Evidently it is OK to hang out with,dive with and even publish work by known enemies of our sport.
I had always believed that the best way to prevent opponents from further restricting our sport was to fight them by showing up at fisheries meetings,presenting counter-evidence and trying to restrict their access & funding by making sure every public servant involved knew my position and that I voted.
Maybe I have been wrong all these years,in that spirit I suggest we call Osama and ask him to tea.I'm going to E-mail JK Rowling with the suggestion that Harry Potter and Valdemort due a charity mixer.I'm going to buy a pit-bull and teach it the vegan way of life.

Cartoon characters notwithstanding very few issues are ever settled when one side desires the absolute removal of the other side without one side actually winning.

If information is power, then after two years of hanging around sites like this, why do I feel so uninformed?

Someone just posted an article describing the influence of the PEW Charitable Trust. I don't remember seeing that before.

I have yet to see a clearly outlined description of all the wrongs committed by Koenig et al

I have yet to see a simple agenda for us to follow so that EVERYone who loves to spearfish can easily get informed and help protect our sport.

The "Fishing Regulations" thread needs to start with a sticky post that has all of this, so newcomers and the uninformed can know what's going on.

Stabbin,

To try to list this in depth and detail Koenig and Coleman's shortcomings with fisheries science would take weeks. I'm sure you understand that right now we need to focus our attention on fighting for our Gags I agree a stickied outlined post would be very helpful but at the moment it would take far to much time from Denny. In the future, sure but the timing isn't right at the moment.

If you simple google both of their names and read through most of the "studies" they produce and pay attention to their source of funding I think it will get much more clear.

I believe you still have my #, feel free to give me a call any time you want to discuss it.:toast:

Stabbin-
Simply put, there is no simple agenda. It is complex and wide ranging.
Our mission is to protect and conserve our heritage of fishing and our fisheries.
Good science and stakeholder participation will result in good management.

If information is power, then after two years of hanging around sites like this, why do I feel so uninformed?

Someone just posted an article describing the influence of the PEW Charitable Trust. I don't remember seeing that before.

I have yet to see a clearly outlined description of all the wrongs committed by Koenig et al

I have yet to see a simple agenda for us to follow so that EVERYone who loves to spearfish can easily get informed and help protect our sport.

The "Fishing Regulations" thread needs to start with a sticky post that has all of this, so newcomers and the uninformed can know what's going on.



Stabbin,
Have you read any of the links posted to Koenig/coleman et al reasearch?
If so you would see that they are clearly in favor of MPA's. They are clearly in favor of closing the Middlegrounds, Elbow, 40 break etc...
They claim recreational dead discard mortality rates on grouper as high as 79 percent.
They claim that recreational fisherman are responsible for the vast majority of fishery problems!:banghead:


By giving them a "platform", you legitimize them.
Why should they be legitimized when they are clearly "scientists for hire" that work for the Pew charitable trust?


StabbinboyI have yet to see a simple agenda for us to follow so that EVERYone who loves to spearfish can easily get informed and help protect our sport.

The "Fishing Regulations" thread needs to start with a sticky post that has all of this, so newcomers and the uninformed can know what's going on.

I dont think I'm a dummy but I cant figure out what your after.:confused:

Evidently it is OK to hang out with,dive with and even publish work by known enemies of our sport.
I had always believed that the best way to prevent opponents from further restricting our sport was to fight them by showing up at fisheries meetings,presenting counter-evidence and trying to restrict their access & funding by making sure every public servant involved knew my position and that I voted.
Maybe I have been wrong all these years,in that spirit I suggest we call Osama and ask him to tea.I'm going to E-mail JK Rowling with the suggestion that Harry Potter and Valdemort due a charity mixer.I'm going to buy a pit-bull and teach it the vegan way of life.

Cartoon characters notwithstanding very few issues are ever settled when one side desires the absolute removal of the other side without one side actually winning.

The enemies of the sport that I believe you are referring to actually claimed that gag grouper was on the verge of extinction (in their dollar driven effort to get Madison/Swanson and steamboat lumps closed and funded).
Now, a Council scientists told me that both of these areas have prodced NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that closed areas have any benefit at all.

If information is power, then after two years of hanging around sites like this, why do I feel so uninformed?

Someone just posted an article describing the influence of the PEW Charitable Trust. I don't remember seeing that before.

I have yet to see a clearly outlined description of all the wrongs committed by Koenig et al

I have yet to see a simple agenda for us to follow so that EVERYone who loves to spearfish can easily get informed and help protect our sport.

The "Fishing Regulations" thread needs to start with a sticky post that has all of this, so newcomers and the uninformed can know what's going on.


Stabbin:

I tseems like you are spending a lot of time griping at people here. Why don't you put your time to better use;

Read their studies,

Create an outline of those studies,

Create a plan of action ( to be modified as needed of course, no one has all the right answers)

And post those things here on the board.

It is an opportunity for you to become one of the leaders of this group and be more like the people whom you have seemingly endless questions (negative lighted) for. I know for one that I would appreciate your effort more and would get behind YOU to help as I am uninformed as well.

Hell, I bet we could find 10 of us new people from the board who would be willing to each take a part of their studies, read and out line those parts, then post them together or combine into one report and post as to give a synopsis to the rest of the community.

Whaddya say?

Roger
205.567.7867

Roger, Denny, Gamble

I'll volunteer to research whatever I can. I'm not negative on this stuff, I'm just frustrated of hearing the fisheries science is bad, and not being given the opportunity to get involved beyond "call these guys and complain". What specifically am I to complain about? And what supports my complaints?

Jeromy I'll inbox ya and take this off center stage for the time being.

:toast:

Stabbin,
I dont think I'm a dummy but I cant figure out what your after and neither can anyone else Ive spoken with.:confused:

Rich

What's happening here is a lot of assumptions. Those of you who have been fighting the fisheries for years assume that those of us who haven't been fighting should know what you know.

This started when I saw our community divide. People were indignant that a scientist was quoted in a magazine article. I didn't know why. I didn't know what happened to make us want to piss on the head of Roy Crabtree? I asked a few people about it, and they didn't anything about it. Hell Bill MacIntyre doesn't know about it and he practically lives online!

Don't know that the PEW trust spends millions to get biased research. Don't know which scientists are in their pockets. Don't know how absurd their claims are. Don't know that the FRA sued the Fisheries and won. I only learned this in the past few days. My frustation arose because I only saw the extremes to which some have gone in expressing their discontent, but there's no easy way to learn WHY I should be pissed? And how I can help?

Grass roots political efforts promote awareness of the problem while enabling the average guy to get involved

There should be a one place to get this info. Would you agree that Spearfishing websites are a logical place to post this type of information?

After informing the public of the problem, giving them an agenda to follow, and simple email petitions to complete and sign is a powerful tool. Denny says it's complex - it must be. But is it so complex that it cannot be broken to action points? A mission statement to protect spearfishing is nice - directions put feet to the mission statement. Where are our directions?

To add credibility to our voice, we should be cooperating with the hook and line fisherman to increase the voice of spearfishers. Are we doing that? How?

If we are always focusing our efforts on complaining to the scientists and regulators, we might want to consider lobbying and petitioning the congressmen and senators that serve on the committees which fund NOAA and the fisheries. I can guarandamntee THAT would influence the bureaucrats. Have we done that? Are we prepared to do that the next time the need arises?

Now do you see what I'm saying?

Oh... and I'm not 'complaining'. I'm asking for directions on how to get involved. I'm willing to be a part of the solution, and would appreciate direction.

good questions todd. i feel overwhelmed & don't know where to begin to separate out the good from the bad & figure out what's going on. direction would be a really helpful thing.

Stabbin, and everyone else as well,

I think there are some problems with all of us saying the same thing. The petitions are awsome and a good way to show support, but at a hearing, is the panel really going to listen to everyone (all twenty or so people nationwide) saying the same thing? Is the panel going to recommend that the gulf council listen to the public comments when nothing new is said?

This is a great place for all of us to share information, but I think it's also important for us to do our own research and come up with our own conclusions. I have been burned while standing at the podium repeating something I heard numerous times on the message boards. On the boards, everyone took it as gospel, but at the hearing, the guy interrupted me and went apeshit saying that is was a rumor and he had a better argument to support it. How much credibility did my testimony have after that?

From now on, I am reading what the council puts out first, considering it MYSELF, and then looking to see what everyone else has to say about it. I can guarantee that if it was not my own opinion or observation, or a documented fact, I ain't saying it at a hearing.

It is dangerous IMO to leave up a thread as you propose. There could be modified copies put elsewhere and then taken as gospel by a newbie such as exactly the way I did. When that happens, it is just one more person the council doesn't have to listen to.

I feel overwhelmed every time I step into the ring.
And I live and breathe this stuff.
I love to hear god questions and it makes me feel good to see other FRA members be able to answer someof those questions. We must be doing something right.

If information is power, then after two years of hanging around sites like this, why do I feel so uninformed?

Someone just posted an article describing the influence of the PEW Charitable Trust. I don't remember seeing that before.

I have yet to see a clearly outlined description of all the wrongs committed by Koenig et al

I have yet to see a simple agenda for us to follow so that EVERYone who loves to spearfish can easily get informed and help protect our sport.

The "Fishing Regulations" thread needs to start with a sticky post that has all of this, so newcomers and the uninformed can know what's going on.

All the answers to your questions can be found with just one link:
www.Google.com

Thanks for volnteering to write up the sticky post with everything about "Fishing Regulations". I think its a very good idea if you have the time.
Much of this stuff is extremely complicated and explaining one thing requires an understanding of several other things, some knowledge of the individuals behind it and thier past history, experience ect...
Try Googling the names to begin your research. Try typing in Coleman and Koening (husband and wife) and grouper. It will lead to you 100 pages of things you can read to develop your own opinions. You might also try gag assessment which will guide you to the original new gag assessment (250 pages) and the subsequent re-workings of that assessment along with the new dead discard estimates, previous estimates, average size or released fish estimates and the subsequent reworking of those, the estimated SSB or Spawning Stock Biomass and where those are derived (you'll love those), a little background on the architects of this crucial assessment and his history and track record, maybe 40 pages, and then what happens when the final votes are in on the reliablity of the new gag assessment, who decides that, and then how the new rules are proposed, voted and implemented based on this new document.
You'll also see that one of the names you mention is the sole reason they try to piggyback more MPA's on every sinlge reef fish rule proposal in the GOM for the past 5 years.

Heres a few Googled links to get you started:
http://161.58.251.199/pewFellowsDirectoryTemplate.php?PEWSerialInt=572
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040828/fob6.asp
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/coleman_lab/

Stabbin, and everyone else as well,

I think there are some problems with all of us saying the same thing. The petitions are awsome and a good way to show support, but at a hearing, is the panel really going to listen to everyone (all twenty or so people nationwide) saying the same thing? Is the panel going to recommend that the gulf council listen to the public comments when nothing new is said?

This is a great place for all of us to share information, but I think it's also important for us to do our own research and come up with our own conclusions. I have been burned while standing at the podium repeating something I heard numerous times on the message boards. On the boards, everyone took it as gospel, but at the hearing, the guy interrupted me and went apeshit saying that is was a rumor and he had a better argument to support it. How much credibility did my testimony have after that?

From now on, I am reading what the council puts out first, considering it MYSELF, and then looking to see what everyone else has to say about it. I can guarantee that if it was not my own opinion or observation, or a documented fact, I ain't saying it at a hearing.

It is dangerous IMO to leave up a thread as you propose. There could be modified copies put elsewhere and then taken as gospel by a newbie such as exactly the way I did. When that happens, it is just one more person the council doesn't have to listen to.

Very well thought out. I also agree it is a bit overwhelming not knowing exactly where to start and finding out which issue is at hand and which ones have passed us. yes we can google, but will that take us to the current issue. Is the current issue the gag issue? If so, I will google it and get prepared.:toast:

It would be nice if there was a place you could post any articles, scientific or otherwise, that support the position of the FRA so we all don't have to do the time consuming effort of googling the same articles.

Gentlemen,

I'd like to propose something...

How about a private section on this board to discuss new ideas and game plans? A request for access to be given only when the member has been vouched for by others that are trusted?
I have a couple ideas that I don't believe should be kicked around on an open forum.

Within the spirit of this discussion, though a day earlier and somewhat contradictory to what I still hold as my opinion, I submitted the following thread:http://spearfishingplanet.com/showthread.php?p=5437&posted=1#post5437
I believe this to be the sort of discussion that Stabbin has proposed, but it has so far garnered little attention and I am probably going to delete the entire thing.

Rich

What's happening here is a lot of assumptions. Those of you who have been fighting the fisheries for years assume that those of us who haven't been fighting should know what you know.

This started when I saw our community divide. People were indignant that a scientist was quoted in a magazine article. I didn't know why. I didn't know what happened to make us want to piss on the head of Roy Crabtree? I asked a few people about it, and they didn't anything about it. Hell Bill MacIntyre doesn't know about it and he practically lives online!

Don't know that the PEW trust spends millions to get biased research. Don't know which scientists are in their pockets. Don't know how absurd their claims are. Don't know that the FRA sued the Fisheries and won. I only learned this in the past few days. My frustation arose because I only saw the extremes to which some have gone in expressing their discontent, but there's no easy way to learn WHY I should be pissed? And how I can help?

Grass roots political efforts promote awareness of the problem while enabling the average guy to get involved

There should be a one place to get this info. Would you agree that Spearfishing websites are a logical place to post this type of information?

After informing the public of the problem, giving them an agenda to follow, and simple email petitions to complete and sign is a powerful tool. Denny says it's complex - it must be. But is it so complex that it cannot be broken to action points? A mission statement to protect spearfishing is nice - directions put feet to the mission statement. Where are our directions?

To add credibility to our voice, we should be cooperating with the hook and line fisherman to increase the voice of spearfishers. Are we doing that? How?

If we are always focusing our efforts on complaining to the scientists and regulators, we might want to consider lobbying and petitioning the congressmen and senators that serve on the committees which fund NOAA and the fisheries. I can guarandamntee THAT would influence the bureaucrats. Have we done that? Are we prepared to do that the next time the need arises?

Now do you see what I'm saying?

Oh... and I'm not 'complaining'. I'm asking for directions on how to get involved. I'm willing to be a part of the solution, and would appreciate direction.




Todd,
How do you sensibly explain things that dont make sense?
How do you explain a game to someone who's rules are always changing?
How do you explain something that is very dynamic and constantly changing?
How do you explain a beuracracy?
Ever seen a fisheries amendment, study or report?
A New York city phone book is probably thinner than one of these things!

This is what I believe Denny is saying when he says "its complicated"
I think saying "its complicated" is an understatement!
I also think it is purposefully done this way!:banghead:
Its going to be hard to explain something that even the players dont fully understand because of the aforementioned reasons.
Certainly going to be tough on the internet without spending untold hundreds of hours.
I'm not even sure that many people want to know the gory details. They just know that they are getting screwed.

Anyway... to address some of what you are asking for;
The guide for the way all fisheries law is based in the U.S. and the way things are supposed to be managed are contained in the Magnuson/Stevens act.
The Magnuson/Stevens act was just recently revamped and passed into law by congress.
Its become much tougher as the Pew Charitable Trust had much input into it.

There is also a guidebook available from NMFS on fisheries management.
They will send you a copy just by asking.
It's a decent book that explains "the process" in some detail.

I hope this helps some.:toast:
RT

It's a decent book that explains "the process" in some detail.I agree a lot with what you said except this last statement. I read it during my morning constitution and subsequently put it to its most appropriate use.

Of course I'm kidding and everyone should read it.

Gentlemen,

I'd like to propose something...

How about a private section on this board to discuss new ideas and game plans? A request for access to be given only when the member has been vouched for by others that are trusted?
I have a couple ideas that I don't believe should be kicked around on an open forum.

Great idea. However, I will not be allowed until I get to know some of you better.

Although a private room sounds nice, it tends to alienate many supporters.
Have some ideas that you want to float by the FRA Directors/Adviors?
Email Gamble, Ed Walker or myself and we will circulate it to the Board/Directors via email and will discuss them via one of our many conference calls.

I don't want to alienate a SINGLE supporter. Evey one is so very important to the FRA.

By giving them a "platform", you legitimize them.


I agree- such a person can be portrayed as "He's such a respected researcher that he's even been featured in a spearfishing magazine."

Published is power in those circles.

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/coleman_lab/

A quick bit of googling will tell you all you need to know. Given that some of their funding comes from entities that look to close certain habitats and limit the harvest of certain species it's not a surprise to learn what their findings are. What I don't understand is while even their funders are focused on the impact of the commerial activity on these fisheries, Koenig/Coleman continue to shine a spotlight on recreation fisherman.

[What I don't understand is while even their funders are focused on the impact of the commercial activity on these fisheries, Koenig/Coleman continue to shine a spotlight on recreation fisherman.

Because comm fishermen and most likely fighting harder and maybe with more money because it effects there bottom line more.

We as sportsmen are growing weak as the years pass. You don't see pictures of politicians on hunting and fishing outings like you see in the past. Everyone used to get Field and Stream in the mail. I bet there subscriptions are half today as of 40 years ago.

I am not a fishermen in Florida but can see if we don't stop the BS laws someplace it will just get worse in ever state.

I know some of you don't get what stabbin is saying but all this trouble is new to me as well. Only hearing most of it since the blow up on the board that must not be named. I really have no idea where to start, what I can do to help, or what I am even fighting for to be honest. I have never even seen a grouper except in your pictures but sure would like the opportunity to slam a couple if I ever get the chance. Tell us how we can help as most of you have been fighting a battle that is new to me.

Maybe its just asking for money to help pay for to right people to help us fight?

Grant and I were thinking about this subject the other day and I believe we have the ultimate plan, and I am not afraid to lay it all out right here for everyone to see. So here it goes. Once a month we (the spearfishing community) need to sponsor, provide, cook, a big'ol fish fry for the powers at be, weather that is your county, state, or National government. And intermixed between the Fresh Fried Fish, home made hush puppies and fresh chiviche should be small place cards that inform about our sport of spearfishing, how taking a fish by spear is much more humane and spearfishing has a much smaller by catch than do any other method of fishing.

Grant and I were thinking about this subject the other day and I believe we have the ultimate plan, and I am not afraid to lay it all out right here for everyone to see. So here it goes. Once a month we (the spearfishing community) need to sponsor, provide, cook, a big'ol fish fry for the powers at be, weather that is your county, state, or National government. And intermixed between the Fresh Fried Fish, home made hush puppies and fresh chiviche should be small place cards that inform about our sport of spearfishing, how taking a fish by spear is much more humane and spearfishing has a much smaller by catch than do any other method of fishing.

I'll be happy to host one in Bama. have the money and the Moxy. maybe some of you can make and some not. If we put them on a roundabout where they can't say no to us personally, maybe we ca garner support.
Roger

Here's a post I put on the other board...post it here so it won't get 'lost'.

"Tony, instead of asking others to do your work for you (create list of scrupulous sci-gend-ists), why don't you research the people before you publish them and add to their credibility? That's like the ADL (Anti-defamation League) giving Hitler editorial space.

Why isn't the state of Florida paying for unbiased reports on our fisheries?? Isn't that their job under a federal mandate, aka Magnuson Stevenson act?? Can't we lobby to have this done?

If Florida won't do it, how about us as a group pay master student's to do thesis work on the task of counting and estimating fish stocks. I'm sure they wouldn't be that expensive and would go a long way at discrediting the scigendists."

The state of Florida is actually our best friend. I know a lot of the scientists at FWRI and without exception they are all the real deal. To me they honestly seem to care about the people of Florida, and the fish. I do anythng I can to help them out anytime. They are honest and IMO not likely to seek an overfished status to perpetuate a personal agenda. Some are native Floridians who have fished here since they were young. One of the upper level guys told me that he really hates it when things are shut down by the NMFS or severely curtailed based on what is known in the business to be flimsy science.

The state of Florida is actually our best friend. I know a lot of the scientists at FWRI and without exception they are all the real deal. To me they honestly seem to care about the people of Florida, and the fish. I do anythng I can to help them out anytime. They are honest and IMO not likely to seek an overfished status to perpetuate a personal agenda. Some are native Floridians who have fished here since they were young. One of the upper level guys told me that he really hates it when things are shut down by the NMFS or severely curtailed based on what is known in the business to be flimsy science.



:iagree::iagree::toast:

The state of Florida is actually our best friend. I know a lot of the scientists at FWRI and without exception they are all the real deal. To me they honestly seem to care about the people of Florida, and the fish. I do anythng I can to help them out anytime. They are honest and IMO not likely to seek an overfished status to perpetuate a personal agenda. Some are native Floridians who have fished here since they were young. One of the upper level guys told me that he really hates it when things are shut down by the NMFS or severely curtailed based on what is known in the business to be flimsy science.

Why does NMFS give the sciagendists more credence than our state paid unbiased scientists?

...Some are native Floridians who have fished here since they were young...Some of them are smokin' hot chicks too.:smthumbup: