Crystal clear on the snapper-grouper Vision

Saltwater Offshore Discussion
1

This week, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council released the stakeholder comments it has received on the snapper-grouper Vision Project, a strategic plan that will have serious consequences for all snapper-grouper fishermen, dealers, wholesalers, and consumers.

The results are crystal clear: snapper-grouper stakeholders do not support job-killing catch share programs, expensive electronic vessel monitoring, and more no-fishing zones as ways to manage the fishery.

According to the stakeholder comments:

97% oppose catch shares
90% oppose use of closed fishing areas
94% oppose use of electronic vessel monitoring

Click here for a summary of the comments:
www.safmc.net/sites/default/files/meetings/pdf/Council/2015/09-2015/Visioning/2ndBB/Rev_Att2b_Visioning2015PublicInput_Management.pdf

My sincere thanks to all the fishery stakeholders who took the time to submit comments.

As you are aware, the SAFMC promised the Vision Project would be “stakeholder-driven,” so the big question as the SAFMC meets on Monday in Hilton Head, SC to consider the direction of the Vision Project is whether the fishery council will honor its promise or not.

It’s troubling that catch shares, electronic monitoring, and more no-fishing zones even made it this far in the Vision Project. The SAFMC conducted 26 “port meetings” last year that were supposed to seek stakeholder input into the project. These meetings produced overwhelming input from stakeholders, like you, that these management measures are vehemently opposed, and should not be in the project plan.

Plus, catch shares, electronic vessel monitoring, and more no-fishing zones are not required to maintain a sustainable snapper-grouper fishery.

Having a “vision” or long-term strategic plan for the management of the snapper-grouper fishery is a good idea, but the plan must be driven by stakeholders as promised, not special interest groups.

Th

2

Thanks for the update Tom and glad our comments were accepted and accurately recorded for public awareness

3

Great news! Looks like the public has spoken. Maybe it will sink in this time!

4

Thanks Tom, hopefully we can prevent unnecessary closures to large areas and blocks of time.

Thanks again.

5

It will be interesting to see how this gets spun by the core group of enviros on the council.

6
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej

Maybe it will sink in this time!

Do you really believe that or is it wishful thinking?

Mark
Pioneer 222 Sportfish Yamaha F300
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.

“Life’s tough…It’s even tougher if you’re stupid” John Wayne

7
quote:
Originally posted by saltydog235
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej

Maybe it will sink in this time!

Do you really believe that or is it wishful thinking?

No, it was meant to be read by someone on the council (who do read these reports)… Kind of like when your dad tells you not to do something and you do it anyway and get injured and then he says this to you…

That being said, they started talking about MPA’s (called “Marine Reserves” back then) in the early 90’s and were met with public hostility for the same EXACT reasons). I think that the kick in the balls back then de-railed things a bit. They had to re-group, lick their wounds and try something else for a while until it blew over… Hopefully this is the same kick in the balls that might achieve the same result, to push their plans back. At this point, you can take these results to ANY politician and if he can’t see his constituents speaking, then it’s time for re-election. I think that these numbers make for a very clear case in front of any judge who might be involved with this…

The real problem is this… There are literally a handful of members that have been preaching this same MPA thing since the 90’s. This is what happens when you have 20-30 years of no new ideas. They are still living in the past. They are not thinking, “Let’s look at new ideas”… They are thinking, “What’s the next slick move in our MPA plan”? They were making some progress… First it was “experimental MPA’s”, then it was “reconfiguring existing MPA’s”, then it was “special spawning zones”, next I expect that they try either a) more

8

Tongue in cheek, figured that was what it was.

Mark
Pioneer 222 Sportfish Yamaha F300
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.

“Life’s tough…It’s even tougher if you’re stupid” John Wayne

9

When stock assessments are done the council is very quick to over estimate dead discards, but there are no stock numbers from the thousands of square miles of closed(MPA) areas. They behave like the MPA’s don’t exist, yet they want more. The VMS method of enforcement could be done by one guy checking his computer every morning and mailing out the citations. There is a SC law on the books, passed by the GA and signed by Nookie that was used to shut down the Ridgeland SC motor home speed trap that states ''a citation must be delivered in person within an hour of the suspected violation" It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to extend this law to waterways !

10
quote:
Originally posted by natureboy

When stock assessments are done the council is very quick to over estimate dead discards, but there are no stock numbers from the thousands of square miles of closed(MPA) areas. They behave like the MPA’s don’t exist, yet they want more. The VMS method of enforcement could be done by one guy checking his computer every morning and mailing out the citations. There is a SC law on the books, passed by the GA and signed by Nookie that was used to shut down the Ridgeland SC motor home speed trap that states ''a citation must be delivered in person within an hour of the suspected violation" It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to extend this law to waterways !

That's a great thought!