Also, just for the record, there is only one way to settle this argument. Observation. No, I am not talking about VMS. I am talking about an intensive study where the feds pony up some money and pay for their boats to go out and actually do research (GASP! Oh the thought of that!!!). Meaning, they go out and try both scenarios and actually measure the total fishing mortality on a per species basis. They can fish as if they had an 8" limit on black seabass for 6 months and compare it to the results of a 13" limit for 6 months. In the software world, we call that “QA Testing”… Oh yeah, and they actually have to take a real captain with them with that has the goal on filling a “limit” with quality fish. I’m not talking about them anchoring up on the first ****ty patch reef that they find and bailing 6" fish all day long. That’s an unrealistic practice. I’m talking about a REAL SCENARIO and fish as if a recreational fisherman would.
Trying to get more people fishing seems to be the goal of almost every fishing magazine. I do not necessarily want to encourage more people to fish or teach them how to be more effective, just how to be more responsible.
I will talk to Ben Hartig, Roy Crabtree, and John Carmichael about getting a letter stating the dead discard allocations could be reduced if fishermen proved they are taking measures to improve survival rates.
The proper way to remove a barbed circle hook is to cut the line and pull that hook through the hole. Using a dehooker to remove barbed circle hooks can break the fishes jaw, especially fish like beeliners and triggers. Have you ever tried using a barbless circle hook?
I am not arguing your point that hooks kill more fish than barotrauma or trying to get fishermen to use decent assist devices on fish that can swim back down on their own. The less you handle a discarded fish the better chance it has of surviving.
We can move from smaller fish while some fishermen with limited range or fishing from land are stuck catching what is in the area they are working. Most of them would rather keep some smaller fish than nothing at all. It is important that we think about what is in more than only our best interest.
How would dead discards increase by giving fishermen the freedom to decide what size fish they want to eat? Arbitrarily high size limits have hurt consumers as most of the fish are too big to be served whole at restaurants.
What do you think about a recreational reef fish permit to collect better data on recreational landings?
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7Trying to get more people fishing seems to be the goal of almost every fishing magazine. I do not necessarily want to encourage more people to fish or teach them how to be more effective, just how to be more responsible.
I will talk to Ben Hartig, Roy Crabtree, and John Carmichael about getting a letter stating the dead discard allocations could be reduced if fishermen proved they are taking measures to improve survival rates.
No, I don’t want to see a letter that states they “could” be reduced. That is lip service. I want to see a letter that says if we implement “Plan X” that consists of “Steps A, B, C”, then discard mortality WILL drop by X% as represented in our TAC.
quote:
The proper way to remove a barbed circle hook is to cut the line and pull that hook through the hole. Using a dehooker to remove barbed circle hooks can break the fishes jaw, especially fish like beeliners and triggers. Have you ever tried using a barbless circle hook?
Oh brother. It’s not my job to think about what “could” happen. I can only tell you from my experience in literally catching THOUSANDS of bottom fish, that de-hooking tools are fine. I’m not going to give a fish a day at the spa with a “happy ending” to relieve stress before releasing him back into the wild.
quote:
I am not arguing your point that hooks kill more fish than barotrauma or trying to get fishermen to use decent assist devices on fish that can swim back down on their own. The less you handle a d
You make a good point about getting a letter that says if we implement “Plan X” that consists of “Steps A, B, C”, then discard mortality WILL drop by X% as represented in our TAC.
So you would not use a decent assist device on an illegal 20 pound Red Snapper suffering from barotrauma to give it the best chance of surviving? Would you discard a legal sized fish that was obviously going to die so you could keep a bigger one? Do you think our TACs and bag limits are set at the right levels? Would you be less likely to discard legal fish that are not trophies if you could keep more of them? Many anglers only get to fish a few times a year and want to keep more of the fish they catch. What is wrong with that as long as TACs are not exceeded?
A 10" or 11" fish is the perfect size to fry whole and fits on an average sized plate. How long do you think the whole imported flounder being served in so many restaurants are?
Each state could offer a reef fish stamp, permit, or whatever you want to call it with the recreational fishing licenses each state requires at very little additional cost. This would at least define the universe of anglers and provide contact info for surveys.
freefish7, we were told a few years ago that everyone had to have venting tools on the boat. It was made law and most of us ran out and spent money to purchase a kit to do this. I think I spent $35 for the venting\dehooker combo kit. Now we are told that new studies in the gulf show that not only does venting NOT help, but it might actually make things worse since it requires us to handle the fish more. So, now I am hearing that I need to go out and buy an unproven device for $50 that doesn’t have any science behind it suggesting that it will work. Do you see why I would not want to go through this again until someone can “show me the money”?
Would I discard a legal fish if I knew it was going to die? No, I would not. But that is the problem. For one, you don’t know if it will die. I have seen fish flop around on the surface for 10 minutes and finally give a good tail flip and on the way to the bottom. But again, that is an ethical thing, not an influencer of the dead discard calculation.
Let me show you a few scenarios (Let’s ASSUME “discard mortality” is 20%):
<1> CHOICE: I fish all day long, catch 100 fish and keep the largest 10. This means I released 90. harvest=10, discard mortality=18; total mortality: 28
<2> CHOICE: You fish all day long, catch 100 fish and keep the smallest 10. This means YOU released 90. harvest=10, discard mortality=18; total mortality: 28
<3> FIRST: I fish all day long, keep the first 10 fish that I catch and release the last 90. harvest=10, discard mortality=18; total mortality: 28
<4> FIRST: I fish, keep the first 10 fish that I encounter and then stop fishing. harvest=10, discard mortality=0; total mortality: 10
<5> DROP SIZE LIMIT, INCREASE TAC: I fish all day long, catch 100 fish, but now I am allowed to keep 17 and I release 83. harvest=17, discard mortality=17; total mortality: 34
Clearly you can see that there is only 1 scenario where total mortality drops <4>. Also, you can see that this is the only way yo
Most people realized poking holes in fish with dirty needles was not a great idea. I did not believe decent assist devices worked as well as studies prove they do until I did some research. Here is a link to some NOAA research. http://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=17814
I still think it is fine for fishermen to keep more of what they catch as long as TACs are not exceeded. I would much rather people eat more fish than for fishery managers to plan ahead for more seafood to be wasted.
You might not be upset if you can’t buy local seafood because you can catch your own. What about seafood consumers who access our public resources through markets and restaurants?
I can agree with tweaking TACs slowly and measuring results.
A statistical extrapolation could provide a fairly accurate number of state licensed recreational fishermen who fish for reef fish, but it would not provide any contact info. A random sample of 1,000 recreational fishermen is much less reliable than contacting 1,000 fishermen we know are targeting reef fish.
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7Most people realized poking holes in fish with dirty needles was not a great idea. I did not believe decent assist devices worked as well as studies prove they do until I did some research. Here is a link to some NOAA research. http://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=FRD&id=17814
Doesn’t matter what studies you and I accept. What will Roy Crabtree accept? Again, when I see it in writing, I will get excited.
quote:
I still think it is fine for fishermen to keep more of what they catch as long as TACs are not exceeded. I would much rather people eat more fish than for fishery managers to plan ahead for more seafood to be wasted.
Did you look at my options above? The scenario you are talking about is make believe. Tell me which option you are referring to please. I just showed you that mortality increases in your proposal meaning we reach the TAC much faster, meaning smaller limits or shorter seasons. Please tell me which one you are talking about from my list above or offer an alternative scenario that we can do the math on.
quote:
You might not be upset if you can't buy local seafood because you can catch your own. What about seafood consumers who access our public resources through markets and restaurants?
Another made up scenario. Most of our seafood does not come from the South Atlantic. It’s probably less than 10%. And again, are we talking about a shorta
From your limited options I would support this one. “<5> DROP SIZE LIMIT, INCREASE TAC: I fish all day long, catch 100 fish, but now I am allowed to keep 17 and I release 83. harvest=17, discard mortality=17; total mortality: 34” The increased TAC allows you to keep 7 more fish. I do not support forcing fishermen to only target one size fish as some of your other options suggest. A better option would be to keep the first 20 fish you catch regardless of size and then go target other fish while properly releasing any extras you accidentally catch. You should be able to move around and find a few trophies before catching 20 fish. You could even start targeting other fish once you have 15 and still allow yourself to keep 5 more you may encounter later. Most seasoned fishermen are smart enough not to keep fishing a spot full of runts or at least use a bigger bait to target bigger fish if that is what they want to eat.
I DO want to see more fish for all consumers whether they harvest it themselves or not. Fish are food and should be managed to feed as many people as possible without overfishing.
Size limits and TACs are two different things. Slowly dropping the size limit an inch or two and increasing the TAC as projected discards decrease while studying the impacts would be fine with me. I do not support something that would arbitrarily increase mandatory discards while decreasing TACs to plan ahead for this waste of our seafood. I can reluctantly go along with science-based size limits that are no longer than is required for a fish to breed once. Beyond that, it is just government mandated waste.
Why wouldn’t you want to survey the people who actually fish for the species you want to collect data on? I would prefer electronic reporting for recreational fishermen, but many people think few would comply and most of them would lie. I like to think better of my fellow fishermen than that.
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7From your limited options I would support this one. “<5> DROP SIZE LIMIT, INCREASE TAC: I fish all day long, catch 100 fish, but now I am allowed to keep 17 and I release 83. harvest=17, discard mortality=17; total mortality: 34” The increased TAC allows you to keep 7 more fish.
This is where you are not making the connection. They will NOT increase the TAC. The TAC is CONSTANT in this equation. Discards are a part of the TAC. In order to do this, they need to shorten the season. That is the part you are not understanding. Think about it. Do you honestly think you are getting “something for nothing”? I even showed you the math. Yes, you can keep more fish per trip, but each fish you take is deducted from the TAC. It means nothing other than your season is shorter. It’s no different than if they made the grouper limit 50 per day. They would just shorten the season to accommodate so we don’t go over the TAC.
quote:
I do not support forcing fishermen to only target one size fish as some of your other options suggest.
Only one of them forced you. That was where you keep your first 10 and stop fishing. That’s what you support. You just don’t understand what you are lobbying for.
quote:
A better option would be to keep the first 20 fish you catch regardless of size and then go target other fish while properly releasing any extras you accidentally catch. You should be able to move around and find a few trophies before catching 20 fish. You
sounds like skinneej and freefish7 need to get a room! j/k! 
quote:
Originally posted by IM4USCSo, on 2.9.14 a son is writing a paper…
And on 2.10.14 the paper is due tomorrow…
Nice planning…
Really dude… KMA!
I did make a mistake in my wording about TACs increasing. It is actually the quota that would increase as less of a TAC is allocated to projected dead discards.
John DID tell me dead discard allocations could be reduced IF we showed a decrease in discards and/or discard mortality rates. That is why I have been trying to get people to ask the SAFMC to reduce the dead discard allocation which is currently 108,218 pounds for gags based on the circle hook mandate that was put in place to reduce mortality since the last stock assessment.
TACs and size limits ARE two different things. Bag limits are the correct tool to use to extend seasons. Mandating more discards with arbitrarily high size limits is the wrong approach. Many quotas with size limits are not even being met because size limits are too high and bag limits are two low. Only half the recreational gag quota is being landed. A two fish limit or 16" size limit would allow that quota to be filled. A 30" size limit and 2 fish per boat is another option for not filling the quota if that is your goal.
Most state managed species do not have TACs so size and bag limits are the how they manage their fisheries. TACs are the way feds manage the fish they control and possession limits are the tools they use to ensure quotas are filled without exceeding them. They do not always use possession limits correctly and that is where we need to offer suggestions on how those limits should be adjusted.
Louisiana has a Red Snapper license that helped them determine NMFS landings where inflated by 400%. Florida is considering a reef fish license to collect better data. I am pushing for NC to do this as well.
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7I did make a mistake in my wording about TACs increasing. It is actually the quota that would increase as less of a TAC is allocated to projected dead discards.
No harm done.
quote:
John DID tell me dead discard allocations could be reduced IF we showed a decrease in discards and/or discard mortality rates. That is why I have been trying to get people to ask the SAFMC to reduce the dead discard allocation which is currently 108,218 pounds for gags based on the circle hook mandate that was put in place to reduce mortality since the last stock assessment.
Now THAT is a feasible option. I agree that it should be pursued.
quote:
TACs and size limits ARE two different things. Bag limits are the correct tool to use to extend seasons. Mandating more discards with arbitrarily high size limits is the wrong approach.
I don’t think that they are arbitrary (maybe in some cases). Many are set to allow the fish a chance to breed and replace itself before it is harvested. Again, size limits are the ONLY thing that has saved some species in South Florida. Even if the bag limit was 1 fish per person and the fishing season was 3 days, with no size limits many species would be wiped out in South Florida. One look at the impact of the lobster “mini season” should be enough to convince you of that. And again, size limits ARE RELATED to TAC. Obviously it affects the bag limit and the seas
I’ve been watching from the sidelines in through enjoyment of this thread. So many great points and wonderful ideas. I am all for the SC DNR’S method. The SC Red Drum story will never be reproduced by the SAFMC. The SAFMC has been so corrupted by special interest groups, and ruled by committee instead of impartial peer reviewed science. Wasn’t rule by committee, politics, and assumption coupled with poor science the way it was long ago determined that the earth was flat?
This is the kind of discussion more of us need to have if we are going to keep our freedom to fish and eat local seafood. It might not be easy and will be heated at times, but we need to find solutions most of us can agree on and stand united in our call for their implementation. We will have to agree to disagree on some issues. Here a few of the solutions skinneej and I seem to have agreed on during our discussion.
- State by state quotas.
- Allow fishermen to keep one undersized fish to limit dead discards.
- Adjust things slowly and measure results.
- Push for lower discard mortality allocations based on the circle hook mandate and other release techniques that improve survival rates.
- The way data is collected needs to be improved.
- Size limits can have some benefit for some species.
- Possession limits should be set at levels that fill quotas without exceeding them.
Do any of you who have been reading this from the sidelines agree or disagree with any of the ideas listed above? The Visioning Project provides us with an opportunity to push for some of these things to be implemented. If we do not offer any good solutions you can bet the NGOs will advance their agenda through this process.
Here are two more ideas I think we should discuss. Proposed laws being voted on by the council should have to pass with a 2/3 majority. Stakeholders should be allowed to pick who represents us on the regional councils with a 2/3 majority vote of participating permit/license holders.
skinneej, states could simply have a box you check on your recreational license saying you bottomfish in federal waters. It would not cost anything while helping to define the universe of anglers and provide contact info for surveys.
KMA from nut, too funny!
I’ve been watching this discussion sporadically for a while from the sidelines too and admit I haven’t read all of the posts. I’m going to throw in my 2 cent comment now.
I’m basically a freshwater fisherman so take this with a grain of salt. Here goes.
Most of the ideas listed above seem very good to me. However, I would hope that the SCDNR could be proactive to a larger degree, even if they do or don’t have jurisdiction. They should be able to identify bottom fishers, as mentioned above, and implement a detailed voluntary blind survey at very little expense. Said survey could be mailed out to identified bottom fishers yearly, quarterly or wharever, similar to the blind deer survey. (These surveys seem to be working well in for our deer population which seems to be doing well despite loss of habitat.) I think most guys would be more than happy to cooperate and mail them back.
Although not scientific because it would be on the “honor system”, I believe they would begin to get a much more accurate picture of what management steps may or may not be needed. No group should then be able to use “assumed” data compared to this actual volunteered data when making future decisions. What do you guys think?
Spoonmaster, thank you for the thoughtful post. Your understanding of how the data could be collected and used is spot on in my opinion. You are right about the states needing to take the lead even if NMFS tries to say it is not scientific enough for them. The feds have proven they cannot or will not conduct surveys that reflect timely and accurate data about what fishermen are seeing on the water.
i didnt read thru all of this but i did a global overfishing paper my freshman year of college and still have it with cited sources if you would like to get some ideas/ paragraph structure from it? PM me and ill email it to you
2000 20’ Twin Vee
quote:
Originally posted by IM4USCKMA from nut, too funny!
Thanks to all, except IM4USC, just kidding. My son got a 96 on his paper!