I say, “Hey Pew, put your money where your big mouth is!” PEW has like 4 BILLION dollars in the bank. If they want to create “safe havens”, then take out your checkbook and spend a few million bucks to create a network of projects like the “Charleston Deep Reef” (SC Memorial Reef), where you take barren sand and fill it full of structure. There is no need to take away existing areas.
Let’s be honest, with a 4 BILLION dollar account, any money spent on a project like that would be replaced by the interest on that account faster than Leda Dunmire could wipe her ass with environmentally sound toilet paper…
Wait, they will say that “artificial reefs don’t create habitat, only attract fish”… Uhhh, even if that were true (which it’s not), then they would be attracting all of the fish away from the evil fishermen, into their new safe haven, right? Can’t have it both ways PEW!
Interesting how PEW uses much of the language that Al Gore & co predicted that we would “likely” be under 6’ of water in DT Charleston, and that the time for argument is over. That we need collaboration. They throw out low percentage numbers on SH & Warsaw reproductive stock without any science about many fish there were back then. They use modifiers like - probable, Likely, could, and always leave their selves an “out” so that when their weak predictions do not come true they can save face. I contend that every amendment from the SAFMC has placed fishermen out of business and hurt communities and families. I have been on boats that have caught warsaws over 150 lbs - but no fisher ever got rich by catching warsaws. It takes so long to get one to the boat - time that could be more productively utilized. Also PEW skips right over the FACT that the large and older warsaws are all male. it doesn’t take many males to sustain a population - especially if their handsome like me!
If you will read the attachment to Skinneej’s post, you will find that Pew lists about 68 experts in their employ. The vast majority have joined Pew since 2006, and most of them have Masters Degrees or higher ($100,000 per year and up). The math on these employees alone says over $6,800,000 per year to testify against us.
If you will read the attachment to Skinneej’s post, you will find that Pew lists about 68 experts in their employ. The vast majority have joined Pew since 2006, and most of them have Masters Degrees or higher ($100,000 per year and up). The math on these employees alone says over $6,800,000 per year to testify against us.
Imagine what they could do with our artificial reef system with 6.8 million a year!!! (I think that was your point, just re-iterating)...
I calculate about 175-200 reef deployments with 6.8 million each year. That would equal what our DNR does in 15 years on their limited budget. That should put it into perspective.
PEW is not interested in working with fishermen. Their agenda is to end fishing. Think about it - Look at what has happened to the head boat industry. PEW & EDF will use their big bank accounts to purchase catch shares and to influence council members - Not to work with fishermen.
It is important to know our adversaries and their agendas. EDF wants catch shares while PEW wants area closures. The eco-charity Oceana wants to stop most fishing and turn our most productive fishing grounds into MPAs. Many fishermen unwittingly support Oceana financially by shopping at West Marine. Please think about asking Randy Repass and/or the local WM manager to stop funding Oceana.
Maybe the dozens of fishing organizations should work together to raise money through tournaments and other fundraisers to fund an artificial reef program. We as fishermen should take the lead in how our fisheries are managed rather than always reacting to the IUCN/NOAA/eco-charity agenda. We should not just chase distant goals as our adversaries advance their agenda. We should stand united behind positive solutions that solve problems in the short-term while also advancing long-term goals.
Here are a few examples of solutions we should support.
Manage quotas with appropriate possession limits to avoid extended closures that result in excessive regulatory discards.
Educate fishermen about the benefits of releasing illegal fish suffering from barotrauma with decent assist devices to greatly increase survival rates. One of the benefits will be that we will have higher quotas as less of our ABCs are allocated to dead discards.
Enhance existing MPAs and our fisheries as a whole with artificial reef habitat.
I believe that the eco charity’s want to close enough ledge to minimize fishing. This will cause a few things to happen - Seafood prices will be through the roof. More commercial fishers will go out of business.
If the likes of PEW and EDF get 75% of the ledge closed - do you really think they will be happy with this? Not a chance. They want it all.
Get the oil hot and lets cook up some Vietnamese swai
natureboy, your correct observations are exactly why it is so important for us to share this information with everyone we can while offering alternative solutions most open-minded people can understand and giving them easy ways to publicly show their support. There are enough people on sites like this to win this battle quickly. The sad thing is that so many fishermen are unwilling to have discussions or coordinate our efforts. Everyone wants to blame the SAFMC and eco-charities for the mismanagement of our fisheries when it is 99% of our fellow fishermen who are to blame for refusing to publicly support positive solutions. Look at the VMS battle, 333 public comments saying something similar stopped that attack despite the fact almost everyone thought it was a fata compli. We can do the same thing with MPAs and any other issue. Imagine the power we could wield if 1,000 fishermen and fishing organizations coordinated our efforts. United we stand, divided we fall.
I sent an email to the person given as a contact on PEW’s rebuttal of the Charleston Post article, asking them why they support the closures. They reference the SAFMC(of course that science is sound…NOT!!)and studies from 1987 and 1999. I asked how they can base a decision on science that’s more than 25 and 13 years old. I suggested they use some of that fat budget they have to create new habitat…we’ll see what the response is.
“Never argue with an idiot…he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”
Recently there have been many environmental groups proposing marine protected areas (MPA) that would close certain areas of the ocean to all fishing. In Florida, this could have an impact on where you are allowed to fish. These MPAs are meant to protect speckled hind and Warsaw grouper. The fact remains that we know very little about these two species, and neither have a stock assessment, which is required science when decisions about management are made.
With these facts, there are still groups who want to close more and more of the ocean for species that we know nothing about. In fact, if you stand against these MPAs, groups like the Pew Foundation will label you as someone who does not care about the health of the ocean or any of the creatures in it. These groups say that these two species are ?imperiled,? which means exposed to danger. These fish live in the open ocean, in water 150 to 700 feet deep; they are quite ?imperiled? on a daily basis without fishermen getting involved. Then Pew uses low percentage numbers to scare everyone into supporting these MPAs as well. They say things like, ?Only 5 percent of the fully reproductive stock remains.? This 5 percent number is based on fishery dependent data and is not a true indication of the health of the stocks.
We should stand against these MPAs in our region because once these areas are taken, they will never be given back. We do not know if these closed areas will offer any benefit to these species, as they swim where they please, and the fishermen of the South Atlantic region have been forced to their knees by overregulation. Enough is enough.
I talked with several fishery managers about possible alternatives to new MPAs at the SAFMC meeting in Charleston. Here is one that allows us to keep some Speckled Hind and Warsaw Grouper while collecting much-needed data. Please share your thoughts.
Get Incidental Take Permits for both species and require fishermen to tag and release them with decent assist devices. Require fishermen to keep any tagged fish we catch and report it before unloading.
I have learned that there are some solutions fishery managers are more likely to embrace than others. It is important to talk with the open-minded council members to learn what we should be pushing for and what has no chance of being implemented. I would strongly urge those of you in SC to talk with Mel Bell. Chris Conklin has expressed his opposition to MPAs and would also be a good one to talk with. It is easy to look at the council as a cold collective when it is made up of some good and not-so-good people. We need to work with the good ones and force the hand of the others by submitting sufficient public comments like we did with VMS.
freefish, can you set up a face to face meeting with the right people here in Charleston after work hours? I could make something like that. Historically we have all worked in silos, and I think that a step in the right direction would be to get a team together and make decisions as a unit and execute on the plan made via collaboration.
AMEN skinneej!!! Yes, I think it would be very helpful for a group of fishermen to meet with John Carmichael. Maybe we can get Mel Bell and Bob Mahood in on the discussion. The council will be doing a series of port meetings about MPAs this winter. I am going to try to make it to each meeting to try and coordinate efforts with fishermen from different areas. We are going to do a meeting like this in Wilmington during the December SAFMC meeting. I will see if we can schedule a similar meeting in Charleston after the official port meeting.
Here’s how you get your say. Call your local Congressman and or Senator and tell them you are applying for one of these positions.
Hopefully it’s not too late. You don’t have to be an expert to be appointed. In fact, they should have a seat or two for recreational anglers and even a seat or two for non-anglers.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council is soliciting applications for seats currently available on its advisory panels. Advisory panel members are appointed by the Council and serve for a three-year period, based on the frequency of meetings. Applications are being accepted for positions on the following Advisory Panels:
?Coral
?Habitat
?Information & Education
?King & Spanish Mackerel
?Law Enforcement
?Snapper Grouper
Read the full News Release for more information about the open seats and for obtaining an application.
Joe Zaborowski
New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council
Hoping to retire soon to SC!
jazman54, I have applied for a seat on the Snapper/Grouper AP and understand it is important to have good representation on the council. It is more important for fishermen to publicly stand united behind common-sense solutions so our fishery managers will implement them regardless of their own personal agendas. We the People can influence our public servants when enough of us coordinate our message and efforts. The bigger the issue, the more concerned citizens it takes to influence the outcome.