seabass

quote:
Awesome! Maybe we can get the ball rolling, little by little, in the right direction!!

I sure hope so Lynnmcd!! In my opinion if we all can agree or at least compromise on what is realistic about all of the fisheries then we will be successful! The continued congregation at these meetings to tell each individual side of the story is getting us nowhere fast! I think we could see a change in the tide if we would all show up with the same data concerning catch limits, size limits and spawning closures! Just my .02

36 Contender Fisharound
Are We There Yet?

Just for the record Gregg Waugh is just the messenger he has no vote on the council and has nothing to do with the analysis of the data. That said there are plenty of other people who are responsible.

Hungry,

True but like we have heard it said best:

Lay down with the dogs wake up with fleas!! [:0]

I think all these guys are just trying to save their A$$ - NOAA included! MS act calls for action soooo - use the “best available science” and make assumptions and catch limits accordingly. This gets back to what I was proposing earlier: Lets get together on CF one species at a time and make a group decision on what we can all agree on. Perhaps if we tell them what we would like to see instead of 1000 different ideas we can make something positive happen!

36 Contender Fisharound
Are We There Yet?

We have shown them numerous videos, they’ve gotten studies conducted by state agencies… even the feds themselves.

They can cherry pick and throw out what they don’t like.

It was 2006 when the law was changed.

The CCA championed it as our voice against the commercial, evil, overfishing.

“best available data” is determined by the feds, and it is the only standard they have to meet.

It has been challenged in court numerous times unsuccessfully because the court will defer to what the feds determine to be best available. They can come up with any reason to throw aside video, studies or whatever else that show the OPPOSITE of what they came up with using speculation and basically a joke for science.

They constantly tell Congress they lack funding to get better science, but they are still hiring more public outreach personnel. Kim is not the only staffer tasked to calm us down. They have hired 4-5 new employees to help with the public. Meanwhile, science gets worse.

Catch shares are being pushed now so the feds can generate funding by controlling a market for a public resource and not implode as they have rebuilt most of the stocks they were tasked to do. The truth about the fisheries being healthy coming out will mean most of the feds will no longer have jobs.

This is a bi-partisan thing. Obama paid back the green crowd by putting in Lubchenco. Bush paid back folks in Texas by signing off on what the CCA / oil companies wanted.

Less commercial fishermen on the water means easier control and less folks to pay when there’s a spill. Less folks means concentrated resource allotment, a la deadliest catch crabs, of which the nature conservancy now owns the most shares for and actually PROFITS off the fishermen still in the game by trading the shares like stocks.

All this is what we have been saying for 1,000’s of posts for the past 5 years, but some of you still want to keep your head in the sand. What’s worse, some of you continue to not recognize who the real enemies are and you co

Fried Bass soon. The good news is that the DNR is woefully underfunded and they don’t have enough peeps on the seas to keep us in check. Therefore as soon as as April rolls around I say the limits are whatever you are comfortable with…ha ha…

Phin,

Let me first say Thank You for all the time and energy you have allocated to this! Not disagreeing with anything on your so called Rant - 100% agree!! Just to let it out - Yup - my understanding is at present the BSB season will open up with a 1-3 fish limit and with the “overfishing” we have down in the past (according to SAFMC) the quota will end within 6 weeks! 2013 will never happen!! There is a public comment section on the SAFMC website amendment 18a concerning BSB.

I have one question to ask: What do we do now? Lay down and take it?

As I mentioned earlier - we have all gone to these “Public Meetings” and voiced our own opinions. Think about that - 3 hours of a bunch of fisherman telling their side of the game! You have people like yourself that know what should happen and someone like me that says what they want to happen!! I just think if we could come up with a BSB fish limit, size limit, and season for the offshore SC we could all argue the same point!

36 Contender Fisharound
Are We There Yet?

Redstripe,

I spoke with SCDNR about this and truly believe they are good guys! On the record they have to support and “enforce” the law BUT I believe off the record they are all shaking their heads like the rest of us. One thing to remember is that a great deal of the data is used by the SAFMC is provided by the SCDNR - how the SAFMC uses that data is a whole different issue! It reminds me of the FBI coming into an investigation and telling local law enforcement to step aside they have it under control “without having all the information”! Going to be kind of hard to hide 100 seabass!! :smiley:

36 Contender Fisharound
Are We There Yet?

The law has to be changed.

Our Congressmen and Senators are with us, but the west coast guys don’t want it changed, and the interior of the country could care less and will do what the best funded lobby wants.

The SAFMC membership has to be changed.

Our governor put someone back into the at large seat that has been on the council in one way or another for nearly its entire existence and his sole goal has been to see as much protection, i.e. closures, as possible.

The NMFS and NOAA administrators and mid-level folks need more oversight. Some of the actions have been in very bad faith and borderline criminal. They are behaving as if they do not work for the public whatsoever. They don’t behave as stewards of a public resource.

They are doing whatever they want and the folks under them are following orders and copping out blaming the higher up’s or the law. Their goal isn’t improving our fisheries. If it was they’d be working more with us than with all the technocrats and other such folks who get paid to sit in all the meetings and monitor discussion and not once say anything on the record.

Support organizations like the RFA and support the concepts like mentioned above re: the states taking over management of some of these species. We do a danged fine job locally, and the money issue can be answered very simply when you look at what a lot of us would be willing to contribute to be able to hunt/fish.

I feel that public resources should not cost the public money to enjoy, but if it costs to manage them properly then it’s only fair to contribute to making sure what I enjoy is healthy.

I was not in any way suggesting to lay down and take it.


www.scmarine.org

www.joinrfa.com

Luke 8:22-25

Also,
MSA has to be reauthorized in 2016. They MUST open it up for debate at that point and it will be all out war in terms of those who want us to be paying catch shares or either banned vs. “us.”

If we don’t figure out who among “us” are the bad guys based on past experience and not give them a 2nd chance to screw us then we’ll be screwed worse than ever.

Hope this makes sense.

Like I said, our guys in DC fully understand what our issues are at this point, but there are other Senators and a couple hundred other Congressmen that have to be convinced as well.

A lot of people are profitting immensely from the way the law currently is. Those folks don’t want it changed.

It is not just the environmental radicals who have gotten us to this point.

Keep that in mind.


www.scmarine.org

www.joinrfa.com

Luke 8:22-25

I to think the DNR is on our side until they catch you with a Sea bass that should rightfully yours to keep in say April. They would go Barney Fife on you then. I have been doing it the right way for 42 years. I’m done with all of these azz clowns.

Phin,

Yourself and a few others understand the MSA but many including myself really don’t! Call it being Lazy, Dumb or a just don’t care attitude. I’ve pitched my point at the meetings but chances are they are different than yours! I realize that the MSA is up for review in 2016 but unless we all know what our goal should be then the limits will continue to fall! The MSA is not going away no matter how much we don’t like it! My hope is we can somehow figure out a way to make it work for us! Just think if you had to sit and listen to 3 hours of fisherman all with different opinions - guarantee you would throw your hands up and do it Phin"s way! We need guidance and direction not Pissing and Moaning! My understanding of the MSA in a nutshell is that all species must have fish limits, size limtis and pound limtis-soooo should we not argue the points here and adopt a stance we can all live with? Take BSB 14" TL, 10 per with closure during spawning season - break the SE coast up into 4-6 areas with different limits that the local boys can enforce. Heck we could even add a $ fee per license if needed! Just a quick thought!

36 Contender Fisharound
Are We There Yet?

quote:
Originally posted by Redstripe

I to think the DNR is on our side until they catch you with a Sea bass that should rightfully yours to keep in say April. They would go Barney Fife on you then. I have been doing it the right way for 42 years. I’m done with all of these azz clowns.


We should start building and marketing cooler lockers, i bet they would sell!

quote:
Originally posted by hungryneck

Just for the record Gregg Waugh is just the messenger he has no vote on the council and has nothing to do with the analysis of the data. That said there are plenty of other people who are responsible.


The SAFMC hand picks the SEDAR scientists... Waugh and Cupka are the major influencers and have had their hand in this pot for 20+ years. They are the senior leadership on the team. Don't think for one minute that they don't influence every decision made.
quote:
Originally posted by DownandOut

SkinneeJ,

Spoke with the guys at SCDNR at length about what is going on- You were spot on! 1st class group of guys that actually understand or at least act like they care.

** Guess what - they would jump at the chance to go fishing or get involved with location data specifics!! One word comes to mind WOW!

36 Contender Fisharound
Are We There Yet?


Exactly. Most of them hunt and fish on their own. Exactly the opposite of SAFMC. Most of those guys don't know that you can catch a black sea bass and a vermillion on the same bottom rig.
quote:
Originally posted by DownandOut

Redstripe,

I spoke with SCDNR about this and truly believe they are good guys! On the record they have to support and “enforce” the law BUT I believe off the record they are all shaking their heads like the rest of us. One thing to remember is that a great deal of the data is used by the SAFMC is provided by the SCDNR - how the SAFMC uses that data is a whole different issue! It reminds me of the FBI coming into an investigation and telling local law enforcement to step aside they have it under control “without having all the information”! Going to be kind of hard to hide 100 seabass!! :smiley:

36 Contender Fisharound
Are We There Yet?


That's a pretty good synopsis. SCDNR are the ones "between a rock and a hard place", not the feds. They know that the feds are all bull****, but they are sworn to uphold the law no matter how stupid it is. They are also generally very professional and they aren't going to come right out and say that the feds are wrong. If you talk with any of them off record, you can read between the lines and see where their heart lies.

The federal government has essentially castrated their ability to manage the 80+ species. Why don’t the feds do reef\habitat building, hatcheries, etc? Answer: They say that they don’t have the money to. Then get the **** out of the way!!!

I’ve already outlined the ANSWER, several times…

You can read about it here:

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/mar/01/close-or-not-close-really-question/

SkinneeJ,

So whats the course of action? The MSA is not going away lets face it.
The federal government has mandated that all fisheries have Size Limits, Catch Limits, Seasons and Quotas Right?? I think they just need a little “help” on what they should be!!!

36 Contender Fisharound
Are We There Yet?

I find this thread really interesting. I try to keep up with MSA and federal fisheries policy, so I thought I might provide a few insights. Please understand that I dont necessarily agree with any of these statements below, but that I simply offer them as the responses I have heard to some of the points in this thread:

  1. MSA doesnt allow flexibility in rebuilding due to what is called the precautionary approach. MSA supporters would say that if you arent sure how many fish are out there, you should err on the side of catching too few than catching too many. If you catch too few, the stock will just grow faster. If you catch too many, you might inadvertently destroy the population. This does not take fishermen into consideration.

  2. No one disagrees that recreational data could be improved. Solid recreational data would only come from mandatory reporting of what you caught, what you were targeting, and how often/long you fish. Do you want to do that? I dont. If not, the only solution is surveys. The surveys in the past have been awful, but every state and federal fishermen on the east coast is now required to have a recreational fishing license, so the surveys can now be more targeted. I havent heard anyone say this will fix the problem, but many believe it will help.

  3. Some will argue that artificial reefs do not increase fish populations. They only aggregate fish and make them easier to pick off. Some would say that artificial reefs could be bad for some fish populations.

  4. IFQs/catch shares etc: Ive heard a lot of arguments for and against, but I really dont have an opinion on them. The reason I dont have an opinion is because they are only for commercial fishing, and I do not fish commercially. The federal governments official stance is that catch shares do not seem to make sense for recreational fishermen. Read the recreational anglers section near the end of page 11 on this link, particularly the second paragraph of that section: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/catchsha

The thing about artificial reefs kills me. Nobody on here that seriously fishes catches the bulk of their fish on these reefs. I love them, because that’s where 90 percent of people go. There are 100’s of square miles of live/rock bottom, and areas of high and low relief that produce the bulk of the catch from real fishermen.

Smoothdog - I think the days of us flaming each other need to end!
Honestly some days we sound like a bunch of PMS women complaining about dang near everything! (No offense to the ladies of the site :smiley:)

I agree with RedStripe about the reefs - go out on a Saturday afternoon and the boats will be three deep fishing BUT I betcha the SeaBass are stacked up like Cord Wood! Can you imagine what they are doing in the areas that don’t have that kind of pressure? As I have seen first hand - eating anything and everything they can shove in their mouth!

Again, I would Love to hear what You, Redstripe, Phin, SkinneeJ, Sells and everybody would deem acceptable for SeaBass limits!

36 Contender Fisharound
Are We There Yet?

I’m going to respond to these statements/positions/opinions/facts. Not attacking you as you admitted these were not necessarily your personal beliefs; just offering some response for others to consider here.

quote:
Originally posted by smoothdog
  1. MSA doesnt allow flexibility in rebuilding due to what is called the precautionary approach. MSA supporters would say that if you arent sure how many fish are out there, you should err on the side of catching too few than catching too many. If you catch too few, the stock will just grow faster. If you catch too many, you might inadvertently destroy the population. This does not take fishermen into consideration.

The lack of flexibility comes from the rigid time frames that are triggered by findings of "overfishing" or "overfished," which are based on "best available" data or science. If you want to call it the precautionary approach when scientists disregard solid data that proves their assumptions wrong then that's fine. I call it BS, and a poor excuse for science when they refuse to repeat experiments to come up with any solid conclusions. They start with a conclusion and work backwards to cherry pick everything that supports their conclusion/result rather than starting with a hypothesis and then repeating tests until something statistically reliable came be used to predict, i.e. assess, what it is impossible to actually count (the number of fish in the ocean.
quote:
Originally posted by smoothdog
  1. No one disagrees that recreational data could be improved. Solid recreational data would only come from mandatory reporting of what you caught, what you were targeting, and how often/long you fish. Do you want to do th