Some people call it “wanton waste”. Some people call it “cut bait”. I guess it is a matter of perception. Why feed a frozen squid to a black sea bass when it makes perfectly good calamari? Most of the guys deep dropping out of West End are targeting barracudas so they can chop them up to drop to silk snappers. Is that “wanton waste” or “making bait”? Using blue crabs and eels for bait to target cobia or redfish??? Who get’s to decide what makes good bait and what is “wanton waste”? Just sayin…
quote:I didn't know there was a "win" or "lose" here. I thought we were just bouncing ideas off each other.
Originally posted by CourtlandI know that you like to debate and will do so like the energizer bunny. I will wave the white flag for the sake of continuing positive conversation.
quote:Some things in life that come too easy aren't worth the challenge...
Originally posted by CourtlandWe need to make it EASIER for people to fish and enjoy themselves. Not to see if Skinneej can fit the 30th c-bass on top of his 9th grouper.
Also, just for the record, this is the “good cop vs bad cop” routine used to push MPA’s… “Hey aren’t you guys getting tired of carrying a ‘bible of regulations’ offshore and being confused? Let’s just close off 60-80% of the ocean and leave that regulation bible at home! Wouldn’t that be ‘easier’???” “Oh yes, you are right Mr Waugh, we are all too dumb to measure black sea bass and look at a piece of paper explaining how many we can keep… Which end of the ruler do we use again??? Please take away the fishing grounds that I used to fish with my grandfather. We want the EASY button!!!”
I’ve got a better idea. Why doesn’t the federal government make 100 more “Area 51’s” each year off our coast on sandy bottom? Don’t publish the numbers, and don’t restrict them.
Just for the record, this is what happened in Alabama and off of Texas. In the 1800’s 2 million lbs of harvest crashed the red snapper stock to near extinction. Now because of all of the new habitat (thousands of oil rigs and 20K artificial reefs in Alabama), the current TAC is 11 MILLION pounds. That means there are at least 6 times as many red snapper in the gulf now than there was when the “virgin” stock was found. Also, Alabama went from have ZERO bottom fishery and catching ZERO red snapper, to boasting some 40% of the red snapper catch in the GOM with only 8% of the coastline… Hmmmm…
Truth in numbers folks… Why not use a proven model? Why continue to restrict ourselves when we don’t have to? Why fight over the same piece of pie and determine how small of a slice we should all get when we can bake 100 more pies?
If you were the CEO of the bottom fishery corporation and you have an ever increasing demand, but were running out of product, what would you do? Do you shut down the factory? Do you tell your customers that they can buy less? Or, do you find a way to increase production? I know what I would do…
Don’t drink the kook aid. Look for a real solution…
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejI’ve got a better idea. Why doesn’t the federal government make 100 more “Area 51’s” each year off our coast on sandy bottom? Don’t publish the numbers, and don’t restrict them.
Just for the record, this is what happened in Alabama and off of Texas. In the 1800’s 2 million lbs of harvest crashed the red snapper stock to near extinction. Now because of all of the new habitat (thousands of oil rigs and 20K artificial reefs in Alabama), the current TAC is 11 MILLION pounds. That means there are at least 6 times as many red snapper in the gulf now than there was when the “virgin” stock was found. Also, Alabama went from have ZERO bottom fishery and catching ZERO red snapper, to boasting some 40% of the red snapper catch in the GOM with only 8% of the coastline… Hmmmm…
Truth in numbers folks… Why not use a proven model? Why continue to restrict ourselves when we don’t have to? Why fight over the same piece of pie and determine how small of a slice we should all get when we can bake 100 more pies?
If you were the CEO of the bottom fishery corporation and you have an ever increasing demand, but were running out of product, what would you do? Do you shut down the factory? Do you tell your customers that they can buy less? Or, do you find a way to increase production? I know what I would do…
Don’t drink the kook aid. Look for a real solution…
So are you against or for oil/gas rigs off our coast where there’s sand?
(two more pages of discussion)
http://www.sustainablefishing.org/
www.joinrfa.com
Luke 8:22-25
quote:
Originally posted by Phinquote:
Originally posted by skinneejI’ve got a better idea. Why doesn’t the federal government make 100 more “Area 51’s” each year off our coast on sandy bottom? Don’t publish the numbers, and don’t restrict them.
Just for the record, this is what happened in Alabama and off of Texas. In the 1800’s 2 million lbs of harvest crashed the red snapper stock to near extinction. Now because of all of the new habitat (thousands of oil rigs and 20K artificial reefs in Alabama), the current TAC is 11 MILLION pounds. That means there are at least 6 times as many red snapper in the gulf now than there was when the “virgin” stock was found. Also, Alabama went from have ZERO bottom fishery and catching ZERO red snapper, to boasting some 40% of the red snapper catch in the GOM with only 8% of the coastline… Hmmmm…
Truth in numbers folks… Why not use a proven model? Why continue to restrict ourselves when we don’t have to? Why fight over the same piece of pie and determine how small of a slice we should all get when we can bake 100 more pies?
If you were the CEO of the bottom fishery corporation and you have an ever increasing demand, but were running out of product, what would you do? Do you shut down the factory? Do you tell your customers that they can buy less? Or, do you find a way to increase production? I know what I would do…
Don’t drink the kook aid. Look for a real solution…
So are you against or for oil/gas rigs off our coast where there’s sand?
(two more pages of discussion)
http://www.sustainablefishing.org/
www.joinrfa.com
Luke 8:22-25
</fon
Can’t imagine the pap that goes on behind closed doors with the counsel but there’s plenty of it here…
Would it be fair to say they know this thus they will get everything they want??
Guess I better practice up on my sonar if I want to retain any redeeming qualities about myself.[:I]
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejDon’t drink the kook aid. Look for a real solution…
The DNR guys, for their own internal reasons, don’t want privateers creating their own artificial reefs. Weren’t you at the meeting we had with Mr. Martore a few years ago, where he stated that only the DNR would be allowed to place any structure off the coast?
.
Alabama is a shining example of what can happen when government allows the private citizens to solve problems. Some of the DNR guys are great, including Bob, but the higher up they chain you go, the more insulated they become. To them, it’s not about solving the problem, but hoarding the control over managing the problem (almost always ineffectively).
.
As it’s been said before, if we had a thriving fishery off the coast, what is the need for micromanagement by the DNR? Their failure to allow solutions is the same exact reason they justify their existence. Once they are motivated to find solutions, as opposed to job security, the private citizens may be allowed to solve the problem.
========
PS: If a fly lost it’s wings, would it be called a walk?
quote:
Originally posted by Skeeter_Dquote:
Originally posted by skinneejDon’t drink the kook aid. Look for a real solution…
The DNR guys, for their own internal reasons, don’t want privateers creating their own artificial reefs. Weren’t you at the meeting we had with Mr. Martore a few years ago, where he stated that only the DNR would be allowed to place any structure off the coast?
.
Alabama is a shining example of what can happen when government allows the private citizens to solve problems. Some of the DNR guys are great, including Bob, but the higher up they chain you go, the more insulated they become. To them, it’s not about solving the problem, but hoarding the control over managing the problem (almost always ineffectively).
.
As it’s been said before, if we had a thriving fishery off the coast, what is the need for micromanagement by the DNR? Their failure to allow solutions is the same exact reason they justify their existence. Once they are motivated to find solutions, as opposed to job security, the private citizens may be allowed to solve the problem.========
PS: If a fly lost it’s wings, would it be called a walk?
Wouldn’t it be cool to have 3x football field sized rubble piles off the cans all the way out to the C-Bouy? They wouldn’t have to be but 15 feet off relief off the bottom, outside of the cans they’d be out of the shipping lanes. I’d think that if you had a bunch of reefs from the ledge toward the bouys, fish would be able to migrate to the closer reef and if there were large number of reefs, it’d reduce the pressure off the few that we currently have.
I u
quote:Yes, I was the one that presented the idea to him at the meeting 8-10 years ago now. He didn't like it, but I didn't see that he had any defensible position. Every "concern" he had wasn't a real concern. I sensed it was more that he felt that such an idea threatened his purpose. The reality of it though is that it would have expanded his purpose\role.
Originally posted by Skeeter_Dquote:
Originally posted by skinneejDon’t drink the kook aid. Look for a real solution…
The DNR guys, for their own internal reasons, don’t want privateers creating their own artificial reefs. Weren’t you at the meeting we had with Mr. Martore a few years ago, where he stated that only the DNR would be allowed to place any structure off the coast?
.
Alabama is a shining example of what can happen when government allows the private citizens to solve problems. Some of the DNR guys are great, including Bob, but the higher up they chain you go, the more insulated they become. To them, it’s not about solving the problem, but hoarding the control over managing the problem (almost always ineffectively).
.
As it’s been said before, if we had a thriving fishery off the coast, what is the need for micromanagement by the DNR? Their failure to allow solutions is the same exact reason they justify their existence. Once they are motivated to find solutions, as opposed to job security, the private citizens may be allowed to solve the problem.========
PS: If a fly lost it’s wings, would it be called a walk?
And here we are. We could have been 8-10 years into such a program.
Anybody claimed that beanbag yet?
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejYes, I was the one that presented the idea to him at the meeting 8-10 years ago now. He didn’t like it, but I didn’t see that he had any defensible position. Every “concern” he had wasn’t a real concern. I sensed it was more that he felt that such an idea threatened his purpose. The reality of it though is that it would have expanded his purpose\role.
And here we are. We could have been 8-10 years into such a program.
Not only would it have been a solution to the problem, it could also be an additional revenue stream for the DNR, had they seen the light. Allow private citizens to solve the problem AND charge them for the privilege.
.
It doesn’t seem like 8+ years ago, but we could have had many years of private artificial reef development, with the rebounding stocks and data to prove the effectiveness. Now, all we have is flawed data and a management system that is punitive, instead of solution based.
========
PS: If a fly lost it’s wings, would it be called a walk?