the other side couldn't care less.
Sort of like Politics. You have to learn to live with it I reckon..


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Ga Redfish.org has purged my questions from their blogs.
> 
> 
> That says a lot to me.
> ...



It speaks volumes.

Many of us will interpret its meaning differently than you do.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

Why?
English is English.
Facts are facts
and Data is Data.
Why would they choose not to work from a position of Data?
Why are hypothetical better?

Why avoid the Question unless they have nothing but feel good notions and fear to work from?
I have emailed them and CCA asking for empirical data to support this idea and they have not responded.
I'm going to make some more calls today...
I'm posing this on the Radio in ten minutes.

cw


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Why?
> English is English.
> Facts are facts
> and Data is Data.
> ...


 
I admire your passion, but when fighting popular opinion and confronting it with a question of evidence, the only way to win is to have data or sources of data in order that will support your viewpoint.

Thus far, all I have seen from you is a person that is very passionate about their fight, but that alone is not enough for the mouse to defeat the elephant.


----------



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

scooter1 said:


> I admire your passion, but when fighting popular opinion and confronting it with a question of evidence, the only way to win is to have data or sources of data in order that will support your viewpoint.
> 
> Thus far, all I have seen from you is a person that is very passionate about their fight, but that alone is not enough for the mouse to defeat the elephant.



I think your missing something 60,...he is not fighting for his own cause, he is just asking them to support THEIR CLAIMS since they are the ones that want the support to recognize this fish as a game fish.  If they can not support THEIR CLAIMS with data, then all it is to me is nothing more than banter,...problem with their banter is that what they are trying to do will affect everyone who likes to fish for these prevalent fish.

Personally i know three people who are hardcore redfish fishermen and i asked them last night what they thought about this and 1 of the three already heard about this and said it was a bunch of garbage.  I asked all three if they kept everything they caught and 2 out of the three kept less than 5 fish last year, the other guy just goes out to catch them.  What do you think the first words out of ALL their mouths was when i told them about this...."Where are they getting their data"?  Go figure....Shows me that intelligence and the ones claiming the sky is falling are not  together on this issue.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

That's right Chad.
I just left a message on Capt. Scott Wagner cell asking for info.
I just called the radio station and put a bug in anyone listening's ear.
The Host spotted it right away as an offer for Government intrusion and made the "anti gun nut" connection. More law on those that follow it, not those that break it.

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

It seems to me that the 'sky is falling' crowd here are the ones who oppose calling a game fish a "game fish".

It's really a simple correction of a previous oversight.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 19, 2009)

11P&YBOWHUNTER said:


> I think your missing something 60,...he is not fighting for his own cause, he is just asking them to support THEIR CLAIMS since they are the ones that want the support to recognize this fish as a game fish. If they can not support THEIR CLAIMS with data, then all it is to me is nothing more than banter,...problem with their banter is that what they are trying to do will affect everyone who likes to fish for these prevalent fish.
> 
> Personally i know three people who are hardcore redfish fishermen and i asked them last night what they thought about this and 1 of the three already heard about this and said it was a bunch of garbage. I asked all three if they kept everything they caught and 2 out of the three kept less than 5 fish last year, the other guy just goes out to catch them. What do you think the first words out of ALL their mouths was when i told them about this...."Where are they getting their data"? Go figure....Shows me that intelligence and the ones claiming the sky is falling are not together on this issue.


 

Respectfully, I am not missing anything here.

A call for legislative action has been made, it is past the point of show me your proof, so if those on here feel so vehemently passionate about what is about happen is wrong, you had better have data and proof of your own to present.

The burden of proof is upon your shoulders, not there's, at this point in the game and all you will accomplish by pitching tantrums and demanding that the majority show data or evidence is the discrediting of your stance and your person.

There is a certain way to fight these battles and the way you are going about it is simply moving a lot of breeze around. It is sad really, because you and several others do seem dedicated to the cause. How shameful to waste all of this throwing stones at an opponent who isn't even attending the battle.

If you wish to effectively engage them, then have effective weapons to do so with. If you wish to merely scream and jump up and down, then please forgive me if I classify you in the nutjob catagory, just as your opponent is going to do.

Good luck with this boys.


----------



## Ta-ton-ka chips (Jan 19, 2009)

*You've cleared it all up, Jeff*



Jeff Young said:


> It seems to me that the 'sky is falling' crowd here are the ones who oppose calling a game fish a "game fish".
> 
> It's really a simple correction of a previous oversight.



So this is really a battle between the "sky is falling crowd" vs the " we need more Govt crowd"

Thanks for your insight and for all the data and facts you've provided for your argument


----------



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

Jeff Young said:


> It seems to me that the 'sky is falling' crowd here are the ones who oppose calling a game fish a "game fish".
> 
> It's really a simple correction of a previous oversight.



A simple correction of a previous oversight?  Giving the gooberment a chance to control one more thing...i would rather it not be considered a game fish even if it is.  As for it being a previous oversight...there is alot of things that are oversights that i am also glad that the DNR have not caught, if that is how you look at it.  Or, we the sportsmen and women would have to pay more and more to enjoy what we do now.


----------



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

scooter1 said:


> Respectfully, I am not missing anything here.
> 
> A call for legislative action has been made, it is past the point of show me your proof, so if those on here feel so vehemently passionate about what is about happen is wrong, you had better have data and proof of your own to present.
> 
> ...



OK...so i am going to tell everyone you shot "so in so" and that you did it in cold blood.  The majority will agree if i say so and your going to hang for it...at least this is how it was way back when.  You say you didn't shoot anyone because you were out fishing at the time but i said you did...and the majority agree that you did EVEN IF they did not see any proof otherwise.   So they stretch your neck,...without proof.

I remember alot of westerns being like this... and so what your saying is that even though these "People" have gone so far, someone should not say "wait a minute, lets see some proof"???  Sounds communistic to me.

This is the reason i hate politics...asking simple questions or for scientific data and the "other side" throws it in your face that you do not have any, well...sorry charlie, but i am not the one trying to enact something here.  My wife is big into politics and if i ask her something about her democrat side, she reacts with questions about the republican side, which i know nothing about because i am not a democrat or a republican.  I am neutral.  I vote for whoever i feel is the best choice and if neither is a good choice, i do not vote.  But, as a politician would have it...if someone asks a simple question or calls for some data,... they just ask questions in return to throw them off the original topic. 

60, have you ever watched the movie "Thank you for not smoking"???   Perfect movie to watch with reference to this discussion.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 19, 2009)

Good luck boys.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

If DNR wanted to increase or decrease the redfish limit without any action by the legislature or Governor, could they?

If so, by what means and to what extent?

If they wanted to change the "slot" could they? 

If so, to what extent?

This is a test for you fellers that think this is a call for 'more gooberment'.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

Jeff Review the article they wrote for GON.

Tell me what they mean by "another tool"?
Tell me what a lead blogger on their site means by "Ga redfish are too valuable to catch just once"?
Please explain the repeated mention of enforcement lacking?

I see not one thing to support their fear, except fear.

Why is it too much to ask for evidence ?

_This is a test for you fellers that think this is a call for 'more gooberment'_
Welllllll I'm certainly not the one proposing legislation....That is action of Government is it not?
cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

First of all, I don't read GON.

Second, please answer the questions.

You seem to be 'in the know'.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

Yes they could do all those things jeff...

now could they do it easier w/ another tool?
yes

_This is a test for you fellers that think this is a call for 'more gooberment'
Welllllll I'm certainly not the one proposing legislation....That is action of Government is it not?_

answered.

now...._First of all, I don't read GON._

soooo no data
no reading of their article....

this is a foundation for you to make a stand?
you can form an opinion on this based on?
No facts
No background
Just...it sounds good?
_I have seen people hunting them__Jeff Young
Did you turn them in?
cw


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 19, 2009)

Hey boys, you want answers? Who stated that "it's not like the DNR stocks Redfish in the ocean?"

Read this, http://www.peachstatereds.org/2006update.pdf

Now, contact Ross Tollesen and Jenny Lynn Bradley and ask them how the study is going. 

Be unobtrusive, non- confrontational and come off as a proponent of the program and you might get somewhere.

Come off as an enemy combatant and you might as well not waste your time.

Good luck.


----------



## jimbo4116 (Jan 19, 2009)

Much to ado about nothing.  The legislature can change the limits, slots, commercial regs, ETC., whether there is a designation or not.

If DNR can't enforce current regs, how will they enforce new ones.  And those in favor have admitted to overlooking violations already.

If studies and data prove a need to change regulations then "game fish" designation should be of least importance.

These organizations should be pushing for and funding studies by DNR to prove their points in the need for new regulation, rather asking everyone to agree on blind faith.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Yes they could do all those things jeff...
> 
> now could they do it easier w/ another tool?
> yes
> ...



cw, 

I've read Capt. Woodward's article in "Tides" and I've spoken with many charter captains who are favor of the change. I know the history of the redfish in Georgia and I fish for them frequently. I'm no fisheries expert but I am a fair historian. I know that history often repeats itself.

I also know a little about how our government works via legislation and regulation. I'm not an expert but I do know the basics.

That's what I would like you to demonstrate, just the basics.

You asked in a previous post if it is not the governments job to introduce legislation-do you know how that process works? Considering your re-post of the same question the obvious answer is "no".

You have not yet answered my simple questions-do you know how that process works?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

jimbo4116 said:


> Much to ado about nothing.  The legislature can change the limits, slots, commercial regs, ETC., whether there is a designation or not.
> 
> If DNR can't enforce current regs, how will they enforce new ones.  And those in favor have admitted to overlooking violations already.
> 
> ...



Who admitted to overlooking any violation?

You believe that the recreational community via, CCAGA, Georgia Redfish and other conservationist/sportsman's organizations are not already extremely active in fish stock research AND restocking?

Those organizations pump money into research and restocking efforts while working with DNR rather than simply leaning on them to do it all for them.

Try reading the link scooter provided to educate yourself on one example of who is, and has been, doing what.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

Sccoter there is not one mention of stock in decline in that article.
but there was:
During 2005,
_Georgia anglers were estimated to have caught
almost half a million redfish but only harvested about
100,000 fish.
_
Do you think anyone working the program likes job security?
Global warming "scientists" are getting money as long as they say the sky is falling.


Jeff you are playing in circles.

_That's what I would like you to demonstrate, just the basics._

And what is more basic than asking for data that action is needed?

I'll refer you to the text from the PDF scoot provided.
There is no chicken little in it.
cw


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Sccoter there is not one mention of stock in decline in that article.
> but there was:
> During 2005,
> _Georgia anglers were estimated to have caught_
> ...


 

OK, I see what I am working with here.


Have a nice day boys.





















Forrest Gump was right.................


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

I just left a message on Spud's line asking for the  basics.
912 262 3110
cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm sure that speaking with you will make his day.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

I hope so.
I also reposted my request for basics on the redfish.org site.
I hope they do not scrub it again.

cw


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

They just removed my requests for data again.
cw


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> They just removed my requests for data again.
> cw


 
Well, how did you word it???


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> I'll refer you to the text from the PDF scoot provided.
> There is no chicken little in it.
> cw



SO? They are not screaming "the sky is falling"?

They are simply trying to help the fishery to continue to improve and prevent the mistakes of the past?

And you think that is a bad thing?



BTW, please direct us to the regulation that prohibits taking redfish with archery equipment. I don't necessarily doubt you but I can't find it and have heard and read that it is a 'sport' that rising in popularity.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

Here is the CCAGA's proposal:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT 
January 2008

Whereas: 	The RED DRUM (Sciaenops ocellatus) is a very popular and highly respected salt-water sport fish in Georgia’s coastal waters, and

Whereas:	There is little targeted commercial fishing for red drum in Georgia.  

Whereas:         	President Bush signed an Executive Order granting Red Drum and       
Striped Bass gamefish status in Federal Waters and to quote the order “ encourage, as appropriate, management under Federal, State, territorial, tribal and local laws that supports the policy of conserving striped bass and red drum, including State designation as gamefish where the State determines appropriate under applicable law.”

Whereas:	Florida, South Carolina, and most other states on the Gulf of Mexico coast of the U.S., which represent most of the U.S. range for red drum, have recognized gamefish status for red drum.

Whereas:	The sport of taking red drum with a bow and arrow is emerging, but survival rate is slim for those fish released that are outside of the legal slot limit of 14” to 23”.

Whereas:	the only current legal sale of red drum caught in Georgia’s waters are those fish caught by a properly licensed person who chooses to sell the recreational daily limit which is five fish 14-23 inches in length.  Such practice is therefore not an economically important activity for any person.

Whereas:	Farm-raised red drum are available for the commercial seafood market.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA

That the red drum, also known as the redfish and the spot tail bass, be declared gamefish by Georgia and be given all protections and respect due to gamefish.

All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are repealed.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

well I was going to copy and past it here....
but...

_The username seaweaver has not been activated or is blocked._
They appear not to want questions.



cw


cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> well I was going to copy and past it here....
> but...
> 
> _The username seaweaver has not been activated or is blocked._
> ...



They are paying for the site in search of support.

You're surprised?


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

Yes you can take them via archery...I was going to say that... but Cpl Cook asked me not to let that out this AM.
but since you have...
They keep that out of they regs or did for last season.

Don't get confused Jeff, the PDF and Redfish .org are two different things, groups.

I do note the CCA says..._There is little targeted commercial fishing for red drum in Georgia._
That's one of the things Ga Redfish.org is using as promotion...

Where is the data that stocks are hurting?
That is the (seemingly)notion behind both pushes...
Should this not be up front?


_Whereas: the only current legal sale of red drum caught in Georgia’s waters are those fish caught by a properly licensed person who chooses to sell the recreational daily limit which is five fish 14-23 inches in length. Such practice is therefore not an economically important activity for any person._

I sure am glad there are those who can decide what is and is not "economically important ".....for me.
Sorry, I think I can make those determinations.
cw


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

Jeff Young said:


> They are paying for the site in search of support.
> 
> You're surprised?



Yes because if they were legitimate and righteous they should be open scrutiny.
They are not asking for an action that covers them, They are asking for an action that covers everyone.
They seem to need blind faith.

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

cw,

I can't find where anyone is saying that stocks are hurting.

Has someone made that claim?

The fact is that folks are trying to improve the fishery and protect it from the activity that harmed , in fact, almost wiped it out to begin with.

Thanks for clarifying the archery deal.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 19, 2009)

Can you currently site which southern states have Red Drum listed as a game fish??

Can you site which state has had this designation the longest??

Can you site what their creel limits and size slots are compared to the other, younger game fish states, and particularly Georgia, as a non- game fish state??


----------



## savreds (Jan 19, 2009)

After having observed this go on for a couple of days it almost appears to me that there is a personal vendetta against the garedfish people and the DNR fisheries. I'm still somewhat confused by it, which for me is nothing unusual.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

Personal what?

Let me tell what is personal...people angling in to my pocket, seeking to gain more control over my freedom.

Jeff what other reason can there be for this fear except a decline in stocks?
The fishery has never been in better shape from my observation and other's  and my boats stay in the water we are covering here

They have put forth a demand for action based on ????
UNLESS they just want the status to angle for more money for enforcement or programs.
cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

savreds said:


> After having observed this go on for a couple of days it almost appears to me that there is a personal vendetta against the garedfish people and the DNR fisheries. I'm still somewhat confused by it, which for me is nothing unusual.



I believe you are a bit confused. Some of these posts are not easy to follow.

DNR and "Georgia Redfish" and CCA are all on the same page with regards to granting gamefish status for the redfish.

To my knowledge, those who oppose the legislative action in this thread are not speaking as a part of any of the aforementioned agencies or organizations.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Personal what?You lost me. I can't relate this to any prior post.
> 
> Let me tell what is personal...people angling in to my pocket, seeking to gain more control over my freedom.How is calling a redfish a gamefish going to control your freedom?
> 
> ...




cw,

People, and those are just plain ole, real folks, just like me and you, who care about the resource and want to protect it and expand it, some for fun and some for profit and most for both, have decided to take action to make the resource stronger and even more viable.

You are looking for some conspiracy in a place void of black helicopters.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 19, 2009)

Jeff Young said:


> You are looking for some conspiracy in a place void of black helicopters.


 
What do you have against black helicopters?

I happen to like black helicopters....


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 19, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> What do you have against black helicopters?
> 
> I happen to like black helicopters....



I like 'em to!

I just don't like folks pointing them out to the 'little people'!


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 19, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> Can you currently site which southern states have Red Drum listed as a game fish??
> 
> Can you site which state has had this designation the longest??
> 
> Can you site what their creel limits and size slots are compared to the other, younger game fish states, and particularly Georgia, as a non- game fish state??



Florida designated them as game fish many years ago.  Don't know the exact date.  Texas designated them as game fish about the same time.  I am not sure about Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.


----------



## savreds (Jan 19, 2009)

Jeff Young said:


> I believe you are a bit confused. Some of these posts are not easy to follow.
> 
> DNR and "Georgia Redfish" and CCA are all on the same page with regards to granting gamefish status for the redfish.
> 
> To my knowledge, those who oppose the legislative action in this thread are not speaking as a part of any of the aforementioned agencies or organizations.



That's not what I'm confused about. I know that those 3 are in favor of gamefish status. And you are right about some of the posts being hard to follow.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 19, 2009)

The clues to what they seek are in their words.
While it is admirable to want to to something good...great care should be exercised when it is a narrow group seeking changes that affect the population as a whole.
Here are two entities that seek Government action that affects everyone...w/o everyone getting a chance to sign off, a chance to examine possible repercussions,  possible taxes, possible tightening of regulations and controls on fishermen...and all based on the notion that something bad could happen w/o any evidence to support this fear.
Spud Woodward  returned my call today. He had nothing to offer to deter any of these possibilities. He admitted all of the things I deem as negatives could happen. Taxes,regulation, and potential as a revenue stream to fund more enforcement.
He said they had no data on the amount of abuse.
He had no data to show that there is any negative impact on the species.
He had no data on archery harvests.
He did say they would be a new species profile released this year w/ data from netting and creel surveys.
The only way they will be able to see breed stock is via netting as creels are limited to 2 yo fish and therefore show only the narrow slot allowed to be harvested.
He also made mention 2x that the DNR is a "neutral party" to these outside efforts. I noted his lending of credence in an official capacity by commenting for Redfish .org and that it seemed he could be seeking a revenues stream via a Tax and he said yes it could look like that.
I don't know if any of you have ever spoken to Spud,  he has a very deep voice. He sounded tired and a bit resigned in these admissions. He was nice and tried to be helpful.
Again he did admit there was no data to warrant these actions. He did offer almost verbatim a line in the article....
_another tool in the conservation box_ to wish I asked, That can be used to enact restrictions/regulations and fees...."_It could be seen that way_" 



Here are two groups lobbying for government action that will affect everyone. They say it is for the good of the resource. The have nothing to show current status is bad for the resource. They have decided they know what is best for us and the fish. Redfish .org and CCA have not responded to my queries. The DNR has and I found nothing positive in it.
When next to the Ga fishing population as a whole, these two private groups are but a minority. Yet they are mobilized to lobby for change they want, w/o much challenge/ review, or time to gather information by the larger population. Those who are not aware of their efforts in the capitol will have no say in the matter.
This is not a referendum. No chance here of an enlightenment period by the citizens, no chance to offer dissent. This is back door work. 
Like global warming, there is no need to talk of science, not when there is fear, and an easy path toward "feeling good".
There is _no way_ that any archery, netting, or occasional abuses will _ever_ amount to the level of harvest that the commercial fleets once enjoyed. Add in the hatchling program that was not around at that time and all signs are there is no need to ask for the Law of Unintended Consequences to spin the wheel.

I'm certain RF.Org is viewing this post, I provided them links along w/ my Phone number. I certainly can not stop them from speaking here and championing their cause. They have shut me out over there, I have not seen a post here. I have received a few calls today from unknown sources and no messages left. I will speak to anyone as long as I get a number. 
I'm going back to the Radio in the AM w/ a follow up from the call from Spud.
cw


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> That's right Chad.
> I just left a message on Capt. Scott Wagner cell asking for info.
> I just called the radio station and put a bug in anyone listening's ear.
> The Host spotted it right away as an offer for Government intrusion and made the "anti gun nut" connection. More law on those that follow it, not those that break it.
> ...



I'm not sure who you are. But Scott is a good friend of mine. He spends more time on the water there than anyone else I know of and more time on redfish than anyone on the GA coast for sure. I share his passion for them and this fight. He has provided and helped the DNR with evidence. Personally I could care less about CCAGA since they have opposed the last bill to change the limit and size on reds. But Scott's group is doing the right thing.


Those of you who are opposed to reds getting a game fish status need to stop and think about whose side you are on. 

The resources and our children's ability to enjoy them as we have or commercial fishing. To me it's a no brainer. I'll support the redfish. I want my girls and their kids to be able to catch a tailing red on a flat or watch a school of hundreds go across a mud flat in the winter.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 19, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> While it is admirable to want to to something good...great care should be exercised when it is a narrow group seeking changes that affect the population as a whole.
> 
> cw


 
I don't think following an Executive Order from the President of the United States is merely a rogue action by a narrow group seeking change.

Or did you miss that post?


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

Dang that is a good point!


----------



## Nautical Son (Jan 19, 2009)

CW, 
I also spoke with a DNR CRD official tonight, who is also a biologist. He confirmed that they are doing fin clip reasearch NOW, to determine the benefit of the restocking efforts that was a joint effort with S.Carolina. He also answered my question and yours--- What does giving the redfish gamefish status actually do that the law does not already cover?

He answered- It will prevent the commercial sell of redfish, and it will prevent the whole bow fishing thing as well.

The person who makes the call to change the slot sizes and/or limits is very concerned with doing what the fishermen want. If we (collectively) want to keep 5 of our current slot it will stay the same, if we (collectively) want to keep fewer but larger fish then maybe it will change.

No talk of a tax or any other money making or costing concept was discussed. 

The gentleman also said "We as marine biologist don't lie awake at night trying to come up with rules to make more money, we just try to figure out how to help the fishery in general terms that are the least expensive."

If you would like more info from him I will get his info for you.


----------



## 11P&YBOWHUNTER (Jan 20, 2009)

TGattis said:


> No talk of a tax or any other money making or costing concept was discussed.



Unfortunately it would not be discussed till they made up their minds.  Then we would just be told that this is the new fee....

Good job getting the info Tgattis!!!  Now take me fishing!!!!


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Jan 20, 2009)

I think the bottom line is some folks don't trust the data that the Gooberment uses. I for one, and many more believe (using grouper and snapper as an example) that the data they used to reduce the daily limits on snapper and grouper was flawed and unsubstantuated. Protecting redfish is a good thing, many believe that they have other motives.


----------



## Nautical Son (Jan 20, 2009)

Parker, The gooberment isn't actually conducting the fin clip study, it's being conducted by UGA student/biologists, at the boat ramps at different areas/times.

Chad, I asked about new fees and he said NO, currently the DNR gets funds from the general fund at a rate of $2 for every dollar put in from taxes and fees on fishing/hunting equipment and licenses, the money from the survey is Federal funds to study the enviromental impact on the estuaries as a whole not specific to redfish.

The gamefish status will close a loophole in the Ga Regs that would prohibit the sell of the fish by commercial fishermen (a small $12 license) and they do tend to catch 5 drop them off go catch 5 more,etc.

Georgia and Missisippi are the only 2 southern states that don't currently have the gamefish status so guess where the "restaurant" menu fish are coming from the most.

There really is no ill effects on our wallets and as it appears now CCA and GaRedfish are just trying to get more fishermen to speak-up against the commercial guys who stand to be shut down, anyone who knows about the whole shrimping and castnetting regulations changes should realize just how powerfull the commercial fishing loobyist groups really are.

The CRD guy also said they can do more good with donations if it is handled thru a sportfishing club as they have to go thru a chain of command if they recieve donations directly.......


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 20, 2009)

scooter1 said:


> I don't think following an Executive Order from the President of the United States is merely a rogue action by a narrow group seeking change.
> 
> Or did you miss that post?




re-evaluate your understanding of Federal waters.

CF if you wish to make this an us/them thing, tell me why "thems" know what is best for the rest of us when they have nothing but opinion to drive their motives?
W/o real data to demonstrate what is happening to stocks, that is all they have...opinion.
_I want my girls and their kids to be able to catch a tailing red on a flat or watch a school of hundreds go across a mud flat in the winter._
And you have reason to think this opportunity is threatened by what? Opinion? There Is no Data to support your girls  not getting the chance.

As an aside, how much more reduced do you think the limits should be?


TG he is correct in his assessment, it primarily affects commercial sale (which is not the mass operations like it was in the past that are now regulated by the Fed guide), and archery.
There is no data to show that the current reduce level of commercial operations are exceeding (breaking) the law.
Just Hypotheticals and opinions.
Same for incidence of by-kill/ limit exceeding in archery.

As for Taxes, Spud did not rule that out and admitted the new "tool" status would make it easier to make it a reality.
As for motive to create a revenue stream, His words and others lamenting the Understaffed Enforcement resources is the key.

As for the threat of reduced creel/slot limits, read the words of some of the bloggers on their boards. I also point to the words a Capt. who told me of Wagoner's frustration at seeing legal reds kept.....
I also  point at the general trend of government and the trend of those here that say...."everyone else is smoking itbounce"
And the conversation w/ Spud:
_another tool in the conservation box_ to which I asked, That can be used to enact restrictions/regulations and fees..?.."It could be seen that way" 
Besides it requires less time for one agent to measure 2 fish / angler!

Parker the problem i see in this issue the Government has no data, neither do these groups to support their fears.
No one can show me that they are not being protected now.

Q: how many lbs of fish does it take to feed a family of 4?
Q: How much money(thats time incl.) does it currently require to provide the chance to catch that weight?


cw


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jan 20, 2009)

Hahaha.......this thread is going no where.


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 20, 2009)

The gulf breeding stock in the Gulf was ruined 10 years ago when some idiot chef in New Orleans put so much spice on a piece of fish that you couldn't tell if you were eating fish or shoe leather and declared it to be blackened redfish.  The offshore trawlers tore up the big breeders to feed that market.

I am for getting ahead of the curve in Georgia.  Why should we wait until the stocks are in decline?  Our coastline is so small that a decline would be devastating.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

MudDucker- It was over 20 yrs now. Scary how time flies. I remember when you couldn't catch a red in florida. They were just about fished out. Now I have seen schools of thousands on the flats. Never seen that in GA. We do not do an adequate job of our game management in this state. We are always way behind the times. Deer management, ducks, Bass, everything.

Seaweaver I will make this an us them thing because you don't respect the resource. You would rather see commercial fisherman make money on a resource than our kids enjoy it. Commercial fisherman do not respect our resources. They have a long track record of miserable abuses and use methods and tactics that are much worse than baiting deer. Just recently a whale was entangled in a 5 mile net off shore of GA. It floated all the way to jacksonville before being untangled. 

I believe I will side with the future of our resources and not them.


----------



## Nautical Son (Jan 20, 2009)

> Q: how many lbs of fish does it take to feed a family of 4?
> Q: How much money(thats time incl.) does it currently require to provide the chance to catch that weight?



Depends on how hungry they are and what else is served.

let's say they are starved and they are all over the age of 15.

I say 2# apiece
Cost: gas,boat payment,licenses, rods&reels,lifejackets and other required safety gear,insurance on the truck and boat,power bill (for the alarm clock to wake em up),filet knife (for proper cleaning)  $3000.00...... I can go on and on

How much data do you want?

How many times have you been checked by DNR ?

What "fears" ?

The date for the meetings by Ga Redfish and the goobermment folks has already passed. What transpired?

Do you have a commercial fishing license CW ?

Do you have a OUPV (6-pac or better) license ?

Have you ever caught a redfish (in the slot) at DUA reef and kept it ?

What do shrimp boats do when they aren't catching shrimp ?

What happens to the by-catch from shrimp boats?

What happens when your bilge pump cuts on pumps the oily water out ? Is it legal ? How much fuel/oil is allowed to be pumped out before it becomes illegal?

The gooberment is tryin to gather data to support their suspected claims concerning a decline or to decide if the mortality rate is better or worse than somewhere around 40% which is a baseline for their decisions from what I understood of the meeting last night. Where were you it was an informal meeting and anyone was invited that was a member of Coastal Outdoors website, I do believe you are a member, correct ?

Stop trying to find the black helicopters and look at other things that should be more concerning than being able to keep 5 fish that aren't that good as table fare unless you smother them in black pepper.
 You are getting yourself all wound up and for what.....
The real conspiracy is 700 miles due north.


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jan 20, 2009)

TGattis said:


> Depends on how hungry they are and what else is served.
> 
> let's say they are starved and they are all over the age of 15.
> 
> ...




+1


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 20, 2009)

I can name my fear.It is individuals lobbing action by the government w/o the public at large being involved. The empirical data of my fear is evident in their petition
They can name their fear.Potential of abuse.. but they have no evidence.
None.
They have not posted any results of any meeting on Redfish .org
I have no commercial tag.
I have tested and past the six pac test but did not continue as I created another business.
I have never caught a red in federal water.
Shrimp boats after shrimping season catch Welk, sit at dock and rot/rust. If they have a commercial tag for some fish they follow the laws for that activity. If they are breaking some law, more law will not stop them. it hasn't worked yet for criminals w/ guns.
If by catch has a market, and it is legal I would assume it goes to market. If there are laws broken, more law will not stop it.


I get checked once in a blue moon and have had no tickets.
I was warned on Day one of the saltwater tax was imposed.
If you are pumping any water that creates any sheen you are in violation.

I was not aware of any meeting. You did not mention it yesterday in the hog talk.  I was not aware of lobby groups seeking action till I ran across the original post.
I think every one should know and have a say.

I just read Spud Woodward' article in Tides Mag and it is full of contradictions. Not in data, but methods of Thought.

He details the history of the law as it tightened on red fishing, and the rise in populations. He uses real data to show how regulation has worked to the benefit of the species. The way science is supposed to be used.
In the next paragraph he bring up the concerns of these lobby groups.. BUT says the only way to know if these concerns a valid is to wait till the 2009 Survey is completed.
The lobby is not waiting.
Why not wait?
Spud notes that  the DNR has let the people "vote" for regulation in the past. Why not now?

Spud notes so far there is no downward trend and that is good. So why the lobby action?
He does again in Tides float that they would love more money.......
Job security is nice these days.
Spud notes Hildreth is forward thinking and asks hard questions....
really?
Working from no data, scrubbing my hard questions from their site?


You may think I'm making a big deal here. 
I don't mind.
I don't think the public at large should be dictated to by private groups much less endure the demands from a government dancing to the tune of the lobby.
If it is good for all it should need no lobby.
If it were good for all, we should all have a chance to ask hard questions....including on their website.

I'm not asking anything unreasonable.
cw


----------



## Nautical Son (Jan 20, 2009)

> I can name my fear.It is individuals lobbing action by the government w/o the public at large being involved. The empirical data of my fear is evident in their petition
> They can name their fear.Potential of abuse.. but they have no evidence.
> None.



They are an organization that is all, no governmental authority, they never use the word fear (that I saw).
Potential for abuse= loophole  or...
Close the barn door before the horse get's out. Doe's that sound better?




> They have not posted any results of any meeting on Redfish .org



Because no action has been taken by the legislature,possibly????

I have no commercial tag.
I have tested and past the six pac test but did not continue as I created another business.
I have never caught a red in federal water.


> Shrimp boats after shrimping season catch Welk, sit at dock and rot/rust. If they have a commercial tag for some fish they follow the laws for that activity. If they are breaking some law, more law will not stop them. it hasn't worked yet for criminals w/ guns.


I sure see alot of boats out there dragging something, what is the commercial use of whelk's...????



> If by catch has a market, and it is legal I would assume it goes to market. If there are laws broken, more law will not stop it.



I agree more laws won't stop the lawbreakers, but a law is a "tool" to put some bite into the punishment of those who do get caught. Maybe this is the "tool" Spud spoke of.





> I get checked once in a blue moon and have had no tickets.



I have NEVER been checked in over 6 years, you know why, because there aren't enough conservation officers.



> I was warned on Day one of the saltwater tax was imposed.
> If you are pumping any water that creates any sheen you are in violation.



Better check all your plastic fuel componets then, ethanol eats plastic.



> I was not aware of any meeting. You did not mention it yesterday in the hog talk. I was not aware of lobby groups seeking action till I ran across the original post.
> I think every one should know and have a say.



Sorry dude, I didn't realize I was gonna be going till 5:30pm, dinner was at 7pm in Midway....

Lobby groups are not our enemy here. Some are just passionate about helping out the enviroment, I always look at things the same way as you are viewing this groups actions. I realize you would like more data but unfortunately it's apparently not complete yet, Oh yeah it's only January......give them some time to. There won't be any rules passed anytime soon.



> I just read Spud Woodward' article in Tides Mag and it is full of contradictions. Not in data, but methods of Thought.
> 
> He details the history of the law as it tightened on red fishing, and the rise in populations. He uses real data to show how regulation has worked to the benefit of the species. The way science is supposed to be used.
> In the next paragraph he bring up the concerns of these lobby groups.. BUT says the only way to know if these concerns a valid is to wait till the 2009 Survey is completed.
> ...



So you agree that regulation worked to increase the number and quality of the fish we have available.? I do.
Here again, Close the barn door. 
That's what the lobbyists are trying to do.
And again , No action is actually being taken yet by DNR to limit or change any rules on redfish only on sharks.



> You may think I'm making a big deal here.
> I don't mind.



No not at all.



> I don't think the public at large should be dictated to by private groups much less endure the demands from a government dancing to the tune of the lobby.



They aren't actually dictating more like asking for help...
Thats kinda the way the gooberment works ya know, they ask how high after they leave the ground.




> If it is good for all it should need no lobby.
> If it were good for all, we should all have a chance to ask hard questions....including on their website.



No we need lobbyists to help protect us from commercial influence, which has alot more (in most instances)money to throw at the politicos.

And you have to remember who's sandbox it is when you play in it, you ask too many questions or become acusatory and any website owner/administrator is likely to ban you, don't believe me try typing some big boy words a few times to admin here and see what happens to your login info.



> I'm not asking anything unreasonable.
> cw



Maybe they don't interpret it that way, I got no idea.

I will say you are relentless..............


----------



## savreds (Jan 20, 2009)

K-DAWG XB 2003 said:


> +1



x2
And all this time I thought that I was in the saltwater fishing section and I was in the political forum by mistake


----------



## Nautical Son (Jan 20, 2009)

> x2
> And all this time I thought that I was in the saltwater fishing section and I was in the political forum by mistake




Back to work there kayak boy....


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 20, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> I can name my fear.It is individuals lobbing action by the government w/o the public at large being involved.


 
Brother, if that's the source of your fears then you should be cowering in a closet on the verge of a complete psychological breakdown.

Unless you haven't noticed, that has been the modus operandi in D.C. for many a year now.


----------



## Wild Turkey (Jan 20, 2009)

ill play stupid here.
If they make Reds a gamefish, they can  not be fished commercially.
They can still be fished recreationally and limits established.

that takes the comm fishing lobby $$ out of the deal and protects sport fishermen. You and I.

Then the lovely group of people who help regulate snapper, grouper etc get removed from the regulatory process as well as the comm fishermen $$.

Is that a bad thing.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jan 20, 2009)

Wild Turkey said:


> ill play stupid here.
> If they make Reds a gamefish, they can not be fished commercially.
> They can still be fished recreationally and limits established.
> 
> ...


 

Exactly!!!!!!

Very well explained.


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jan 20, 2009)

I am glad you boys showed up. Thats all I was try'in to say.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 21, 2009)

Someone create a map of the Southeast coastline and show the waters where redfish may and may not be commercially fished please.

I think that picture would be very effective.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 21, 2009)

That's what you where trying to say?
Oh I thought it was  just school yard names that got your thread pulled?
Because you could not answer my Qs......


TG where is the data that the barn door is open?

I use the word fear as it is a tool they use to gather support. Their word word is "concern" They are concerned to take action.

The Commercial fishing Inside state waters is well regulated. The small boats dragging out of my creek are leaving piles of welk shells in the potholes near the ramp.There has always been a market for them. They may end up a tire components for all I know.

You asked about being checked. That's one number. The other is how many I see. Wassaw and the connectors between us are where I see them all the time. In summer...(when the op. for BUI is higher(but redfish catch is low)  Chatham Co just got breathalizers in the past few years..DNR has had them) There are 4 boats working from the skidaway dock.


As an adult in a democratic republic I have come to enjoy the freedom of making choices for myself. Here we have a lobby attempting to make choices for me. They seek actions by the government that will affect everyone. 
SR,I'm sorry if that seems  apolitical....

This is no different that ELFs asking the government to impose Global Warming laws upon us.
They are concerned. They see the potential for abuse.
Yet they have no data to support there concern.
Accompanying them, are agencies that desire funding, and growing segments of the public that choose to work w/ partial information and feel better under the banner of "doing something".

It is easy to get the impression the barn door is open when they never mention the angle of the gate.
Yes Spud's TIDE article validated that regulation has helped. That was the closure of Fed water, limits. He said the stock rebounded. I have seen this myself. Why are we are looking for more protection when stocks have shown growing trend?
To what limit are we to protect the species?
Let ban catching them all together?

All I want to to work from a rational basis of fact.
I have logged on/in to Coastal outdoors. They will not allow me to post.
Try asking these simple questions, Any of you....

Is the Barn door open and to what extent is the stock running out of it by what data?
Are stocks in a state of depletion?
Is asking for state action putting the cart ahead of the horse when the latest survey is not complete and all trends indicate sustainable if not increasing levels?
Where is the factual evidence that current regulation/status is failing now?

These are quite rational questions...if anyone gets the boot like I did, perhaps it will raise more question for you as it did for me.

I forget the fella who said Scott wagoner was his friend..perhaps if you are reading you can ask Scott to sign on and answer these questions, or call the number I left in his cell phone.
If he can provide me the answers( that Spud could not) I could change my mind.

The answers I got from Spud indicated these lobbies are working from fear(concern) not fact, as even Spud admitted there was no data on stock  or abuse.
I have received no answers from Redfish .org via email or phone, or CCA, or here. 
I am completely accessible. Why are not the answers?
Why are not those that wish to initiate Government action on my behalf?

Sorry if it appears I am overly concerned about this, but I like to have a hand those actions that affect me.
I no longer seek direction from my parents, only advise.
I think any special interest seeking to make choices _for me_ should answer my ....concerns before I allow them free reign w/ the liberties I have left.


cw


----------



## Nautical Son (Jan 21, 2009)

Jeff, I'm not that good with modification of Google Earth photos, but I can tell you.
From the northern most point of their range to the southern most point of their range, out 2.99 nautical miles,
and return to a dock in GEORGIA. Or if you are in the gulf, a dock in Mississippi. As long as you stay with the 3 nautical mile range you should be legal.


Is that the correct answer?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 21, 2009)

I think you've got it.

Basically a sliver of water in Mississippi and sliver in Georgia.

I think seeing it actually on a map would be an effective tool.

I'll try to put it together this evening.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 21, 2009)

Jeff Young said:


> Someone create a map of the Southeast coastline and show the waters where redfish may and may not be commercially fished please.
> 
> I think that picture would be very effective.



UNDER federal guidelines.(ban)
States have Commercial guide lines in effect as well (regulated).
There is no "free for all zone"...just for clarification.
cw


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jan 21, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> That's what you where trying to say?
> Oh I thought it was  just school yard names that got your thread pulled?
> Because you could not answer my Qs......
> 
> ...



No those were big boy names

I could not answer your questions? You have yet to answer mine or anyone else's on this board. Nothing but, wild speculation from you.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 21, 2009)

cw


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 22, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> I can name my fear.It is individuals lobbing action by the government w/o the public at large being involved. The empirical data of my fear is evident in their petition
> They can name their fear.Potential of abuse.. but they have no evidence.
> None.
> They have not posted any results of any meeting on Redfish .org
> ...



Just wanting the public to panic for your cause only.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 23, 2009)

Sorry, what data there is now supports me.
The stock have improved greatly, and we now have a hatchling program to boot.

To quote a one of the fellas on Coastal Out Doors who thinks like me...an old cliche'
"if it ain't broke....."

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 23, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> an old cliche'
> "if it ain't broke....."
> 
> cw



To finish that cliche in a more appropriate manner:

"If it ain't broke, do a little preventative maintenance to insure that it doesn't breakdown again."

Why should want to set back and be reactive rather than being proactive?


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 23, 2009)

Proactive indicates a goal.
Where is the evidence we are not achieving that goal now?
That is the point.
Ask Spud yourself. He is a nice guy.

Q.....you don't change the engine in your truck every two years...being proactive do you? Don't you wait for some indication it is warranted? Traces of metal in the oil? on the driveway?
Noting sluggish starts, loss of power?
 A compilation of data...that would indicate potential for failure...is negated for an engine swap?
Do you change the laces in your boots every year , just to be proactive?
If being proactive to save the species...why not a ban all together?

Someone show me the tail tell signs of a species threatened here because the Head Biologist of the Fisheries Division of the Department of Natural Resources /Coastal Resources in the Big Building HQ in Brunswick Georgia cannot.



cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 23, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Proactive indicates a goal.
> Where is the evidence we are not achieving that goal now?



cw?

Do you remember a time when the redfish fishery was nearly wiped out?

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you do.

Would you like to see that happen again?

I'd assume that you do not.

Could commercial enterprise that wanted to sell or purchase redfish acquire the meat if the gamefish status was given?

YES. There is a growing, viable commercial redfish farming market.

Will the economy gain more than it loses by the gamefish status?

YES. Sport fishing for the redfish would continue to grow as would the afore mentioned farming enterprising. 

Would the attention that giving the gamefish status help the fishery?

A great deal.

It is a move which cost little and result in a great deal of positives for the redfish, Georgia & Georgians.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 23, 2009)

_*Do you remember a time when the redfish fishery was nearly wiped out?*_
Yes...then laws were in acted and the result has been great.



_*Would you like to see that happen again?*_
You mean there is a new threat that the current laws (after much scientific modification)  do not address that is resulting in a negative trend?

_*I'd assume that you do not.*_
that is correct, where is the evidence it is?
Lead me too it, I'll join you.

_*Could commercial enterprise that wanted to sell or purchase redfish acquire the meat if the gamefish status was given?

YES. There is a growing, viable commercial redfish farming market.*_
 Good for them. Perhaps at some point their aquaculture will reach a level of profitability to allow _what_ commercial fishing taking place in state water is no longer viable. In the absence of data that shows a decline due to state commercial fishing I am reluctant to make assumptions from which to base law eliminating it.
_*
Will the economy gain more than it loses by the gamefish status?*_

You have some economic projective data?????

_*YES. Sport fishing for the redfish would continue to grow as would the afore mentioned farming enterprising.*_

What is sport fishing? Catch and release?
Based on the  afore mentioned farming ....will we see the conservation "tool" limit my diet to farm raised fish?
Per RF.Orgs pages..."Ga Red Fish are too valuable to catch just once...."
_
*Would the attention that giving the gamefish status help the fishery?

A great deal.*_

How? there is already a growing trend of release. In TIDES and the PDF Kdog provided both note harvest numbers are far below catch numbers ...less than 40%.

_*It is a move which cost little and result in a great deal of positives for the redfish, Georgia & Georgians.*_

How much will a Red Fish stamp cost?
How much will it cost to harvest a meal when my creel size is reduced. I know there are fellows that (..and I do not care to understand why...) do not have an appetite for eating their hard fought catch. Should I allow their desires trump my remaining liberties?


Perhaps we should look at reducing the harvest limits of their _greatest predator_ and their numbers....
I mean...if we are so concerned what _might_ be happening ....

Can.....ANYONE show me the tail tell signs of a species threatened here(by MAN...not dolphins) because the Head Biologist of the Fisheries Division of the Department of Natural Resources /Coastal Resources in the Big Building HQ in Brunswick Georgia cannot.

Why is there such an aversion to science?
What's next to guide red fish regulation?
Dried chicken bones?

cw


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 23, 2009)

Is science not a tool used to determine conservation methods?

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 26, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Is science not a tool used to determine conservation methods?
> 
> cw



It is 'a' tool.

It is not 'the only' tool.

Logic & history are also very good tools.

FYI, I did a little bit of surveying the crowd at the shallow water show yesterday and could not find anyone opposed to giving the redfish the game fish status.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 26, 2009)

Science is not logical?
You are the 2nd "conservation ranger" that seems to have no problem w/ fabrication of law based upon feelings.
Does not the DNR employ a multitude of Biologists?
They do not use ouji board to my knowledge in determine their course of conservation plans.

But I could be wrong.

Now...strictly non scientific....from a summery of those who would use non scientific data to enact more regulation...they seem to reside inland...You guys have been paying to fish all your lives in freshwater...perhaps you are used to it. 

cw


----------



## grim (Jan 26, 2009)

Wow.

I dont see the harm of government intrusion here.  I actually see it as a way of taking a decision out of the governments hands.  Don't let .gov decide what is commercially viable.  Look at the mess they made of grouper and snapper in florida.  If those fish were made into game fish, limits wouldnt be needed at all.  Game fish status has nothing to do with limits at all for the recreational guys.  

With recreational guys contributing many many times the amount of money to the economy than the commercial guys do, I feel they should always be the first consideration.   In florida, its been proven, the only way to make that happen is for the voters to take the decsion away from the commercially controled government regulators.

Just my $0.02


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 26, 2009)

??
You start w/ "I don't see the harm of government intrusion here"
but then you fail to see the link between the status...becoming a tool for the government....and "I actually see it as a way of taking a decision out of the governments hands"....
when the tool....will be...in the Government's hands....

Do you Too oppose using science as a method of determining conservation practices?

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 26, 2009)

cw,

Logic certainly applies to both science and history.

In previous decades the redfish were decimated because folks, as was so elegantly stated previously, wanted to put too much spice on it and burn it for fun and profit.

Scientific data from creel surveys and, logically, just plain good ole common knowledge demonstrated that the stocks were critically depleted due to over-indulgence by commercial fishermen.

Applying the results of the data gathered during that time frame, coupled with the new fact that practically all other water in the Southeast where the redfish thrives has been closed to commercial fishing of that specie, we find that should a commercial fisherman find himself with a high demand of redfish fillets, he only has one target to hit. 

That is Georgia's inshore fishery.

One doesn't require a skill at using a Ouiji Board to calculate the risk. Data from the past entered into a simple formula results in the correct answer:

redfish stocks / commercial demand X logic & commonsense = game fish status

Although studies are ongoing, on several aspects of the fishery relative to red drum, we already have enough data, history and logical reasoning to see that a change would be beneficial to the resource.

That aside, you can rest easy for at least this year. It doesn't appear that it will be brought to the legislature this year.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 26, 2009)

Why is everyone stuck on the "commercial" aspects as a threat?
Spud has NO DATA to say the the LIMITED, REGULATED commercial RED FISH harvest is out of control, poses any threat....
Call him and ask.
cw


----------



## grim (Jan 26, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Do you Too oppose using science as a method of determining conservation practices?
> 
> cw



No, but based on the way things have been done by the feds and in florida, I dont think science is the basis used, I think cash donations have a bigger influence.

Gamefish status only changes the governments ability to let the fish in question be commercially harvested, nothing more or less.  I have seen nothing in this thread to make me believe differently.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 26, 2009)

find that should a commercial fisherman find himself with a high demand of redfish fillets, he only has one target to hit. 
Soooo you are saying that any commercial fisherman selling red fish is automatically going to break the law??? and more law will stop that?
Any one owning a gun....and more law will....

Call Spud and ask.


_
Although studies are ongoing, on several aspects of the fishery relative to red drum, we already have enough data, history and logical reasoning to see that a change would be beneficial to the resource._

geepers if thats all...then let ban fishing for them all together....

Again...we have no data to show any threat under current law and regulation...or if current law and tax and regulation is not actually increasing the stocks.

I'm no where near blue in the face on this!

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 26, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Why is everyone stuck on the "commercial" aspects as a threat?
> Spud has NO DATA to say the the LIMITED, REGULATED commercial RED FISH harvest is out of control, poses any threat....
> Call him and ask.
> cw



Why do I need Capt. Spud to give me an answer which may be derived via common logic?

You are not implying that Spud is against the measure are you?


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 26, 2009)

_Gamefish status only changes the governments ability to let the fish in question be commercially harvested, nothing more or less. I have seen nothing in this thread to make me believe differently._

We have law in place now.

cw


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 26, 2009)

No, but Spud wants money...he will say he is neutral....but at the same time he will tell you the truth that he and RF.Org have no data to show the current laws are failing...

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 26, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> No, but Spud wants money...he will say he is neutral....but at the same time he will tell you the truth that he and RF.Org have no data to show the current laws are failing...
> 
> cw



cw,

Are the current laws perfect?


----------



## grim (Jan 26, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Why is everyone stuck on the "commercial" aspects as a threat?



Because every saltwater fish that I love to pursue that tastes good, has seen reduced bag limits due to commercial overfishing.  Government regulators have been hesitant to address the real issue and push forward junk science to restrict recreational limits, while leaving commercial takes close to static.  The only action to be seen is thru grass root citizen efforts.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 26, 2009)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> cw,
> 
> Are the current laws perfect?



Are they not?

cw


----------



## Randy (Jan 26, 2009)

I don't think it hurts to allow commercial fishing on Georgia's coast.  If they overharvest Georgia's redfish we always have Florida to go fish in.  Florida is prettier.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 26, 2009)

grim said:


> Because every saltwater fish that I love to pursue that tastes good, has seen reduced bag limits due to commercial overfishing.  Government regulators have been hesitant to address the real issue and push forward junk science to restrict recreational limits, while leaving commercial takes close to static.  The only action to be seen is thru grass root citizen efforts.




And where is "commercial overfishing" here?
 Can you show me where the sky is falling?

Nobody has any data to show current law is failing. 
Is not a push for more action in the absence of real data  not "Junk Science?"
cw


----------



## grim (Jan 26, 2009)

Randy said:


> I don't think it hurts to allow commercial fishing on Georgia's coast.  If they overharvest Georgia's redfish we always have Florida to go fish in.  Florida is prettier.



Come on down.  Buy our licenses, spend money in our baitshops, restaurants and gas stations.  Just stay out of my parking spot.  Its all good.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 26, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> find that should a commercial fisherman find himself with a high demand of redfish fillets, he only has one target to hit.
> Soooo you are saying that any commercial fisherman selling red fish is automatically going to break the law??? and more law will stop that?
> 
> 
> cw



I guess I missed this little jewel earlier!

What I am saying is that if we do not make the redfish a game fish, under the current law, Georgia's redfish are the only source, other than farm raised, the commercial fleet will have to with which to satisfy the market. 

No one has stated or implied that the commercial fishermen are presently or have ever broken any laws.

I'm merely pointing out the fact that Georgia's fishery is the lone piece of water left for them to ply their trade thanks to the proactive actions of the other states and the Nation's Executive.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jan 26, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Are they not?
> 
> cw



Given this response you believe they are perfect, though you could have fooled me during some of our previous discussions relative to shooting deer over bait.

Given that you believe all current law is perfect, I do not see how I could suppose to have a reasonable discussion with you on the subject at hand.


----------



## grim (Jan 26, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> And where is "commercial overfishing" here?
> Can you show me where the sky is falling?
> 
> Nobody has any data to show current law is failing.
> ...



I am merely speaking my opinion based on my personal observations of what has and is happening in florida.  I never said the sky is falling, thats your line.  I dont think changing redfish to gamefish status will make the sky fall.   It didnt fall in Florida, Alabama, Texas, South Carolina or Louisiana, at least not for the last 18 years it hasnt.  In Florida, the result has been exceptionally positive.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this issue.  But this is a Georgia issue, you guys work it out.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 26, 2009)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Given this response you believe they are perfect, though you could have fooled me during some of our previous discussions relative to shooting deer over bait.
> 
> Given that you believe all current law is perfect, I do not see how I could suppose to have a reasonable discussion with you on the subject at hand.




Oh please...
Don't patronize me and don't put words in my mouth.
Your premise is wrong. You are the one working from the assumption that the law is not working, yet you cannot show me why.
What is so difficult about that?

I do not have a marker of "perfection", but I can understand the signs of failure. Show me the failure of current law.

Why is such an obtuse concept? Mr. Woodward knew exactly what I was talking about.


Grim, all trends in Ga stocks have been positive...no one can show they are threatened. People are behaving like they are (that is the sky falling part) and want to do something in reaction to ...concerns. Concerns that are not warranted due to lack of data.

There is a report due out sometime this year. That will be the next op. to see trends...and draw conclusions from which to base regulation. 

If the data shows the stock is in decline I'm more than willing to take steps to help correct that. I have been since this first came to my attention. When the channels that sponser this cause failed to answer, I called Mr W. Not only could he not show me the sky is falling, he admitted my concerns of increased taxes,reduced creel and slot limits would be easier to impose w/ Game fish status.
A status sought, to relieve unwarranted fear. 

cw


----------



## Nautical Son (Jan 26, 2009)

Allright I'm back in the game now.

CW, this last post above me, may be the best thing you have typed in this entire thread. It makes sense, it is easy to understand, and it looks like you calmed down some too.

I think I have your point figured out, correct me if not.

You don't want any more of the governments help spending your hard earned money on taxes.

I notice a trend in your other posts that I have read and they all have the same common link, government and some form of taxation.

I am with you 1000000% I don't want to pay another cent for any type of tax, but I do want to drive on smooth roads, just as I would like to catch a fish when I go out burning all that gas. 

If enterprising commercial fishermen realize there is an untapped revenue stream in catching 5 redfish at a time, what will happen ? This is just a hypothetical question, and I realize at the current market price nobody is gonna be getting rich catching 5 fish a day, but lets suppose the market rate doubles or triples, any savvy business man would say hmmmmm heres an opportunity to score some easy bucks, don't you agree?

Oh and good job on the porker with Chad. PM me the details on where>. They eluded me by way of water out at Camp Swampy.


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jan 26, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Oh please...
> 
> Grim, all trends in Ga stocks have been positive...
> cw



Where did you find data on trends?


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 27, 2009)

Kd In the pdf you gave me, and in the data provided in the TIDES  magazine that Spud wrote.
I don't know if it available on line. They had an extra copy at the marina.

TG
I have been asking the same Qs throughout!

If it can be proven the boogie man lives here, I'm all for raising money to burn him out. But the current mind set seems to ask for money/regulation...under the guise of some threat. It's happening in at all political levels you cannot turn on the radio w/o hearing of a crisis.


_If enterprising commercial fishermen realize there is an untapped revenue stream in catching 5 redfish at a time, what will happen ? This is just a hypothetical question, and I realize at the current market price nobody is gonna be getting rich catching 5 fish a day, but lets suppose the market rate doubles or triples, any savvy business man would say hmmmmm heres an opportunity to score some easy bucks, don't you agree?_
I have not eaten in a "seafood" restaurant in forever..I have no idea how raging the blacken redfish trend is...but, if market levels 3xed...they would still be limited to 5/day. That is a level that was planned due to data at the time.
If a fella has a market and can make money selling 5 fish a day...or 10 fish every 2 days...and he has broken no existing law, who am I to care? If I am envious of his labors I should take a second look at myself. Wealth envy appeared somewhere in this thread or the previous as a reason for backing this idea. 

Pitchforks and torches are reserved for those breaking the law. 
That's a penalty.
Not added law, tax, draconian limits upon those not breaking the laws.

W/ guns, we see the data. Dead folk, hospital records,robbery rates...all easily countable, compiled and sorted.
The greater % involved don't care about the laws, but the lawful pay the price in tax, regulation, and reduced freedom...because a minority screams, demands action, and gets the headlines.

Although not called for outright, the same mentality exists in this proposal. It is in the message of the GON art. The TIDES, and in the "blogs" of RF.Org.
More restriction and the promise of more taxation to address an undocumented threat posed by individuals that would ignore any new measures anyhow.


cw


----------



## grim (Jan 27, 2009)

Can you explain the increased taxation arguement?

I know of no redfish stamps in any of the states where they are listed as gamefish?

From what I know, FL is the most restrictive, and that is due to decimated stocks from commercial overfishing.  It has literally taken decades to reverse the damage.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 27, 2009)

Per my conversation w/ Spud... initiated From the implied language in both articles.

cw


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jan 28, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> W/ guns, we see the data. Dead folk, hospital records,robbery rates...all easily countable, compiled and sorted.
> The greater % involved don't care about the laws, but the lawful pay the price in tax, regulation, and reduced freedom...because a minority screams, demands action, and gets the headlines.
> 
> cw




This is not a very good comparison. Gun laws and how they apply and affect the general population are completely different.


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 28, 2009)

It is a good comparison.
The "concerns" driving this petition will make it easier to put new law upon those that follow the law.
As with anti gun legislation, it doesn't affect the law breakers as they don't care about the law to begin with.
The added component to the Red Fish Scam is there is NO data to show the impact of lawbreakers, only hypotheticals, hearsay and speculation. None of which are firm foundations to build law upon to affect law breakers. It's a bedtime story to scare into formation law that will impact only the law abiding.

cw


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jan 28, 2009)

They would like to take our guns away because they think the guns are responsible for people getting killed in gang related activity, robberies etc......

How is violence and death linked to making a redfish a game fish?


----------



## seaweaver (Jan 28, 2009)

and sooooo they impose more law....and the feared activity does what?
continues.

You have a degree in Naval Architecture?
This should not be hard to follow...

Its is the drive to form law....based on unfounded fear...to control the activities of those...that are not documented... that care not for the law to begin with...and the new law only affects the lawful.
cw

cw


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 6, 2009)

2/4/09
An update:

I finally did get a reply back from a CCA rep.
Mr. Clay Mobley contacted me about my interest in this Game Fish Status.
I replied back that after speaking to Mr. Woodward, I had figured out I didn't like it .
Well...as the magic of email goes...My reply which was to Mr. Mobley was sent around the proponent circuit as: "_Just thought I would forward Mr. Weaver's message below to you. Let's turn it into an opportunity."_

I have no fear of the truth and do my best not to distort anyones word so I have no qualm with my words being reposted or circulated. However, I do think it says something of Mr. Mobleys' integrity.
I think Mr. Mobley is a broker of some sort...

One of the recipients was Mr. Woodward. I will not cut and paste his words here, I will say he felt I misrepresented our conversation.

It may have been a surprise to him and all when I responded to a Kevin ?Quinn? who tauntingly asked me for the data he thought I had...by his not carefully reading my reply to Mr. Mobley.

Isn't email great!


In two of my replies to all:
(again.......anyone........anyone...)
Show me how GF status cannot make it easier to implement a tax/tag.
Laminations of funding abound.
There is no science behind concerns of abuse and second hand reports of violations.
What are the number of those "reports"?
How many were followed up by "did you make the call to turn them in"
Surely some of those are numbers readily available to the Poacher Call Center...
It sure looks as if the DNR position is not neutral.

Where is the data on archery harvests and how it is diminishing stocks?
Where is the data on Commercial harvest and how it diminishing stocks?
Where is the data on all other forms of harvest outside of hook and line and how it is diminishing stocks.?
What part of Game Fish Status as the GaRF petition seeks to address," Bolsters confidence in management"?

Show me real data that current regulations are failing and I can join you. Till then, your(all) motives are suspect.


As of yet Mr. Woodward, Mobley, Hildreth, savannahharry,and chuck have not replied.
Mr. ?Quinn has and sought to give me a history lesson, but no science.

If this were not involving something I enjoy, expend time and money into would be funny.

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 6, 2009)

Commonsense is prevailing.

Redfish will have game fish status this year!

Why?

Seems that everyone, with the exception of an extremely small minority, understands that the redfish already is a game fish.


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 6, 2009)

Will you pay my life time tag tax?

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 6, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Will you pay my life time tag tax?
> 
> cw



What 'lifetime tag tax'?

You have no data to backup your wildly paranoid claim of a pending tax.

Do you?


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 6, 2009)

No I do not, But per Spud...it could happen.

Hey do you know the primary proponent of this petition Greg Hildreth?


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 6, 2009)

here is a post of his...
and a educated response.
Note: as in all correspondence w/ this group there has been NO reply. 
cw

http://www.mbcboats.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?fid/14/tid/31804/pid/256246/post/256246/#256246


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 6, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> No I do not, But per Spud...it could happen.
> 
> Hey do you know the primary proponent of this petition Greg Hildreth?



No data?!

How dare you present statements of position without data?!?!?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 7, 2009)

Can't believe this is still going on...

I would have thought by now you guys would have just gone to slugging each other.


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 9, 2009)

It will not be over until everyone that has had the wool pulled over their eyes can see clearly.


I'm compiling it all together to be released soon.

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 9, 2009)

I'm certain 'it' will be very interesting.


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

If you are a member of, or donate to CCA it will be very interesting.



thanks for the emails!
cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 10, 2009)

I have a meeting with Clay tomorrow afternoon.

I sure do hope we get to see 'it' before then!


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

Will you ask him to be honest about their intentions?
Will you ask him for the data that supports their drive?
Will you be honest in answering back after your meeting?

if you have forgotten:
(1) Documented evidence that the commercial selling of redfish in Georgia is a threat to depleting our current stock......

(2) Documented evidence that harvesting redish with a bow & arrow is a threat to depleting our current stock......
(3) How giving redfish game fish status can/will possibly "boost public confidence in the management of Georgia's state saltwater fish"

or simply 
What evidence do you have (that Mr. Woodward of the DNR doesn't have..) that shows our current regulations are failing.

or

What scientific evidence warrants this action?

They are simple questions.
They are not Lucy in the Sky...

An Honest man trying to implement change should have the answers that warrants  the change he desires.


Clay has my phone # and my email...
He still won't tell me what they are.

_Perhaps _he will tell you.
I look forward to hearing from you how it goes.

CCA and Ga.RF are not the same...but they are joined at the hip in this action...(and per the mistaken email chain I was party to)
cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 10, 2009)

cw, 

you are over-analizing the situation at hand and pumping everyone's ear with some off the wall conspiracy theory about a 'tax' on redfish.

The reason the Georgia Redfish, CCA, myself, recreational fishermen, biologists & most charter captains are in favor of & pursuing game fish status for the red drum is simply because it is actually a game fish.

No need for you to be upset. It's a done deal.


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

really? show me.
and answer the questions.
cw


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

What's the bill number?
cw


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

Who is the author?

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 10, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> really? show me.
> and answer the questions.
> cw



In time you will see.

Your questions have no relevance to the issue.


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

Where is the Saltwater Advisory Counsel's recommendation?


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

What have you to hide Jeff Young?
these questions are new....and Just a relevant.


who is the author?

what is the bill number?

what do you mean it's a done deal?

Lets have some Honesty Jeff.
Are you not speaking for the CCA now?
Perhaps if you cannot answer these NEW questions you can get Clay to log on...and answer them...
if you please....

are you trying to preserve support you might have reading?





cw


----------



## MudDucker (Feb 10, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> What have you to hide Jeff Young?
> these questions are new....and Just a relevant.
> 
> 
> ...



Man, you need to take a deep breath and put your aluminum foil liner back in your hat.


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

Sorry....

You want me to behave like a sheep?
 You want me to support more government control based on junk science?

really?

Jeff says it is a done deal...
You know what that means?

Jeff I was going to say you might give Clay a call right now...but then he might ask you to hush... and he sure doesn't like this attention.
If it were legit, he should relish it.

cw


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

He told you to hush didn't he....!!!!

cw


----------



## HOBO (Feb 10, 2009)

*MECHANICALDAWG*

How can you be so sure *SEAWEAVER* is "over-analyzing" the issue????

I'm curious how someone sitting in Walton County possibly stay better informed,,, and have a better feel for what is actually going on the coast,,,, especially more so than someone presently living on the Georgia coast,,,, and has all their life????

How could you possibly perceive that you know what "most Charter Captains want"?????  I've been a charter captain on this coast since 1964 (probably before you were born) and I can  assure you most of the charter captains do not want to see the Georgia redfish and trout limits being any more restrictive than they already are,,,,,,, especially without the science to support the need!!!!!  

I feel reasonably certain that you are now thinking,,,, "but giving redfish _*gamefish status*_ doesn't have anything to do with changing these limits"!!!!!  This is where I believe that you, and many other "in-landers" along with even some locals,,,, can't really see the forest for the trees.....  Getting on the band-wagon or following the pied piper just because something sounds good isn't always such a good thing.....

I agree with you 100%.....  The redfish is a perfect candidate,,,,, and deserves the *GAMEFISH* title,,,,, I'm mighty proud that it already being awarded the distinction of being the official *State Saltwater Fish*.....  

Now here comes the scary part;  Assuming the redfish is granted  _*gamefish status*_ by our legislators, Spud Woodward has already admitted that this elevated status could indeed allow the DNR increased leverage to possibly enact changes affecting the redfish limits, method of catch, commercial sales, slot sizes, etc....

By examining your profile I see that you live in Walton County.....  I assume that you must visit our coast regularly,,,, perhaps even have a second get-away home down here somewhere to spend your weekends......  How will you react if our DNR were to impose a redfish limit that would restrict you  to strictly catch-and-release????  To legaily  keep a redfish to cook on your grill you would have to purchase a $25.00 "redfish stamp"????  A two per day trout limit,,,,, but only during the months between September and November with the rest of the year being closed season????  Do you think that you would still be visiting the Coast as often and with as much anticipation?????

You like to mention what everyone else and his brother wants......  Please allow me to do a little generalizing  of my own.....  Generalizing that is easily substantiated as fact...  For the past several years everyone all up and down the Georgia Coast is saying how great our inshore fishing is.....  You can go to any forum that has a saltwater section and read the same thing.....  Can all these people be wrong???  

If you haven't already done so, I would like for you to read Spud Woodward's article in the most recent CCA "TIDES" publication.....  He  and his lovely wife, Chris (an editor for another outdoor magazine) are fishing with Greg Hildreth  (whose wife BTW, works under Spud at the DNR)....... 





> NOTE:  Greg is a good guide that migrated this way from Alabama some years back....  Greg is also one of the "group of three" heading up *REDFISH.ORG*....  It's hard for me to understand Greg's conservative position regarding this redfish issue....  Especially since in the past,,,, I've tried several times to gain his support  to help pursue legislative action  making the "inedible" tarpon a strictly "catch and release" species,,,,, however he remains 100% supportive of our current DNR "One kill per day per person tarpon limit"



Now getting back to Spud's article.....

This is a great article,  brilliantly written,,,, and covering one of my favorite subjects,,,,, Sight fishing for redfish along the Georgia Coast....  





> NOTE:So far we are only into this  year just one month and 10 days and I have already been able to enjoy this style of fishing 11 times,,,, and yes,,,releasing 100% of my catch....


  Just a few paragraphs into the article Spud quotes Hildreth as saying "This is as good as it gets" (This doesn't sound like a shortage of redfish to me,,,,, quite the contrary,,,, it sounds like an abundance of fish to me.......)   In almost the same breath Spud quotes Hildreth again  this time saying "I'm afraid the creel limit is too liberal".........   How do you suppose Hildreth thinks all those Redfish he is seeing and catching ever survived and got there???????   Everyone needs to read the article,,,,, and if it paints a picture of the Georgia DNR having a "neutral" position,,, which Spud claims,,,, regarding  the up-coming regulation changes then I'm afraid that you are very gullible and naive....  

The same goes for the GA CCA....  They are not neutral!!!!  After all, this was their article,,,,, in their publication.....  Sometime back another individual guide from St Simons was quoted in the same publication regarding his desire to have the limit lowered.....  I know this guide also,,,, he's a good guide, a good person, and also VERY angry because someone else was also working the same school of redfish behind Sea Island and this other person was keeping some of his catch for the grill......  Was this greed on the part of the complaining guide or is he genuinely concerned about the redfish stock (even though all evidence points to an increasing abundance of redfish)????.....  Only the guide can truthfully answer this,,,,, but I have my suspicions!!

Have you ever seen any articles in the *CCA TIDES* publication about how well the inshore fishery is currently thriving along the entire Georgia Coast???  ........ Any articles regarding how everyone is and has been  enjoying abundant catches as being reported in newspapers and as perpetual topics of conservation in all the local forums with saltwater inshore fishing headings????   *I THINK NOT*!!!!!  ...... ever wonder why?????  I would be more than glad to submit such an article with nothing but the well documented  factual information!!!!  Do you think they would print it????  ........ Again,,,,*I THINK NOT*!!!! 

Believe it or not,,,,, I am neutral regarding the position of the much heralded and anticipated legislative changes to Georgia's saltwater fish regulations......  If there is scientific evidence of a need for change then I'm all for it!!!!  If there is scientific evidence that the trout and redfish population is growing with our current limits  and regulations (which it is),,,,then lets keep these same rules and regulations just as they are now ( I bet you probably thought that I was going to suggest increasing the allowable catch, didn't you)......  This will be our "insurance policy" that Georgia can and will stay ahead of the game allowing for,,,,, not only the  increased fishing pressure as our population grows,,,, but allow for a cushion in the event of a natural disaster such as a severe cold spell which could kill thousands of trout and redfish, which I've seen happen several times in my lifetime.......

So far,,, it appears that *Seaweaver* is about the only one participating in this thread that has entered anything factual......  He's asked some pretty good questions and I can't understand why he can't get some answers.....

Go figure?????

----------<" ){{{{{*><


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

Thank you sir!

Greg Hildreth (whose wife BTW, works under Spud at the DNR)

Wow...there goes the neutrality.
If I were a Director....



I called Rep Bob Lane's office today as he is Chairman Game, Fish, & Parks and spoke to his staff who was not too pleased at the efforts of these groups especially that non Georgians were participating in the affairs of Georgians. She took down what details I had and said she would get Mr/ Lane back to me...but in the mean time would I be interested in speaking to Dan Foster the Director of Wildlife Resources...which I did and he said there was a great deal of pushes like this and that like this one so many are based on personal emotions and opinion rather than based in science.
He gave me some insights that I will be putting to paper.

Hobo I have too notice a good many in this thread(quiet now) are inland folk...And as I have posted here, perhaps they are used to paying an extra tax for Trout.


Another point an emailer from this board brought up (thanks to all) that the proponents of this idea love to say we have the most liberal creel limits....ON the East coast... In the Case of Louisiana they have a Very generous creel limit....:16 inches minimum total length. Five fish per person daily bag limit with not more than one exceeding 27 inches. Now...THERE is a ecosystem to compare ours to....Not Florida or the Carolinas...

I am Interested in Mr. Jeff Youngs conversations w/ Mr/ Mobley.
I and interested in what is said at these meetings they hold especially those for membership drives.
I am beginning to wonder about other people they have lobbying state representatives. 
If CCA is a non profit their books should be open.
I would be curious to know who they have working for them and where money is being spent as they seem to be very political.
This TIDES mag I have is slick and cost $$ to make.
I think there is a lot more collusion afoot than meets the eye.



cw


----------



## axetogrind (Feb 10, 2009)

Seaweaver, you alone have gave me more than ample reason to not trust CCA, and therefore, I will NEVER join that organization again, no matter what their cause is. SW it was good talking with you today. I am on the same side as you. There are simply too many LIBERAL Environuts, who have NO clue whatsoever, about their own lives, much less the business of others.  These Liberals, and that is what they are, see $$$$ signs in the name of conservation.  These people like Spud Woodward who draw a GA State salary should remain neutral in their research or be job hunting.  I am sick and tired of people using their positions of power to further their own agendas to make money off of. It is plain to see if CCA,REDfish.org, Spud Woodward, and such, can convince the useless politicians to reduce our catch & creel limits, it only menas they will receive more funding for FRUITLESS research, and maintain JOB SECURITY. 

 CCA GA is a joke and so are those pushing this effort, and I am an INLANDER too.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 10, 2009)

For the record I am in no way, shape, form or fashion a spokesman for CCA.

cw, no one spoke to me and told me to hush.

I spent the afternoon at the Capitol in committee meetings.
You guys are a mess.

BTW, redfish is a game fish.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 10, 2009)

BTW, y'all should use some industrial strength blue blocker.


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

Axe I didn't mean to leave the impression all inlanders don't get it!!!
My in box is filling with "inlanders" who recognize something is not right. You are not alone. 
cw


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

who wrote the bill?
what was the number?

cw


----------



## seabear2 (Feb 10, 2009)

edit


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

????????


where is the excitement Jeff?
http://www.ccaga.org/news.html


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

who wrote the bill?
what was the number?

Dan Foster said he had not heard  the news....

cw


----------



## seabear2 (Feb 10, 2009)

I do agree with  axe that it would be hard to rape the ocean fishing only a few times a year. I used my own measuring stick one time and it didnt work out to good


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 10, 2009)

cw, 

Excitement over what?

The best excitement I'm seeing is at you flailing the air about to have a stroke over a simple thing you can't seem to understand.

You are so puffed up over this it's beginning to be hilarious.

I think I'll leave you alone for a while & let you calm down a little.


----------



## seaweaver (Feb 10, 2009)

You got nothing Jeff
I asked you to be Honest.
You are failing.
It's ok.
It doesn't come easy for some.
I suppose that is why Clay Mobley, Hildreth,Wagner are dead silent.
cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 10, 2009)

WOW.

Terroristic threats posted on a public forum?

You are brilliant.


----------



## axetogrind (Feb 10, 2009)

seabear2 said:


> Axetogrind RIP 2/10/09



Tried to call you all evening. Where are you?


----------



## Dustin Pate (Feb 10, 2009)

Fellows I think some people need to re-read the rules if they value their time on this forum.


----------

