# Address the Crisis



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 26, 2010)

Address the crisis

Fishing industry leaders petition administration to fix mismanagement

By Robert Montgomery
ESPNOutdoors.com

WASHINGTON — Concurrent with the Feb. 24 United We Fish rally, a coalition of fishing industry leaders called on the Obama administration to address "a crisis within the federal fisheries management system."

They elected not to join commercial and recreational anglers on the Capitol steps to protest the closure of fisheries prompted by the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. But they voiced their support for management relief in a letter to Jane Lubchenco, administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

"There is a great deal of frustration among recreational anglers, much of it attributable to an agency that doesn't have the data, the science, or the will to properly manage us," said Pay Murray of the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), a member of the coalition. 

"Recreational anglers have always been willing to do what is right to maintain healthy marine resources, but it is hard to have faith in many of the management measures we are seeing out of NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) right now. There is a better path than the one they are on now."

Along with CCA, five other organizations sent the three-page letter to NOAA, parent agency for management of ocean fisheries: American Sportfishing Association (ASA), The Billfish Foundation, The Center for Coastal Conservation, International Game Fish Association, and National Marine Manufacturers Association.

"Following decades of inadequate data collection, stock monitoring, and assessment, we believe that the recent closure of the South Atlantic red snapper fishery and the proposed closure of more than 12,000 square miles to all fishing from 98 feet to 300 feet, is the tipping point of what we view as a fisheries management 'train wreck' that calls for immediate administrative and fiscal action," they said.

"At stake are more than 500,000 jobs that depend on recreational saltwater fishing and $250 million a year in excise tax and fishing license revenue, which provide substantial funding for coastal states' fisheries management programs and an outdoor recreational activity supported by 94 percent of the American public."

While RFA and other rally groups lobby for relief through legislation in the form of a "flexibility bill" that will allow for loosening of mandates, the coalition calls upon NOAA to take correction administrative action. Among its recommendations:

• Take decisive, immediate action to improve recreational fisheries data by redirecting existing funds and personnel to focus on real-time management data.

• Collect socio-economic data on recreational fishing in the communities most likely to be impacted by near term or expected fisheries closures.

• Provide federal level direction to the fishery management councils to use common-sense in their management approaches, while the administration collects the requisite data to make sound management decisions.

• Develop a recreational fishing program and staff within NMFS commensurate with the national economic contribution of recreational saltwater fishing.

• Create a multi-pronged program to promote and implement angler catch-and-release techniques that will reduce release mortality; improve fisheries conservation; and expand and improve ethical fishing practices.

• Develop a program within NMFS to assist in the restoration and enhancement of a fishery and its habitat, using techniques such as artificial reefs, hatchery operations, and other proven programs.

• Expand the required economic impact analysis of fishery management measures to include impacts on all associated industries, such as tackle shops, manufacturers, marinas, restaurants, and other affected businesses, and require fishery management councils to adjust management measures to mitigate for these impacts.

"We support healthy fisheries and good fishery management," concluded Mike Nussman of ASA. "It's good for anglers, our business, and our economy.

"We've developed common-sense administrative and appropriations proposals that address the need for timely, accurate data while preserving efforts to rebuild our marine fisheries. We see these as a starting point for actions that must be implemented to address the short- and long-term problems.

"Unfortunately, what we are seeing now is crisis management rather than fisheries management and this must stop before more jobs are lost and more of the nation's recreational anglers are unnecessarily shut out."

As a Senior Writer for ESPN/BASS Publications, Robert Montgomery has written about conservation, environment, and access issues for more than two decades.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 26, 2010)

NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release	

Sportfishing Industry and Partners Call on Administration to Make Major Marine Fisheries Management Changes
Immediate administrative action needed to avoid significant problems with fisheries management

WASHINGTON, D.C. – February 23, 2010 – Today, a coalition of marine recreational fishing, boating, and conservation organizations and businesses called on the Obama administration to take immediate action to address a crisis within the federal fisheries management system. In a letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), The Billfish Foundation (TBF), the Center for Coastal Conservation (CCC), the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), the International Game Fish Association (IGFA), and the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) laid out an initial framework to immediately address serious and escalating problems resulting from inadequate implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the chronic problems that exist within the federal marine fisheries management system.
The coalition emphasizes that there are available administrative actions that can be taken right away to address the concerns of the sportfishing and boating industries and the nation’s 13 million saltwater anglers who depend on well-managed, healthy marine fisheries. Read the full letter sent to Dr. Lubchenco here.
Given NOAA’s recent ban on recreational fishing for red snapper from North Carolina through Florida and the potential for additional bans on key recreational saltwater fisheries, much of the frustration that exists in the grassroots recreational fishing community over these management decisions has boiled over into organized protests including, one being held Wednesday, February 24, in Washington, D.C.

With today’s letter, the coalition called upon the administration to:
•	Take decisive, immediate action to improve recreational fisheries data by redirecting existing funds and personnel to focus on real-time management data.
•	Collect socio-economic data on recreational fishing in the communities most likely to be impacted by near-term or expected fisheries closures.
•	Provide federal level direction to the fishery management councils to use common-sense in their management approaches while the administration collects the requisite data to make sound management decisions.
•	Develop a recreational fishing program and staff within NMFS commensurate with the national economic contribution of recreational saltwater fishing. 

The coalition’s groups look forward to working closely with the Obama administration and NOAA to implement solutions to effectively deal with our nation’s marine fisheries resources.


Below are comments made today by the coalition’s group leaders:

American Sportfishing Association
Mike Nussman, President and CEO
“We support healthy fisheries and good fishery management. It's good for anglers, our business and our economy. We’ve developed common-sense administrative and appropriations proposals that address the need for timely, accurate data while preserving efforts to rebuild our marine fisheries. We see these as a starting point for actions that must be implemented to address the short and long term problems.” 

“Unfortunately, what we are seeing now is crisis management rather than fisheries management and this must stop before more jobs are lost and more of the nation’s recreational anglers are unnecessarily shut out.” 

The Billfish Foundation
Ellen Peel, President
“Stock assessments for recreationally important species have been a lower priority for NMFS than is justified by the economic contribution of the recreational fishing community. Recreational fishing accounts for only three percent of the marine finfish harvested by weight, yet it produces 56 percent of the jobs from all saltwater fisheries.”

The Center for Coastal Conservation
Jeff Angers, President
“The groups represented in this effort are demanding conservation-oriented measures that deliver the best possible opportunity not only for America’s anglers and the businesses that depend on them, but also for America’s marine resources to achieve their fullest potential. We expect to see the same commitment from NMFS. Their failure to do so has led to the current crisis of confidence and is threatening to bring the entire system to a standstill.”

The Coastal Conservation Association
Pat Murray, President
"There is a great deal of frustration among recreational anglers, much of it attributable to an agency that doesn't have the data, the science or the will to properly manage us. Recreational anglers have always been willing to do what is right to maintain healthy marine resources, but it is hard to have faith in many of the management measures we are seeing out of NMFS right now. There is a better path than the one they are on."

International Game Fish Association
Rob Kramer, President 
“We must deal with the unintended consequences of the 2006 Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization. We hope that our recommendations will help to get this agency, on which 13 million recreational saltwater anglers depend, back on track.”

National Marine Manufacturers Association
Thomas J. Dammrich, President
“NOAA Fisheries’ severe restrictions on recreational fishing are a direct result of the agency’s failure to collect important data on these fisheries, including the impacts of recreational fishing and boating. Unless NOAA takes quick and decisive action to improve its data and management of recreational fisheries, these large-scale closures will drive down boat sales and negatively impact U.S. marine industry jobs.”


----------



## Randy (Feb 26, 2010)

Somehow I think the health of the people will come before the health of the fish.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 26, 2010)

Randy said:


> Somehow I think the health of the people will come before the health of the fish.



The health AND well being of people are directly effected by the health of the fishery as well as access to it.

The Administration needs to pay attention to these things that they can actually correct.

They can't pass ObamaCare (PTL).


----------



## gtfisherman (Feb 26, 2010)

Agreed the health of both are tied together.


----------



## Nautical Son (Feb 27, 2010)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> *The health AND well being of people are directly effected by the health of the fishery as well as access to it.*
> 
> The Administration needs to pay attention to these things that they can actually correct.
> 
> They can't pass ObamaCare (PTL).



Please.....explain this to me. Or give me a gallon or so of that Koolaid...

Obama hasn't even been saltwater fishing I'd bet...even if he was actually raised in Hawaii....


----------



## Nautical Son (Feb 27, 2010)

Hmmm, the enlightenment silence is deafening in here.....
guess I asked for too good of an explanation....or was that calling a bluff?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 28, 2010)

TGattis said:


> Hmmm, the enlightenment silence is deafening in here.....
> guess I asked for too good of an explanation....or was that calling a bluff?



I'm just learning to be a better steward of my time. 

I haven't been the computer since you posted your question until now.

Do you really need someone to explain the correlation  between healthy, consumable fish stocks along with access to them and the health and economic prosperity of humans, or are you being rhetorical?

I really find it difficult to believe that you don't agree with my post.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 28, 2010)

TGattis said:


> Obama hasn't even been saltwater fishing I'd bet...even if he was actually raised in Hawaii....



I'd bet when he was a kid growing up in Indonesia he fished, probably with a seine. I've seen pictures of how they net them, dry 'em out on sheets of tin and then eat the little boogers, head and all.

(Maybe not)


----------



## Nautical Son (Feb 28, 2010)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> I'm just learning to be a better steward of my time.
> 
> I haven't been the computer since you posted your question until now.
> 
> ...





It's not that I disagree with your post in it's entireity....

If you are in support of the commercial crowd having an advantage over us mealy mouth little recreational guys by limiting the amount of fish we can take but doing nothing to limit the commercial slaughter of God only knows how many juvvie fish in the nets of those guys and their "bycatch"......yeah I disagree wholeheartedly...I say survival of the fitest not survival of the one who receives the most government funding at a cost to the taxpaying citizens.....if that makes any sense...


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 1, 2010)

I believe that if a fishery is 'declared' to be in trouble the first  step is to limit or shut down the primary cause of the that trouble.

Recreational fishermen are not wiping out the fishery. In fact the efforts of concerned recreational fisherman have caused an explosion in many fish stocks.

The first step in fixing any problem with erosion is stopping the source of the erosion. When water is washing away the farmers seed, he plows a trench to divert the water. When commercial nets and long lines erode a fishery they should be limited, restricted or stopped until the seed can produce and then, hopefully, regulate themselves.

I am squarely with recreational fishermen.


----------



## PaulD (Mar 1, 2010)

But you support the ban on snapper fishing for recreational anglers despite what you just said?


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 1, 2010)

"There is a great deal of frustration among recreational anglers, much of it attributable to an agency that doesn't have the data, the science, or the will to properly manage us," said Pay Murray of the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), a member of the coalition.


Oh the irony....



cw


----------



## Capt Hoop (Mar 1, 2010)

How can they regulate the fish stocks by the pounds of fish caught when we have proof that the average fish has quadrupled in weight since the scientific equasion first started. It now takes 1 fish to equal 4 of them in years past and there are hundreds more of them around.

WHAT SCIENCE?


----------



## Nautical Son (Mar 1, 2010)

PaulD said:


> But you support the ban on snapper fishing for recreational anglers despite what you just said?



I think the correct terminology for that type of political speech use is...talking out of both sides of ones mouth....

I gave the fish a break today and the rest of the week for that matter so my stewardship has been done for the month....


----------



## oldenred (Mar 1, 2010)

TGattis said:


> I think the correct terminology for that type of political speech use is...talking out of both sides of ones mouth....
> 
> I gave the fish a break today and the rest of the week for that matter so my stewardship has been done for the month....



only cause you was in the woods chasin them piggies..... hope ya did well btw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 2, 2010)

People are spending too much time trying to make assumptions and posting false accusations about me personally rather than focusing on, and discussing the topic.

The assumptions made and the accusations are incorrect.


----------



## wharfrat (Mar 2, 2010)

> _"The first step in fixing any problem with erosion is stopping the source of the erosion. "  Mdawg_


What is the source of the problem and what would be your solution or suggestions?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 2, 2010)

Again, the first step would be determining that there is erosion and then, if, you find there is erosion you stop the activity that is doing the most immediate damage.

Commercial does more harm to entire age structure of most fisheries while generating the least economic impact.

It seems obvious that is the reason these advocates for recreational fishermen and conservation organizations have joined forces in this effort.

That is not to say that I would never support restrictions on recreational fishermen given the evidence that it is necessary. However, I believe that limits and changes to the methods of applying those limits should always be used rather than completely shutting down a fishery.

For instance, perhaps changing limits to the first fish or multiple fish, as the case may be, caught be kept regardless of size may be a better idea than having a bunch of throw backs with a high mortality rate.

(Before anyone goes off half cocked, I'm not suggesting we need to to do that. It is merely an idea that has been floated.)

The pressing "crisis" we are facing is with the way the government administers the law and that is what is addressed in press release and article from ESPN and the reason for the thread.


----------



## wharfrat (Mar 2, 2010)

[_QUOTE=Mechanicaldawg;4694744]
That is not to say that I would never support restrictions on recreational fishermen given the evidence that it is necessary. _

would you support legislation that restricts rec fisherman while allowing "charter/headboats" to fish?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 2, 2010)

wharfrat said:


> Would you support legislation that restricts rec fisherman but allows provisions for "charter/headboats" ?



"Legislation"? Absolutely not.

Would I be opposed to using the expertise of charter boats to demonstrate to authorities, on a limited basis, what a fishery actual looks like in the field?

Of course not.

Nor would I be opposed to those charter Captains recooping the cost of that endeavor.


----------



## wharfrat (Mar 2, 2010)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> "Legislation"? Absolutely not.
> 
> Would I be opposed to using the expertise of charter boats to demonstrate to authorities, on a limited basis, what a fishery actual looks like in the field?
> 
> ...



Would this limited basis exclude rec fisherman, and if their was exclusion then wouldn't some sort of "written permission" have to be authorized?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 2, 2010)

It is not a matter of "excluding" any one or any group. Obviously, it has occurred and it was a valuable tool and asset in opening some eyes to the fact that the fishery is strong and growing.

We don't need to dance around the subject. The action and effort on behalf of recreational fishermen and charter Captains has been terribly mislabeled and the people who took the initiative to provide the service have been attacked and their action has been mis-characterized as 'selling out recreational fishermen'.

Fortunately, the circle of people who failed to understand the effort is small and shrinking.


----------



## wharfrat (Mar 2, 2010)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> It is not a matter of "excluding" any one or any group. Obviously, it has occurred and it was a valuable tool and asset in opening some eyes to the fact that the fishery is strong and growing.
> 
> We don't need to dance around the subject. The action and effort on behalf of recreational fishermen and charter Captains has been terribly mislabeled and the people who took the initiative to provide the service have been attacked and their action has been mis-characterized as 'selling out recreational fishermen'.
> 
> Fortunately, the circle of people who failed to understand the effort is small and shrinking.



First, I am not as savvy as many on this subject. I don't understand the "provide the service" part of this.
I don't understand the "effort" part either.

All I really wanted to know is there a movement within the safmc to allow some chaterboats to keep operating during the closure so safmc can get information, while the rec guys are not allowed to fish during this time, and do you as a CCA member and others envolved advocate this?


----------



## PaulD (Mar 2, 2010)

Wow, time out!!!! TIME OUT, Time out, time out, time out, time out!

enough dancing here. I see a lot of contradictions in past actions and current words from groups and representatives.

The CCA of Ga fully supported the SAMFC is closing snapper season and then provided them an out with 17 A and B. The only input that went into that was the self appointed "Geogia Grouper and Snapper council" composed of 2 of the states SAMFC members who voted FOR the closure, A representative of the CCA of Ga "Harry Lowe", who personally acknowledged that he doens't care really because he doens't bottom fish, only troll, Steve Amick, Judy Hemley, Zack Bowen (who works for Steve). These people were 100% responsible for 17 A and 17B. Which support the interrim ruling which would completely close areas of the Georgia coast between 90-300'. would reduce the limit of snapper to 1 per person. Would close the season for 6 months AND ALLOW IT TO BE CLOSED FOR AN INDEFINATELY LONGER PERIOD OF TIME IF THE SAMFC WANTED TOO, and also allowed for 10 special research catch permits to be handed to to selected head boats. This would include 2 for Ga, which would definately fall into the hands of Judy and Steve. That is what was tried to be done by the group! Let's not cloud the waters by what the national press is saying. LET'S LOOK OUT OUR STATE.

The numbers of people who know this are not shrinking, nor have I misrepresented anything.
This is another effort to cloud waters by a special interest group.

Yes there is an issue and yes it needs to get fixed but you need to look at the fact that if you send money to certian groups, yes that's what they want, that it may not be going towards what you think it is.

PERIOD!

It's also not a circle, it's agroup of real anglers, local and educated. 
There has been no assumptions and the data and information can recalled, from the board.


----------



## PaulD (Mar 2, 2010)

To the point, more studies need to be done and and evaluated before any action is taken. Like many have been asking the council to due. It has fallen on ears that don't want to hear it though and actions backed by interest groups have been taken regardless of the lack of valid studies. then articles like this get published which show the problem but little more than clouds waters. While the national CCA doesn't want the closer. THE STATE OF GA CCA BACKED IT AND OFFERED AN OUT TO THE COUNCIL RATHER THAN SUPPORTING THE RECREATIONAL ANGLERS IN FORCING THE COUNCIL TO CONDUCT MORE AND VALID DATA GATHERING AND INPUT.

IT'S JUST BEATING A DEAD HORSE NOW THOUGH. Things have passed, lawsuites filed and it's in our court system, teh last place it needed to be. There though we can thank ourselves for it because recreational anglers, ESPECIALLY IN OUR STATE, didn't come together to represent ourselves properly.
Now it's just fundrasing propaganda for people to try to raise more money for groups and pad their own pockets in doing so. What a shame.


Very good point made here! KEEP GOVERNMENT AND SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP POLITICS OUT OF FISHING! 

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=499692


----------



## wharfrat (Mar 2, 2010)

Paul D. thanx for the reply. Like I say,I don't know all the facts. Your info is somewhat alarming to say the least. I am still waiting for the comments of MDawg of the CCA to enlighten me as well as the rest of the concerned readers. As for those who do not think you have a dog in this fight, you are wrong. There are a lot of far reaching economic factors on this matter. The fishing industry and many other associated industries are at stake here whether you realize it or not.
And if what paul D. says is correct, how in the world could a few select boats provide accurate info on biomass. Could they possibly get good info from the limited amounts of places they fish? They would only be looking at a half a dozen spots they have been fishing for years. The spot could be loaded and fish not eat, or loaded and have a great catch. Or each spot may be low population with great catches so the report looks good, or their spots are unpopulated while others thrive. How can anyone be assured reporting is not skewed? Like I say, I am new to this, as far as regulation to a fishery goes. CCA and others please give us your take on this.


----------



## PaulD (Mar 2, 2010)

WF, buddy, I posted a long time ago the economic impact studies, where all the fish that were tested in the state came from, about 60 before the study was turned in and another in teh couple of months after the infor was turned in (kinda fishy). I'll try to look it up from my old thread.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Mar 2, 2010)

wharfrat said:


> Paul D. thanx for the reply. Like I say,I don't know all the facts. Your info is somewhat alarming to say the least. I am still waiting for the comments of MDawg of the CCA to enlighten me as well as the rest of the concerned readers. As for those who do not think you have a dog in this fight, you are wrong. There are a lot of far reaching economic factors on this matter. The fishing industry and many other associated industries are at stake here whether you realize it or not.
> And if what paul D. says is correct, how in the world could a few select boats provide accurate info on biomass. Could they possibly get good info from the limited amounts of places they fish? They would only be looking at a half a dozen spots they have been fishing for years. The spot could be loaded and fish not eat, or loaded and have a great catch. Or each spot may be low population with great catches so the report looks good, or their spots are unpopulated while others thrive. How can anyone be assured reporting is not skewed? Like I say, I am new to this, as far as regulation to a fishery goes. CCA and others please give us your take on this.



wharfrat,

I do not speak on behalf of CCA. I never have. I have no authority relative to CCA. I never have.

Please be clear about that. I'm just one of 100,000 plus members.

The concern about the few trips taken w/ SAMFC is a poot in a whirlwind.

The effort taken was a good deed and it served as an asset for recreational fishermen.

There is nothing sinister or personal about it nor was there anything that occurred that shafted or took anything away from recreational fishermen.


----------



## PaulD (Mar 2, 2010)

Here ya go WF!

If you look I included info on which link has the Economic impact studies for ya, and also the CCA of Ga related ones are on the top.

Enjoy, it's a lot of reading but it's a deep, long issue that can't be jumped on and understood in one day.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=398614&highlight=red+snapper

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=365916&highlight=red+snapper

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=346524&highlight=red+snapper

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=346911&highlight=red+snapper

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=336065&highlight=red+snapper

I think this one has the economic impact numbers in it for you.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=333344&highlight=red+snapper

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=417745&highlight=red+snapper

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=417746&highlight=red+snapper

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=411320&highlight=red+snapper

More:::

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=374994&highlight=red+snapper

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=372790&highlight=red+snapper

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=370115&highlight=red+snapper


----------



## wharfrat (Mar 2, 2010)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> wharfrat,
> 
> I do not speak on behalf of CCA. I never have. I have no authority relative to CCA. I never have.
> 
> ...



mdawg,

thanx for the info. I know of the CCA and have alot of respect for what they stand for. Fortunately for me, you are very informed on the snapper subject.

I am not aware of trips made by SAFMC. What does that envolve? Also, I think trips made by the SAFMC should be encouraged. I think members should have hands on information.

My concern was that headboats would be able to take recreational fisherman charter fishing for profit during the closure. This is the main question I have. I was not aware that any decision had already been made that allowed any headboats to fish for snapper carrying recreational paying customers. And yes, I do understand the reasoning behind allowing a monitoring system. Can you answer this, and feel free to post your take on the decision. EVERYBODY should have equal opportunity to express their thoughts on this. But it needs to be based on valid info that it seems you may have. Thanks for taking the time.


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Mar 2, 2010)

The bad thing about SAFMC trips is that they are totally at the mercy of the particular captain. For instance if a captain were trying to gain a favorable status, such as research vessel status, he could take them to a hole where nothing but 16'' fish were, instead of a hole where more mature fish were holed up. They could make it look like the big breeders were fewer in numbers than they actually were. No, the trips are not a good if only a certain few captains were the only ones taking the feds out. It needs to be done independent of those who helped author 17a and b.


----------



## brailediver (Mar 2, 2010)

Here is a link to the latest provisions to 17A.While it lists the preferred alternates, different ones can be chosen instead-
http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Meetings/Council/BriefingBook/Mar2010/SG/Att7Amend17A_02_16_10.pdf

Upon reading of the landings results, I find it hard to believe that most of the closure lies off of GA-

"Recreational snapper grouper harvest in the South Atlantic has been variable during the
period 2003-2008, averaging slightly above 11 million pounds (MP). On average, the
private/shore mode of fishing accounted for the largest harvests at around 7.62 MP. Well
below this harvest level are those of the charter mode at 1.92 MP and headboat at 1.63 MP. Harvests in each state also fluctuated during the same period. On average, Florida
accounted for most of the snapper grouper harvest in the South Atlantic at around 6.90
MP, followed by North Carolina at 2.21 MP, South Carolina at 1.51 MP, and lastly by
Georgia at 0.62 MP. Peak target trips for red snapper occurred in June-July."

Their preferred method of monitoring is fishery independent-
"Alternative 2 (Preferred) Establish fishery independent monitoring program to track
progress of red snapper. Sampling would include deployment of chevron traps, cameras,
and hook and line at randomly selected stations. (Report provided by SEFSC in March
2010 will provide additional details.)"

Commercial landings-
"The proportion of landings from Florida has increased from about 50% in 2002 to 80% in
2008 as landings increased in Florida and the combined landings from North Carolina,
South Carolina and Georgia declined."


How about this little gem-

"Due to very low headboat angler days for Georgia, entries for Georgia are combined with
those of Florida. For the period 2003-2008, total headboat angler days fluctuated around
the mean of 230,878 days. On average, Florida accounted for the largest number of
angler days (157,764), or about 68 percent of all headboat angler days. Nevertheless, the
numbers for South Carolina (47,524 days) and North Carolina (25,591 days) are far from
being negligible.."

While fishery independent monitoring is preferred, I would bet that charter/headboats will be allowed to fish while we sit at home!


----------



## brailediver (Mar 2, 2010)

Personally, I don't believe we will have to worry too much about these closures. There seems to be a push to get Catch Shares shoved up our.......down our throats.
 Watch the Snapper/Grouper committee meetings live tomorrow 3:30 to 5:30-

http://www.ustream.tv/user/SAFMC


----------



## Paymaster (Mar 2, 2010)

I have cleaned this thread up. Please keep unnecessary personal comments out,as this issue is important and I would hate to see the thread go away.


----------



## brailediver (Mar 2, 2010)

Look at where the most landings were. Grids 3080, 2980 & 2880.All off of FLA.
 Grid 3180 is off of GA & appears to run all of the way to the beach. Anybody ever caught a RS from shore?

http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Meetings/Council/BriefingBook/Mar2010/SG/Att7Amend17A_02_16_10.pdf

Page 52


----------



## Nautical Son (Mar 2, 2010)

brailediver said:


> Look at where the most landings were. Grids 3080, 2980 & 2880.All off of FLA.
> Grid 3180 is off of GA & appears to run all of the way to the beach. Anybody ever caught a RS from shore?
> 
> http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Meetings/Council/BriefingBook/Mar2010/SG/Att7Amend17A_02_16_10.pdf
> ...




You really don't want my answer do ya BD...


----------



## seaweaver (Mar 2, 2010)

Parker Phoenix said:


> The bad thing about SAFMC trips is that they are totally at the mercy of the particular captain. For instance if a captain were trying to gain a favorable status, such as research vessel status, he could take them to a hole where nothing but 16'' fish were, instead of a hole where more mature fish were holed up. They could make it look like the big breeders were fewer in numbers than they actually were. No, the trips are not a good if only a certain few captains were the only ones taking the feds out. It needs to be done independent of those who helped author 17a and b.



I know of two right here that have wiggled for research stat.
Science and political science have merged depending on the pocket affected.

cw


----------

