We ALL must get organized and come up with a plan to fight this!!I was very involved in a effort to fight the pump-back turbines at the Richard B Russel dam.It is going to take A LOT of effort to have effect and try to stop this insanity of irrational so called scientific data,I live in the upstate and do care about what is going on and will do what I can.
Organization is going to be key to STOPPING this; PLEASE send me any info you can and I will do what needs to be done,Thank all of you who HAVE brought all of the info to the for-front.Tell me what I need to do to help.
I just got back home last night from the SAFMC meeting last week in Charleston and Marine Resource Education Program in Tampa this week. I would really like to thank the three fishermen that helped me make this trip by purchasing a few calendars. The calendars and postcard petitions will be in the mail Monday. I made some great connections during these meetings. Many on the council do not want to see these new MPAs. They are reacting to a lawsuit over the suspension of Amendment 17B’s 40 fathom closure. There is a lot of support for creating new artificial reef habitat for a few small MPAs rather than closing large areas of traditional fishing grounds. There is also some interest in using decent assist devices that turn 90% mortality rates of released deepwater fish around to 90% survival rates. The whole reason for these proposed MPAs is that most Speckled Hind and Warsaw Grouper suffer barotrauma to the point they will die without help getting back to the bottom. Please start sending letters to council members and Kim Iverson with RA17 Public Comment in the subject line opposing the closure of traditional fishing grounds while supporting the use of decent assist devices and creating a few SMALL MPAs around new artificial reef habitat. http://www.safmc.net/AboutUs/CouncilMembers/tabid/164/Default.aspx
kim.iverson@safmc.net
safmc@safmc.net
I have read the NDRC lawsuit very carefully , and there is absolutely no science to prove their point. The most obvious abuse is the point that “recent landings do not show any older fish” What a shocker!! for years we haven’t been able to catch but 1 of these grouper per boat per day. Where did the survey fish come from?. Since we can’t catch any SH or Warsaws today the NDRC would be very correct to state that SH and Warsaw are extinct according to landing data . This group re-hashes all the pseudo science that the SAFMC has used for years. I contend from personal observation that SH and warsaw grouper have NEVER been a high percentage of the catch. Thse groups are looking for something to protect so they can close fishing. Red snapper didn’t work so well and PEW tucked their tail and went back to Veganville with only a partial victory.
quote:
Originally posted by capt.markbrownThere’s a lot riding on a federal court judges decision from this past July. This is a very complicated situation and because of the way the law is written to protect overfished species, EVEN THOUGH THERE"S LITTLE PROVEN EVIDENCE it puts fishermen at risk of having prime fishing grounds completely taken away and off limits.
There are many people involved in this process and its so deep that there’s a lot that is not known, but I also believe there are many foxes in the hen house that would like nothing better than to see this happen!
Read more on NRDC lawsuit here;
http://www.nrdc.org/media/2012/120608a.asp
quote:sellsfish, be careful what you wish for. Once they get it, you will never be able to fish there again. If they want to create a dozen more SCMR type of projects where they zone off something that has no fishing significance and then create new habitat there, I am all for that. Nothing is taken away, and new habitat is gained.
Originally posted by sellsfishI also told Mr. Jenkins that if the nitwits at SAFMC would change the Deepwater MPA to depths greater than 250 on out to 1000 I could support it at Georgetown Hole and would even state that at the December meeting.
Compared to other species, snowy grouper spots are pretty few and far between. If they close off a few of them, the adjacent ones will be hit even harder, assuming they ever raise the limit.
And again, is anyone really fishing for snowy any more in SC? You can keep 1 fish per boat now. How is it even worth it to go out that far? In my mind, that is a “virtual closure” in our parts.
Honestly, we should not BUDGE on MPA’s? Why? It’s LAZY management. They need to be forced to think outside of the box. They need to be forced to seek new funding to do things right. As long as we keep giving them small victories on their end, they will keep producing the same failing results that they have for the past 30+ years.
What we need is a MAJOR SHIFT in paradigm that keeps people fishing. They need to get funding and adopt a COMPREHENSIVE approach to fisheries management, like SCDNR does. We need to get away from this closure death spiral that has been upon us for decades.
I agree 10000% We should not give the bastages an inch. NO TO MPAs !! They have NEVER proven that MPA’s do any good , They have never proven that SH and Warsaw numbers have changed in 20 years. These deep water fishes live in water much deeper than its economical to fish and NO ONE has ever proven that the population is endangered. MPA’S only serve 2 purposes - To give enviros warm fuzzy feelings, and to give the SAFMC an easy way to “manage”. Many years ago when the SAFMC was starting to destroy our fishery I stated at a public meeting that the nose of the camel is entering the tent. No one believed it.
Carl
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:sellsfish, be careful what you wish for. Once they get it, you will never be able to fish there again. If they want to create a dozen more SCMR type of projects where they zone off something that has no fishing significance and then create new habitat there, I am all for that. Nothing is taken away, and new habitat is gained.
Originally posted by sellsfishI also told Mr. Jenkins that if the nitwits at SAFMC would change the Deepwater MPA to depths greater than 250 on out to 1000 I could support it at Georgetown Hole and would even state that at the December meeting.
Compared to other species, snowy grouper spots are pretty few and far between. If they close off a few of them, the adjacent ones will be hit even harder, assuming they ever raise the limit.
And again, is anyone really fishing for snowy any more in SC? You can keep 1 fish per boat now. How is it even worth it to go out that far? In my mind, that is a “virtual closure” in our parts.
Honestly, we should not BUDGE on MPA’s? Why? It’s LAZ
What everyone really needs to comprehend is that just saying no to the MPAs will not resolve the problem. A viable alternative needs to be presented. As everyone has stated, they are too lazy, too ignorant to make a change in the plan. Some other option, methodology, controls etc. is what will be needed to stop this. Recreational, and professional fishermen need to work out what will work to ensure sustainability.
Some excellent models of this are, Ducks Unlimited, Wild Turkey Foundations (not sure of the exact title), state conservation efforts, e.g. the recovery of alligators to the point where hunting seasons are now open when they were once threatened or endangered. These are the models that we need to understand and translate into the fishing industry to ensure our survival as well. We need to be the stewards and the owners.
If as a collective group we can outline a solid alternative, we should be able to get political backing as well and that is what is ultimately needed. That is how we can stop the madness.
Sea Hunt BX22 Br
WS Tarpon 140
AMEN jczc2414! Here are two alternative solutions that already have support in the council.
- Enhance existing MPAs by placing appropriate artificial reef material on sandy bottom within the huge areas they already closed.
- Require fishermen release Warsaw Grouper and Speckled Hind with assist decent devices. This could be done in conjunction with a tagging program. There is support for getting ITPs so we can harvest tagged fish.
Please share any other ideas. We need to coordinate our message and efforts to inform as many people as possible while giving them an easy way to show their support to the right public servants. I already have postcard petitions made if anyone wants some.
One discrepancy that I just noticed on the SAFMC site, Snowy Grouper are closed until Jan 1. However, generally ALL other grouper are closed from Jan - March because of spawning. Why not keep them closed at the same time. Consolidate the seasons! This reduces the by catch, because if the season is closed, we are NOT going fishing. There is no by catch. These are easy fixes.
Other options, for hire vessels must have permits, do the same at the rec level and use the revenue to enhance the MPAs. Since they want to whine about not having money (except to pay salaries…), this too can generate the needed capital to build and enhance the reefs.
Sea Hunt BX22 Br
WS Tarpon 140
Perhaps I’m missing something - or I don’t understand. It seems to me that the SAFMC has the burden of proving a need for MPA’s long before the fishing community should plead alternatives. Show me the hard numbers that show a thriving warsaw and SH grouper population ever existed , and hard numbers that show a decline and the cause. Then show me the effect that the 9 year old MPAS have had on fish populations.
The plaintiff ( SAFMC ) has to make a case that this is needed and to show its worth. None of this has happened.
quote:Agreed 100%. I've never seen evidence that SH or Warsaw was ever any more statistically significant than it is now. They could close the entire eastern seaboard for 100 years and we still might have the same exact number of speckled hinds that we do today!
Originally posted by natureboyPerhaps I’m missing something - or I don’t understand. It seems to me that the SAFMC has the burden of proving a need for MPA’s long before the fishing community should plead alternatives. Show me the hard numbers that show a thriving warsaw and SH grouper population ever existed , and hard numbers that show a decline and the cause. Then show me the effect that the 9 year old MPAS have had on fish populations.
The plaintiff ( SAFMC ) has to make a case that this is needed and to show its worth. None of this has happened.
I did make that point in my public comment in the last SAFMC.
They claim that there was one study done in 1983 with data collected from 1972-1977. It said that speckled hind was the FOURTH most occurring species (Red Porgy was listed as THIRD) in their sample and Warsaw at 19th. Come on… There is no way possible that speckled hind was EVER the 4th most occurring species out there. So, whatever conclusions that they drew from this research are obviously a joke.
JCZC2414, Snowys are caught in much deeper water than gag, scamp, and red grouper. They are typically DOA when they hit the deck, which is why there is no size restriction on snowys, only a trip limit in number of pounds (commercial) or number of fish (recreational).
Sea Hunt 207CC,Yam 150
www.abfishcharters.com
The present limits with many fishes in the SAFMC’s area actually encourage culling. IE - if I drive the boat to 350’ and on the first drop catch a 1 1/2 lb snowy - what do you think will happen?(1) Will I ice down the little fish and look toward James Island and thank the SAFMC -(2) or will I drop down again and try for a 30 pounder?
naturboy, would you be willing to use some kind of decent assist device to release the small snowy so it would most likely live?
Sure I would. But it all goes back to the reality of the situation. When you yank a snowy from 300’ to the surface – that’s one dead fish. You could feed it to the surface sharks - or the deep ones. When the eyes are hanging out , and the entrails are hanging out - its over. In reality , on a commercial boat during a hot bite everybody would be busy making money & filling the box. The SAFMC will never consider altering numbers because of a release device. They don’t care. The reality is that Cupka and co are pursuing their agenda one MPA at a time.
quote:
Originally posted by freefish7naturboy, would you be willing to use some kind of decent assist device to release the small snowy so it would most likely live?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5v9E-WvVhk
i got one of these recently and was able to use it on a couple red snapper. when they came up they were not moving at all and bloated. put them on the hook and they were back fighting again before the clip released (just like the video). seems to be much more beneficial to the fish to rapidly recompress it and release near bottom instead of jabbing it with a needle and hoping for the best. with this kind of releasing device, it would be easy for multiple fisherman to record the successful fish releases using a gopro to show to the powers that be. this would be as concrete of evidence as they can get for showing responsible fishing and limiting of bycatch waste on the precious SH and snowy. in my opinion, this could be an option presented at the meetings to stave off MPAs. i think that we (fisherman) can turn this tide around, but we will have to show some initiative to improve the current bycatch mortality common with today’s release methods. just telling them to “shove it” wont work… as they are the ones swinging the biggest wick.
You have to understand that just because you see a fish swim away doesn’t mean it won’t die 2 hours later because of barotrauma issues. It’s actually very hard to study barotrauma. I think that the most accurate way to do it is to compare catch and release recapture rates.
For instance, if you catch 100 grouper in 100’ and recover 10% of them within the next year, you know survival rate was pretty high (well north of 10% because you have to account for the fish that just never bit hook and line again). If you also catch 100 grouper in 350’ and you never recover any in the same period, you can probably make the assumption that those fish died (or else you would have recovered at least some of them).
As natureboy says, grouper being yanked up from 350’ are almost 100% dead. There was a study done on this years back with gag grouper. Tag recovery rates started dropping significantly after 130’ in depth. It was deemed that mortality was the cause of this. All of those fish were vented and returned and did not float back up.
Now, they did NOT use a device like the SeaQulizer to my knowledge. Can a tool like this increase survival rates? It’s definitely plausible. The problem is that the SSC does not accept a whim. There would have to be some sort of peer reviewed study done to prove this. I’m thinking you would probably have to tag 1000+ fish and release without Seaquilizer and 1000+ fish with the Seaquilizer and compare re-capture rates of tagged fish. If all fish were tagged in comparable depths and the sampling of fish were roughly the same size, then you may have a leg to stand on. Until that happens, they will consider it speculation.
That being said. Their argument might be that people won’t use them if you are not watching them. In other words, people might buy them and keep them on the boat, but they might never pull it out of the toolbox.
Also, how many of you guys are fishing for snowies now that there is a 1 per boat limit?
baracuda, you are exactly right. John Carmichael does the stock assessments which include discard mortality rates. He said those rates could be lowered if fishermen would use decent assist devices. That means we could have higher quotas as less of our TACs are allocated to dead discards. NMFS has done decent assist device studies on the west coast that showed long term survival rates of fish in deep water averaged around 90%. NCDMF is about to do a study using SeaQualizer. I am sure council member Bell who works with SCDNR would support such a study in SC. I think most fishermen would use these devices and tag released fish if it meant we avoid massive area closures while protecting the resource and collecting data for better stock assessments that would yield higher quotas.
quote:Do you have a pointer to that document? I could use that in the future.
Originally posted by freefish7NMFS has done decent assist device studies on the west coast that showed long term survival rates of fish in deep water averaged around 90%.
A release device will not even slow down the SAFMC’s push for MPA’s. However , what it might do is get another requirement for us to all spend money on another device.