Again folks, if you understand the concept of a “bottleneck” and understand that recreational fishing is not always the bottleneck, then you will understand that if you only focus on size limits, you might miss the larger picture. Take gag grouper for instance. It’s scientifically proven that juvenile Gag grouper rely heavily on our estuaries for the first several months of their life cycle. It’s also proven that they rely heavily on oyster beds as their primary habitat. It has been said that oyster habitat has declined drastically world wide with SC actually being ahead of the curve at only a 50% decline. It’s also been said that the gag population has declined 50%. Let me ask you this… If we chopped down half of the Francis Marion Forest tomorrow and DNR reported a 50% reduction in the deer population a few years later in the surrounding area, would you blame hunters as the cause? That’s generally the issue with the way that the SAFMC is set up. It only works if fisherman are always the population bottleneck which we know this to not be true. Anyway, my point is this, if all we talk about are what size limits were years ago and what they are today, then we are showing that we too only think that fisherman are the only possible bottleneck. It’s very plausible in many cases that the size limits have ZERO effect on some species and that while we waste time deciding whether or not we need a 12" limit or a 13" limit, there are other, more effective things we can be doing.
Very good observation skinneej. Size limits are actually counterproductive for most fish that have quotas. Any honest biologist will tell you that it does not matter what size the fish are or when they are harvested as long as their quota is not exceeded. Habitat enhancement along with reductions in discards and discard mortality are the key to higher quotas. This is a big part of what we should focus on in the Visioning Project.
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:That is not true at all. 40 years ago bottom trawlers were dragging nets across areas like the red banks scooping up thousands of pounds a day in snapper, grouper. And when those were outlawed, people were setting bottom longlines with thousands of hooks, which are now currently outlawed.
Originally posted by Dockmanquote:
Originally posted by Gut WrenchThere is no Overfishing at this time…
compared to 40 years ago- everything is overfished
Also, the foreign fishing fleet accounted for about 90% of the harvest out of our domestic waters. Really it’s perceptions like yours based on only “gut feeling” without looking at the cold hard facts that get us to the current state…
Maybe in South Florida overfishing is still happening, but anyone with half an intelligent thought floating around in their head can look out across our back yard at the hundreds of thousand of acres of benthic habitat can see that the pressure just isn’t there like it used to be.
Really? no more pressure?
40 years ago most people were members of a single income family and couldn’t afford the 23’ to 25’ center console, and if they did have a boat it was probably a tri hull bowrider with an unreliable engine. .Nor did they have the safety net of sea tow and epirbs, or the efficiency of gps and maps unique lets not forget loran was for the rich.
no- they lo
quote:Can you show me where I used the words "no more pressure"? I said it ain't there like it used to be. Are you denying the existence of foreign fishing vessels, bottom longliners, and bottom trawlers? Check out your history. MSA was created BECAUSE OF the foreign fishing fleet. The SAFMC was first called into action because recreational fishermen saw the destruction to the ecosystem by bottom trawlers... You are the ONLY person that denies this. Heck, even the commercial crowd will tell you they beat the hell out of the resource back then. They won't even deny it! Even their fleet has been beaten into oblivion in these parts over the past decade and they will agree that the pressure isn't what it used to be.
Originally posted by DockmanReally? no more pressure?
40 years ago most people were members of a single income family and couldn’t afford the 23’ to 25’ center console, and if they did have a boat it was probably a tri hull bowrider with an unreliable engine. .Nor did they have the safety net of sea tow and epirbs, or the efficiency of gps and maps unique lets not forget loran was for the rich.no- they loaded down the 18’ renken with gas jugs, followed the clipper out to the ledge, dropped baits and drifted with the current until they started hauling fish, anchored up and wore them out.
today yall laugh at the anchored up tri hull whiting boats but those were the offshore boats of yesteryear.
remember this when you run to your gps SPOT and 5 boats are on it already- there is no pressure today- it’s all imaginary and just an unintelligent thought. thanks for the backhanded insult.
you ain’t all that you think you are.
Wake up!!! YOU remember that when you see 5 people catching their 1 gag, and ZERO red snapper per day… You do the math and tell me that 5 boats that
PS… I love these stories… “Heck 40 years ago when we didn’t have limits we WORE THEM OUT - filled our coolers to the top!!!” And then in the same breath, “You can’t catch anything today because of the people out there fishing”…
Wait, 40 years ago you kept everything and pummeled the resource into oblivion and blame it on the guys today who are not allowed to keep anything? Bolbie, is that you in there? I’ve seen that logic in action before…
That’s pretty equivalent to saying “Heck man, I’ve been a chain smoker my entire life, but I didn’t get lung cancer until I cut back to 1 cigarette a day!!! It must be this new brand!”
quote:I don't agree with that assessment. Size limits work great for many species. I said that they don't work for ALL species... I don't think that biologists will agree with you. Pretty much every one of them understands that the larger older fish are more important to "SPR" than young, immature fish in the case of many species (red snapper, grouper, etc). In fact, the entire argument for MPA's is based on that...
Originally posted by freefish7Very good observation skinneej. Size limits are actually counterproductive for most fish that have quotas. Any honest biologist will tell you that it does not matter what size the fish are or when they are harvested as long as their quota is not exceeded. Habitat enhancement along with reductions in discards and discard mortality are the key to higher quotas. This is a big part of what we should focus on in the Visioning Project.
And, that is NOT what I said anyway. I said if you ONLY FOCUS on size limits, then you are missing the bigger picture. I did not say that you should never focus on size limits. As in every problem in life, you should focus on the BOTTLENECK… It’s as SIMPLE AS THAT… Now, the hard part is determining what that bottleneck is.
Basically, the SAFMC is trying to build a house with only one tool, a hammer. I challenge anyone to build a meaningful wooden structure with only a hammer at your disposal (no saws, nails, levels, measuring devices, sandpaper, etc - ONLY a hammer). That is what is happening.
skinneej, why would we want to target nothing but the “more important” breeding stock rather than spreading the pressure more evenly across all sizes of fish? Is it to create tons of projected dead discards that are deducted from our quotas? Culling some smaller fish allows those that remain to mature faster with less competition. I am not saying we should target any one size of fish. We should just keep what is biting within our limits. We could all keep more fish without overfishing or wasting seafood.
quote:That's a great theory, but I want to see a survey showing that fishermen will pull anchor and quit fishing once they get their limit. I don't think that would happen. A law like that might work for something like warsaw, snowy, tilefish, etc, (primarily because the cohabitate less together than S\G species) but I am skeptical of any implications it would have on the snapper\grouper fishery. If I am sitting there fishing for triggers, black sea bass, grouper, red porgy, other porgies, vermillion, etc, you think that by letting me keep the first 5 black sea bass that I catch somehow that will stop me from culling more of them as I try to fill my bag on vermilion? I don't think so. Even if I was only fishing for BSB and caught 5 6" fish in the first hour, you don't think that I am going to throw them back looking for the big boys? I can promise you that it would NOT have any effect on my fishing habits, so there is 1 to count in your survey.
Originally posted by freefish7skinneej, why would we want to target nothing but the “more important” breeding stock rather than spreading the pressure more evenly across all sizes of fish? Is it to create tons of projected dead discards that are deducted from our quotas? Culling some smaller fish allows those that remain to mature faster with less competition. I am not saying we should target any one size of fish. We should just keep what is biting within our limits. We could all keep more fish without overfishing or wasting seafood.
Also, you can’t have it both ways. In one topic you preach on how letting us keep the first X fish will reduce this “dead discard pandemic” that the scientists envision in their head and then on another topic you want me to release fish using a special tool that eliminates dead discards altogether. For 1, I am not sold on the id
There will always be some unethical anglers who will highgrade. Size limits are little more than government mandated highgrading. Removing size limits would result in higher quotas and possession limits which should help ease the urge to highgrade. Regardless of the actual number of discards that die, we are stuck with the numbers fishery managers use for now. If fishery managers really think 45% of discarded gags die, they should try to avoid regulatory discards rather than creating more by arbitrarily increasing the size limit to twice what it initially was.
My goal is to limit how many fish we are forced to discard while making sure those that are released have the best chance of survival. Removing size limits on Amberjacks would result in a higher harvest of higher quality seafood. I would much rather eat a smaller clean Amberjack than a big wormy one. Food value and fecundity should be considered when discussing size limits. A large fish produces far more and healthier spawn than one just reaching maturity.
If 6" BSB are all you can catch, sure keep them if you will eat them. Many fishermen around jetties and other inshore structure would like to keep some of the smaller bass they catch. As long as the quota is not exceeded, the stock will not be overfished and more healthy breeders will be left in it.
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7There will always be some unethical anglers who will highgrade. Size limits are little more than government mandated highgrading. Removing size limits would result in higher quotas and possession limits which should help ease the urge to highgrade. Regardless of the actual number of discards that die, we are stuck with the numbers fishery managers use for now. If fishery managers really think 45% of discarded gags die, they should try to avoid regulatory discards rather than creating more by arbitrarily increasing the size limit to twice what it initially was.
My goal is to limit how many fish we are forced to discard while making sure those that are released have the best chance of survival. Removing size limits on Amberjacks would result in a higher harvest of higher quality seafood. I would much rather eat a smaller clean Amberjack than a big wormy one. Food value and fecundity should be considered when discussing size limits. A large fish produces far more and healthier spawn than one just reaching maturity.
If 6" BSB are all you can catch, sure keep them if you will eat them. Many fishermen around jetties and other inshore structure would like to keep some of the smaller bass they catch. As long as the quota is not exceeded, the stock will not be overfished and more healthy breeders will be left in it.
Woah, woah… Unethical? You are telling me that it would be unethical to hunt for trophy fish? Who’s ethics are we talking about, mine or yours? I think it’s unethical to throw things in your cooler before giving them a few chances to spawn and replace themselves…
Other than that, you basically told me that it’s a numbers game and we might have to play the scientists dirty little game even if it throws caution to the wind and hurts the population of
And again, you never answered my concern about sitting on a spot that had many different species (which is almost always the case in most bottom fishing scenarios). If 5 black sea bass are the first thing that I catch, do you expect them to understand that no more are allowed to bite my hook while I fish for vermilion? What happens to the BSB discards that happen while I am trying to fill by bag for vermilion AFTER I already filled my BSB limit? Do they suddenly not count anymore as discards? The point I am trying to make is that the law does NOTHING except ENSURE that people will kill small fish. If those fish go into my cooler, they are dead. If I release them, they have a chance.
Not to get too philosophical here, but let’s call out the logic as we see it… What you have is a proposition based on a number of ASSUMPTIONS that are chained together and DEPENDENT on each other… Let’s take a look:
<> You ASSUME that “Dead Discards” are a real issue
<> You ASSUME that “Dead Discards” are calculated appropriately
<> You ASSUME that quotas set are the correct quota to ensure overfishing has stopped
<> But that’s based on the fact that you ASSUMED you have an accurate depiction of the size of the population.
<> Next, you ASSUME that by removing a size limit that it will reduce dead discards (which will not)
<> Then, you ASSUME that if that is true, everyone will follow the rules
<> You also ASSUME that after the limit is reached, no more fishing will continue (that’s the only way to prevent more discards)
<> You ASSUME that this one size fits all model is the correct model for all species
<> You ASSUME that all species are equally affected by barotrauma
<> You ASSUME that barotrauma is the highest form of release mortality (I already showed you that this is not the case and that hook mortality was)
<> You ASSUME that there is no risk with this model and that by implementing it, it’s going to work
Don’t you see the problem here? These assumptions probably don’t even list them all, but pretty much if any of them are incorrect (with a few exceptions), then the ENTIRE PLAN FAILS… If your boss gave you a business problem and you presented this solution based on all of these assumptions, you would be fired. Honestly, who solves problems like this? I have always held to the belief that if you need the planets and stars to come in perfect alignment for a plan to work, it’s probably not the right plan!
I am not telling you it is unethical to hunt trophy fish. It is unethical to discard a dead fish from your cooler because you keep targeting the trophy after your limit is met. Target the trophy until your limit is met and go fish for something else.
I in no way told you we should throw caution to the wind even if it hurts the population. We should make the best use of our TACs rather than allocating tons of them to projected dead discards. TACs ensure overfishing does not occur and stocks remain healthy. Most size limits were put in place before quotas. We need to pick one or the other since they work against each other when both are in place. Quotas are not going away so maybe it is time to think about removing size limits or at least reverting back to science based size limits that are no longer than it takes for a species to breed once.
My goal is to limit how many fish we are forced to discard while making sure those that are released have the best chance of survival.
I think you are a good enough fisherman that you can avoid minnows most of the time. You can have more BIG fish if everyone is not targeting them and spreading the pressure across a range of sizes. Smaller fish turn into BIG fish quicker if they have less competition from a glut of runts truncating the stock.
The reality is we have to work with the numbers our fishery managers use while working to make those numbers better reflect reality.
Thank you for having this conversation. Far too many fishermen refuse to engage in a discussion with somebody they might not agree with on every issue.
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7I am not telling you it is unethical to hunt trophy fish. It is unethical to discard a dead fish from your cooler because you keep targeting the trophy after your limit is met.
Nobody is suggesting that. I have no problem releasing a small fish in hopes of getting a bigger one though. And that is the exact problem you are telling me that you are trying to solve. That’s the beauty of catch and release. I do it all the time and I never have a chain of floaters behind my boat. 1 or 2 maybe, but it’s nowhere near the 45% I keep hearing.
quote:
Target the trophy until your limit is met and go fish for something else.
Where? Again, almost every live bottom on our coast is habitat for co-mingled species. You really think I can run away from red porgies and Black Sea Bass and still catch vermilion?
quote:
I in no way told you we should throw caution to the wind even if it hurts the population. We should make the best use of our TACs rather than allocating tons of them to projected dead discards.
How can you not see that “dead discards” actually crate a buffer in the TAC which result in LESS dead fish? Isn’t that what you are arguing for? You want to keep more? You aren’t talking about for your aquarium I assume.
quote:
TACs ensure overfishing does not occur
Wow, you assume I assume a lot.
I never said you cannot release unwanted or illegal fish alive. I hope you try to release them so they have best chance of survival when you do. Some people are limited to where they can fish and want to keep what is biting that day.
Dead discards are an issue being used to push MPAs and Catch Shares whether you like it or not. Refusing to address this will result in more closed areas and privatizing of our public resources. I do not think dead discards or much of anything else is being calculated correctly at this point, but the numbers they come up with are the basis for the laws we must follow.
Do you really think I believe fish caught in 60’ suffer the same barotrauma as fish caught in 600’? You seem to be smarter than that. Of course different kinds of fish are impacted differently and different depths make a big difference.
I do want us to keep our entire TACs. We do not need projected dead discards to create a buffer. Do you support the 500,000+ pound Red Snapper dead discard buffer while we get to keep about 100,000 pounds? The only reason we get to keep any Red Snapper is because they removed the size limit.
Why do you think forcing everyone to target nothing but the breeding stock is the best way to manage a fishery? This goes against natural trends as small fish are far more abundant and preyed upon much more than larger fish with fewer numbers. We need to spread the pressure across all sizes of fish and leave plenty of breeders to replenish stocks.
I support state by state TACs and allowing stakeholders to decide how they want to manage them.
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7Wow, you assume I assume a lot.
These assumptions are what is present in the model you support.
quote:
I never said you cannot release unwanted or illegal fish alive. I hope you try to release them so they have best chance of survival when you do. Some people are limited to where they can fish and want to keep what is biting that day.
Do you even know what you are saying? You support a system where someone retains EVERYTHING they catch up until their limit and then “find somewhere else to fish”. You said that. Now, you said that you support me releasing anything that I want. Which way is it? Do you support a law that allows me to release fish, or a law that requires me to keep the first X that I catch?
quote:
Dead discards are an issue being used to push MPAs and Catch Shares whether you like it or not. Refusing to address this will result in more closed areas and privatizing of our public resources. I do not think dead discards or much of anything else is being calculated correctly at this point, but the numbers they come up with are the basis for the laws we must follow.
So maybe we change the laws.
quote:
Do you really think I believe fish caught in 60' suffer the same barotrauma as fish caught in 600'? You seem to be smarter than that. Of course d
Removing size limits does not require fishermen to keep every fish they catch. It just gives them the freedom to decide what size fish they want to eat. You make the point very well that removing size limits will not drastically shift effort to minnows. Most people will still want to target big breeders.
Do you think the fish in south Florida you say are killed as soon as they reach legal size are replenishing those stocks?
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7Removing size limits does not require fishermen to keep every fish they catch. It just gives them the freedom to decide what size fish they want to eat. You make the point very well that removing size limits will not drastically shift effort to minnows. Most people will still want to target big breeders.
But that is the whole point of how you eliminate “dead discards”. The concept of reducing “dead discards” by removing a size limit is based on one thing, that there will be less fish released. And it’s imperative that people STOP fishing once they hit that limit or they will keep releasing fish which will supposedly end up in more dead discards. So, the only way to logically eliminate dead discards is to eliminate releases. In that case, you guaranteed “dead” fish, and you cannot guarantee that people will stop fishing. I don’t think most will… Snowies, tiles, warsaw, deep species maybe. S\G, no way…
quote:
Do you think the fish in south Florida you say are killed as soon as they reach legal size are replenishing those stocks?
Yes, hogfish are very well understood in that area. I cannot remember the fisheries term (“growth overfishing” maybe?), but essentially when a fish hits legal size, it doesn’t make it long. This is the direct result of having an incredibly accessible fishery cross the path of a very high population of humans. We don’t have that in South Carolina. But, in the keys it’s very well understood and you can see it with your own eyes. These fish have actually adapted to breed earlier in their life in order to sustain the population. The size
I do not think we can totally eliminate dead discards, but we can drastically reduce them with a little education and peer pressure. We need to encourage fishermen to use the right bait in the right location to target the size and species of fish they want to catch. We need to encourage fishermen to keep less than trophy fish if it looks like they will die. We need to encourage fishermen to use barbless circle hooks that are easily removed without handling the fish very much. We need to encourage fishermen to use decent assist devices on illegal fish suffering from barotrauma. We need to coordinate efforts to show fishery managers that we are doing our part to reduce discard mortality so that can be reflected in stock assessments and allocations.
My mind is not closed to evidence something I do not generally support could work in some cases. A 12" size limit for a fish that can grow to be 30 pounds is not unreasonable. A 13" size limit for a fish like BSB that only grows to about 7 pounds with a goal of getting fishermen to keep less of them is not so reasonable. I could go along with going back to 8" on BSB, 10" on Vermilion and Silver Snapper, and 16" on shallow water grouper with a 10% by-catch allowance for undersized fish. What are your thoughts on that?
Thank you again for having this discussion. We need to find some common ground with those who are willing to be involved in the management process. We will be MUCH more effective if we stand united in saying how we want to see our fishery managed.
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7I do not think we can totally eliminate dead discards, but we can drastically reduce them with a little education and peer pressure. We need to encourage fishermen to use the right bait in the right location to target the size and species of fish they want to catch. We need to encourage fishermen to keep less than trophy fish if it looks like they will die
I think teaching people to catch more fish would be even worse. I would rather people who don’t know much about fishing to remain that way. I don’t mind teaching people on a 1:1 basis, but I don’t believe in the mass production of new people who will go out and rape and pillage the resource. It’s called “creating a monster”.
quote:
We need to encourage fishermen to use barbless circle hooks that are easily removed without handling the fish very much.
Nobody will do that. It’s so darn easy to use a de-hooking device and they are already the law. We need another law that nobody will pay attention to???
quote:
We need to encourage fishermen to use decent assist devices on illegal fish suffering from barotrauma
I showed you last time that most fishing mortality is NOT barotrauma for many species, but “hook mortality”…
quote:
We need to coordinate efforts to show fishery managers that we are doing our p