# CCA: Better way to manage fisheries



## brailediver (Jun 22, 2009)

http://www.joincca.org/eNewsletter/April 2009/Gulf Fisheries Data Discussion Document.pdf


Is there a better way to manage U.S. shared commercial and
recreational fisheries?
Coastal Conservation Association
April 10, 2009
We have a problem
We are all well aware that saltwater fisheries in the U.S. are under increasing pressure to
reduce harvests and bycatch mortality. Management responds by shortening seasons and
reducing quotas and bag limits. IFQ programs have demonstrated some success in
controlling commercial fisheries, but restrict access by the general public and necessitate
difficult allocation decisions. Discard mortality continues to be a major conservation
challenge. We are facing new, stricter control measures to assure that our annual catch
doesn't exceed the allowable level, and the recreational sector remains without an
accurate means of counting the fish we catch.
There must be a better - novel - approach to this situation. Presented here is an attempt to
offer a preliminary outline of new approach to management. This document is intended to
stimulate discussion and 'thinking outside the box' in an effort to define where we are
heading in response to these challenges. We recognize that many of the details needed to
finalize an approach such as this will necessarily be a product of the Council process.
A Free Market Based Approach to Managing Red Snapper And Other Marine
Fishes
A. Even the playing field and count the fish
i. Issue individual non-reusable tags for red snapper that would
account for the TAC.
ii. Place all of these tags, perhaps clumped into variable units of 10 to
100, up for public auction every year. Let anyone who so desires
to place their best bid and distribute to highest bidders - bidders
could be individuals, states or organizations.
iii. Those who buy tags can use them any way they desire - take the
fish home and eat it, give them as Christmas presents, sell them,
take their fish to a market and sell them. To ease enforcement, tags
would have to remain on each individual fish until it is finally
cooked and consumed either in a residence or at a restaurant -
every fish lying in a fish market would have to have the tag on it.
iv. Proceeds from the auction could be used to pay for program
administration, enforcement and research. This approach could
raise between $3 million and $15 million that could support state-


of-the-art population estimates using genetic technology that
would eliminate the need to use MRFSS in assessments.
v. To allow for an orderly distribution of tags, they could be
auctioned quarterly.
vi. Once the auction program has had a chance to establish a 'free
market' price for tags, they could simply be sold at that price -
state agencies, fishing clubs, tackle shops, fishing organizations
and seafood dealers could sell them.
B. Advantages of this approach:
i. It would eliminate all the current costs associated with red snapper
endorsements and the IFQ program and reduce enforcement costs.
The only thing dockside enforcement would need to do would be
check size limits and see that every fish had one of the (non-
reusable) tags on it.
ii. It would allow for an elimination of minimum-size limits and
reduce discards. We believe this approach would create an
incentive to use fishing tactics to target larger, older fish (why pay
for a 1 lb. fish when the cost for a 6 lb. fish is the same) that would
result in an actual reduction in fishing mortality.
iii. It would eliminate the need for closed seasons and size limits.
iv. It would provide an accurate and controllable means of assuring
that annual catch limits are not exceeded without the flaws of the
MRFSS, logbooks, or self-reporting of landings.
v. The revenue raised would be most useful from a conservation
perspective.
vi. It is simple and arguably the most fair and equitable approach.
Every one - anglers, commercial harvesters, seafood processors,
investors, and conservationists would have the same opportunity to
access the resource,
vii. There would be no need for allocation decisions and costly
economic analyses. The free market would allocate the resource,
viii. It would set a precedent for the future of managing mixed
recreational/commercial fisheries. This approach could be applied
to Gulf grouper and South Atlantic reef fish as well.
ix. It creates a strategy similar to recent proposals to create some sort
of "rights based" (SEP) allocation that would extend seamlessly
across sectors.
x. A major disadvantage of IFQ systems for commercial fisheries is
that they make it very difficult for new entrants, particularly young
entrants, into the fishery. This approach would allow any young
fisher to buy some tags and begin selling fish.

Potential disadvantages and problems of this approach:
i. Currently, law would probably not allow direct application of
collected fees to a red snapper conservation and management
program. We would have to be creative:
1. give the tags to the GCMFC to auction, administer the
program and send out funds to states and institutions for
use in research and enforcement under peer reviewed grant
program;
2. give up the revenues and make this a program where a
lottery is only used to distribute tags; or
3. seek changes in the law to permit this approach.
ii. Many may object to having to pay for accessing a common
property resource - even if this gives them the ability to control the
access to numbers offish and when they want to fish. Stressing
that the goal of this approach is for effective, fair and equitable
conservation would help to convince people to support this
approach.
iii. This is a significant departure from standard and comfortable
management approaches currently in use.
iv. Current IFQ holders would resist this effort. Perhaps this could be
countered by a means of phasing out existing quota shares using
funds collected from tag auctions.


 Guess this sums up their stand on this.


----------



## capt stan (Jun 22, 2009)

OHHHH sounds great, let the rich and major big business BUY all the tags and keep the "COMMON"people of the United States out of it in the name of "MONEY FOR CONSERVATION"  GIVE ME A BREAK CCA

Who actually supports these guys anymore, and WHY? This is the kind of attitude that pushed me out of the CCA several years ago.

I could/can see big chinese commercial fishing operations buying up the tags and fishing in our back yard while mom and pop can't go catch any... Yea, well heres the solution to anyone who would push to pass this law.....

Reading this has about ticked me off!


----------



## PaulD (Jun 22, 2009)

Hummmmm. Well, anyone suprised?


----------



## capt stan (Jun 23, 2009)

NO Paul, and I have seen this before, it just get me more fired up each time I get reminded of it.


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Jun 23, 2009)

No Waaaaaaaaaay. I have heard this  before. So it's fair for Joe the sheetrocker from Cochran to bid against Joe the Lawyer from Atlanta for red snapper tags. I don't think so. Not a good idea.


----------



## Limitless (Jun 23, 2009)

This caused a revolt and loss of membership when it was floated earlier this year.  And, it was basically disavowed by CCA as merely a "trial balloon" to "stimulate discussion".  My donkey!!

This is where they really stand, and they do not deserve financial or other support   If you're not a member - dont join!  If you are a member - quit; and write them and let them know why!


----------



## seaweaver (Jun 23, 2009)

DID I NOT SAY THEY WERE (wanting)MOVING TO TAGS?!?!

yesssssss a lottery


there is something to plan owning /maintaining a boat for...


But how accurate is the premise to begin w/?
_
We are all well aware that saltwater fisheries in the U.S. are under increasing pressure to
reduce harvests and bycatch mortality._

Any time a politician begins w/ ..."We can all Agree"  or in this case "we are all aware..."

...you need to check you ankles as you are already standing in the flow....

Who is putting the psi on  _saltwater fisheries in the U.S._ to: reduce harvests?

green wonks?
"Holier than thou" regulators angling for money ?

"To reduce harvests".....interesting choice of words.


cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jun 23, 2009)

Here is the lead in to the Discussion Document braildiver posted. I know that some of you are going to blast away and that is fine. I'm just putting the whole story out there so those who want to see the whole picture don't have to view through shaded lens:

Red Snapper Proposal Making Waves

Tag proposal for troubled red snapper fishery sparks healthy debate

An innovative proposal for managing the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery is making waves in the saltwater recreational angling community. The idea has been hailed by some as a fresh new approach to the federal red snapper management debacle in the Gulf, which has been a dismal failure for more than 30 years. It has been reviled by others who apparently don’t understand that the primary intent of the proposal was to challenge and change a failed management paradigm, and to demonstrate that there are alternatives to the same broken strategies that threaten continued recreational angler participation in the snapper fishery.

The tag proposal, which can be viewed HERE, is designed to spark debate on what to do with a fishery that has resisted improvement under every management regime since the mid-1980s. We face an unappealing landscape that spurred the need to move in a completely different direction on red snapper management. We need a system that allows recreational anglers to have fair and equal access to this fishery. And that won’t come easy.

The tag proposal takes a completely fresh approach to management of red snapper, one that is based wholly on the free-market system rather than an outdated sector allocation system. It relieves the federal government from managing recreational anglers, something that it has never shown itself capable of doing.

In the end, as it says in the document itself, the proposal is a “discussion document” - a concept for debate. The document describes some of the downsides and problems in the concept, but it has strategic value and is clearly meeting the goal of stimulating fresh thought. The introduction of this document has opened a debate at the Gulf Council for the first time ever on Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) programs that don't just give the resource to the commercial sector but could distribute it to everyone in an open-market forum. 

This tag proposal may not be the final approach to red snapper management, but it is the only proposal yet aired that could level the playing field on IFQs and give recreational fishermen a chance to access the 51 percent commercial allocation. Whatever the final approach may be, it is certain that no other management measure adopted by the Council and NMFS has worked for recreational anglers.


----------



## seaweaver (Jun 23, 2009)

_Proceeds from the auction could be used to pay for program
administration, enforcement and research. This approach could
raise between $3 million and $15 million that could support state-


of-the-art population estimates using genetic technology that
would eliminate the need to use MRFSS in assessments._


There is the money.....
Who wants some money?
Who can scream CRISIS the loudest?
Spud is that you?


----------



## seaweaver (Jun 23, 2009)

_The idea has been hailed by some as a fresh new approach to the federal red snapper management debacle in the Gulf, which has been a dismal failure for more than 30 years._


Q: how many time have the regs been changed (in the gulf) in the past 30y?
What is an acceptable (man derived) recovery time after a reg have changed?

Me thought the gulf boys were seeing improvements.....

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jun 23, 2009)

Hey guys, they asked for a discussion aimed at an attempt to solve the issues and gain access for recreational fishermen to more of the commercial quotas.

I know y'all are ticked at CCA for trying to assist in changing the failed methodology that currently exists but I have to wonder, do any of you actually have any ideas?

They are asking for discussion. Can you discuss your alternative ideas?

Perhaps you are happy with the current system?


----------



## d-a (Jun 23, 2009)

Maybe its time we all knew about RFA http://www.joinrfa.org/Index.asp
Mirrored after the NRA and lobbying for our fishing rights where needed; in congress.

d-a


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jun 23, 2009)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Hey guys, they asked for a discussion aimed at an attempt to solve the issues and gain access for recreational fishermen to more of the commercial quotas.
> 
> I* know y'all are ticked at CCA for trying to assist in changing the failed methodology that currently exists *but I have to wonder, do any of you actually have any ideas?
> 
> ...





Seems like the snapper fishing is better now than ever. Dont seem to have failed in the eyes of the average angler and guides. How has it failed?


----------



## seaweaver (Jun 23, 2009)

K-DAWG XB 2003 said:


> Seems like the snapper fishing is better now than ever. Dont seem to have failed in the eyes of the average angler and guildes. How has it failed?



Ding!
To follow a flawed premise is to validate it.
_Hey guys, they asked for a discussion aimed at an attempt to solve the issues_
And the data that reflects they need solving? 
And that (KD!) current law is FAILING
Enforcement Failure is another subject...

_and gain access for recreational fishermen to more of the commercial quotas._

The continuation of driving a wedge between Rec. and Commercial fishing is a tactic of divide and conquer.


Why have a conversation on solving anything when the threat is perceived by those who's interests are their own?

The conversation should be on the validity of the threat actually being in the public domain or specific to a Private  (but not for profit) Special interest group who refuses to release their books?


cw


----------



## grim (Jun 23, 2009)

I know many of you are passionately against CCA, but I cannot for the life of me determine what you are for.

Can someone please help me with this?


----------



## The Fever (Jun 23, 2009)

Ok i have done a fair amount of reading and I intend to raise ...... until i get answers, and i intend to email all the officials i can. I am starting with the regional DNR office asking for simple answers. from there i will work up the ladder... i suggest we do the same. These offices and elected state officials have teams set aside to analyze the amounts of complaints and what theme continues to repeat itself. if we raise enough noise they will notice...after all they have to be re-elected...I did the best i could with this email as i am very worked up about this issue....forgive any hostility i may have let sneak in there lol

Hello, 

I am a local of southeast georgia and I am 19 years old. I continue to hear of how the regulations on bottom fishing will be changed to where you will not be able to bottom fish after the year 2010 and that we are going to start a tag system for red snapper. I am no scientist and claim to have no evidence other than my own experiance. I am currently enrolled in the College of Coastal Georgia, and I would like to have a few questions answered. I have heard that the redfish limits will be lowered to 2 per person. Why is this? I have seen, caught, and released more than I have in years, adn my father of 48 years says the same thing. What reasons and what proof is there that we need change this? Second, why is bottom fishing being outlawed? Thirdly, why, when all the fishermen are so excited about the vast numbers of red snapper being caught, are we banning and or limiting them farther? I would like statistics that back up these theories. I read that a tagging system is being suggested for the harvest of red snapper. That these will be auctioned off to government agencies to then be distributed to the locals. All fish sold will have to have these tags, and all fish recreationally caught will have to have these tags. Now how much are we going to have to dish out to have a tag and how many will be left for the average joe, after the fishing industry gets ahold of them? Why, are we charging for them? Do we not give enough money in taxes to the government? IF there is a decline, reduce the number and INFORCE these rules. Put more of the tax money into the use of boats patrolling, helicopters to scan areas. Do not punish the average person. I eagerly wait your answer.

Sincerely,
Walter Lee


----------



## wmaybin (Jun 23, 2009)

Personally I am for accountability and solid science as opposed to random backcasts and estimations.  I am for the accountability of public or appointed represenatives.  I am for the conservation of our resources.  I am for the conservation of our God given rights.


----------



## capt stan (Jun 23, 2009)

wmaybin said:


> Personally I am for accountability and solid science as opposed to random backcasts and estimations.  I am for the accountability of public or appointed represenatives.  I am for the conservation of our resources.  I am for the conservation of our God given rights.



 You said that pretty darn good...!!


----------



## grim (Jun 23, 2009)

wmaybin said:


> Personally I am for accountability and solid science as opposed to random backcasts and estimations.  I am for the accountability of public or appointed represenatives.  I am for the conservation of our resources.  I am for the conservation of our God given rights.



Everyone is for that.

But what do you want to happen with the regs?


----------



## capt stan (Jun 23, 2009)

IMO unless they can prove there is something wrong with the fish population there is no reason for any regulation change.

Everyone can see the numbers that have been put up on all these threads...are they really accurate? I don't believe so from what I see being on the water alot and knowing a lot of folks on the water as well.Where are all these folks conducting these surveys at? No one ever sees them.

I am ALL FOR any reduction that needs to be put in place for the good of the fishery if it is PROVEN in a way that is justified with believeable science. Not the pile of numbers that are being used. I find them very inflated and to be honest just hard to believe. If those numbers can be proven...ok then. Just posting them on charts don't prove they are accurate. I stated earlier in a thread, show me the data that was collected...the ACTUAL NUMBERS, not the number after the majic math was applied....


----------



## PaulD (Jun 23, 2009)

grim said:


> Everyone is for that.




Actually, no they are not. I've seen several post on here by people that are for big government involvment in the fishery, support limiting public citizen access to natural resources though lottery systems and the sale of LAP's. 
If everyone were for those things we would not have special interest groups like the PEW trust, PETA, CCA, etc. that do not support those things.
Just an observation there.
As far as what people are for I think Mr. Maybin said it pretty good.
I don't think laws should be passed of off "science and statistics" that are well documented and even openly admited as being flawed. More accurate science, more angler invovlment, and less emotion.
I'm seeing way to many people invovled with all of this that have personal gains or are feeling pressured to make a decision where the science doens't support it.

How about the 4 times that I've brought up a stocking program rather than reduced creel limits and it seems those in favor of reductions do not want to touch that. Why?


----------



## wmaybin (Jun 23, 2009)

Grim, your question asked what we were for.  I told you what I am for.  If you want to know what I would like to see with the regs then here it is...

As I have stated before, if the resource is in harms way I am for what ever action is necessary.  However after personally discussing these issues one on one with both SAMFC members as well as members of the CCA I would like to have seen the powers that be take action when the shortage was initially implied, not wait to the last minute and enact drastic actions and blame it on legislation.  I also would like to see the powers that be understand the data upon which they base their actions and better able to explain their actions to the general public.  I am in favor of looking into angler education to reduce release mortality rates.  I am for research related to stocking programs.  I am for more angler involvement.


----------



## grim (Jun 23, 2009)

Its ironic, in FL, or more specifically the gulf, we have traveled a very similar road already with the snapper and grouper regs.  The big complaints here that I heard, was the disproportionate part of the catch given to commercial interests, and the use of old, unreliable data to make decisions.  My opinions matched Capt stan's previous post pretty closely.

Inshore fishing was left alone.

Now as far as CCA goes, I read their literature, reports and their magizine.  I have noticed that the CCA is almost always inclined to recommend a closure or a reduction creel limits.  They tend to be more pro-resource than pro-fisherman.  That troubles me some, but they are up front with it.  I dont see them as an enemy and they still do much for sport fishing, but I dont always see them as an ally either.  They are a diverse organization, with many representatives.  I would not be so quick to discount the entire organization.


----------



## wmaybin (Jun 23, 2009)

Grim, I agree, that is a very good point in regards to the CCA.


----------



## PaulD (Jun 23, 2009)

That's true and a good point about the CCA. No all States are supporting closures and tighter restrictions on red snapper. I know in Texas and other gulf states they aren't. I'm glad you brought that up, Grim!!! Very!!! However, I know that the Ga, Fl, and South Carolina chapters are because I have spoken to the reps at a state level. Here in Ga it is very disturbing at the approach they have taken to sway government officials in an effort to push the legislation they want into passing.

-There are just better organizations out there now that are more conservation of resources AND angling rights  than the CCA


----------



## capt stan (Jun 23, 2009)

I can agree with that as well


----------



## Limitless (Jun 23, 2009)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Here is the lead in to the Discussion Document braildiver posted. I know that some of you are going to blast away and that is fine. I'm just putting the whole story out there so those who want to see the whole picture don't have to view through shaded lens:
> 
> Red Snapper Proposal Making Waves
> 
> ...



It is unrealistically naive to believe that this CCA proposal crock is merely a “discussion document” meant to "spark debate".  Debate is fine; but proposals such as this are not proffered without an underlying agenda.  In this case to create the very Tag Program they propose.

As for a reason: did you notice the part that suggests that the Tags could be sold by a number of entities including the government, states, . . .  *fishing organizations*, etc.  Gee, how great if CCA could sell them for a little profit??  

Wake up boys!  Where are they?  Why don,t they rebut the concerns or explain their intentions.  You know they have to have intel about the attack they are deservedly under over this scam.

And finally as to this next-to-the-last sentence:  "This tag proposal may not be the final approach to red snapper management, but it is the only proposal yet aired that could level the playing field on IFQs and give recreational fishermen a chance to access the 51 percent commercial allocation.";  Well super, if you're really rich, you could compete with the commercials (including foreign interests) for TAGS!!!


----------



## jonkayak (Jun 23, 2009)

I would say that throwing out the proposal that the CCA threw out even if it was meant only to encourage talk and debate was ill planned at best and should reflect upon their leadership skills. There are several ways to encourage debate without stirring the pot. Maybe they should have put out a selection of ideas and ask people to vote on which one they feel would best fit the needs of conservation, commercial, and rec. angler. Or have people submit ideas for review and then pick the 10 best and then let people vote on them. But like most everyone and everything once your involved in politics the power and the need to tell people what to do takes 1st priority. 

If it goes to a tag system why would they sale the tags the highest bidder? Why not sale a set number with the fishing license like a deer tag were everyone get a set of tags for the year. Harvest (keep/kill) your set number and you are done? Why would they go that route, my guess would be someone would have to be in someone's pocket.


----------



## capt stan (Jun 24, 2009)

jonkayak said:


> If it goes to a tag system why would they sale the tags the highest bidder? Why not sale a set number with the fishing license like a deer tag were everyone get a set of tags for the year. Harvest (keep/kill) your set number and you are done? Why would they go that route, my guess would be someone would have to be in someone's pocket.



EXACTLY..because it's not really about the folks fishing and the resource..it's all about money, power and politics.

I remember well the CCA meetings..the more you could drink, the deeper your pockets were for the bidding and silent auction..the better you were in their eyes.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jun 24, 2009)

Red Snapper Rules: Pay to Play for Red Snapper

By Dan Olander

From Sport Fishing Magazine

May 21, 2009

 Managing red snapper recreationally by having anglers purchase a tag for each snapper he/she hopes to catch (within a total of allowable catch) - that's just nuts.

 Or is it?

 Recently an idea that the Coastal Conservation Association floated before the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council ended up floating itself right out into the public domain. The reaction, which has since died down a bit, was fast and furious.

 That's understandable. On its face the idea is radical and seemingly counterintuitive to the idea of a public resource. Of course, as with most things (and new ideas), there's more to the story than meets the eye. But putting aside how the idea may not be as totally off-the-wall as at first blush it seems, in fact it's really a small part of a much bigger issue.

 What CCA is apparently trying to do is not push any specific proposal into law but to start fishery managers thinking outside of the box. Even those most immediately critical of the CCA proposal must agree that management of species like red snapper, gag grouper, fluke and others needs to be different, because our management regime to date sure ain't been working! If it were working, we wouldn't be facing massive closures and restrictions that now threaten a huge economic industry and, of course, threaten to put a big damper on the sport that so many of us pursue passionately.

 And for that reason, I think the CCA should be more commended than condemned - that is, not for this proposal per se, but for trying to get top federal fisheries managers to start doing for recreational fisheries what its been doing for commercial fisheries.

 What do I mean? Just this. While many of us will be cooling our props at the dock because more and more seasons are closed to protect stocks the feds say are overfished, our brethren on the commercial side will be heading out throughout the year to fish.

 That's not because they're suddenly being given larger quotas. That's because they're suddenly being given new management strategies that work (and allocate) better.

 Particularly that's the case with ITQs and the like (individual transferable quotas) that allocate a share of the resource (red snapper or whatever it may be) to those holding quota shares. Who gets the shares is another matter and while it's engendered some controversy, the fact remains that it has by and large been working. And by and large, the commercial fishing community and environmentalists actually agree (go figure that) that it's a better way.

 That's not to say that ITQs are the answer for recreational fishing; they're not. Sport fishing is a very different situation from large commercial enterprises.

 But it is to say that something has to be the answer since, again, what we're doing now is not the answer.

 More to the point, I think, is that it's time for the government to step up to our plate as it's done for commercials and help! In fact, the National Marine Fisheries Service is making a big deal of the funds it's now directing to make commercial ITQs happen in many fisheries, notably at the moment in New England, where NOAA head Jane Lubchenco has pledged another $18.6 million at a meeting of fishery management councils. She sees it as a great opportunity to preserve "the industry."

 Don't get me wrong. I'm delighted to see solutions that help achieve management goals. But, Dr. Lubchenco: There's another industry that needs preserving and needs NOAA's help - one which in many fisheries consumes a relatively small amount of the resource while providing a relatively large economic boost to regional economies: recreational fishing.

 A longstanding criticism within the recreational-fishing community is that NOAA, within the Department of Commerce, was instituted to help develop commercial fishing and that orientation has never gone away. So far, I'd say we're seeing more evidence of that.

 Coming back, then, to the CCA proposal, there are actually means by which something along those lines might be workable, but it's very complex, would ultimately need much work and would probably never actually occur in anything like that "first draft" that the Gulf Council saw. More importantly, keep in mind that a major goal of any such proposals is ultimately to bring stability and opportunity to long-suffering anglers.

 So I'd urge all sport fishermen as well as the industry and groups associated with it to be a bit less quick to condemn new ideas and in fact to embrace the notion that new and innovative strategies must be proposed and considered with the assistance and resources from our fishery management officials in Washington - and hopefully soon. This sport and this industry need help.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jun 24, 2009)

Someone sent me a PM asking this question and I thought it would be a good question for the group:

What do you think about making it illegal to have snapper on menus?


----------



## PaulD (Jun 24, 2009)

The CCA is moon walking backwards faster than MJ ever thought of.  I've spoke to S.C. and Ga state reps about that topic and they were squirming really hard with it. It went from, "you got a better idea?" to,"You don't have a sense of humor?" to "You don't understand, it was done to get a reaction!" and that was in 30 minutes. I loved the fact that it all went back to the way it was publicly viewed and not what they believed. Complete horse hockey. That's all I'm saying about that.

As far as making it a game fish (illegal to sale) Ahhh, that's going to hurt the commercial fishery and goes back to Mrs. Shipman’s concept of dividing and conquering the fisherman. It would go right back to separating recreational anglers and commercial anglers and would weaken the collective efforts of both to work together and keep the fishery open. Not only that but you would still have snapper on menus. That snapper would be imported from Mexico and South America. The sale of fish from those fisheries would increase. Thus, pulling funds from domestic fisherman and sending them outside the country. It would also drive up the price of the imported fish. So why in theory it looks like a good idea it would weaken efforts in stopping the closure and would have a negative economic impact if people supported that idea.


----------



## brailediver (Jun 24, 2009)

Most of the snapper on menus are imported. The price & demand for domestic Snapper has waned over the years just like the demand for domestic shrimp. Low prices at the docks as well as high fuel prices & over regulation have put many people out of business. We stop harvest so more can be imported? I say stop importing aquacultured seafood & start investing in our own program.
 Catch shares & ITQ's are just another way to CONTROL. Not manage. Agenda based management never works the way it was intended. Soft money & lobbyists always corrupt the best intentions.Remember, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!" We need to stop bowing down to the whims of the UN & stop being "Big Brother" to the rest of the world.
 Organizations like the CCA are being pressured to express the opinions of their wealthiest contributors. Not the every day Joe. Our voice has been diminished by the power of money.
 Where is the CCA on over development of coastal areas & the building of new sewage treatment plants on coastal flood plains. How about Golf courses? Why are they not moved inland instead of adjacent to coastal estuaries so that toxic chemicals will not leach into salt water marshes? Because it has become fashionable to jump on the Fisheries managem....control band wagon. Contributions from Big enviro money will be more readily available if you adopt their itinerary. One World Economy has become the agenda these days, with the emphasis on less domestic production & more on imports from countries like China that poison us with mercury & melamine. Where were they when a mega marina was approved in south east GA.? 
 Our local CCA as well as the CRD & DNR are leading the way for groups like NOAA in the theft of our access to resources. 
 There are other ways to manage the domestic fishery other than shutting it down. These have been offered many times only to fall on deaf ears. Agenda based management. Groups like the FRA & RFA are able to organize us into a movement. CCA seems to be owned & manipulated by the highest contributor. Seldom do they buck government suggestion.I do not remember seeing CCA at the scoping meetings asking to examine this more thoroughly before jumping to conclusions. Instead they see-saw back & forth to say what we want to hear. They, & the government seem to have an octagon shaped, swiveling head. When approached by some one, they simply turn their head to expose the most appropriate face. Denny has been to the meetings & expressed the opinion of most recreational fishermen that I know. I will continue to support the organizations that best support my point of view & not the agenda of a few wealthy contributors.
 Look what happened to Federal Snapper/Grouper permits.In an effort to cut back on harvest, a moratorium was put in place on new permits. You would have to buy two to get one. I bought my first permit from a Florida resident for $3500. Now wealthy people are buying them up & the price is now $13,000 to $25,000 preventing the common man from entering the fishery. This is also how ITQ's & catch shares will play out. Pew & others will buy them up & harvest will stop! Chinese fishing boats will gobble up our fishery just like they have decimated their own.
 When wealthy citizens find out they can manipulate public policy & reward themselves great advantages, we are on the brink of collapse.
 This sport & industry does need our help. Help in getting the government more focused on larger problems & less sticking their noses in private enterprise. I already have a father. I do not need the UN, or our government to do it for my own good.


----------



## grim (Jun 24, 2009)

Florida sport fisherman tried in vain to get the regulators attention for years regarding how seine nets were destroying multiple fisheries.  We had to take it directly to the voters with a constitutional amendment to make it happen.  Red fish were a rarity 20 years ago.  They are back now.  

If you cannot get your rule makers to listen with what you are doing now, try a different tactic.


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jun 24, 2009)

brailediver said:


> Most of the snapper on menus are imported. The price & demand for domestic Snapper has waned over the years just like the demand for domestic shrimp. Low prices at the docks as well as high fuel prices & over regulation have put many people out of business. We stop harvest so more can be imported? I say stop importing aquacultured seafood & start investing in our own program.
> Catch shares & ITQ's are just another way to CONTROL. Not manage. Agenda based management never works the way it was intended. Soft money & lobbyists always corrupt the best intentions.Remember, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!" We need to stop bowing down to the whims of the UN & stop being "Big Brother" to the rest of the world.
> Organizations like the CCA are being pressured to express the opinions of their wealthiest contributors. Not the every day Joe. Our voice has been diminished by the power of money.
> Where is the CCA on over development of coastal areas & the building of new sewage treatment plants on coastal flood plains. How about Golf courses? Why are they not moved inland instead of adjacent to coastal estuaries so that toxic chemicals will not leach into salt water marshes? Because it has become fashionable to jump on the Fisheries managem....control band wagon. Contributions from Big enviro money will be more readily available if you adopt their itinerary. One World Economy has become the agenda these days, with the emphasis on less domestic production & more on imports from countries like China that poison us with mercury & melamine. Where were they when a mega marina was approved in south east GA.?
> ...




Excellent Post!!!!!!

Heres some cheers from the Nanner dude cause I like him.


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Jun 24, 2009)

PaulD said:


> The CCA is moon walking backwards faster than MJ ever thought of.  I've spoke to S.C. and Ga state reps about that topic and they were squirming really hard with it. It went from, "you got a better idea?" to,"You don't have a sense of humor?" to "You don't understand, it was done to get a reaction!" and that was in 30 minutes. I loved the fact that it all went back to the way it was publicly viewed and not what they believed. Complete horse hockey. That's all I'm saying about that.
> 
> As far as making it a game fish (illegal to sale) Ahhh, that's going to hurt the commercial fishery and goes back to Mrs. Shipman’s concept of dividing and conquering the fisherman. It would go right back to separating recreational anglers and commercial anglers and would weaken the collective efforts of both to work together and keep the fishery open. Not only that but you would still have snapper on menus. That snapper would be imported from Mexico and South America. The sale of fish from those fisheries would increase. Thus, pulling funds from domestic fisherman and sending them outside the country. It would also drive up the price of the imported fish. So why in theory it looks like a good idea it would weaken efforts in stopping the closure and would have a negative economic impact if people supported that idea.



Have you spoken to a commercial fisherman lately? I have. They place 100% of the blame on the recreational fisherman. The division is already there.

It's the same as in hunting, the "real hunters" say that high fence hunting should be banned. So now it's getting down to "real fishermen" vs whomever.

The botom line is basically we are all a bunch of cannibals whom feed off of each other in order to meet our own selfish needs. I do not fish for money nor do I have any desire to. For years I was an activist in hunting, but like Capt Stan the years of fighting wore me down, and took the enjoyment out of a sport I truly enjoyed. Now it has come to fishing, only much uglier.

I think that if  Big Brother beleives that fishing stocks are that low, commercial fishing should be the first to go. Why? It's simple, this resource is our resource, meaning the people, not big business, not big government, but we the people who pay the taxes that pay the bills in this great experiment called democracy. If you get big business out of the picture, if you get big government out of the picture, if you get lobbyist out of the picture,then maybe, just maybe, common sense will prevail.


----------



## MudDucker (Jun 24, 2009)

If that was really a "for discussion" piece, it was a pretty stupid piece and one that has damaged CCA.


----------



## wmaybin (Jun 24, 2009)

I might be wrong but the commercial guys that feel that way may have had some influence, according to the samfc data (here we go again) there are only 5 head boats off the coast of ga. They claim that the rec angler doesn't hold a candle to commercial. I posed the question to them asking if they really thought that only registred ga boats fished our waters and they just looked at me like I was stupid. Regardless, I agree with paul that the two groups MUST work together, we cannot afford to be turned against each other, that is exactly what some want.  if we cannot work together to fight this cause then we have failed ourselves.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jun 24, 2009)

MudDucker said:


> If that was really a "for discussion" piece, it was a pretty stupid piece and one that has damaged CCA.



An undeniable truth.

However, it did start one heck of a discussion!


----------



## K-DAWG XB 2003 (Jun 24, 2009)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Red Snapper Rules: Pay to Play for Red Snapper
> 
> By Dan Olander
> 
> ...




Do you feel like this is a good idea? Not creating ideas but, what it said. Do you agree with the article?


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Jun 24, 2009)

K-Dawg,

I do agree with the primary premise of the article which is this:

".......I think the CCA should be more commended than condemned - that is, not for this proposal per se, but for trying to get top federal fisheries managers to start doing for recreational fisheries what its been doing for commercial fisheries."

I don't know the answer to the situation and have never, ever said that I do. I'm simply trying to better understand the crux and depth of the problem/issues. I've been trying to listen, read and understand without being overwhelmed by the emotional turmoil.

That isn't easy and, admittedly, I have not done a good job of avoiding enjoining the "personalities".

I'm just proud that, for the most part, even though it seems this thread started out as an attempt to simply bash CCA, we have actually had some decent input and discussion here relative to the issue of where we go in the future. 

I'm learning.

I think that somewhere between the ideas in the original CCA piece in this thread and "do nothing-it ain't broke" lies a real solution.

Now all we have to do is find the solution.

It's sort of like the sculptor who after chiseling a man from a block of marble was asked by an admiring patron "how do you do that?" responded that "It's really quite easy! You simply remove everything that doesn't look like a man!"


----------



## jonkayak (Jun 24, 2009)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Someone sent me a PM asking this question and I thought it would be a good question for the group:
> 
> What do you think about making it illegal to have snapper on menus?



If they make Snapper Illegal to be on a menu then in 10 years or less it will be grouper, then dolphin, then kingfish, then sea bass,  ext....  Thats not the solution, it's passing the buck. Like many have said we get a substantial portion of our fish from over seas anyways. The real question is, Is there truly a red snapper shortage? You have to go back to the root of were this all started and go from there.


----------



## seaweaver (Jun 24, 2009)

*Now as far as CCA goes, I read their literature, reports and their magizine. I have noticed that the CCA is almost always inclined to recommend a closure or a reduction creel limits. They tend to be more pro-resource than pro-fisherman. That troubles me some, but they are up front with it. I dont see them as an enemy and they still do much for sport fishing, but I dont always see them as an ally either. They are a diverse organization, with many representatives. I would not be so quick to discount the entire organization.*


I dont see them as an enemy.....
Not me. Not until they open their books so I can see where the money is going.
There is collusion between our CRD and Ga CCA and I have no doubt it exists in  other states...and on a Federal level.

_I would not be so quick to discount the entire organization_ No...just those that manipulate. Their ranks are full of well intentioned people who have yet to figure them out.
That is the consistent refrain from former members.

Open their books so we can see who is dangling money and who is jumping w/ their mouths open.

cw


----------



## PaulD (Jun 24, 2009)

I just thought about something ( remembered it actually) Didn't the CCA catch some flack in Texas after they proposed an unjustified change in creel and size limits on redfish, then after everyone got really angry at them they turned and said it was just to stir conversations and generate ideas?
I see something here and it smells really, really, really fishy (no pun intended) 

I'm seeing a lot of back peddling from the CCA and their supporters. That really shows that there is some hard core deception going on. 
I have respect for an organization or person that sticks by their guns right or wrong, but lies, back peddling, diversion and deception ain't gonna cut it. What are the lobbyist saying in our reps ears? I promise it hasn't changed or conflicted with their publications. They all know that they would discredit themselves by doing that.

Let's not stray from the original article here and what's going on.


----------



## capt stan (Jun 25, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> *Now as far as CCA They are a diverse organization, with many representatives. I would not be so quick to discount the entire organization.*
> 
> 
> I dont see them as an enemy.....
> ...



 VERY WELL PUT!!!


----------



## grim (Jun 25, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> *Not me. Not until they open their books so I can see where the money is going.
> There is collusion between our CRD and Ga CCA and I have no doubt it exists in  other states...and on a Federal level.
> 
> No...just those that manipulate. Their ranks are full of well intentioned people who have yet to figure them out.
> ...


*

Help me understand.  Please.

CCA is taking money from CRD to support the reduced red fish and trout creels?  Or are they giving money to CRD to have them support the reduced creels?

What are they doing?  Are they a shadow front for peta?  Are they the darth vader of the fishing world?  What is their possible goal that they can be so evil that they must be destroyed?

Again, I dont agree with everything they do, not close, but this is an organization of fisherman, staffed at many levels by fisherman.  Are they all in on the fix?  They all work for the man?  

Throw me a bone, help me understand where the venom in your posts is coming from.*


----------



## MudDucker (Jun 25, 2009)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> An undeniable truth.
> 
> However, it did start one heck of a discussion!



It did ... one heck of a discussion on how to kill the CCA.


----------



## seaweaver (Jun 26, 2009)

Grim,Rose colored glasses will make everything rosy.
Skepticism should be an integral part of being a citizen.
Skepticism. Interesting choice of words....venom.

I provided insight into this collusion in the Red Fish Scam threads.


Government should operate in the open right?
Not for Profits too....
when they are joined at the hip as they are....would you not look to see what is going on?

Thus...ask CCA for their books and see what you get.

I cannot put a direct finger on it...but CCA seems to be hung on themselves as "big shots" who can "guide".
Many of the upper ranks are big money, and big on catch and release. They have a network that generates money...what do you do w/it?
Buy land to create public boat ramps? no
A bridge pier? no
They use it to increase their influence by greasing the skids of the end regulators.
What can CCA of Ga point to where they have spent their money?
and aerator in that pond on Jekyll?


We have government regulators in financial crunch...
And we have Money generators expanding their membership...
they are working together...
They in two instances are pushing for regulation that is not warranted by data...you tell me what could be the motive?

My rose colored glasses no longer held any appeal when I learned of taxes, who creates them, and who instigates by their own self interest.

That is not venom, that is a healthy dose of adult skepticism.

cw


----------



## grim (Jun 26, 2009)

seaweaver said:


> Grim,Rose colored glasses will make everything rosy.
> Skepticism should be an integral part of being a citizen.
> Skepticism. Interesting choice of words....venom.
> 
> ...



So to summarize:

--CCA will not show you their books

--In your opinion, they are run by fat cats that are pro catch and release

--They havent built boat ramps or fishing piers

--You dont like taxes and in your opinion the fat cats are pocketing donations

--In your opinion they are pushing for regs not supported by valid data



Is that about right?

I am a skeptic at heart.  I am skeptical of CCA on a number of things, but your accusations have no back up either.  And I am not going to dig up a long dead thread to validate your accusations.


----------



## seaweaver (Jun 26, 2009)

Thats ok


call them 
ask what have they built in ga(or your state)
ask to see their books as is your right  of any NFP.
it's rather easy.
You have not to rely on me or anyone else.

cw


----------

