- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Tomorrow Recreational red snapper season will end in your lifetime
Posted on 8/27/14 at 6:26 pm
Posted on 8/27/14 at 6:26 pm
I know this is probably too detailed for you guys but it is all politics, and according to a lot of people agenda 21. Let me give you background red snapper are admittedly not in trouble and everyone but NOAA claims they are more snapper now than anytime in history. (Due to decline in shrimping which caused about 90% plus of them to be killed, millions in reef building, and decimated of predators like sharks. So a fish that NOAA admitted is not being overfished is about to be eliminating from fisherman costing billions of dollars and eliminating thousands of jobs.
Details are:
They are meeting at Beau Rivage now but it is all a scam. They decided this long ago and this is all for show.
1)They will divide the non-commercial sector into two parts one for recreational and the other for charter boats that hold a federal reef permit. (They quit issuing them in 2004 I believe. So if you don't have one you never will) then
2)They will cancel recreational season for all non compliant states. (Everyone) They have already said no season for 2015 and 2016. Then here is the interesting move, since federal permitted reef holders can take snapper in state waters per their permit they will give them a separate season. (already agreed)EDF will ten sue them to stop the Charter Season as not really allowed under The Magnuson Stevens Fisheries sustainability act.
3) then they will move to eliminate recreational fishing in federal waters for Amberjack next, then other reef fisheries then to the pelagic fish like king mackerel tuna and cobia. Within 5 to 10 years there will be no or very limited fishing in federal waters. Whether this is part of agenda 21 or just the same ole council I don't know.
Details are:
They are meeting at Beau Rivage now but it is all a scam. They decided this long ago and this is all for show.
1)They will divide the non-commercial sector into two parts one for recreational and the other for charter boats that hold a federal reef permit. (They quit issuing them in 2004 I believe. So if you don't have one you never will) then
2)They will cancel recreational season for all non compliant states. (Everyone) They have already said no season for 2015 and 2016. Then here is the interesting move, since federal permitted reef holders can take snapper in state waters per their permit they will give them a separate season. (already agreed)EDF will ten sue them to stop the Charter Season as not really allowed under The Magnuson Stevens Fisheries sustainability act.
3) then they will move to eliminate recreational fishing in federal waters for Amberjack next, then other reef fisheries then to the pelagic fish like king mackerel tuna and cobia. Within 5 to 10 years there will be no or very limited fishing in federal waters. Whether this is part of agenda 21 or just the same ole council I don't know.
This post was edited on 8/27/14 at 6:28 pm
7
Posted on 8/27/14 at 6:32 pm to TutHillTiger
Who is the NOAA? And why are they in charge of where I can fish?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 6:35 pm to TutHillTiger
i disagree
I think they want "catch shares" which is nothing more than taxing livestock
I think they want "catch shares" which is nothing more than taxing livestock
Posted on 8/27/14 at 6:38 pm to MoreOrLes
Splitting the Charter Boats from recs is about way more that catch shares I promise you that. It is divide and conquer.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 6:39 pm to TutHillTiger
frick them.
You will see lots of Louisiana people lose their shite over this.
Can we still fish in state waters? I get confused about state vs federal waters.
You will see lots of Louisiana people lose their shite over this.
Can we still fish in state waters? I get confused about state vs federal waters.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 6:46 pm to TutHillTiger
Hi!
I'm an oceanographer that works in fisheries. Let's talk.
this is simply false. Or are you going by people's fishing? Im going by models on population structure based on fisheries catches, environment, and survivorship.
Shrimping is awful. It should be banned imho. However, these claims on why there would be more snapper now are false. We can go into more detail on each one if you like...
You do realize they are trying to protect the industry for future years, right?
This is the plan for all federally manged fisheries.
No they wont.
Says nothing about eliminating recreational fisheries.
They arent trying to "ban" anything. There are thousands of scientists tht fish, just like you and love it! It's the reason most of us got involved with the work in the first place. We have an ever increasing population with an ever increasing demand for protein. Most of that comes from the sea for the global population. At current rates we wont have fisheries capable of sustaining demand in 10 years.
Nobody is out to take away your fishing, we want to make sure your grandkids can go fishing too.
I'm an oceanographer that works in fisheries. Let's talk.
quote:
Let me give you background red snapper are admittedly not in trouble and everyone but NOAA claims they are more snapper now than anytime in history
this is simply false. Or are you going by people's fishing? Im going by models on population structure based on fisheries catches, environment, and survivorship. quote:
Due to decline in shrimping which caused about 90% plus of them to be killed, millions in reef building, and decimated of predators like sharks
Shrimping is awful. It should be banned imho. However, these claims on why there would be more snapper now are false. We can go into more detail on each one if you like...
quote:
eliminating from fisherman costing billions of dollars and eliminating thousands of jobs.
You do realize they are trying to protect the industry for future years, right?
quote:
hey will divide the non-commercial sector into two parts one for recreational and the other for charter boats that hold a federal reef permit. (They quit issuing them in 2004 I believe. So if you don't have one you never will) then
This is the plan for all federally manged fisheries.
quote:
They will cancel recreational season for all non compliant states. (Everyone)
No they wont.
quote:
Magnuson Stevens Fisheries sustainability act.
Says nothing about eliminating recreational fisheries.
quote:
then they will move to eliminate recreational fishing in federal waters for Amberjack next, then other reef fisheries then to the pelagic fish like king mackerel tuna and cobia. Within 5 to 10 years there will be no or very limited fishing in federal waters.
They arent trying to "ban" anything. There are thousands of scientists tht fish, just like you and love it! It's the reason most of us got involved with the work in the first place. We have an ever increasing population with an ever increasing demand for protein. Most of that comes from the sea for the global population. At current rates we wont have fisheries capable of sustaining demand in 10 years.
Nobody is out to take away your fishing, we want to make sure your grandkids can go fishing too.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 6:49 pm to CptBengal
quote:
I'm an oceanographer
Phony scientist
Posted on 8/27/14 at 6:56 pm to CptBengal
Ahh the Council has arrived. (LOL)
this is simply false. Or are you going by people's fishing? Im going by models on population structure based on fisheries catches, environment, and survivorship.
I will wait for the lawsuits (Hopefully) and talk to you then. I am no redneck fisherman and i have all your bullshite flawed studies and attempts to pass this shite off as actual science marked up and highlighted now. As our Mississippi Wildlife Commissioner said in the public meeting last week you have nothing but SWAG. Scientific Wild arse Guess.
I don't even know where to start, but it would bore everyone here to death, but your catch data collection is garbage, your stock assessment or based on the 87 model which you know is garbage.
Best available science my arse. I have sued states before when they were one inch off or the scientifically based SPR. So I have no problem with Marine science, I grew up across the street from the lab in Ocean Springs. What I do have a problem with is pseudo science, and that is all this is.
There were studies that said smoking was good for you, asbestos was ok, Acid rain was not caused by pollution etc. They were not as flawed as what you guys are using.
this is simply false. Or are you going by people's fishing? Im going by models on population structure based on fisheries catches, environment, and survivorship.
I will wait for the lawsuits (Hopefully) and talk to you then. I am no redneck fisherman and i have all your bullshite flawed studies and attempts to pass this shite off as actual science marked up and highlighted now. As our Mississippi Wildlife Commissioner said in the public meeting last week you have nothing but SWAG. Scientific Wild arse Guess.
I don't even know where to start, but it would bore everyone here to death, but your catch data collection is garbage, your stock assessment or based on the 87 model which you know is garbage.
Best available science my arse. I have sued states before when they were one inch off or the scientifically based SPR. So I have no problem with Marine science, I grew up across the street from the lab in Ocean Springs. What I do have a problem with is pseudo science, and that is all this is.
There were studies that said smoking was good for you, asbestos was ok, Acid rain was not caused by pollution etc. They were not as flawed as what you guys are using.
This post was edited on 8/27/14 at 7:02 pm
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:08 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
Ahh the Council has arrived.
You're new here. I suggest you may have guessed wrong about my support of big government....
quote:
I will wait for the lawsuits (Hopefully) and talk to you then.
lawsuits on what? The research? Yeah, that'll go swimmingly. I would enjoy seeing scientists get in court and defend their work against anecdotal evidence.
quote:
I am no redneck fisherman and i have all your bullshite flawed studies and attempts to pass this shite off as actual science marked up and highlighted now. As our Mississippi Wildlife Commissioner said in the public meeting last week you have nothing but SWAG. Scientific Wild arse Guess.
No. We have probabilistic models that take into account everything from larval survivorship to size at max fecundity that are spatially and temporally explicit. We dont guess, we hypothesize then test and test and test and test and test.
quote:
your catch data collection is garbage
So combined catch data from commercial (which dwarfs you charter boats), some of you charter boats, and recreational groups is garbage?
How else is one to collect catch data? I'd like to know, I love new sources of data....
quote:
your stock assessment or based on the 87 model which you know is garbage.
Actually the stock/assessment/recruitment models that are used in determining effective limits to maintain peak harvest arent based on that FAO report. The fact you think that report even has anything to do with the models used in fisheries management is pretty telling of how "versed" you arent on this topic.
quote:
I have sued states before when they were one inch off or the scientifically based SPR.
good luck with this lawsuit. It's dead in the water. You see, the ocean is pretty much a big hole with nothing in it but water. VEry very little of that space is actually filled with life....and an infinitesimal amount of that life is your target species. Catch, and lets be technical it's called LANDINGS DATA, are the best representation of what is in the water. We are getting better with multibeam sonar imaging, but it's slow, data intensive and doesnt work in a myriad of conditions. Unless you could show that the population was miscalculated (it wasnt) based on the available data, there is no "inch" to sue over. quote:
I grew up across the street from the lab in Ocean Springs.
Is this like staying at a Holiday Inn Express?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:12 pm to CptBengal
OS, no it means I know what POS many of your scientist really are. Would not even say that gill nets hurt the speckled trout population. Why don't you tell the board what happened with Shark regulations?
Allow Netting For Bluefin? Brilliant!
POSTED ON AUGUST 07, 2014
People often ask why recreational anglers have such an adversarial relationship with the federal fisheries management system, and the answer is as simple as it is obvious. The National Marine Fisheries Service was created to assist and promote the domestic commercial fishing industry. Period. Only relatively recently did NMFS even begin to acknowledge a recreational component.
It is in the agency’s DNA to be a partner and collaborator with commercial fishing interests. Who is in the White House – Republican, Democrat or Other – doesn’t matter because the bureaucratic heritage at the agency never changes. You may get a new head of the Department of Commerce or a new administrator for NMFS, but the core pro-commercial mindset buried deep in the agency itself is virtually untouchable. Regional council members come and go, but federal and council staffers are the omnipresent architects of federal fisheries policy, crafting (or not crafting, as the case may be) the analysis and options that guide the councils on complicated matters.
As part of its yearly effort to talk to the vast recreational angling community, NMFS hosted a Recreational Angling Summit earlier this year. Russell Dunn, the agency’s National Policy Advisor on Recreational Fisheries, told a story about the time he asked a senior NMFS fisheries scientist a question about a recreational fishery. The scientist dismissed him brusquely, saying not to bother him with things like that because he had “real” fisheries to manage. It is good that at least now we hear about episodes like that and it took some courage for Dunn to relay it in that setting. But we are still light years from changing that culture.
That bit of insight does help explain things like the agency’s recent approval of an exempted fishing permit for a PURSE SEINE VESSEL TO HARVEST BLUEFIN TUNA. Exempted fishing permits (EFPs) are the latest tool used by the commercial industry to bend the rules on gear or other restrictions and fish when they otherwise wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be allowed. EFPs are ripe for abuse, as demonstrated by this baffling approval to allow netting of a fish that is generally considered to be on the very threshold of an endangered species declaration.
Conceivably, NMFS should at least explore ways to buy out destructive, indiscriminate gear like longlines and purse seines rather than granting exemptions to use them to harvest globally depleted species like bluefin. But that is not how the agency thinks. And so this EFP was approved, and a tone-deaf agency marches on.
Many people call it a stacked deck or an unlevel playing field for anglers, and it is, but it goes well beyond that. It is a deep philosophical disconnect. On land, we learned long ago that the industrial harvest of wildlife is not the highest and best use of those resources. NMFS is literally 100 years behind and steadily walking backwards.
And we have plenty of scientist on our side this go around who are federal bitches? Where are you peer reviewed studies? What is your error rate?
Allow Netting For Bluefin? Brilliant!
POSTED ON AUGUST 07, 2014
People often ask why recreational anglers have such an adversarial relationship with the federal fisheries management system, and the answer is as simple as it is obvious. The National Marine Fisheries Service was created to assist and promote the domestic commercial fishing industry. Period. Only relatively recently did NMFS even begin to acknowledge a recreational component.
It is in the agency’s DNA to be a partner and collaborator with commercial fishing interests. Who is in the White House – Republican, Democrat or Other – doesn’t matter because the bureaucratic heritage at the agency never changes. You may get a new head of the Department of Commerce or a new administrator for NMFS, but the core pro-commercial mindset buried deep in the agency itself is virtually untouchable. Regional council members come and go, but federal and council staffers are the omnipresent architects of federal fisheries policy, crafting (or not crafting, as the case may be) the analysis and options that guide the councils on complicated matters.
As part of its yearly effort to talk to the vast recreational angling community, NMFS hosted a Recreational Angling Summit earlier this year. Russell Dunn, the agency’s National Policy Advisor on Recreational Fisheries, told a story about the time he asked a senior NMFS fisheries scientist a question about a recreational fishery. The scientist dismissed him brusquely, saying not to bother him with things like that because he had “real” fisheries to manage. It is good that at least now we hear about episodes like that and it took some courage for Dunn to relay it in that setting. But we are still light years from changing that culture.
That bit of insight does help explain things like the agency’s recent approval of an exempted fishing permit for a PURSE SEINE VESSEL TO HARVEST BLUEFIN TUNA. Exempted fishing permits (EFPs) are the latest tool used by the commercial industry to bend the rules on gear or other restrictions and fish when they otherwise wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be allowed. EFPs are ripe for abuse, as demonstrated by this baffling approval to allow netting of a fish that is generally considered to be on the very threshold of an endangered species declaration.
Conceivably, NMFS should at least explore ways to buy out destructive, indiscriminate gear like longlines and purse seines rather than granting exemptions to use them to harvest globally depleted species like bluefin. But that is not how the agency thinks. And so this EFP was approved, and a tone-deaf agency marches on.
Many people call it a stacked deck or an unlevel playing field for anglers, and it is, but it goes well beyond that. It is a deep philosophical disconnect. On land, we learned long ago that the industrial harvest of wildlife is not the highest and best use of those resources. NMFS is literally 100 years behind and steadily walking backwards.
And we have plenty of scientist on our side this go around who are federal bitches? Where are you peer reviewed studies? What is your error rate?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:12 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
I have sued states
Representing who?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:15 pm to TutHillTiger
Dude I had no clue fishing is so complicated and political.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:16 pm to onmymedicalgrind
Without regulation, there wouldn't be any alligator hides for your favorite Saints cap.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:20 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
it means I know what POS many of your scientist really are.
That's us...trying to stop you, and us, from fishing ever again
quote:
Would not even say that gill nets hurt the speckled trout population.
They do and hurt many other populations. You seem to be confused about the difference between gear progression and modeling.
quote:
Why don't you tell the board what happened with Shark regulations?
Which ones in particular are you referring to?
BTW, do you have a link to your article?
quote:
told a story about the time he asked a senior NMFS fisheries scientist a question about a recreational fishery. The scientist dismissed him brusquely, saying not to bother him with things like that because he had “real” fisheries to manage.
You do realize that management is done either by single species or EBM, right? That it wasnt the recreational component he was dismissing, but probably the target species being questioned. I mean that point is so obvious to ANYONE who actually works with the data and policy it is pretty ridiculous this "blog" would even print the information.
quote:
does help explain things like the agency’s recent approval of an exempted fishing permit for a PURSE SEINE VESSEL TO HARVEST BLUEFIN TUNA. Exempted fishing permits (EFPs) are the latest tool used by the commercial industry to bend the rules on gear or other restrictions and fish when they otherwise wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be allowed. EFPs are ripe for abuse, as demonstrated by this baffling approval to allow netting of a fish that is generally considered to be on the very threshold of an endangered species declaration.
Again, I'd like a link if you have one...
Also, can you tell me, are you a charter captain or a lawyer? I'm guessing flopped out of law school and work in charters now.
This post was edited on 8/27/14 at 7:21 pm
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:20 pm to TutHillTiger
LANDINGS DATA, are the best representation of what is in the water Really
and you have this data from what a few random surveys from college kids at the docks.
again the NASA scientist we had at public hearing in Gulfport laughed out loud at this shite. I think his qoute is if i turned this in at NASA I would be looking for a job the next week. Who do you explain teh huge spike in data from last year?
Lets be frank, you guys do what you are told to do, and that is to suck the dick of the commercial fishing industry. You are part of the department of commerce and that has always been your mandate.
To act like you are now some environmental or conservation group now is laughable and offensive to those groups. You are going to be sued. EDF won the last lawsuit and has been very clear that as soon as you do this they will sue you in DC again.
And you will lose just like you sis the shark suits, and the FED suits, etc.
The only debate is whether the RECs sue you too. Or just move to have you defunded. Republicans win the Senate, Thad Cochran takes over and you are in trouble I promise you that much.
and you have this data from what a few random surveys from college kids at the docks.
again the NASA scientist we had at public hearing in Gulfport laughed out loud at this shite. I think his qoute is if i turned this in at NASA I would be looking for a job the next week. Who do you explain teh huge spike in data from last year?
Lets be frank, you guys do what you are told to do, and that is to suck the dick of the commercial fishing industry. You are part of the department of commerce and that has always been your mandate.
To act like you are now some environmental or conservation group now is laughable and offensive to those groups. You are going to be sued. EDF won the last lawsuit and has been very clear that as soon as you do this they will sue you in DC again.
And you will lose just like you sis the shark suits, and the FED suits, etc.
The only debate is whether the RECs sue you too. Or just move to have you defunded. Republicans win the Senate, Thad Cochran takes over and you are in trouble I promise you that much.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:25 pm to CptBengal
quote:Awesome. I love pictures like this.
I'm an oceanographer
Please post some of your work. Would love to see them!
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:26 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
TutHill
Yeah, you're new around here, so you don't know that Cpt. is pretty much wrong about everything (and in a hilariously obnoxious way), so your lawsuit has a chance.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:28 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
and you have this data from what a few random surveys from college kids at the docks.
Actyually, no. I'm sorry you are so confused about landings data. Let me try and explain where it comes from:
1) Commercial catch totals
2) Charter catch totals
**Both 1 and 2 are really easy to measure.
3) Recreational
**This is the kids on the dock, tagging programs, etc. that we use to estimate what the first two cant or dont tell us. Interestingly Angler associations routinely share catch information from the members to help us make better models. Do you know why? Because the more accurate we get the closer we can get to the peak of the Breverton Holt curve...for everyone.
4) Our own funded research programs where we just go out and catch fish in statistical designs.
quote:
again the NASA scientist we had at public hearing in Gulfport laughed out loud at this shite.
I know quite a few of the guys who work at Stennis....Since they know where landings data come from, I doubt anyone would laugh or even BELIEVE it came from kids on a dock.
quote:
Lets be frank, you guys do what you are told to do, and that is to suck the dick of the commercial fishing industry. You are part of the department of commerce and that has always been your mandate.
I am an independent scientist who gets my own grant money and conducts my own research. Interesting you think I work for government...
quote:
To act like you are now some environmental or conservation group now is laughable and offensive to those groups.
Actually the conservation groups want you guys to be banned from fishing totally. You dont even understand the playing field.
quote:
You are going to be sued. EDF won the last lawsuit and has been very clear that as soon as you do this they will sue you in DC again.
You do realize EDF is also for limits right? Based on those same models? They just have a different plan to get to those totals.
wow, you really are an idiot. quote:
The only debate is whether the RECs sue you too. Or just move to have you defunded. Republicans win the Senate, Thad Cochran takes over and you are in trouble I promise you that much.
A man who admits to fricking animals is your savior?
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:30 pm to baybeefeetz
I was just hoping some one would fill me in on this agenda 21 shite. We works for them so what do you expect him to say, we don't have a clue. Actually, their representative said that at the public hearing which was refreshing.
I think the quote was "Right now we don't honestly know what the health of the red snapper population is." need to check the transcipt. There were at least 6 fisheries guys and scientist there who agree with my assessment. It is just bad science. But maybe it doesn't matter. We will see.
We works for them so what do you expect him to say, we don't have a clue. Actually, their representative said that at the public hearing which was refreshing. I think the quote was "Right now we don't honestly know what the health of the red snapper population is." need to check the transcipt. There were at least 6 fisheries guys and scientist there who agree with my assessment. It is just bad science. But maybe it doesn't matter. We will see.
Posted on 8/27/14 at 7:33 pm to MSCoastTigerGirl
quote:
MSCoastTigerGirl
Can I get a crack at your snapper?
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News