View the June 2010 issue of CCA’s e-newsletter “Lateral Lines” by clicking on the link below
Question for ya ccasc. Is there a specific reason the CCA did not sign and support(that I know or have heard of) the petition to the SAMFC, etc, urging them not to extend the red snapper ban?
Not trying to ruffle any feathers here whatsoever in any way shape or form, just a concerned fisherman here who dosen’t want his fishing rights uneedlessly taken away and I’m trying to make sense out of it all.
Russ B.
www.joinrfa.org
God is great, Beer is good, People are crazy
Russ,
No worries, and just for common knowledge, any and all CCA positions, comments, or actions affecting more than one state or a region such as 17A, are vetted through a rigorous process involving a committee of volunteers from several states; in this case from CCA state chapters in the South Atlantic including volunteers from South Carolina. The meetings and calls lead to the adoption of the position that was submitted by Chester Brewer, CCA’s National Government Relations Committee Chairman, in Orlando. To answer your question, CCA’s course of action on the issue had already been decided.
CCA Position on Amendment 17A to the SAFMC Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan South Atlantic Fishery Management Council Meeting Orlando, Florida June 7-11, 2010"At this point, CCA does not support the adoption of any of the proposed bottom closures in Amendment 17A. We do not believe it is reasonable to support any of the alternatives currently before this Council until the results of the assessment currently underway have been released and are fully analyzed. CCA has long called for additional review of the science before making any additional management changes for this fishery, and we commend the Council and NOAA Fisheries for the decision to conduct another full, benchmark assessment for South Atlantic red snapper. Re-examining the entire assessment, from the data used to a new review panel, provides a public forum for all concerns to be openly addressed. We believe this further review is necessary before any final action is taken.
We would like to draw special attention to the mention of the need for fishery independent surveys in this fishery. CCA views fishery independent data as critical to the establishment of a better assessment process that is not solely dependent on recreational and commercial catch for data. Many of the questions that were raised with the previous stock assessment would have been avoided through the use of fishery independent
Thank you for responding to my inquiry. I have perused the CCA’s site in search of a answer to my question over the last few days but to no avail really. I do realize that the CCA is against the closures but do not really understand the reasoning behind them not supporting the petition that was going around to be sent to the SAMFC. It seems that there are different orginizations basically supporting the same cause albeit in different ways. Is it counterproductive or not as productive in dealing with the govt. entities to have multiple groups oposing them or are, in your experience, we better off fighting them as a whole? Only real experience I have on this was out in WA state dealing with salmon fishery issues and the infamous “Boldt” decision years back, I was a member of a advisory panel representing rec. fishermen in WA state. I’m getting more and more concerned now about our local fisheries here in the SE and am going to be stepping it up a bit all I can to try to, as Cousteau so elequently said, “To protect what I love”. And I will try my best not to step on any toes intentionally or unintentionally! I just want what’s best for the continued sustainibility of our precious natural resources, which I think is most peoples goals as well.
Again, thank you for taking the time to respond to my inquiry.
Russ B.
www.joinrfa.org
God is great, Beer is good, People are crazy