Yep, Alternative two is the new preferred alternative.

The discard mortality figures are still unreasonably high and the effort drop has not been figred in.

I have asked the FL Council reps to request an analysis of a three gag limit with 24" and a 5 aggregate bag limit.

One month closed season is enough

The State oF Florida and its citizens could be robbed of ONE BILLION DOLLARS if the regulations go through.
The longliners are being considered for a size reduction on red grouper since they have to throw so many of them back.

Unbelivable ! All the more reason to be there tommorrow :mad:

Thanks Denny :mad::bsflag::(

SHIT!!!!!:banghead:

Unbelievable...

:banghead:

Dude.

i'll bring some vasalline so it dont hurt as much ,im sure there will be alot of people in need of it...this sure sucks really bad.

Its to bad there are no spearo's on the council....

Denny,

Tell the council if they want to have a positive impact on the fishery ban shrimpers from the Bay and local waters. This comment comes directly from a guy I work with that helps out on a shrimp boat for time to time. He commented on the amount of bicatch they have.

It seems as though the gag environmental assessment instead of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Still no acknowledgement of the effects of reduced effort.

But OH BOY was one of the Council members pushing to MPA's.
We ask again, on the record, WHAT QUANTIFIABLE EFFECTS WILL MPA's have on the fishery?????

Protecting the spawn is noble. Fishing during the spawn is considered better. Regulating the fishery for sustainable yield is the goal.

Why should we shut down for five months? The one month closure is designed to protect a piece of the spawning season, not all of it.

Mtton snapper have a spawning season closure that lets commercial guys STILL harvest fish, but only at the recreational bag level. This restricts the landings during spawn. It does NOT tp them from fishing.

I am now listening to the alocation/economic valuation of fishing. One of the economists aid we were 'not spending our money wisely' when we spend it on fishing. Shoot, better call the tackle manufacturers znd tell them that we are unwise when buying fishing gear. Not sure what wise buy is yet, but I will ask them in a minute.

Keez is bringing up some of the points that some are using to try to force clsoed seasons.
Closed seasons have a huge impact on the economics of the recreational fishery. The State of Florid has sent a message tothe Council throgh bill teehan that Florida does not like or want closed seasons. Closed seasons are a last resort.

A pound of recreational landed grouper is worth $1.21.
Hmm

i'm not saying they are on the brink of collapse.....what i'm trying to say is that we as scientists need to be proactive. instead of doing the bare minimum to protect a species, why not have stricter regulations now while the population is (from what you say) healthy?? rather than wait till it IS declining and then scramble to catch up.

research, lobbying, and implimentation of regulations takes years sometimes. why wait till the end is in sight to start backpeddaling to get away from it?

had we been more proactive on fish like the jewfish 20-30-40yrs ago...maybe a total closure of the fishery wouldn't have been neccessary. had we been more proactive there could have been a limited harvest set up decades ago, and instead of fighting for a tag program now...there would be one in place and we'd be enjoying it.


have i dove the gulf....YES. not the middle grounds though. i dove near tampa bay.
and i'll say this. i didn't see a lack in abundance of gags where we dove. however, i DID see a lack of legal gags. we dove ledges and rockpiles that had 25 gags on them...and 20 of them were what i would say between 21 and 22.5"....barely any were a size i could definatively look at and say "he's legal".
why? because as soon as they are legal...they're harvested.

granted that's in a heavily fished area...but the concept is the same.


i regularly read through the various assessment papers. which ones...off the top of my head...i don't know.

do i beleive the data. as much as any scientist beleives anything he reads. it's our nature to look at something and feel that it can be improved upon. which goes back to MONEY. give us more money to find out, to get more accurate data, maybe even find proof that gags are spawning from january to march in the gulf, and from feb to may in the south atlantic bight (east coast)....which initial studies show.


you ask whether i think what you've discused is "good science"....well i ask you...what science are YOU using? and what makes it so much better. personal hear-say doesn't hold much water against even mediocre scientific data.

we wouldn't have gotten to the moon if a bunch of guys sat around saying ....sure, i think that's close enough.
they tested...tested...tried...tried...failed...tried some more...and finally achieved.

don't you think its worth trying when it comes to our children's future ability to go fishing?

"Why should we shut down for five months? The one month closure is designed to protect a piece of the spawning season, not all of it."

five months is too much....one month is too short.

didn't i see you guys bitch about a 3 month closure?? seems like that's kindda in the middle right?

and when you look at the spawning biology of the fish, it dictates how long it should be closed.

grouper tend to aggregate on and around the lunar cycle...and ya only have one cycle per month. so in order to get the peak spawn, and the 1 or 2 smaller spawns on each side...what do ya know....that's a 3 month closure.


muttons spawn for a LONG time. we've collected data showing them being reproductivly active 6 months after the "peak spawn month".

not saying we need to restrict the fishing for the whole year (although with muttons it would be nice)....but i'm just showing that the bell curve of spawning activity is broad....which means a longer closure/restiction period is needed.

don't you think its worth trying when it comes to our children's future ability to go fishing?

HELL YES!
YOU THINK I DO IT FOR ME?

When we are proactive, we are never rewarded.
Goliath is back strong, yet we continue to hear that the stock is still in bad shape. Some even conspire to stop any research on the stock for personal reasons without consideration. Those folks are the source of amusement in the fisheries management process, I am told by many in the process.

We are being proactive by pointing out the drop in offshore effort. Yet since this does not fit the agenda that seems to be guiding the new regulations, we are getting no acknowledgement.

A pound of recreational landed grouper is worth $1.21.
Hmm

Bullshit. It cost me more than that easy.:mad:

""They have our best interests at heart"

YOUR interest? you mean your ability to fill your freezer? no i think they have the fish's interests at heart, so the fishery doesn't completely collapse like what happened in the north atlantic.

What's with the shitty insult, Keez???

My interest is keeping these people from taking away one of the main reasons I live in Florida and the ability for my kids to pursue their happiness on the ocean instead of getting into trouble on land.
You're implying that the only thing we care about is taking as much fish as we can given our limits. That is insulting. Maybe the perceived difference stems from the different region you live in vs. us on the Gulf. You're able to go out after work to shoot a couple of fish being that you don't have to travel but a 6 miles and you're there. We often travel 35 miles to get to the same depth water. That means a whole lot less trips for us, and a lot more money. So, we are going to take enough to last us until next trip if possible where as you'd be happy with your one fish.
Can you show me one MPA area that has been given back to the fishermen after being taken? Their are lots of MPAs in the keys, correct? What about the study being done there to prove the hypothesis? Every year I go down there I see more MPA's.

"they've been shown to work in other places of the world" Do you have any data to back this claim?

Huge cuts affecting the economy and people's pursuit of happiness are being made based on junk science. Cuts that won't be repealed given the past history, and will cause irreparable harm to the industry.
But this is ok with you because you'll still be able to spend a $12 in gas, get to go diving, and come back with your dinner for a night or two? Screw all the rest of the greedy bastards.

which goes back to MONEY. give us more money to find out, to get more accurate data,

there will be LESS money for all of us in this state if they close the gag fishery for 5 months. So, be careful what you wish for.

i'm not saying they are on the brink of collapse.....what i'm trying to say is that we as scientists need to be proactive. instead of doing the bare minimum to protect a species, why not have stricter regulations now while the population is (from what you say) healthy?? rather than wait till it IS declining and then scramble to catch up.

research, lobbying, and implimentation of regulations takes years sometimes. why wait till the end is in sight to start backpeddaling to get away from it?

had we been more proactive on fish like the jewfish 20-30-40yrs ago...maybe a total closure of the fishery wouldn't have been neccessary. had we been more proactive there could have been a limited harvest set up decades ago, and instead of fighting for a tag program now...there would be one in place and we'd be enjoying it.


have i dove the gulf....YES. not the middle grounds though. i dove near tampa bay.
and i'll say this. i didn't see a lack in abundance of gags where we dove. however, i DID see a lack of legal gags. we dove ledges and rockpiles that had 25 gags on them...and 20 of them were what i would say between 21 and 22.5"....barely any were a size i could definatively look at and say "he's legal".
why? because as soon as they are legal...they're harvested.

granted that's in a heavily fished area...but the concept is the same.


i regularly read through the various assessment papers. which ones...off the top of my head...i don't know.

do i beleive the data. as much as any scientist beleives anything he reads. it's our nature to look at something and feel that it can be improved upon. which goes back to MONEY. give us more money to find out, to get more accurate data, maybe even find proof that gags are spawning from january to march in the gulf, and from feb to may in the south atlantic bight (east coast)....which initial studies show.


you ask whether i think what you've discused is "good science"....well i ask you...what science are YOU using? and what makes it so much better. personal hear-say doesn't hold much water against even mediocre scientific data.

we wouldn't have gotten to the moon if a bunch of guys sat around saying ....sure, i think that's close enough.
they tested...tested...tried...tried...failed...tried some more...and finally achieved.

don't you think its worth trying when it comes to our children's future ability to go fishing?

For copy since the last one was poofed.

"Why should we shut down for five months? The one month closure is designed to protect a piece of the spawning season, not all of it."

five months is too much....one month is too short.

didn't i see you guys bitch about a 3 month closure?? seems like that's kindda in the middle right?

and when you look at the spawning biology of the fish, it dictates how long it should be closed.

grouper tend to aggregate on and around the lunar cycle...and ya only have one cycle per month. so in order to get the peak spawn, and the 1 or 2 smaller spawns on each side...what do ya know....that's a 3 month closure.


muttons spawn for a LONG time. we've collected data showing them being reproductivly active 6 months after the "peak spawn month".

not saying we need to restrict the fishing for the whole year (although with muttons it would be nice)....but i'm just showing that the bell curve of spawning activity is broad....which means a longer closure/restiction period is needed.

Ditto.

Denny....i commend what you and others are doing.....honestly.


i try to stay out of the political side of what you guys bring up and discuss on the board.
but i DO try to interject some logic and reasoning behind WHY some regulatory proposals are made.

not everyone realizes fish spawn for 5 months
not everyone understands the biology behind population dynamics

i do my best to just give the information to help understand why some policies are made.


politics is never gonna change. someone is always influencing someone else.
just because there are a few individuals who are WAY off base with their agendas...doesn't mean the average agenda is that bad.

ugh....i'm getting so confused with all this agreeing...disagreeing....i'm not even sure how this all started.

not everyone realizes fish spawn for 5 months
not everyone understands the biology behind population dynamics
.


Not every scientist realizes they dont know everything

SHIT...what was poofed....crap...this was a good debate.

did tony buy SFP too:redcard:

its all in a new thread

SHIT...what was poofed....crap...this was a good debate.

did tony buy SFP too:redcard:

I thought you poofed one of your own posts, but it could have been from another thread, if so, I stand corrected.

thanks Jeep. i was posting at the same time you were.

Nothing was poofed,, I think Nsearch TREID to move everything to a "data discussion thread and things didn't go as planned. Just to clarify.

Not every scientist realizes they dont know everything

From my understanding their is no model whatsoever for the population dynamics. But somehow the user group representing the most economic impact, by far, are getting their legs forced behind their head while it's getting figured out. What if the model is too complex to figure out and we never get a reliable model...30 years from now...nobody has it figured out.
Why not rely upon control method that is based on sound science? Right now, HUGE cuts are being made on 1 year's data point. Does this sound reasonable to you, Keez?? Do you believe that the population dynamics are so simple that we can rely on a year's data point??? Sure sounds like an unstable control system to me.

SHIT...what was poofed....crap...this was a good debate.

did tony buy SFP too:redcard:

Keez, if you are going to use our tax dollars to communicate on the Internet, at least be a little rational.

It is really scary to think that our government is paying people who think that its a good idea, or even acceptable to reduce recreational fishing from 5 gags to 1 gag and implement a closure from zero months to 3 months all in the span of a year.

Never in my lifetime have I seen our government work more irrationally than these circumstances.

damnit....slow down guys...i'm getting backlogged...:toast:


"Can you show me one MPA area that has been given back to the fishermen after being taken? Their are lots of MPAs in the keys, correct? What about the study being done there to prove the hypothesis? Every year I go down there I see more MPA's.

"they've been shown to work in other places of the world" Do you have any data to back this claim?"

i've posted citations for papers from various places around the world that have proven that MPAs increase the fishing of adjacent areas. and those were on a small scale if i remember, basically increasing the number and size of fish caught in areas surrounding a group of islands.

or was that a mis-type and you ment "and MPA that was given back", meaning no longer an MPA?
in that case, i've never seen it. probably becasue they have a possitive affect on most aspects of their existence. do MPAs work for everything they were intended to?...no. but a partial success is better than no success.


"Their are lots of MPAs in the keys, correct? What about the study being done there to prove the hypothesis? Every year I go down there I see more MPA's."

my current lab doesn't have a study on the MPAs...why? don't know. i think they did one years ago on Looe Key. i'd have to look it up. i'm sure it is a funding issue though.

as for "more MPAs" down here. hmm...other than last year's implimentation of the RNA out in the tortugas. all the current MPAs (or SPAs) have been in place since the early to mid 90s....
so tell me...which ones are new? or is 15yrs old new?

on a side note....more keys specific....and this is personal speculation
the MPAs in the keys were set up more for the benefit of the corals than fish. most are so small, and only encompass high profile, high diversity, and high living coral areas....that a study on the impact on fish would be pretty hard.
some are less than 1mi square....and considering many fish have a home range much larger than that...makes me think it was more coral related than fish as far as MPA implimentation.
although alot of the big fish that take up residence in the MPAs down here, leave (grouper and mutton spawning aggregations) to spawn...then come back. in which case, the MPA is very much a success.

"Nothing was poofed,, I think Nsearch TREID to move everything to a "data discussion thread and things didn't go as planned"

ok....i was pissed for a second.

no problem then.




marcus.....i'm not sure how to help the first part of your post. my head is spinning so much from all of this typing that i've lost my focus.

as for:
"Why not rely upon control method that is based on sound science? Right now, HUGE cuts are being made on 1 year's data point. Does this sound reasonable to you, Keez?? Do you believe that the population dynamics are so simple that we can rely on a year's data point??? Sure sounds like an unstable control system to me."

at first glance...NO it doesn't sound reasonable.
one year's data....hell no...

unstable as it may be...you have to use what you have.

wouldn't it be better to be conservative and make stricter regulations on limits now...and find out later it was wrong....than to be liberal and find out later it had a devistating impact on the populations?

wouldn't it be better to be conservative and make stricter regulations on limits now...and find out later it was wrong....than to be liberal and find out later it had a devistating impact on the populations?

I'm with you on this keez, except history has shown us that once a fishing regulation is enacted, it is rarely or never rescinded. Anglers and divers are rightfully concerned that if they give up ground on any issue, they will never regain it.

unstable as it may be...you have to use what you have.

wouldn't it be better to be conservative and make stricter regulations on limits now...and find out later it was wrong....than to be liberal and find out later it had a devastating impact on the populations?
Problem is is getting them back is next to impossible even if the same science used to slash rec limits later shows the assumption was clearly wrong. I'm still waiting with everyone else for our red grouper limits to be reinstated. What do you think about that?

Nothing was poofed,, I think Nsearch TREID to move everything to a "data discussion thread and things didn't go as planned. Just to clarify.

That's the case guys.....the other posts were merged into one under the Data Discussion thread. No posts were deleted.

loose.....hard to argue with you their.




man....you know guys....we really need to have these discussions in the off hours....when we can sit around and have a beer.

it would make for much more enjoyable time.

:toast:




"Problem is is getting them back is next to impossible even if the same science used to slash rec limits later shows the assumption was clearly wrong. I'm still waiting with everyone else for our red grouper limits to be reinstated. What do you think about that?"

i guess i'm curious as to which rec limits were shown to be clearly wrong? i'd be willing to say that there was enough "correct" with the choice to keep the limits in place.

as for the red grouper limits....i'm not familiar with which ones you're talking about, or where. i would say if they were made in the last 10yrs...we are now just starting to get an idea of whether they were right or wrong....assuming there is funding to determine such an result.

The data discussion doesnt seem to have made its way over to the split thread so I guess i will post here.

Keez,
Please dont think that your input is not greatly appreciated and/or understood.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Gulf of Mexico and/or the political process?
I know you are very familiar with the biology, but that is just one step of the equation, correct?

Regarding what youve posted?
We already have MPA's in the gulf that protect essential fish habitat and spawning aggregations.
And the Middlegrounds is already classified a HAPC and protected from longliners. Its distance from shore also affords it some protection.
I'm sure youve read as much as I (probably more so) regarding the quantifiable effects of MPA's and there is much debate regarding their effectiveness in certain areas.
I would really love to see a study that shows that MPA's work as well as bag limits and season closures as it relates to fisheries management.
There are not any, according to Dr. Bob Shipp and several other well known and respected scientists.;)

Regarding your assertion that the fish "need to be left alone to spawn"?
I'm sure your familiar with the word "sustainability" and how it relates to fish populations?
For those not familiar with sustainabilty, it basically means we only have to have a certain amount of fish survive to spawn, and grow to maturity so that the population remains healthy.
BTW...Most spawning aggregations (of gag grouper) are protected from recreational pressure due to their distance from shore in the GOM.

Keez,

I see where you are coming from. If gags are in trouble, then we need to do something to fix the problem. However, something as drastic as what the council is proposing is a little too far. I think they should sit down and negotiate with the rec/comm sectors and come to an agreement. I know I would be willing to accept 4 gags and the one month closed season over 1 gag and 4-5 months closed season. If every angler in Florida keeps one less grouper every time they go out, it would have to make a huge difference. That would give us more time to collect data and make a good sound decision. If they reduce our catch as low as they are talking about we will never get it back. A small reduction is better than nothing right?

good lord....2 post while i was editing my last one...


:whip:type faster jeff!!!

No posts were deleted.
Except mine but that is no big deal.:awink: Discussion seems to be going OK here.

"Please dont think that your input is not greatly appreciated and/or understood.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Gulf of Mexico and/or the political process?
I know you are very familiar with the biology, but that is just one step of the equation, correct?"

i hope so...i'm not here just to stirr the pot like some folks...which seems to have gotten excessively bad in past months...must be the winter bordom.

semi familiar with the GOM....very little with the politics. for a good reason...i HATE politics...period. probably for many of the same reasons you guys don't like scientists...you never know who to trust, or who's scratching who's back.

agreed that biology is only part of it....and that's the part i try to squeeze my $.02 in on.




kody

absolutely....a little is better than nothing.

and negotiating is good in theory too. but in real life its not so easy. i'm sure a 1 fish reduction would help.

but at the same time....reducing that catch by one fish...while having an increase in the number of fishermen...or increasing the ability of a fisherman to access an area (more reliable boats, gps, fuel efficient engines) means that there could be more trips than ever.
so maybe the harsher limits wouldn't be such a bad thing.


as with anything....the gray area in the middle is what kills ya.

you ask whether i think what you've discused is "good science"....well i ask you...what science are YOU using? and what makes it so much better. personal hear-say doesn't hold much water against even mediocre scientific data.

we wouldn't have gotten to the moon if a bunch of guys sat around saying ....sure, i think that's close enough.
they tested...tested...tried...tried...failed...tried some more...and finally achieved.

don't you think its worth trying when it comes to our children's future ability to go fishing?


We had many, many (100X # of fisheries biologists) people with PhD's and a lot of unmanned development testing with SOLID data that got us to the moon. And some passionate astronauts/test pilots who knew that they might possibly die for their goals. Not the best analogy, but I get your point, and will use it in my response.

What science do I use? Well, Jeff, I won't begin to tell you I know it all, since I do not have a PhD in Marine Biology, just as I don't claim to be a scientist with only an engineering degree either. There is a complete lack of good data, and that is the problem. All science is based on good data. To initiate new regulations that hinder fishing or promote it is asinine, as it is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction to very generalized opinions.

So what motivates me? Being able to see my son shoot a speargun in a couple of years. Nobody wants to go fishing with $4.00/gal gas and only one fish to take home. And if we let your crowd decide whats best for us, it will happen like that.

Face the facts, you are employed by people who mostly HATE fishing, simply because they do. Question: is this stance compounded by the fact that your superiors read your posts on this forum, and this is the stance you take to avoid conflict as well as promote job security? I empathize for you, because it does seem like conflicting interests.

I can tell by our differences that you haven't been fishing all your life, and you probably don't take it as serious as I do. And forgive me if I'm wrong. This is something that I am adamant about promoting to my child, and if things continue the way they are, we will not be able to afford to take him on the same spots I grew up shooting on, especially if the reward is only one fish.

Reducing the limits or imposing MPA's without good science is the most foolish thing any scientist or biologist can do. You might as well as put on a feather hat, dance around a campfire and bark chants at the moon with a rain stick, throw chicken bones on the ground and count them, because its just as effective as the data we have now...and you know it.

Its so blindingly obvious what can be done based on the data we have today, and yet your colleagues continue to choose to ignore it. BAN LONGLINING!!!!!!

Keys do you think that this compilation of data is reliable or even realistic? I am honestly asking because I want you opinion, I'm not being a smart ass.

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% = -42% So in NFMS is saying that there is LESS THAN ZERO GAGS IN THE GOM??????

One more thing, Jeff. Take what I said with a grain of salt. A lot of us know you take what we say and slam us on the other forum, however, even though I dont' agree with everything you say, I do agree with some of it. Just not today :) You know you are always welcome to post your opinions as well as your biological expertise, but please discontinue slamming us on the other forum, OK? A lot of the sentiment between forums does get exasperated with your comments over there, so please, if you are as motiviated as I to remove the wedge, work with us brother!

wouldn't it be better to be conservative and make stricter regulations on limits now...and find out later it was wrong....than to be liberal and find out later it had a devistating impact on the populations?

Only if we know that the council will be reasonable enough to give it back when the problem has been shown to not exist/has been solved.

:BoomSmilie_anim::BoomSmilie_anim::BoomSmilie_anim :

Ain't gonna happen.

while having an increase in the number of fishermen...or increasing the ability of a fisherman to access an area

We all know what the fuel prices are doing to the rec sector and it ain't INCREASING the number of fishermen or the amount of trips those fisherman take. Why would you bring that up?

Looks like the possible reduction in the rec bag limit and X month closure is falling on deaf ears on SB. :loser:

Looks like the possible reduction in the rec bag limit and X month closure is falling on deaf ears on SB. :loser:


FS seems practically silent on the issue as well.

It seems like it is always the same few people that show up and fight for these issues.

"marcus.....i'm not sure how to help the first part of your post. my head is spinning so much from all of this typing that i've lost my focus.

as for:
"Why not rely upon control method that is based on sound science? Right now, HUGE cuts are being made on 1 year's data point. Does this sound reasonable to you, Keez?? Do you believe that the population dynamics are so simple that we can rely on a year's data point??? Sure sounds like an unstable control system to me."

at first glance...NO it doesn't sound reasonable.
one year's data....hell no...

unstable as it may be...you have to use what you have.

wouldn't it be better to be conservative and make stricter regulations on limits now...and find out later it was wrong....than to be liberal and find out later it had a devistating impact on the populations?

"unstable as it may be...you have to use what you have."

I disagree. I may not be a biologist but I am an engineer that knows how to design a control system. An unstable control system will never work and will only serve to fustrate everyone involved.
Even so, the unstable control system they're using is BIASED so that the long term steady state is no fishing whatsoever. Red Grouper is a fine example...HUGE adjustment to insure no overfishing based on a year's data point...no adjustment back when next year's data showed no overfishing. Now they're trying to do the same thing with Gags...but this time, their own data isn't even any good.
When making a control adjustment, it should be made proportional to the change in data with a given amount of proportional Gain.
There should also be an integrator control portion that eliminates the error over time. The result is that even a small error term will cause the integral component to increase slowly. The integral response will continually increase over time unless the error is zero, so the effect is to drive the Steady-State error to zero.
Finally, you have the derivative portion of the control. The derivative component causes the output to decrease if the process variable is increasing rapidly. The derivative response is proportional to the rate of change of the process variable.
This is called a PID control system that is used everywhere in everyday life...except in our fisheries management it seems.
More info PID control systems here. http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/3782
Do they teach this in Marine Biology?

Face the facts, you are employed by people who mostly HATE fishing, simply because they do. Question: is this stance compounded by the fact that your superiors read your posts on this forum, and this is the stance you take to avoid conflict as well as promote job security? I empathize for you, because it does seem like conflicting interests.

I believe you are wrong on this one Steve. Keez works for FWC and in my view the FWC is an organization that has proven from it's onset to have other motives...namely to maximize the outdoor recreation opportunities of the residents and visitors of our state by managing the conservation of our natural resources. I firmly believe we have a solid ally in our states natural resource (game and fish) managers (even if some of their biologists throw us under the bus from time to time):D

Looks like the possible reduction in the rec bag limit and X month closure is falling on deaf ears on SB. :loser:

I think this pretty much comes down to the fact that this is a GoM issue to most people, and a good portion of those people have left SB. I don't expect most California people to care, and the east coast people probably won't be affected as much...and those two sectors seem to be most of the active SB members now.

Like others have stated, if I could be shown actual FACTS that show a need for bag limit reductions and/or closure, I might be able to buy into it...however, once we give up the bag limits, it has already been proven that we will NOT get them back - regardless of what truth comes out after the fact.

"Face the facts, you are employed by people who mostly HATE fishing, simply because they do. Question: is this stance compounded by the fact that your superiors read your posts on this forum, and this is the stance you take to avoid conflict as well as promote job security? I empathize for you, because it does seem like conflicting interests."

6 yrs employed by the state...and i have yet to have a single coworker...let alone supervisor bring up anything i've said on either board. honestly, my 2 superiors in this office don't don't even know it exists...as far as i know. i have 3 coworkers who are avid spearos, i've sent them links to some of my stories....but they have yet to join the board. so honestly....i have NO problems posting when it comes to "job security".
conflicting yes...because i feel the need to support alot of what you (the board and groups like the FRA) are fighting for...but at the same time i find myself only agreeing with some of their suggestions.

i'm NOT a member of the FRA
i purchased 2 or 3 FRA calanders (not only because jess was in them...we ended up getting almost 10 between the 2 of us)

"I can tell by our differences that you haven't been fishing all your life, and you probably don't take it as serious as I do. And forgive me if I'm wrong. This is something that I am adamant about promoting to my child, and if things continue the way they are, we will not be able to afford to take him on the same spots I grew up shooting on, especially if the reward is only one fish."

well you're right....from ages 0-4 i did not fish, and for a couple years around age 18-20 i didn't fish.
i grew up fishing with my grandfather on the rivers and lakes of NY.
i fished in the freshwater ponds, canals and rivers of florida (melbourne area) in college
i fished the gulf off cedar key after college
i came down to the keys at age 24, fished a little, and by january of 2003 i got my first speargun....and the rest is history

so please...why don't i take it as seriously as you? :bringiton:


"especially if the reward is only one fish."

isn't the reward the experience...not the end result??

i hunted for 6 yrs with my dad....never shot a single deer...i'd go again in a heartbeat.

marcus

geez dude.....mouth, gills, tail....;) keep it simple

:)

"
so please...why don't i take it as seriously as you? :bringiton:



If you have to ask that after all that has been said by either of us on this forum, and in the past, then you really won't understand. Seriously.

"[i]especially if the reward is only one fish."

isn't the reward the experience...not the end result??

i hunted for 6 yrs with my dad....never shot a single deer...i'd go again in a heartbeat.

Being happy with one fish is your perogative. This is a democracy and it seems you are outnumbered with people who want a little more than just one fish.

Well my son goes fishing with me, and he likes to catch and eat fish. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't want YOU to reduce his fish.

You should go hunting with my dad. He'll put you on deer all day long. Your shoulder will be so sore from pitching OO buckshot that you'll probably hate it. :D

I think this pretty much comes down to the fact that this is a GoM issue to most people, and a good portion of those people have left SB. I don't expect most California people to care, and the east coast people probably won't be affected as much...and those two sectors seem to be most of the active SB members now.




Probably right scott, I really won't feel the brunt of this for the most part but don't think for a second I don't care about my spearfishing brothers on the west coast. I am paying alot of attention to what transpires over there and have done my share of emailing and what not to do what I can. I hope that they can come up with a livable plan that everyone can be somewhat happy with. I know alot of people have alot riding on this and I sincerely wish you all the luck in the world to open the eyes of these scientists. bad facts = bad science.

especially if the reward is only one fish."

isn't the reward the experience...not the end result??



To you personally....yes....and that is fine.

However, what about the people who run those 1/2 and full day fishing trips? What about the charter spearfishing boats?? Are people going to pay the premium pricing to take home a few fish?? Some will, but MANY won't.

Keys I fully understand where your comming from. The way see it NMFS does what they want with the data they want regardless of the health of the species being assessed. If a Biologist is publishing crap I disregard them and their work and try to show others why they should also. IMHO the problem we have here ISN'T the fishery per say but more the process involved in managing the fishery. It is OBVIUSLY broken and until we get it fixed all the species under it's authority will suffer.

Guys Keys is NOT our enemy here I agree with many of his points and think we should all cut him a bit of slack.

Just my 2 cents

Probably right scott, I really won't feel the brunt of this for the most part but don't think for a second I don't care about my spearfishing brothers on the west coast. I am paying alot of attention to what transpires over there and have done my share of emailing and what not to do what I can. I hope that they can come up with a livable plan that everyone can be somewhat happy with. I know alot of people have alot riding on this and I sincerely wish you all the luck in the world to open the eyes of these scientists. bad facts = bad science.

Andy,

You are another person I am going to ask a favor of.

If you post on our forum, I respectfully ask you to stop slamming SFP over on the other forum.

If you choose to ignore my request, you will still always be welcome to post here, although I do not know how much respect you'll acquire. Its just a request. Carry on.

One more thing, to add to your post. Implementing new regulations in fisheries management is usually expedited by one thing: precedence. If it was one on the atlantic coast, they will attempt to correlate it to the east coast. Like the sanctuaries and MPA's. Or even bag limits. In engineering we call this behavior "qualification by design".

I am not nearly as scared for me as I am some of my friends. I do this as a hobby no matter how much I love it that's what it is. They have been fishing to eat since before they could walk and for some its the only thing they know how to do. What will they do for a living if people refuse to go on thier boats because they can only catch one fish? I just hate to see the lives of good hard working people ruined because of incomplete studies and faulty data. The council needs to see both sides and at least compromise with us. Hell, I'm just venting...

"Guys Keys is NOT our enemy here I agree with many of his points and think we should all cut him a bit of slack."

HEY...cut that out...i'm havin fun here!!!

:toast:

"especially if the reward is only one fish."

isn't the reward the experience...not the end result??

i hunted for 6 yrs with my dad....never shot a single deer...i'd go again in a heartbeat.
As in hunting....fishing is defined as putting yourself in a position to have had the OPPORTUNITY to harvest (fish or game). For a guy that lives basically on the water and about 3 miles or 10-20 minutes from productive fishing a single fish per trip seems like a pretty good deal. What if you had to go 30 miles one way and could only go 2-3 times a year? What if someone told you you could only harvest that single grouper every ten times you go out Keez? How good of a deal or cautious management would it seem like to you then?

PS if while deer hunting your dad told you to hold a burlap sack open while he banged some rocks together he was just having some fun with you....deer hunting is a little different than that. If you want to try it some time I can Pm you some spots....even here in Florida 6 seasons of hunting without a deer in the bag begs for a change of venue.:D:D

"Guys Keys is NOT our enemy here I agree with many of his points and think we should all cut him a bit of slack."



I agree. However if he screws up I think we should demote him and retain his girlfriend as resident chief biologist. Make him the "forum sponge data collector" or "chief sea cucumber measurer" or something :D

inlet....

i'm not sure of to many instances where i specifically bash one board or the other.

they're both full of bitchy little whinners.

some of the editing tony did months ago was wrong

most anything i post is in jest...which is easily misconstrued through the internet.

and off the top of my head the only "bashing" i did recently was for the reactions to some of the problems that caused the split (refer to the "bitchy little whinners" comment above).

i post on both
i support both

sometimes i find it annoying to have to post on both, and cover the same topics 2x.

i think this board is MUCH worse than the other when it comes to whinning.

"I agree. However if he screws up I think we should demote him and retain his girlfriend as resident chief biologist. Make him the "forum sponge data collector" or "chief sea cucumber measurer" or something"

:lol: you fking crack me up.

i've already done some of the most boring work possible.

nothing like diving in 4ft of water counting gobies and pinfish.....to determine the population dynamics of them over near shore hard bottom habitats.

THAT's the kind of worthless research i'm stuck doing...when i'd much rather be doing grouper and snapper research!!! FUNDING....all back to the fking FUNDING thing
:banghead:

inlet....

i'm not sure of to many instances where i specifically bash one board or the other.

they're both full of bitchy little whinners.

some of the editing tony did months ago was wrong

most anything i post is in jest...which is easily misconstrued through the internet.

and off the top of my head the only "bashing" i did recently was for the reactions to some of the problems that caused the split (refer to the "bitchy little whinners" comment above).

i post on both
i support both

sometimes i find it annoying to have to post on both, and cover the same topics 2x.

i think this board is MUCH worse than the other when it comes to whinning.

I'm just asking you to do your part and stop, thats all. I will stop too. Be an example. I'm really trying, but its hard when we have these double-agent members badmouthing SFP or SB from one side to another. Its not just you, theres a list of them. Not one person can change it, all of us have to make an effort. :beer:

Too bad a few whinny bitches gets a board (SFP or SB) tagged as being 'full of whinny bitches'. That aint scientific. In fact, it is friggin' exaggeration in order to mischaracterize.
You said that you like this shit, Keez. Here ya go. Hell, I was just about to post a chillout on Keez thing.
Have at it, all of you whinny bitches!

NOTE- THE PREVIOUS POST WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY AND NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK ON KEEZ OR THE WHINNY BITCHES.
JESS RULES. KEEZ DROOLS.
-Management

marcus

geez dude.....mouth, gills, tail....;) keep it simple

:)

Do you think its a simple problem meant for simple action?
They can't seem to even keep it simple...deemed overfished...increase limits...deemed underfished...decrease limits.
But no...its increase limits regardless if its determined to be over or under fished.

They could at least use a moving window average based on something like a 5 year window in order to use as a data point for increasing/decreasing limits...proportionally. But that seems too complex for them even. So, they are either inept or they have an agenda driven by the radical enviros, IMO.

************* AND IN THE TIME THIS POST HAS BEEN GOING ON I SENT OUT 15 FAXES AND 30 EAMILS********************************* AND COUNTING.:awink::awink:

Gamble, do you have a compiled list of people to email? I have the email I sent out to others but I don't have 30 contacts. maybe make a thread with email addresses and names would be very helpful

There has been a few different post lately with a BUNCH of addresses. I would compile it but I don't have time a the moment. Check out the resent GAG related threads or hit the FRA website:awink::awink::awink:

Heres a start:

Council members:
bgillbgill@embarqmail.com, morris@ncf.edu, rshipp@jaguar1.usouthal.edu, chancyw@gulftel.com, hkaywilliams@hotmail.com, tom.mcIlwain@usm.edu, nolrah@aol.com, svillere@vilquest.com, mike.ray@tpwd.state.tx.us, jhendrix1706@aol.com, william.teehan@myFWC.com, ken.haddad@myFWC.com, vminton@dcnr.state.al.us, sheath.amrdgs@gulftel.com, corky.perret@dmr.state.ms.us, bill.walker@dmr.state.ms.gov, foote_k@wlf.state.la.us, jroussel@wlf.louisiana.gov, robin.riechers@tpwd.state.tx.us,

NMFS: (I'm not including these guys on my list because I'd rather the others have my letter so he isn't as prepared) roy.crabtree@noaa.gov, phil.steele@noaa.gov

Staff members:

wayne.swingle@gulfcouncil.org, rick.leard@gulfcouncil.org, steven.atran@gulfcouncil.org, stu.kennedy@gulfcouncil.org,jrester@gsmfc.org, assane.diagne@gulfcouncil.org, Charlene.Ponce@gulfcouncil.org, cathy.readinger@gulfcouncil.org

Thanks for the additional email addresses. As an expatriate (Cali)Floridian, I'm doing what I can from afar. I sincerely respect and appreciate what you've all done to this point and are collectively planning to do moving forward.

Best of luck (as though it should even be a function of f*cking luck) tomorrow,

Andrew

thanks gamble. I am going to start firing some emails, I hope everyone else will do the same.

ok, Since they made up their minds before public input was heard, who do we send our frustrations? the council themselves? These guys?

bgillbgill@embarqmail.com
morris@ncf.edu
rshipp@jaguar1.usouthal.edu
chancyw@gulftel.com
hkaywilliams@hotmail.com
tom.mcIlwain@usm.edu
nolrah@aol.com
svillere@vilquest.com
mike.ray@tpwd.state.tx.us
jhendrix1706@aol.com

Edit, this is the same as Gamble posted above, but short a few.

Roger Rowe wrote:
Dear Gulf Council:

How could you possibly make up your minds already on a subject with bad science as an excuse and especially before the public comment has been heard? Will any of you answer this question?

http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/01/federal-regulat.html


Roger Rowe

AND HIS RESPONSE (Bob Gill):




The short answer is, we're not. Public testimony is tomorrow...decisions will not be made until Thurs and based on committee comments today will require public input as part of ultimate decision. Re science....we're using what is the "best available" science. If you have better scientific input, we would be pleased to consider it, but anecdotal considerations are testimony, not science.(end of email)

I wonder why the paper is reporting it to be so?



Here is my response to what he wrote me. Let's see if he responds:


That is one of the main points, Bob. The science you guys are using to make these decisions is no better than what I have and may be worse as the council and their minions are the only ones who believe in it enough to use it.

What about the science of REDUCED fishermen. Does it take that much scientific work to find out how far the marina and related businesses have slipped since the price of fuel has skyrocketed? That is one of many examples of data that can be used in place of more restrictions.

Why can't common sense prevail? I know you realize that the charter industry will all but disappear with the move you are about to make. we, as fishermen and prudent users of the gulf are very concerned.

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Now I know that someone is listening.

Best Regards,

Roger Rowe
:whip:

And then of course you tried to hit em hard with teh whole economy thing, but you know they can all fall back on the stereotypical "If we do not make drastic measures now, then EVERY fisherman that gets paid to catch fish, commercial or charter will be out of a job cause there will be NOT ONE fish left to catch". Ugh.

:banghead:

And then:

Bob,
I have one more question and I will leave you alone for the day. please give us your take on the information below;

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.

Again, Bob, thanks for your time.

Regards,

Roger Rowe

:toast::toast:

If any ammo I have collected is beneficial for fact to the cause and what we are fighting here, I am more than happy to help. We are in the same boat with the snapper / grouper catagory as you guys in the Gulf.

The more ammo the better. What-ya-got?

This is so discouraging to a new spearfisherman...

At a glance its almost to the point of not even going out. On a normal basis I pay $40 for a fuel split. before that was fine, now I can come home with 5 hogs, 10 snapper, and 1 grouper? I can eat a single grouper in 1 night as long as he isnt over 30"....

the cost/benefit ratio is out of whack, not gonna be worth it to go diving anymore.

This is so discouraging to a new spearfisherman...

At a glance its almost to the point of not even going out. On a normal basis I pay $40 for a fuel split. before that was fine, now I can come home with 5 hogs, 10 snapper, and 1 grouper? I can eat a single grouper in 1 night as long as he isnt over 30"....

the cost/benefit ratio is out of whack, not gonna be worth it to go diving anymore.

Easy now. Don't go overboard. the fat lady has yet to warm up.

The more ammo the better. What-ya-got?

Where do you want to begin.

Understanding that the primary issue I have with the assessments is the data. I am focusing on the data collection only. At that point, let the hammer fall where it may if they are using the correct factors to plug into there antiquated equation. The best thing that I have found is to review the amendments and then ask qualifying questions. If you want some of those, I would be more than happy to forward things that we are asking.

As for solutions, you have to get it in your mind that if you don't attack the "bigger" problem, you will always be back pedaling to try to hold on to what you already have.

As a diver and what I see, I can understand that if I was trying to do this topside, I would but some weight in the methods that they are using since it would in fact be the "best available data" that I had.

It would make sense to start a thread to ask "qualifying questions" and make "qualified statements". This isn't telling you what to say, just educating you on the facts that need to be addressed. Those that are up to date with the program and issues, they need to be the ones reviewing the questions and answers so as to make sure something isn't taken out of context. For those that want to understand, the questions would also spark some interest in the subject.

It shouldn't be a "opinion" responding thread. It should be factual only. I would be more than happy to list 10 - 20 good questions, calling them on their own data, and also supply the data reference to back it up.

The key needs to be that when you address issues, you have done some homework to back it up and understand what you are debating.

I don't just want to start posting alot of info and do more harm then good by confusing people with a ton of data that they start mentioning and then get steam rolled by it.

Think about the "fact" thread and let me know what you guys think. I would be easy enough for 5-6 guys that are "in the loop" to review the questions and answers and recommend modifying the posts as necessary. There are enough guys on here that are really good with keeping up with the current status of things.

Just a thought, but I think a decent one.

Easy now. Don't go overboard. the fat lady has yet to warm up.

Oh i know, but just seeing this in action and being considered gives me a horrible feeling in my gut. In all actuality the Gulf Council doenst HAVE to listen to us. they could let us do our thing tomorrow and then just vote to pass every law they want.

Im not counting anything out, im just discouraged about the possible outcome. I finally found a sport I have a true passion for and im actually naturally good at. and now THE MAN is putting me down...

WHAT!!!??? WTF!!!!!!!!!
shit I'm off for a while and the council DECIDED on what the hells going to be enacted??

"What if someone told you you could only harvest that single grouper every ten times you go out Keez? How good of a deal or cautious management would it seem like to you then?"

honestly...you're asking the wrong person. as a biologist i would deal with it...would i like it as a spearfisher...NO. but stronger restrictions are part of management.


"At a glance its almost to the point of not even going out. On a normal basis I pay $40 for a fuel split. before that was fine, now I can come home with 5 hogs, 10 snapper, and 1 grouper? I can eat a single grouper in 1 night as long as he isnt over 30"...."

the fish you listed, assuming a just legal grouper, and moderate sized snapper and hogs (for the keys that would be 15" or so), would feed my household (jess and myself)probably 15-20 meals. so i guess i'm not sure what you're complaining about? now i DO realize some of you have children...and i'm sure some of you will jump down my throat for discussing this on a 2 person basis.

and $40 is about what we spend for a trip out....and we NEVER come close to a limit of hogs or snapper. i would say a our average catch is 2 hogs, and a grouper, throw in the occasional 5-8lb mutton. we pass on almost every mango we see...i don't like how they taste, couldn't even tell you the last time i shot more than 2 snapper...or 3-4 hogs between 2 divers. on occasion we shoot a big grouper or 2. rarely more than that. and we can get about 4-6 meals out of one grouper.

i give fish away like crazy. if i can't eat if within 2 days...it goes to someone else. i NEVER freeze fish. i spread the wealth to some of my fellow coworkers...i give alot to the single mother of 3...some to the guy paying off his heart transplant...and alot to the girl who makes less than me.

and honestly, if you added up how much $$ it would total to have 15-20 meals worth of inexpensive beef, pork or chicken.....$40-50...hell $75...of gas for the same amount is a pretty decent deal.

for the sake of arguement...lets look at the extremes....15 meals for $75 in gas. that's $5 per meal for the protein. that's about what you'll pay for 2 cheap cuts of pork, or chicken breasts.

so yeah...i could definatly deal with it....assuming i was willing to freeze fish

Jeff,

An average Middle Grounds trip is going to cost $600 in fuel and oil, then you have ice, food beverages, and tank fills, if the boat takes 4 guys and it is an even split, the trip is going to be about $175 per guy, not counting fills or other things such as his fuel to drive there, I live about 50 miles from where we launch, so I have 100 miles round trip.

So a 1 day trip to the middle grounds may end up costing me $250 or more, with the proposed rules I can keep 1 black, 1 gag and 1 red grouper, it is not usually possible to get that combination in the grounds.

I don't just spearfish because I can keep fish but that is part of the justification for the expense.

Your situation for diving is quite a bit different, you can take a 20 minute ride and be diving, yet we can't get the boat out of the channel that quick.

So in your case I guess it does pay to be in the Keys.

Have you read any of the data about how they came up with the release mortality in the study that is being used to lower the bag limit?

I really can't believe you are supporting this, Jeff.


Umm, Bret, in Jeff's mind you won't have the problem with spending all the fuel to drive to the grounds. He supports the MPA, so you won't be fishing there anyway...

Jeff,

Let me get this straight. You dive in the keys, and as you state, never get your limit of fish anyway. And you don't eat all of your fish that you do manage to get, you give most of it away anyway. And now you are justifying to us that spending that gas money on cheap pork or beef instead of fish, and feel that everyone should be imposed to follow your lead, since you are the biologist. Did I miss anything here?

I am sure all of the keys will be a no take zone before to long too. I said it years ago and still believe its coming.

I am sure all of the keys will be a no take zone before to long too. I said it years ago and still believe its coming.

The keys is the only part of florida that may be fished out, but the issue at hand is the entire federal GOM fishery!!! And I cannot believe Jeff is basing his professional experience on diving in the Keys, or the crap from the higher-ups he reads. The Keys fishery has NOTHING to do with the federal GOM fishery. Night and day. I cannot express my disappointment right now. Excuse me while I slam my head in a door with a vision of a nipple-ringed biologist dressed like fantasy fester drives away in his 800 hp camaro with my stringer of grouper, giving it away to the single mothers working at the brass pole establishments in Key West. Damn it man!

Clearly his opinion is based on his access to fish. Our style of fishing is much more expensive.

Keez, what do you think about the drastic drop in effort due to costs? Have you seen that it has been taken into account in any way?

This whole situation exemplifies everything that is wrong with the science community. They think that their science, even if it is bad science, is better than good ole common sense. My good ole common sense tells me that that it is not called science, it's called arrogance. I know better than you, because I have PHD behind my name, and there is nothing you can do about it.

On a side note, my sympathies go out to all of the third and fourth generation charter fishing families that have survived on making an honest living while doing something you enjoy. Your business is over.

Think I'm being dramatic? Just wait and see.

The keys is the only part of florida that may be fished out, but the issue at hand is the entire federal GOM fishery!!! And I cannot believe Jeff is basing his professional experience on diving in the Keys, or the crap from the higher-ups he reads. The Keys fishery has NOTHING to do with the federal GOM fishery. Night and day. I cannot express my disappointment right now. Excuse me while I slam my head in a door with a vision of a nipple-ringed biologist dressed like fantasy fester drives away in his 800 hp camaro with my stringer of grouper, giving it away to the single mothers working at the brass pole establishments in Key West. Damn it man!

Kinda reminds me of this scenario...

The burglar that sues you after he just terrorized your wife, stole your jewelry, bashed your big screen TV in and broke his foot on it. WTF!!!!!!:banghead:

gofish,

the problem is they have to use the best available science, even though it is junk science and they know it, they will make decisions based on it anyway because that is all they have.

That is my understanding of it, Jeromy or Ed could probably explain it better than I can.

When discussing the keys fishery, lets face it. Some people are lacking sufficient skill and intelligence to be proficient at spearfishing or any kind of other non-government paid activity.

Myself and numerous other divers who don't target small barely legal fish are able to reach our alloted limits, on a regular basis and feel strongly that what is happening in the gulf is bad, very bad. But then again, we don't have to dive at night to shoot blinded fish, and we don't go home knowing we wounded multiple fish (of the few remaining in the keys) that may not live in our retarded attemps at glory. We have the respect to take a shot that will kill or ensure landing a fish when we pull the trigger!




PS. Steve you have ruined my dreams with the scenario you described.

Steve I was not making a comparison just injecting a thought. I know the two area are quite different I dive them both. Jeff is lucky he choses to sacrifice money and some of his future to live where he is happy, dives his ass off shoots a few fish here and there meets a lot of great people and is having fun. He is as frustrated with the cost of living there as I am because that is where I want to be, but cannot afford to. I don't remember him ever talking about diving up here, my guess is he would not like it after being spoiled with the diving down there. I am - I love the over fished keys.

the fish you listed, assuming a just legal grouper, and moderate sized snapper and hogs (for the keys that would be 15" or so), would feed my household (jess and myself)probably 15-20 meals. so i guess i'm not sure what you're complaining about? now i DO realize some of you have children...and i'm sure some of you will jump down my throat for discussing this on a 2 person basis.

and $40 is about what we spend for a trip out....and we NEVER come close to a limit of hogs or snapper. i would say a our average catch is 2 hogs, and a grouper, throw in the occasional 5-8lb mutton. we pass on almost every mango we see...i don't like how they taste, couldn't even tell you the last time i shot more than 2 snapper...or 3-4 hogs between 2 divers. on occasion we shoot a big grouper or 2. rarely more than that. and we can get about 4-6 meals out of one grouper.

i give fish away like crazy. if i can't eat if within 2 days...it goes to someone else. i NEVER freeze fish. i spread the wealth to some of my fellow coworkers...i give alot to the single mother of 3...some to the guy paying off his heart transplant...and alot to the girl who makes less than me.

and honestly, if you added up how much $$ it would total to have 15-20 meals worth of inexpensive beef, pork or chicken.....$40-50...hell $75...of gas for the same amount is a pretty decent deal.

for the sake of arguement...lets look at the extremes....15 meals for $75 in gas. that's $5 per meal for the protein. that's about what you'll pay for 2 cheap cuts of pork, or chicken breasts.

so yeah...i could definatly deal with it....assuming i was willing to freeze fish

Dude, your logics pretty fucked up.

I went diving yesterday,

-first that entailed scraping the ice off my windshield at 4AM,
-then driving for 2 hours down to Venice,
-then riding out in the boat for 2 hours,

-basically we never got back home until 8PM
-then I had to wait till today to clean my fish and all the other mess I have.

And you think I want to do all that shit for one grouper???:banhim:

Dude, your logics pretty fucked up.

I went diving yesterday,

-first that entailed scraping the ice off my windshield at 4AM,
-then driving for 2 hours down to Venice,
-then riding out in the boat for 2 hours,

-basically we never got back home until 8PM
-then I had to wait till today to clean my fish and all the other mess I have.

And you think I want to do all that shit for one grouper???:banhim:

Thank you for breaking it down right. We all don't live a mile from the water and six miles from 100'

Let me point something out to anybody from the East coast of Florida who may not be smart enough to realize what is comming their way.:tool:

I picked up a very interesting piece of paper at the Council meeting today...
It showed that in the Gulf of Mexico there are 4 species listed as overfished right now and they are planning an 80 percent reduction on one of them!

In the South Atlantic there are 11 species of fish undergoing overfishing right now.
They are vermillion snapper, Red Snaper,Snowy Grouper, Tilefish, Black sea bass, Red grouper, Gag Grouper, Black grouper, Speckled hind, warsaw grouper, and Red Drum!

Now... the exact same science that has been used on Gulf stocks WILL be used to manage South Atlantic species just as soon as stock assesments are completed.
Think about the limits you have now and magine 80 percent reductions and many, many closed months!:eek:

That, my friends, is what is heading your way if what is happening in the gulf is allowed to continue unchecked!

For anybody going to the Council meting tommorow and still wondering what your going to say, I have a sugestion.

Tell them you have observed a huge drop off in fishing effort (if you have).

Personnaly, I have seen far fewer vehicles at the boat ramp as well as a substantial drop off in boats seen offshore.
Is it any wonder with the high cost of fuel as well as other rising expenses??


According to their own numbers there has already been a decrease in effort of 40 percent!
Ask the council why this drop in "effort" is not being factored in to the equation!!

According to their own numbers there has already been a decrease in effort of 40 percent!
Ask the council why this drop in "effort" is not being factored in to the equation!!


That is a big part of my letter I've been working on

I hardly dove last year, I know Mike W. said he dove about 20% of what he usually did.

Scott C. until towards the end of the year didn't get very many trips in, and he goes practically whenever he can, he will be lucky if he gets a trip in before the closure.

I think a lot of people dove substantially less last year than they normally do.

It's my understanding that because the gag assessment shows overfishing the gulf counsel must take action correct?

Does anyone have a time line as to when the assessment took place because ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN

1. Comm trip limits were reduced.
2. Charter boat captain & crew can not keep there limit.
3. One month closed season.
4. Fish traps have only been gone a year.

Did these things really had time time to take effect before the assessment.

Let me point something out to anybody from the East coast of Florida who may not be smart enough to realize what is comming their way.:tool:

I picked up a very interesting piece of paper at the Council meeting today...
It showed that in the Gulf of Mexico there are 4 species listed as overfished right now and they are planning an 80 percent reduction on one of them!

In the South Atlantic there are 11 species of fish undergoing overfishing right now.
They are vermillion snapper, Red Snaper,Snowy Grouper, Tilefish, Black sea bass, Red grouper, Gag Grouper, Black grouper, Speckled hind, warsaw grouper, and Red Drum!

Now... the exact same science that has been used on Gulf stocks WILL be used to manage South Atlantic species just as soon as stock assesments are completed.
Think about the limits you have now and magine 80 percent reductions and many, many closed months!:eek:

That, my friends, is what is heading your way if what is happening in the gulf is allowed to continue unchecked!

Sad but true. If these draconian regulations follow through, the repercussions will be felt throughout the state and elsewhere. This is just the beginning. Despite all the "critism" and second guessing you Gulf coast shooters put up with, you should take solace in that your mobilization efforts are second to none. The case cannot be said on this side of the state. I'm afraid that the level of apathy over here will assure that the fat lady will croak early and all night long.

Good luck tomorrow, it's not over yet.

Sad but true. If these draconian regulations follow through, the repercussions will be felt throughout the state and elsewhere. This is just the beginning. Despite all the "critism" and second guessing you Gulf coast shooters put up with, you should take solace in that your mobilization efforts are second to none. The case cannot be said on this side of the state, particularly with so-called leaders like Ronald. I'm afraid that the level of apathy over here will assure that the fat lady will croak early and all night long.

Good luck tomorrow, it's not over yet.

BTW, Inlet...I commend you on this post:


I'll try to make the east coast public inputs also, they are all connected anyway, so says causey:rolleyes:

There has been a few different post lately with a BUNCH of addresses. I would compile it but I don't have time a the moment. Check out the resent GAG related threads or hit the FRA website:awink::awink::awink:

Heres a start:

Council members:
bgillbgill@embarqmail.com, morris@ncf.edu, rshipp@jaguar1.usouthal.edu, chancyw@gulftel.com, hkaywilliams@hotmail.com, tom.mcIlwain@usm.edu, nolrah@aol.com, svillere@vilquest.com, mike.ray@tpwd.state.tx.us, jhendrix1706@aol.com, william.teehan@myFWC.com, ken.haddad@myFWC.com, vminton@dcnr.state.al.us, sheath.amrdgs@gulftel.com, corky.perret@dmr.state.ms.us, bill.walker@dmr.state.ms.gov, foote_k@wlf.state.la.us, jroussel@wlf.louisiana.gov, robin.riechers@tpwd.state.tx.us,

NMFS: (I'm not including these guys on my list because I'd rather the others have my letter so he isn't as prepared) roy.crabtree@noaa.gov, phil.steele@noaa.gov

Staff members:

wayne.swingle@gulfcouncil.org, rick.leard@gulfcouncil.org, steven.atran@gulfcouncil.org, stu.kennedy@gulfcouncil.org,jrester@gsmfc.org, assane.diagne@gulfcouncil.org, Charlene.Ponce@gulfcouncil.org, cathy.readinger@gulfcouncil.org

sent email to all these nice, smart, reasonable gentleman...:awink:

see everyone tomorrow...

Let me point something out to anybody from the East coast of Florida who may not be smart enough to realize what is comming their way.:tool:

I picked up a very interesting piece of paper at the Council meeting today...
It showed that in the Gulf of Mexico there are 4 species listed as overfished right now and they are planning an 80 percent reduction on one of them!

In the South Atlantic there are 11 species of fish undergoing overfishing right now.
They are vermillion snapper, Red Snaper,Snowy Grouper, Tilefish, Black sea bass, Red grouper, Gag Grouper, Black grouper, Speckled hind, warsaw grouper, and Red Drum!

Now... the exact same science that has been used on Gulf stocks WILL be used to manage South Atlantic species just as soon as stock assesments are completed.
Think about the limits you have now and magine 80 percent reductions and many, many closed months!:eek:

That, my friends, is what is heading your way if what is happening in the gulf is allowed to continue unchecked!


Rich, I totally agree with you and appreciate that you posted this for my fellow east coasters to see. Because its real.

One more thing for Sebastian/Canaveral people: That thing called the Oculina Bank? Soon it will be an MPA stretching from south Ponce to Ft Pierce, closing down the best fishing in the area between 180-300 feet of water. Why? Because shrimp trawlers, who still even to this day break the laws, have decimated forests of Oculina and the rec's get to pay the debt.

Let me point something out to anybody from the East coast of Florida who may not be smart enough to realize what is comming their way.:tool:

I picked up a very interesting piece of paper at the Council meeting today...
It showed that in the Gulf of Mexico there are 4 species listed as overfished right now and they are planning an 80 percent reduction on one of them!

In the South Atlantic there are 11 species of fish undergoing overfishing right now.
They are vermillion snapper, Red Snaper,Snowy Grouper, Tilefish, Black sea bass, Red grouper, Gag Grouper, Black grouper, Speckled hind, warsaw grouper, and Red Drum!

Now... the exact same science that has been used on Gulf stocks WILL be used to manage South Atlantic species just as soon as stock assesments are completed.
Think about the limits you have now and magine 80 percent reductions and many, many closed months!:eek:

That, my friends, is what is heading your way if what is happening in the gulf is allowed to continue unchecked!

There is no doubt that this will be coming to our side, we are only allowed 2 gags now but I am already expecting it to go to one gag eventually. it won't feel quite as bad as your limit cut going from 5 to 1 but it will be a 50% cut. I guess we will be really selective when picking our one gag. :banghead:

There is no doubt that this will be coming to our side, we are only allowed 2 gags now but I am already expecting it to go to one gag eventually. it won't feel quite as bad as your limit cut going from 5 to 1 but it will be a 50% cut. I guess we will be really selective when picking our one gag. :banghead:


You bet it's coming our way, Andy. You can probably plan on being selective for your one red snapper as well. The prophecy of one fish species per person ain't so far fetched anymore...

For what it's worth, I've written my emails about how this proposal would effectively end my frequent trips to the gulf and the dollars I spend on the west coast.

I hope the outcry in the meeting today has some effect. Go get 'em gents!

As far as the recreational grouper fishing effort reduction.....

I remember when you almost never saw a recreational boat fishing the MG.
Unreliable engines, crappy nav systems, and other factors made it risky at best.

Outboards got better, GPS arrived. It was commonplace to see a dozen recreational boats on a good weekend fishing/diving the grounds.

Then it changed again, gas prices soared, and suddenly the recreational boats almost vanished from offshore effort. The last two years, I have personally noticed a HUGE drop in the number of rec boats in the offshore waters of the GOM.

This isn't just what I think...this is what I know. A lot of the comm guys have noticed the decrease in recreational effort. I don't dive too much in close, so I don't feel qualified to comment on that. But as far as offshore effort? I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's 20%-30% of what it was a few years ago.

For what it's worth.............

That is STRONG publicinput. Hope to seeyou here today, Dan.

As far as the recreational grouper fishing effort reduction.....

I remember when you almost never saw a recreational boat fishing the MG.
Unreliable engines, crappy nav systems, and other factors made it risky at best.

Outboards got better, GPS arrived. It was commonplace to see a dozen recreational boats on a good weekend fishing/diving the grounds.

Then it changed again, gas prices soared, and suddenly the recreational boats almost vanished from offshore effort. The last two years, I have personally noticed a HUGE drop in the number of rec boats in the offshore waters of the GOM.

This isn't just what I think...this is what I know. A lot of the comm guys have noticed the decrease in recreational effort. I don't dive too much in close, so I don't feel qualified to comment on that. But as far as offshore effort? I wouldn't be surprised to find that it's 20%-30% of what it was a few years ago.

For what it's worth.............

We hope you can help with your VALUABLE input, Dan. Thanks.

WE need to hammer the price of fuel, hard at the meeting. This is one of our stong points. The Council fools and some of the eco loons have even said thats a concern that might be re-looked at, or that might be addressed. Crabtree himself is on record with that statement. For them to even show a crack in their Armour is down right shocking. Hopefully, we'll have some Marina owners in attendance, and they can explain, firsthand, the 20-30 drop in Biz, and still rising. This fuel problem and the economy might be our best form of attack with those on the Council. Seems like we could google a lot of the info we'll need. National fuel surveys, drop in Florida Tourism #'s, Boat sales, ect. We can do a lot the research ourselves, save a lot on Attorney fees. I hate to say it, but from the looks of yesterday, looks like another lawsuit is will be heading their way. Were, fucked in the meantime, or until we win the suit.:banghead:

From the article yesterday;

Quote from Crabtree:

"It will impact some fishermen, no question," said Roy Crabtree, administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service's Southeastern Region. "But the long-term results of all these measures is that we will have an economic gain if the stocks rebound."


Would someone please ask him today, since he made this statement, "Does this mean the restrictions will loosen when the population increases? Will we get our gags back?"

Also, "Will they find population increases based on a one year point to loosen restriction like they used a one year point to impose them?"

And here is his email if you want to ask him yourself:awink::awink::awink:


roy.crabtree@noaa.gov










.

Also, "Will they find population increases based on a one year point to loosen restriction like they used a one year point to impose them?"

FAT CHANCE. They didn't loosen the Red Grouper restriction when data said they had recovered.

We need his ass on the record!:whip:

WE need to hammer the price of fuel, hard at the meeting.

Although fuel is a good point, it is not going to hold much weight with the council members as a whole.

I am not trying to knock you down, just filling you in that you need as much info to add with it as possible and data goes further as an argument than fuel. I have one on one with 4 of them and their opinion is that it a minor "lull" on the fishing pressure according to them. If it helps, here part of one letter that I used in a past SAMFC meeting. The reason I am posting it, although not complete, does have references to the Gulf which I thought might help. If nothing else, it can act as a outline that you can modify, cut and paste, or not use all together, your own speach.

Just trying to help.


First, I would like to state that the purpose of my comments are just to address concerns that we have with the data used for decisions on the management of the fisheries in our region. It seems that for too long the subject of the proposed "problem" isn't always defined prior to a "solution" be derived. Public meeting inputs have the attitude that the decision has already been made. As a fisherman and diver, I would be more than happy to supply data as would may of the fisherman in the room if you would educate us on what you need for information and help. As a diver, I see a perspective that most don't and that probably is one of the reasons that I feel so strongly about the regulations that are being proposed. Just finding out about these meetings is hard enough, try getting on the SAFMC website and finding SEDAR 10 REPORT or Magnuson Stevens Scoping document. To long have fisherman been pitted against each other, both commercial and recreational, in an attempt to, in my opinion, redirect focus on the issue at hand. Politics are also playing a huge role in our decisions and do at times, seem detrimental to the cause. An example of this would be NCDMF commission opposed the legislation of the recent ban on Atlantic menhaden off of the coast of Brunswick County because it doesn't like the legislature managing coastal fisheries.

As I have read extensive amounts of information including SEDAR 10 along with information from the SAFMC, etc. I have a couple of points that I would like to bring up.

From the SAMFC website and I quote

The condition of many of the species within the snapper grouper complex was, and still is, unknown. Improved data collection (in terms of quantity and quality) during the 1980’s and 90’s has provided more management information on some of the more commercially and recreationally valuable species, but lack of basic management data on many of the species still remains the major obstacle to successful management.


Where are the projected recreational numbers coming from? Recreational charter captains? MRFSS Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey
Is it true that surveys on "random hard bottoms" are the basis of most surveys?
Data collections from things like "Chevron traps" were inconclusive due to such low catch rates and classified as "indeterminable and inaccurate"?
Things like wave heights, sea surface temps, surface currents, hurricane impacts, etc not included in present surveys?
Recreational fisheries Release mortality is presently assumed to be 25%
Commercial fisheries Release mortality is presently assumed to be 40%
Data collected from 1992 - 2004 was done on thru the commercial sector. This mortality rate is primarily based on a study which consisted of deep drops using electric reels in a commercial setting and is in no way representative of the recreational release mortality.

Fish in the cited studies had extremely long times on deck (2-5 minutes) for measuring and handling before being released, adding to the baro trauma experienced by the fish and also increasing the mortality % of the fish..

The Gulf red grouper study accounted for this.
The recent Gulf of Mexico Red Grouper assessment used a 10% release mortality for recreational discards. Why are ours so different?

As an example, according to (Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute), there is a Florida Headboat survey underway which shows that observed release mortality is less than 2% for grouper caught between 20 meters and 40 meters of depth.

We would like to see the gag assessment redone. There are too many uncertainties and inconsistencies to move forward with an assessment that will affect such a large fishery.

- The Gulf Gag assessment has been reviewed due to some of the same questions. There were many corrections and this was done in less than 6 month time frame.

Fishing effort is significantly reduced and is not taken into account when calculating future estimates.
Fuel prices alone have driven the reduction in trip frequency and the increase in cost per trip. MRFSS is usually a year or two behind in estimating this trend, so we are worried about over-regulation.

Calculating Annual Catch Limits should be done in a less ‘precautionary’ manner, as there are speedy mechanisms to put increased restrictions on a fishery, yet there are no such speedy mechanisms to decrease restrictions should any fishery’s biomass indeed increase to healthier levels, or have new data to contradict the imposing limits.

Captain and Crew bag reduction: No quantifiable benefits. There is no basis for any estimate of the amount of reductions in landings realized by this option.

Allocation:
What percentage of recreationally counted fish are also being counted on the commercial side, being double counted and amplifying the commercial allocation?
What would a reduction in recreational bag limits do to the commercial landings?

Economic impact of recreational fishing is underestimated.

Marine Protected Areas are unacceptable as a management tool. Until they can provide a quantifiable benefit, there is no place for them in a management plan. They are useless as management tools and should be stated as scientific study areas only. There has been no proof as of yet on overwhelming management tools

50% of maturity is 3 years and 25.5 inches.



Vermilion Snapper-

If there is no confidence in the estimation of biomass, what degree of confidence is there in the assessment status of overfishing? What is wrong with the assessment? Why was the Gulf Vermilion in trouble, then miraculously declared recovered, some stating it was never in trouble in the first place?

Only modest bag limit decreases or modest size limit increases should be considered acceptable if in fact a problem exists.

As a quote from the Scientific Statistical Committee

Whether the Vermilion Snapper stock in the Atlantic is currently overfished is unknown because the SSC did not have cofidence in the biomass reference points from the SEDAR assessment.

Rich, I totally agree with you and appreciate that you posted this for my fellow east coasters to see. Because its real.

One more thing for Sebastian/Canaveral people: That thing called the Oculina Bank? Soon it will be an MPA stretching from south Ponce to Ft Pierce, closing down the best fishing in the area between 180-300 feet of water. Why? Because shrimp trawlers, who still even to this day break the laws, have decimated forests of Oculina and the rec's get to pay the debt.

Once again, a fine example of how commercial causes the problem but rec takes the hit. Is commercial going to be allowed their 2 million plus pounds of gags per year in the GOM, while rec goes to a 1 gag bag limit?

Once again, a fine example of how commercial causes the problem but rec takes the hit. Is commercial going to be allowed their 2 million plus pounds of gags per year in the GOM, while rec goes to a 1 gag bag limit?

I haven't heard anything about commercial TAC being cut, they haven't reached their annual quota in the past couple of years since the implementation of the 6,000 lb trip limit.

I think there have been discussions of IFQ's for grouper in the commercial sector and once they do it in the commercial sector, the recreational will follow.

There is no doubt that this will be coming to our side, we are only allowed 2 gags now but I am already expecting it to go to one gag eventually. it won't feel quite as bad as your limit cut going from 5 to 1 but it will be a 50% cut. I guess we will be really selective when picking our one gag. :banghead:

This is something that most people dont understand at it is somewhat difficult for me to explain but this 5 to 1 bag limit reduction is actually a 45 percent reduction according to NMFS.

In other words... a 45 percent reduction on the East coast will most likely not be a bag limit reduction from 2 to 1, but more like 1 fish for the whole boat no matter how many people are on it!
This is what people on the East coast fail to understand, unfortunately.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b281/keezdiver/coffee.gif



you know what....i started a post to reply to all the insults, aligations, questions and comments that were thrown at me last nite after my last post.

but i decided to keep it alot shorter....


bret -
i'm sorry your dive trips cost so much. but i guess i can employ the same "stick" that was used to beat me....on you.
it's not my fault you chose to live where you do


Inlet -
i don't care what kind of a self proclaimed *********************************** you are. degrading this already heated discussion to the point of BLATANT insult and personal attacts is just stupid. *&%$*&%$*&%$*&%$ off...no REALLY.
the person i was talking about by the way....holds a masters degree, is a VERY well respected lobster biologist, and got fucked over in a shitty divorce, and currently works 2 jobs and raises 3 kids. i have no problem giving fish to her, because i know it helps.

DON'T insult people you don't know.....stick with what you do poorly...insulting me. cause i really don't care.



and YES...steve...i DO support the notion of MPAs, in general. am i sold on the idea of instituting them in the GOM...not totally.


YES i give alot of fish away. isn't the point that i don't waste the fish? not saying any of you guys do. but i'm sure you give fish to your family...right? well my friends and coworkers ARE my family.
i've spent multiple hundreds of dollars diving and spearing the tortugas...and i gave alot of that fish away as well.



oh...and the camaro only has 450hp :moon:


:cool: carry on with the insults....it doesn't phase me.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b281/keezdiver/coffee.gif


:cool: carry on with the insults....it doesn't phase me.

Jess is a better shooter than you'll ever be. :D

nice marcus...:D and true







ugh....i tried to go back and see exactly what my point was in the beginning of this arguement...but the whole "thread merging" thing i think messed it up a bit.


but i'll say this....in response to all the comments about "the keys are a different thing from the GOM"


my general purpose for getting into these threads is to interject some somewhat unbiased information on the scientific theory behind alot of the proposals.
things like helping to explain the history, uses, implications of something like an MPA without the fire and brimstone bitching about them [/i]"taking away my fish"[/i]
or to give a more scientific perspective on population dynamics, brood stock and juvenile distribution.

somehow it all got contorted into an insult fest.

keezdiver---- Although this is about the point where most of the :banhim: usually starts showing up, I don't think you have to worry, your avatars would be missed by too many of us. :D

Does anyone know what the preferred alternative is for the commercial side?

I know were gonna take a hit to:banghead:

Keez, I understand where your coming from but all these things are answers to a problem that DOES NOT EXSISTE!

a problem that DOES NOT EXSISTE!

This why you're getting the flak, Keez. When one substantiates a problem that is not really a problem, it SEEMS that you have bought into the dark side.

Carry on.

well if you ban me...i'm gonna run off and start my OWN board...called www.luckykeysspearoswhodonotcareabouttheGOM.com
:D



"but all these things are answers to a problem that DOES NOT EXSISTE"

i guess my view on that is....they are answers to problems that we are trying to keep from ever happening.

if that makes sense.

as i've said before...its a proactive thing.

[QUOTE=keezdiver
oh...and the camaro only has 450hp :moon:


:cool: carry on with the insults....it doesn't phase me.[/QUOTE]

thats it????:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:

Inlet -
i don't care what kind of a self proclaimed *********************************** you are. degrading this already heated discussion to the point of BLATANT insult and personal attacts is just stupid. *&%$*&%$*&%$*&%$ off...no REALLY.
the person i was talking about by the way....holds a masters degree, is a VERY well respected lobster biologist, and got fucked over in a shitty divorce, and currently works 2 jobs and raises 3 kids. i have no problem giving fish to her, because i know it helps.



Play the martyr routine all you want. Fact is, you have spelled out your credibility in your own words. You slam us in front of Grogan every chance you can get, and then you come on here like nothing is wrong. I can care less who you give fish to, or if you even like to eat fish or not. You are justifying your opposition against everything this forum was started on the following:

1) You have a certain lifestyle that does not consume much fish at all, and your support for this ridiculous bag reduction/closure implies that you demand all of us live your lifestyle. Especially after your logic of saving fuel money to spend on ramen noodles or whatever you mentined before.

2) Your professional experience is based on the waters of the Florida Keys, a truly islolated, unique, and heavily fished ecosystem unlike any other area of florida.

3) You are a bachelor degreed biologist who has 6 years experience of diving in the Keys, and only 4 years spearfishing. Yet your comments and opinions ALWAYS trump those who have been in fishery managment debates, and spearfishing, much longer than that. Denny may not have a marine biology PhD, but I put my trust into him, before you, since he has spent more time in the water and interacted with more higher up fisheries managers than you have even heard of, regardless of who you work for. He is here to protect our rights, and you are here to take them away. Why are you here?

4) Why support such a drastic measure to punish the recreational fisherman, yet not support the FRA and push for the total abolition of unattended fishing gear (longlining).

Quite frankly Jeff, you can take what I say with a grain of salt, but I cannot understand why you are on this forum. We are here to protect our rights, and we all support protecting the fisheries also, just not on BAD DATA. Here is when you ask me what data I have? This is where I tell you to do your job, after all, you are a biologist. You should be well versed in data collection methods, and YOU should be the influence, as a biologist and spearfisherman, to the fisheries council to improve the methods they have. If I were you, I'd spend more time with THAT, than to bash SFP on SB, and to come on here with intent to piss everyone off. YOU could be an integral part of fixing the problem, if we can guide you in that direction, and if it really matters that much to you.

Thats too bad you are receiving my frustration humor as offensive. Because, quite frankly, I'm frustrated as hell with you, and so are a lot of people on both forums. We feel like you have stabbed us in the back, after all these years. And don't act like you are doing a little bit of trolling on this thread, with some of your :bringiton: smilies and poking prodding the people here. We aren't Spearboard. This forum was set up to protect the SPEARFISHERMAN. Jewfish debates, no big deal. But this