MPAs are only in place to give warm fuzzies to the enviro groups. When I was in service (US Navy QM2) it took 9 days to reach Great Europa point - The Rock - the entrance to the Med. We went through days of ocean covered with sargassum. All along the way we woke each AM to sweep flying fish off the decks. Vast schools of mahi tuna and everything else I’m sure that there are millions of square miles of ocean that have NEVER been fished . There’s the MPA. Its protected by distance and time and remoteness. That’s enough
skinneej, I get it more than you realize. The entire federal fishery management scheme is an exercise in the Delphi Technique. They do just as you described to manipulate and discourage us. Understanding this is the first step in solving the problem. We stopped VMS because enough of us stood united in opposition to it. Do you really think we cannot stop MPAs by doing the same thing? We just need to start coordinating our efforts and message to be MUCH more effective. We can run the council show IF enough of us will stand united.
Two Sons, the council is not requesting comments on RA17(MPAs) at this time, but we should start letting them know how we feel now.
sniper7, the next SAFMC meeting is next week. Here is the link to more info about it. http://www.safmc.net/Meetings/CouncilMeetings/September2013CouncilMeeting/tabid/795/Default.aspx
quote:But you are still attacking the symptoms and not the problem. You can only get fisherman to weigh in so many times before they burn out and stop showing support. You probably only get 2-3 times out of single person at most. If you expect 100 people to show up at every meeting from here until the end times, it won't happen. The MPA's have come up before with a good bit of resistance and they PASSED.
Originally posted by freefish7skinneej, I get it more than you realize. The entire federal fishery management scheme is an exercise in the Delphi Technique. They do just as you described to manipulate and discourage us. Understanding this is the first step in solving the problem. We stopped VMS because enough of us stood united in opposition to it. Do you really think we cannot stop MPAs by doing the same thing? We just need to start coordinating our efforts and message to be MUCH more effective. We can run the council show IF enough of us will stand united.
Two Sons, the council is not requesting comments on RA17(MPAs) at this time, but we should start letting them know how we feel now.
sniper7, the next SAFMC meeting is next week. Here is the link to more info about it. http://www.safmc.net/Meetings/CouncilMeetings/September2013CouncilMeeting/tabid/795/Default.aspx
I think that VMS was a special issue because pretty much everyone saw that as an infringement on our basic rights as Americans. You will find that people do not feel as strongly about MPA’s.
Again, there is only one solution. Get rid of the influencers. CUT OFF THE CANCER…
The MPA discussion (amendment 17)is scheduled for Wednesday,9/18, from 8:30am to 12 noon. There is an open and informal Q & A session with Crabtree and Cupka that same day at 5:30pm.
Here are several links to several LETTERS OF SUPPORT for MPAs.
Pew’s letter supporting MPAs http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=UEVMI34b17o%3D&tabid=797
http://www.safmc.net/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iqXuC52%2BfNE%3D&tabid=797
Sea Hunt 207CC,Yam 150
www.abfishcharters.com
skinneej, I see your point and agree that we are not going to get large turnouts at the meetings. How do you propose we get rid of the “cancer”? I say we take a stand that the council should not pass any more laws while we come up with solutions for properly managing our fisheries through the Visioning Project. All of the congressional hard deadlines have been met and there is no need to rush the passage of any more amendments. Commercial permit holders and state licensed recreational fishermen should have final approval of any management measures coming out of the Visioning Project with a 2/3 majority vote of participating permit/license holders in the affected fishery. We should also be allowed to pick who represents each sector on the council with a 2/3 majority vote of participating permit/license holders. We could also hold votes of no confidence that result in removal of council leadership and voting members that a 2/3 majority of us have no confidence in. What do you think of that idea? Please do share your ideas as well. We are on the same page and I appreciate your willingness to have a discussion. This is how we find solutions.
8:30 to noon…??..Wtf…?? People gotta work…
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7skinneej, I see your point and agree that we are not going to get large turnouts at the meetings. How do you propose we get rid of the “cancer”? I say we take a stand that the council should not pass any more laws while we come up with solutions for properly managing our fisheries through the Visioning Project. All of the congressional hard deadlines have been met and there is no need to rush the passage of any more amendments. Commercial permit holders and state licensed recreational fishermen should have final approval of any management measures coming out of the Visioning Project with a 2/3 majority vote of participating permit/license holders in the affected fishery. We should also be allowed to pick who represents each sector on the council with a 2/3 majority vote of participating permit/license holders. We could also hold votes of no confidence that result in removal of council leadership and voting members that a 2/3 majority of us have no confidence in. What do you think of that idea? Please do share your ideas as well. We are on the same page and I appreciate your willingness to have a discussion. This is how we find solutions.
Good concept. Wolf guarding the hen house is what they will say. They may be right…
I’ve carefully read the PEW letters to council. They refer to every flawed survey and guestimate they could find. Like all enviro alarmist documents they use words like “likely” “Could” “probable” “might” . We should all be mindful that these alarmist letters come from the same groups that 25 years ago predicted that global warming would raise sea level “up to” 10’ by now, and also predicted that climate change would cause crop failures and that would put the world into starvation. so much for the PEW and EDF predictions.
Courtland, the concept would work as long as we follow all MSA mandates. We should at least be able to pick who represents us on the council. We could make this work even if it was not legally binding simply by standing united and forcing the council’s collective hand. Our elected and unelected public servants will listen IF enough of us support or oppose the same issue. We the People just stopped World War 3 because enough Americans peacefully opposed bombing Syria. Our voice makes a difference when enough of us say the same thing.
This most certainly will be one of the hottest topics discussed at the SAFMC meeting this week here in Charleston!
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2013/09/14/3707528/south-atlantic-fishery-council.html
Does anybody think it is important for us to offer a solution to address the reason for these proposed MPAs? The reason is high mortality rates of released Warsaw Grouper and Speckled Hind which have a quota of 0 based on the lack of data to do stock assessments. If we just say no without offering a solution, some of NOAAs fellow IUCN members will sue to reinstate Amendment 17A’s suspended closure of all bottom seaward of 40 fathoms to 200 miles offshore from Virginia to Key West. If you have a better idea than the use of decent assist devices to achieve 90% survival rates, please share it. If not, please support the use of recompression gear like a SeaQualizer in your comments opposing new MPAs. Please also consider asking the council to mark existing MPAs with video camera equipped data buoys to prevent poaching and enhance those areas with artificial reef habitat before rushing to close more areas.
The best argument against MPA’s is the lack of need and the lack of any proof that the previous MPA’s have done any good. There is no reason to rush anything - its not like there’s some legal deadline to meet. Also, there is no proof that speckled hind or Warsaw grouper are in any danger. The only numbers the SAFMC has provided are their usual guesses… There is a lot of deep water out there - millions of square miles some of which would take days of travel to reach.
As natureboy says, there is no hard scientific evidence that MPA’s have any effect on the overall population of fish. These guys have boners for MPA’s. You can take a trip down to the HUGE MPA’s off of Key Largo and the upper keys. Sure, you will see a few resident black grouper around and a few huge red grouper, but it’s NOTHING like what they promise. I’ve taken people on this forum to see 50-70 mature gags on one dive and you would never see that on the MPA’s down there.
I think the thing I hate most about MPA’s is that they INCREASE fishing pressure on other areas outside of those MPA’s. I don’t think it’s possible to overfish with the regulations in place any more in SC, GA, and Northern Florida because of the weather and effort. Can you overfish in South Florida and the keys? Sure, I believe that 100%. It’s because the size limits are way too low (come on, 12 inches for a hogfish that probably reach 36 inches in length or more?), there are too many people, and the fishing is way too accessible. We don’t have that here.
Let’s take a look at one of my favorite fish for a moment, the gag grouper: http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S10DW08%20GOMtagdata.pdf?id=DOCUMENT
Notice, this isn’t some random paper. It’s straight from NOAA.
A relative high proportion (11%) of fish recovered has been recaptured multiple times, up to 10
times, which suggests a good survival rate for gag subjected to both the tagging process itself and hookingrelease procedures. These results contrast with the movement patterns observed from gag tagged and
released off the Atlantic coast reported by McGovern et al. (2005). In their study, of 3,876 gag releases and
435 recaptures, a larger proportion of fish (23%) moved over 185 km, primarily off the South Carolina
coast towards the south to be recaptured off the Florida east coast, the Florida Keys, and in Gulf of Mexico
waters. This difference in movement trends may partially be explained by differential behavior of fish
associated with size and a
Again folks, let’s look at where Greg Waugh and Cupka and the SSC really tipped their hand a bit early. Once you realize that THIS IS THE VISION and it’s the VISION they have had for TWENTY years, it will make a lot more sense to you…
Exhibit A: http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Newsletters/Winter10Update31110Revised.pdf
Check out this HUGE MPA that the council actually tried to recommend in 2010.
They wanted to shut down pretty much 80% of the bottom fishing grounds from SC to Florida. The idea is that if they can restrict access to large areas, then they can “tune” these areas in and out by shrinking or enlarging the boundaries later on. Instead of a species by species restriction, they want to adopt what they have in the Bahamas which is a general bag limit (X fish or Y pounds of fish per day no matter size or species). Of course, I mean in the SLIVER of fishing grounds left, not in the “no fishing zone”. But, they got a lot of public pressure that backed them down a bit… Then they revised…
Exhibit B: http://www.safmc.net/Portals/6/Newsletters/SA_UpdateSpring2010_FINAL.pdf
I believe that this is what they were REALLY shooting for. You know, the old “throw the high bid out and settle for something in the middle routine”.
Know that if Cupka, Waugh and DeVictor could pull this off, they would be immortals in the fisheries management book. It would kick off a precedence for the entire country and possibly the world. Ambition is a greedy *****…
It’s been their lifelong dream for 20+ years…
But, of course, we shot that down too…
So, what do you do if the public just won’t buy into that scheme? You chip away at it, little by little. You get a little sneakier and manipulative. You get a round of MPA’s one year and say that they are “experimental”. Then a few years later, even t
skinneej, you are once again right on all counts. You say we need to get rid of some fishery managers to stop MPAs. How do you propose we do that? Do you agree we need to offer a solution to address discard mortality of Warsaw Grouper and Speckled Hind so there is no need for these MPAs?
quote:We've argued discard mortality for years. They even use different discard mortality rates for fish in the Gulf vs fish in the South Atlantic for the same species. Again, if they truly cared about discard mortality rates, they might be open for discussion, but I don't think that they are. Even if you could PROVE to them that your tool had a 90% survival rate on released fish, they wouldn't give it a second look. They don't care. They want to change the paradigm of fisheries management. They want the HUGE MPA that I showed you in the picture.
Originally posted by freefish7skinneej, you are once again right on all counts. You say we need to get rid of some fishery managers to stop MPAs. How do you propose we do that? Do you agree we need to offer a solution to address discard mortality of Warsaw Grouper and Speckled Hind so there is no need for these MPAs?
I’m not sure about how to get rid of some of the longer term council members. I’m hoping we have some creative people that have a lot of strings to pull that stumble upon us. Maybe if there was a way to put term limits? The bottom line is that as long as Waugh and Cupka are involved, there will be MPA’s sneaking in under our doormat no matter what solution you come up with. Again, they could care less about survival rates, mortality rates, bag limits, etc. All they want is a large, adjustable MPA. PERIOD!!! Anything that goes against that philosophy will by tossed to the side.
how do we even begin to field the idea of separating NC & SC from Ga & Fl ?
.
NMFS = No More Fishing Season
“Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him”
quote:I suggested it years back and I believe we do get different quotas for each region. I don't know that it made that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
Originally posted by sellsfishhow do we even begin to field the idea of separating NC & SC from Ga & Fl ?
.
NMFS = No More Fishing Season
“Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him”
I’m guessing it’s because the SAFMC does not look at these regions as having independent fisheries. The TAC is still calculated on the entire SAFMC region and then just rationed out based on historical catch rates. They just give us less share probably based on historical catch data (i.e. Florida caught more fish in the past therefore they get a higher % of the overall quota). The net effect is that we don’t see much of a difference.
What we are really asking is for the SAFMC to place tighter regulations on Florida and more relaxed regulations on us. That would basically entail giving us a larger per person allocation and they will say that it violates MSA (which it may well indeed)…
skinneej, Lucky for us Waugh cannot vote. The council members I have talked to about using recompression gear to increase survival rates of deepwater species like Warsaw Grouper and Speckled Hind are very interested. We CAN convince enough council members not to create any new MPAs IF enough of us oppose the closures and support a reasonable alternative that solves the problem of high discard mortality rates for the two species with 0 ACLs.
sellsfish, the council’s Visioning Project is the place to start pushing for state by state quota allocations or a SC/NC and GA/FL split. We could force the council’s collective hand IF fishermen would coordinate our message and submit enough public comments. I am meeting with the NCDMF director today to discuss this and other fishery issues. We need to schedule a meeting of concerned fishermen after the comment period on Thursday to discuss how we want to fight for common-sense management of our fisheries.
quote:Whether or not he can vote makes ZERO difference. He is a primary INFLUENCER from the TOP to the BOTTOM. They are in control of the SSC and can give their "input" and "guidance" and... "experience" on ANYTHING that comes through the pipeline. He has everyone's ear from the new hire scientist all the way up to Roy Crabtree in NOAA. You don't need to vote when you can control what get's voted on. Man behind the curtain...
Originally posted by freefish7skinneej, Lucky for us Waugh cannot vote. The council members I have talked to about using recompression gear to increase survival rates of deepwater species like Warsaw Grouper and Speckled Hind are very interested. We CAN convince enough council members not to create any new MPAs IF enough of us oppose the closures and support a reasonable alternative that solves the problem of high discard mortality rates for the two species with 0 ACLs.
sellsfish, the council’s Visioning Project is the place to start pushing for state by state quota allocations or a SC/NC and GA/FL split. We could force the council’s collective hand IF fishermen would coordinate our message and submit enough public comments. I am meeting with the NCDMF director today to discuss this and other fishery issues. We need to schedule a meeting of concerned fishermen after the comment period on Thursday to discuss how we want to fight for common-sense management of our fisheries.
Example:
NewHire: Hey council, what do you guys think about this new release tool?
Senior Member: Well, there is no study on it. Sounds like a good idea, but we have no numbers to support it. However, there has been a lot of great work with MPA’s down in New Zealand. Things are looking great there. I’ll tell you what, when we can get some money together to test out this tool, then w