GREENPEACE has today described the current fishing quota system as "a disaster for fish stocks, a disaster for fishermen and a disaster for conservation".

Responding to news that "massive" quantities of cod and other fish species in European waters are being discarded because of the system, Greenpeace Oceans campaigner Oliver Knowles said: “It’s time to abandon this madness and introduce a new approach to fisheries management – one based on controlling the number of days fisherman can spend at sea and introducing large marine reserves which provide fish stocks with the space to recover.”

Greenpeace proposes a new approach which:

1) Abandons the rigid quota system and replaces it with effort controls to reduce overall days at sea.

2) Makes further reductions in overall fleet capacity

3) Establishes large scale marine reserves closed to fishing, to provide areas where fish stocks can recover.


New forms of fisheries management are needed. Quotas are a blunt and ineffective tool in a mixed fishery like that of bottom trawling around the British Isles. Both the Government and the European Commission should work with the industry to agree on both permanent and seasonally closed areas around spawning grounds and other locations which should be backed up with satellite surveillance, robust policing and heavy fines.

Fishermen should then be entitled to land more of what they catch outside those areas on an agreed basis.

The problem with policing the quota system and responding to the understandable complaints about discarding perfectly healthy over quota fish is that it is not possible to distinguish between an intended and unintended by-catch of over quota stock.

“There are opportunities for fishermen, through their associations, to deal with areas where discarding is most apparent. We encourage them to act as stewards of the sea and take advantage of the gear technology that is available to them.”

f$%& Greenpeace.
Bottom trawling should be banned.Period

f$%& Greenpeace.
Bottom trawling should be banned.Period

Got a good Copy on that! :toast:

f$%& Greenpeace.
Bottom trawling should be banned.Period

The article is not directed solely at bottom trawling. Perhaps you missed the main thrust of the announcement, which is that GP is opposed to current fishery quota methods.

This sounds just like a lot of the statements being made by sportfishing rights organizations. Perhaps I've misinterpreted the posts. I thought that anglers rights organizations were opposed to IFQ as a management tool? Do they instead support IFQs?

Perhaps this is an opportunity to gain strength in representation through a constructive alliance on a particular issue, rather than a chance to hurl insults and alienate yourself and your stakeholder group?

I'm not taking sides on the issue, nor have I expressed my views, but I have observed that people often let knee-jerk reactions and prejudices get in the way of benefitting from opportunities when they happen along.

From what I've read here, these NGOs have more money than god. Might be nice to have someone help pay all the lobbyist and lawyers bills.

Just something to think about.

dude.. knee-jerk is a derogatory:p

I am totally at odds with all 3 of those goals.As are most fishermen and quite a few fisheries scientists.Especially those scientists who work thier asses off to allocate the TAC in an acceptable manner after trying to determine a yield which allow either rebuilding,enhancement or maintenance of a fish-stock they personally have studied.

Greenpeace has done quite bit of good in the bycatch area but they are not our friends.Read up on a few more of their positions,quite a few are contrary to the majority of family fishermen.

It surprises the hell out of me that these environmental groups are not working harder to eliminate the gear types with the highest bycatch and do terrible destruction to essential fish habitat.

Trawling has been compared to the lawn mowers of the sea. Longlining wipes out vast areas. Both tear up the bottom.
Why not work towards a more artisanal fishery that involves individual attended effort gear?
This would result in higher ex-vessel prices as well as higher quality and fresher seafood.

We seem to be moving towards larger factory style commercial fishing practices when we should be moving in the opposite direction!:slap:

Greenpeace IS NOT our friend.


I will REFUSE to join Surfrider Foundation either, due to their ties to people like Greenpeace, Ocean Conservancy, etc etc. Even though I do support a lot of what Surfrider does.

word..Steve..the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

So, if everyone agrees that they disagree with whatever GP is backing, then the impression being conveyed by the responses indicates that the spearfishing participants on SFP are:
1. FOR IFQs;
2. AGAINST REDUCTIONS IN COMMERCIAL FISHING CAPACITY;
3. AGAINST MARINE RESERVES.

I thought I had read posts indicating different views by representatives for this stakeholder group, but would welcome intelligent discussion of this issues and the policy positions that spearfishing should collectively represent to fishery managers and the public.

If spearfishing representatives are against these things, then what are the sound and data-supported alternatives which are being proposed?

Clearly a uniform position, backed by well-reasoned policy and good data, would be most beneficial in achieving effective alliances with other stakeholder representatives in order to obtain real progress.

What are the positions and policies for spearfishing that should be put forth?

I will will only comment on the GOM and how it is being managed but the process and management tool used need to be fixed before anything is done regarding REC fishermen. If the models that are being used don't show the facts but do show that they are a unreliable tool to asses fish stocks.

EXAMPLE:

According to the review panel average weight final run spreadsheet the average dead discard gag for the recreational fisherman is now 1.3 pounds. There were approximately 800,000 dead discarded gag in 2004. The release mortality rate was approximately 20%. This gives a total number of 4,000,000 discarded fish (live and dead). If only a third of the dead discards were in the 18-21.9 inch range and weighed an average of 4.2 pounds (average for a 20" gag according to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission length to weight calculator). The total weight for this 266,666 fish would be 1,112,000 pounds. This in itself is more than the 1,063,992 pounds listed in the review. This will disallow the weight of the remaining 533,333 discarded fish.


B 6a Gag Revised Analysis

Table 4 minsz estimates indicate a total biomass of 28,418,000 pounds and a spawning stock biomass of 19,839,000 pounds. This leaves a total of 8,579,000 pounds of undersized (< 585 MM OR 23") and males. If males make up six percent of the total biomass by weight the we subtract another 1,705,080 pounds from the 8,579,000 pounds to leave a total of 6,873,920 pounds of immature gags. Divide this by and average 1.33 pound discard to get a total of 5,168,361 individual immature gags. An assumption is made (by me) that the average immature weighs the same as the average discarded gag from the weight final run spreadsheet.

Considering these totals, recreational fishermen landed 77.4% of every short gag in the Gulf of Mexico in 2004 one time. Given three years for an age one fish to reach sexual maturity, nearly 80 percent of immature gags will be caught three time by age four. With a 20% dead discard rate, there would actually be a 60% chance these gags would be discarded dead by fishermen. Add natural mortality to the equation and nearly 80% of immature gags will never make it to the spawning stock biomass.

Also consider that the total number of gags in the Gulf of Mexico is about 6,5000,000 fish (estimate from fig. 9 B 6a Gag Revised Analysis). The total number of immature gags is 5,168,361. This leaves a total of 1,331,639 gags which are legal and available for recreational and commercial fishermen to harvest. Recreational and commercial harvest for 2004 was 860,708 fish. This leaves a total of 470931 (35.4%) legal size gags that survived.

Combined discard and natural mortality reducing the immature biomass by 77.4% and fishermen reducing the mature biomass by 64.6% may make this stock analysis invalid.


Regarding commercial fishermen and the methods they use I feel is it has been proven for years that bottom trawling and long lining have a HUGE negative impact on species not being targeted. It should be stopped BEFORE anything else is done.

They are not defining quoata as IFQ.
Quota systems include IFQ and the current division of T.A.C. that is supposedly based aon science and past catch history.

Well, I've had my doubts as to the ability to have actual discussion, rather than argument and mere expression of opinions, on this forum. But it seems that the topic presented has been hijacked from one of general policy to one of particular mathematics.

That being the case, I would like to ask Gamble about some of his calculations. From a casual review, it appears that you may be comparing apples and oranges. I didn't find any mention of confidence intervals or standard deviations in the analysis you presented. And as is known, not all numbers have the same strength. That is generally taken into account.

I do have a question about the SSB data you mention. You state:

Table 4 minsz (sic)estimates indicate a total biomass of 28,418,000 pounds and a spawning stock biomass of 19,839,000 pounds. This leaves a total of 8,579,000 pounds of undersized (< 585 MM OR 23") and males.

Your statement infers that the SSB does not include undersized and males. If by undersized, you mean non-fertile, that's accepted. But does the definition of SSB for this stock exclude males? That's not in accordance with other stock assessments I've reviewed. I would appreciate a link to the SAFE document or FMP or other reference that provides the definition for SSB in this case. Or perhaps you could clarify the statement, above.

Thanks

Well, I've had my doubts as to the ability to have actual discussion, rather than argument and mere expression of opinions, on this forum.

What do you expect from a bunch of mere mortals? :D

Well, do you or don't you want our opinions? :confused: Being just an average Joe, I'm kind of confused after reading your posts. I'm going to go out on a limb and give you mine anyway. :eek:

1) I am generally not in favor of IFQ's.

I don't understand why our country would give individuals title to our resources.
I don't understand why we would reward the ones who already benefited the most from our resources (and generally wasted the most), with the biggest share.
It's not really good for the little guys, and protecting the little guys is what our government is supposed to do.


2) I don't think government should be managing private assets, or capacity.

Suppose people were driving too much. Would the government close down gas stations?
The government should be controlling the resource instead. Trip limits, for example, help control both capacity and catches, while spreading the catches more evenly.

3) While I agree that some near-shore high traffic resources should be protected, thats where it stops with me.

Particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, the areas that they are protecting are 100 miles offshore. Fishing is the only activity that is practical there. They are basically shutting down fishing in the best fishing areas. Will this make fishing better? Will more fishermen crowded into a much smaller area be a good thing?
I've spent more time underwater in the Gulf than all of the authors of "Islands in the Stream" and their staff, combined. It is absolutely false that the habitat is being degraded materially by fishing.

4) You didn't ask, but I'll tell you anyway::D I just want our government to manage our resources fairly with good, impartial science.

5) One more thing.....My personal opinion is that the first priority of our government and every fisherman should be to eliminate the waste of our resources. This includes spearfishermen. The last thing that we want to do on my boat is waste or injure fish.

Just what you would expect from the heathens on this board! 5 answers to three questions! :smthumbup:

Go ahead and put me down as opposed to IFQ's for what thats worth. Giving the biggest, most destructive gear users control over the biggest share of a resource is not in anyones best interest, especially the fish.
IFQ's are like Walmart. They run all the small to mid-level independent fishermen (Mom and Pop folks if you will) out of business while a small group of highly paid longliners are handed the keys to the Gulf.
Thumbs down.
As far as MPA's I am opposed unless the designated site is an unusually sensitive and important area to a legitimate species in need. Shutting down over 300 sq miles of Gulf(Middlegrounds), ostensibly to save the mullet and spotted sea trout, is just the latest example of attempted abuse of the MSA and the MPA system by people who just hate fishing. Thats the bottom line. There are people involved here who's mission in life is simply to take away public access to as much federal water as they can regardless of actual need and to that I will always be solidly opposed.

What he said



Go ahead and put me down as opposed to IFQ's for what thats worth. Giving the biggest, most destructive gear users control over the biggest share of a resource is not in anyones best interest, especially the fish.
IFQ's are like Walmart. They run all the small to mid-level independent fishermen (Mom and Pop folks if you will) out of business while a small group of highly paid longliners are handed the keys to the Gulf.
Thumbs down.
As far as MPA's I am opposed unless the designated site is an unusually sensitive and important area to a legitimate species in need. Shutting down over 300 sq miles of Gulf(Middlegrounds), ostensibly to save the mullet and spotted sea trout, is just the latest example of attempted abuse of the MSA and the MPA system by people who just hate fishing. Thats the bottom line. There are people involved here who's mission in life is simply to take away public access to as much federal water as they can regardless of actual need and to that I will always be solidly opposed.

The effort is certainly appreciated, but the posts reflect little more than statements of opinion.

If spearfishers are going to play any kind of role in management of sustainable fish stocks and the allocation of allowable harvests, then well-founded policies will be necessary. Without them, we are destined to continue to be disregarded and disrespected, by managers and other stakeholder groups.

Have you ever considered the possibility that one reason that "environmental groups" (as the term is commonly used here) are so successful is because they have learned how to push policies and not just positions? I'm not suggesting that this is the only reason, but perhaps it is one reason.

As a result, many spearfishing and H&L anglers have been forced (much like the NRA) to take positions that are increasingly viewed by the public as extremist.

I attempted to do some research recently into spearfisher rights and the policies put forth by supposed advocates for spearfishing. I searched through a number of websites of different organizations and clubs, and came up empty handed. At least in the U.S.

In other countries, I found groups with statements of positions dictated by established policies. Is it no wonder that, in those countries, spearfishing is a highly respected sport?

I wonder what the future will hold for spearfishing, if we can't even clearly delineate where we stand on issues, other than on an issue-by-issue basis.

The effort is certainly appreciated, but the posts reflect little more than statements of opinion.

If spearfishers are going to play any kind of role in management of sustainable fish stocks and the allocation of allowable harvests, then well-founded policies will be necessary. Without them, we are destined to continue to be disregarded and disrespected, by managers and other stakeholder groups.

Have you ever considered the possibility that one reason that "environmental groups" (as the term is commonly used here) are so successful is because they have learned how to push policies and not just positions? I'm not suggesting that this is the only reason, but perhaps it is one reason.

As a result, many spearfishing and H&L anglers have been forced (much like the NRA) to take positions that are increasingly viewed by the public as extremist.

I attempted to do some research recently into spearfisher rights and the policies put forth by supposed advocates for spearfishing. I searched through a number of websites of different organizations and clubs, and came up empty handed. At least in the U.S.

In other countries, I found groups with statements of positions dictated by established policies. Is it no wonder that, in those countries, spearfishing is a highly respected sport?

I wonder what the future will hold for spearfishing, if we can't even clearly delineate where we stand on issues, other than on an issue-by-issue basis.

Could you be a little more concise about your proposal? Certainly, a person of your stature & integrity isn't here just to criticize everyone else? Please provide a positive idea, I'm all ears. Better yet, what role will you play to help us get a fair shake in this process?

Well, I've had my doubts as to the ability to have actual discussion, rather than argument and mere expression of opinions, on this forum. But it seems that the topic presented has been hijacked from one of general policy to one of particular mathematics.

That being the case, I would like to ask Gamble about some of his calculations. From a casual review, it appears that you may be comparing apples and oranges. I didn't find any mention of confidence intervals or standard deviations in the analysis you presented. And as is known, not all numbers have the same strength. That is generally taken into account.

I do have a question about the SSB data you mention. You state:

Table 4 minsz (sic)estimates indicate a total biomass of 28,418,000 pounds and a spawning stock biomass of 19,839,000 pounds. This leaves a total of 8,579,000 pounds of undersized (< 585 MM OR 23") and males.

Your statement infers that the SSB does not include undersized and males. If by undersized, you mean non-fertile, that's accepted. But does the definition of SSB for this stock exclude males? That's not in accordance with other stock assessments I've reviewed. I would appreciate a link to the SAFE document or FMP or other reference that provides the definition for SSB in this case. Or perhaps you could clarify the statement, above.

Thanks

Read the assesment it's all there in black and white. What other stock assessments have you reviewed and where any of them for Gag grouper?

I get it now. Ask a question, and you're immediately challenged as to your credentials. That's a great way to win others to your cause. Even a URL to the stock assessment, and a cite to the appropriate section would have been nice.

That's in addition to the fact that this thread was not directed solely at Gags, but rather was hijacked by others.

I didn't mean to offend by simply asking a question. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive someone who might be wanting to assist in your efforts.

Not a very welcoming atmosphere though, that's for sure. I suppose it goes over well with other stakeholder groups, managers, and scientists?

If someone calls for transparency in proceedings, their position is likely to be more respected if they demonstrate such transparency in their own actions.

Sorry I'm not deemed worthy by you to ask a question. Is that how you respond when asked a question by fishery council members?

Don't worry about it. I'm able to find solace knowing that I don't have to prove myself. Or was that a challenge to some sort of bizarre "I've read more stock assessments than you" contest? Have fun by yourself on that one.

I was only asking if you had read it I wasn't trying to challange you, relax.

Here you go:
http://www.gulfcouncil.org/Beta/GMFMCWeb/downloads/BB%202007-08/Options_paper_30B_July_2007.pdf


I have a few others in Word if you would like them.

Thanks, I'll take a look at it. Until now, I'd only been able to glance over the 2006 SEDAR assessment, but hadn't gotten deep into the numbers.

Quick question, slightly related. Are ALL groupers hermaphroditic? Or just some species?

And has the fishing mortality (F) value been substantiated or refined? I mean, what's the confidence in the value?

Thanks!

All grouper that I know of or have researched are hermaphroditic. IMHO when and why they switch teams is debataible.

The mortality rate is is 100% unsubstantiated. They started at roughly 40% depending on depth and have come down slightly. From what I'm hearing and reading in a nut shell is that SSB is down yet recruitment is at an all time high as well as total biomass. The first assesment said that gag was undergoing overfishing but not over fished, the review of that assesment said they where undergoing both. If they run one model they get one answer. If they run another they get another. Depending on how they run them they come up with a totally different outcome.

i still have a sneaky suspicion that some of these "conservation" groups might be in bed with the larger commercial fish operations that are trying to monopolize certain fisheries.

this conspiracy theory doesn't help our cause one bit. i do agree. a concise and direct objective and policy that evokes the help of all recreational fisherman should be a priority.

i do believe this is going to be a good up coming year for fishing rights and awareness. with some hard work i think we are going to be headed in the right direction regarding our image and policies.

I get it now. Ask a question, and you're immediately challenged as to your credentials. That's a great way to win others to your cause. Even a URL to the stock assessment, and a cite to the appropriate section would have been nice.

That's in addition to the fact that this thread was not directed solely at Gags, but rather was hijacked by others.

I didn't mean to offend by simply asking a question. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive someone who might be wanting to assist in your efforts.

Not a very welcoming atmosphere though, that's for sure. I suppose it goes over well with other stakeholder groups, managers, and scientists?

If someone calls for transparency in proceedings, their position is likely to be more respected if they demonstrate such transparency in their own actions.

Sorry I'm not deemed worthy by you to ask a question. Is that how you respond when asked a question by fishery council members?

Don't worry about it. I'm able to find solace knowing that I don't have to prove myself. Or was that a challenge to some sort of bizarre "I've read more stock assessments than you" contest? Have fun by yourself on that one.



Chip,
You may want to just relax a bit. Your posts are almost "looking for a fight" style. Contrary to what Tony is feeding you, many here on this site actually do something rather than just talk about things. They also do it in a positive way contrary to what youve been told or read.
And finally... spearfishing is NOT looked at unfavorably here along the Gulf Coast of Florida or the entire State, for the most part.
This area (Gulf Coast) has three of the largest spearfishing tournaments in the Country FYI.

Rather that criticize people for expressing there opinions (on the internet), how about you offer up some solutions instead?

Most of us may just be a bunch of dumb ole spearfisherman but we really do care about the resource and the preservation of the sport.

Chip,
May I call you Chip? Provoking thought stimulates the creative juices and I can appreciate your provocateur approach however, remember...the written word without all the flowing adjectives can seem somewhat callous and lacking. 10 deep breaths and a firm count to ten work for me....
Everyone here wants whats best and is on "our" side..
Have a beer and pull up a chair brutha..:toast:

Chip,
You may want to just relax a bit. Your posts are almost "looking for a fight" style. Contrary to what Tony is feeding you, many here on this site actually do something rather than just talk about things. They also do it in a positive way contrary to what youve been told or read.
And finally... spearfishing is NOT looked at unfavorably here along the Gulf Coast of Florida or the entire State, for the most part.
This area (Gulf Coast) has three of the largest spearfishing tournaments in the Country FYI.

Rather that criticize people for expressing there opinions (on the internet), how about you offer up some solutions instead?

Most of us may just be a bunch of dumb ole spearfisherman but we really do care about the resource and the preservation of the sport.


Rich,
Thanks for your view on things. To clarify, I believe what I stated about being viewed unfavorably was a broader characterization reflecting perceptions in management matters, namely:

If spearfishers are going to play any kind of role in management of sustainable fish stocks and the allocation of allowable harvests, then well-founded policies will be necessary. Without them, we are destined to continue to be disregarded and disrespected, by managers and other stakeholder groups.

FYI, Tony doesn't "feed me" my info. I obtain much of it from independent sources, fishery management proceedings, stakeholder representatives, and online postings. I'm finding that the "disregard" and "disrespect" I referred to is more often the result of the (mis)conduct of participants that unintendingly do more harm than good.

I don't think that "dumb" is a term that should be used for spearfishers. I've been a diver, hunter, and fisherman for too long. However, many may not have the ability to communicate their views during the regulatory and fishery management process in ways which are going to be most effective and provide the most "bang for the buck".

I don't doubt that many/most spearfishers (men and women) have deep concerns over the future of the fisheries and stocks that they enjoy. Most spearfishers, in fact most hunters in general, have a desire to see proper management measures in place in order to ensure the perpetuation of their hunting for future generations. How to progress toward achieving these goals is the challenge, and it will most certainly require teamwork and cooperation among spearfishers and other stakeholders.

I hope to have the opportunity to become more involved with some of your regional issues, for I believe they may influence and affect (either adversely or beneficially) spearfishing's reputation and regard in other matters and regions. However, I'm still in an information gathering and observation stage at this point. There's a lot of players, positions, and action to catch up on. I appreciate and welcome any materials or sources you're willing to provide. I'll try to watch my tone in my typing. It's a consequence of my profession and the unfortunate influence of the one-dimensional communication method (text) afforded by the 'net. I find I can say the same thing in a conversation and get full agreement. But put it out plainly in text, and the message can become mixed. It's an important point to remember, and the significance is not lost on me. Thanks,
Chip

P.S. It's often difficult to check in regularly on SFP, and I find that threads to which I've posted are not showing up in my subscriptions. I've reviewed my CP settings, but the problem remains. Any suggestions?

Seacidal, you must be another one of these controversial types, but I must concede you are well spoken on one important issue - we need to be pushing solid policies and plans as "Spearfishing's contribution to protect the fishery".

I want to throw this idea up for discussion:
In the Everglades Nat'l Park, "John the creel man", interviews just about every fisherman that launches in Everglades City. Measures every fish, and gathers lots of data. He's been doing this for many years now.

The FRA could provide to all members (non-members, too) a data sheet that is completed by spearfishers after every dive. We mail this in to a key person or place that collects this data. The data sheet could cover many things; estimates of numbers of fish we see as divers has got to be worth something, as well as a tally of fish taken, size, weight, species, etc. I am sure spearfishers could provide a mountain of valuable data this way.... Is this already in place and I just don't know about it? Thank you.

I agree that that type of data collection COULD be beneficial. One problem I have witnessed is that fishermen LIE. I know that much of the data collected at the ramps has and is being used against us. When asked how many grouper is caught a fishermen could say we caught 50 shorts and 4 legal gags. That can and has been interpreted as 27 shorts died due to release mortality and there aren't any legal fish left to catch. When the same fishermen answers the question " how many time do you fish a year" by saying 150 times that when in reality he really fishes 50. That also has and is used to show a negative impact on the fishery compounding the survey data that is flawed.

Seacidal, you must be another one of these controversial types, but I must concede you are well spoken on one important issue - we need to be pushing solid policies and plans as "Spearfishing's contribution to protect the fishery".

I want to throw this idea up for discussion:
In the Everglades Nat'l Park, "John the creel man", interviews just about every fisherman that launches in Everglades City. Measures every fish, and gathers lots of data. He's been doing this for many years now.

The FRA could provide to all members (non-members, too) a data sheet that is completed by spearfishers after every dive. We mail this in to a key person or place that collects this data. The data sheet could cover many things; estimates of numbers of fish we see as divers has got to be worth something, as well as a tally of fish taken, size, weight, species, etc. I am sure spearfishers could provide a mountain of valuable data this way.... Is this already in place and I just don't know about it? Thank you.



Good ideas and the type of data collection you are suggesting has been considered. Unfortunately, data must be collected in very specific ways as a small error in collection can throw off the final result considerably.

Good ideas and the type of data collection you are suggesting has been considered. Unfortunately, data must be collected in very specific ways as a small error in collection can throw off the final result considerably.

This is exactly why SPEARFISHERS should supply our very own data, it stands a very good chance of being accurate if we complete our own data form after every dive. It could be posted right here on this website for completion and submission to the right person for review. Compiling our own data would be a good approach because it will show entirely different data when compared to the interviews of fishing boats, right? It would help the image of spearfishing especially in the category of bycatch mortality IMO. If we completed a form after every dive where a diver could enter the count of fish species observed while diving... damn good data, right? We need to be separated from hook/liners to some degree, right?

I agree 100% sounds like a good idea to me.

Seacidal, you must be another one of these controversial types, but I must concede you are well spoken on one important issue - we need to be pushing solid policies and plans as "Spearfishing's contribution to protect the fishery".

I want to throw this idea up for discussion:
In the Everglades Nat'l Park, "John the creel man", interviews just about every fisherman that launches in Everglades City. Measures every fish, and gathers lots of data. He's been doing this for many years now.

The FRA could provide to all members (non-members, too) a data sheet that is completed by spearfishers after every dive. We mail this in to a key person or place that collects this data. The data sheet could cover many things; estimates of numbers of fish we see as divers has got to be worth something, as well as a tally of fish taken, size, weight, species, etc. I am sure spearfishers could provide a mountain of valuable data this way.... Is this already in place and I just don't know about it? Thank you.

Holepoker, Indeed some may regard me as controversial in that I examine issues myself before weighing in, and don't necessarily feel compelled to toe the party line. Still, I've watched management at times become mismanagement for a number of reasons, often due to a failure to clearly establish and implement a set of core policies to guide the process. And where they do exist, there is rarely mention of spearfishing, much less actually taking it into consideration.

Your mention of "John the creel man" is interesting. Certainly, groups like the FRA and others could design and establish a program for surveying and collecting data. However, if it is not conducted properly, it is unlikely that resource managers will find it useful.

Such a data gathering project needs to be well designed, and in order to help ensure objectivity, conducted in collaboration with a State of Federal agency.

The survey methodology should be drafted and sent out for review and input by fishery scientists and other stakeholders, prior to collecting any data. The project's duration, locations, staffing, training of staff, gathering of data, verification of data, chain of custody, and processing of data should all be clearly set forth.

With a great number of willing and capable volunteers, the FRA and its membership would be well-suited to working with Florida officials and fishery scientists (State & Federal) to design a data gathering program which would be objective, accurate, and likely to produce useful results. It might even be beneficial to include some of the other stakeholder groups in the process, in order to get them onboard in the data collection effort.

This is the type of project where consistent, long term, professional conduct and participation can enable this type of effort to come together rather quickly and easily. With its legions of spearfishers, Florida's dive clubs and the FRA and other groups should strongly consider how their actions could benefit the overall process, rather than looking solely to obstruct it, as is so often the case in situations where change is being contemplated. I make that comment generally, not just in the specific context of Florida. I find that it's a common response among people.

In summary, it would be a great idea, with one giant caveat. To be at all useful, it would have to be done right.

thanks,
Chip

If I could expand upon what Seacidal wrote, the FRA is working very closely with officials on the National redesign of MRFSS.
BTW...MRFSS stands for Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey and is the sytem primarily used to determine what is caught.
The FRA has had a member appointed to one of the Federal panels that will will help with the redesign in fact.

I think our limited resources would be much better utilized in helping to fix the old system rather than trying to design a completely new system.If the new system doesnt work, then we should seriously look at ways to help or correct it then.


I mostly agree with Chip, Spearmax (and others) in that we must make every attempt to work within the system. Where many of us start to disagree is when exactly, "alternate" methods should start to be employed when working within the sytem is obviously inneffective.

It sure sounds like to me that we are moving forward with good ideas on surveys. My two cents is it would be nice to complete a data form for spearfishing/divers reporting on the internet after every dive. Thank you...

I'm beginning to think that Chip may be a good guy.

:smthumbup:

I had a VERY interesting conversation with a friend up here in Homosassa that owns a VERY large fish house regarding IFQ's. He and his constituents are dumping/selling "low landing" vessel permits and buying up the high ones as that is what he believes as well as his bretheren will dictate the "take" for each vessel. High landing = good permits.... low landings are for sale. He actually called some high falutin guy with the southeren something or others who's their go to guy while I was standing there and the IFQ according to him WILL IN FACT GO THROUGH IN EARLY 2009. I asked if he believed that and his response was do you think I'd sell ANY PERMIT if it wasnt going to be worthless? High landing permits he said will by this time next year be worth 300-550k! Are the IFQ's species specific? or will the landings apply to grouper landings on that vessel for the sake of argument?
I'm just the messenger here so if any of this seems innaccurate dont kill the messenger:toast:

I know a commercial guy who has quota permits by species - grouper is a certain no. of pounds, and red snapper is a certain no. of pounds per year allowable to be sold. Each time he sells a fish to the fish market, it's weight is subtracted from his annual total for that species.