Gulf States Unite in Bid to Take Over Red Snapper Management from Feds

[day0ne]

The dozen or so scientific papers I have read that have been published in the last year on GOM Red Snapper used various methodology to address various questions, but surprisingly much of the same results regarding age/class structure agree.  These studies also agree, in large part, with stock assesment work based on commercidl catch data.  It is interesting, and notable, that recreational accounts differ from this large body of work.  As I said, I think the recreational sector is sorely underrepresented here.

 

One of the biggest reasons the commercial data shows a young age/class is that is the preferred size of fish for them. They like what is called a "plate sized" fish, i.e. ,a fish around 16"-18", as it brings the most money. They tend to discard all the larger fish.

[Tightlines667]

The dozen or so scientific papers I have read that have been published in the last year on GOM Red Snapper used various methodology to address various questions, but surprisingly much of the same results regarding age/class structure agree.  These studies also agree, in large part, with stock assesment work based on commercidl catch data.  It is interesting, and notable, that recreational accounts differ from this large body of work.  As I said, I think the recreational sector is sorely underrepresented here.

 

One of the biggest reasons the commercial data shows a young age/class is that is the preferred size of fish for them. They like what is called a "plate sized" fish, i.e. ,a fish around 16"-18", as it brings the most money. They tend to discard all the larger fish.

Although the long-term population assesment is weighed heavily on the commercial catch data side, the papers (and presentations I watched) used varing sampling methodologies.  These included video cameras, verticle longline, bandit gear, rovs, and single hook and line.  Sample sizes (and sampling period) in these studies seemed a bit small, and temporily and spatially restricted though.  To be fair the studies were aimed at answering different questions, and not necessarily giving any sort of a broad scale population assesment.

I think gear selectivity towards smaller fish can be a problem in these short-term studies.  Using smaller hooks, baits, and/or fishing where there are more smaller fish will likely result in more smaller fish caught, and increased overall cpue is usually attributable to greater numbers of smaller fish in the area.  I actually posed this question "What did you do to limit or account for any gear selectivity issues?" to one of the researchers.  His response was that they used alternating large hooks/large baits, and small hooks/baits.  When queried further if bait remained after catching the fish, it sounds like the big hooks were often stripped of bait by triggerfish and chubs, while the small hooks caught small fish.  I was not satisfied with his treatment of the results in light of gear selectivity issues.

I just found it interesting that all of these varied, studies showed population age/size class structures that closely mirrored the region-wide Fed. assesment (based on commercial catch data). 

Not all science is good science, and not all results are properly applied after passing through the political/social/economic/beurocratic gauntlet. 

I think the feds are looking to er on the side of caution with this one given some of the species mismanagement that has occurred in the GOM in the past, and the current pressures. 

Also, I have no reason to doubt the validity of long term overall population size, and the current status with regards to the goal. 

[Rancanfish]

To bad the Feds don't do something about illegal immigration. I guess it's easier to put restrictions on honest anglers who are legal citizen. IMO

Joe

You are going way off topic, so I'll keep my comment short.     Joe there is a smiley here so you take it in a good way. Playing witcha!



Back on topic... this year they have increased the Ling limit because they are everywhere. Now blues / blacks are the focus?  Alan Tani knows better what is going on, but he's smart enough not to comment.

[Keta]

As far as I'm concerned it's no big deal, I considered "editing" some posts here but I don't like to do it.  Remember we have friends south of the border and no matter how we feel about how they got here most illegals are just people trying to raze their families.  Is that PC enough? I hate being PC.

Please try to keep it fishing related.

[Rancanfish]

I can take my comments back out if you prefer Lee. 

We should stay on fishing related stuff.

[Reel 224]

As far as I'm concerned it's no big deal, I considered "editing" some posts here but I don't like to do it.  Remember we have friends south of the border and no matter how we feel about how they got here most illegals are just people trying to raze their families.  Is that PC enough? I hate being PC.

Please try to keep it fishing related.

I was about to give another explanation but why bother, Ill remove my comment if that solves any bad feelings. I just want to say this. It was taken the wrong way.

Joe

[Keta]

I can take my comments back out if you prefer Lee.  

As far as I'm concerned it's no big deal, I considered "editing" some posts here but I don't like to do it.  Remember we have friends south of the border and no matter how we feel about how they got here most illegals are just people trying to raze their families.  Is that PC enough? I hate being PC.

Please try to keep it fishing related.

I was about to give another explanation but why bother, Ill remove my comment if that solves any bad feelings. I just want to say this. It was taken the wrong way.

Joe

No need, it's a minor thing that we do not want to become a big deal.  BTW, I have the ability to really rant when it comes to some things, politics is a big one, but here it's fishing and reel repair.  Again, no big deal, don't worry and you don't need to edit the posts.

[Rancanfish]

Hey Joe,  I don't think any bad feelings were generated.  Or your comments taken wrong.  

It's the internet and replies sometimes seem wrong but your comments were made in good spirit and taken that way. (If you are referring to me at all.)

Lee I think I'm going to take my insurance quote out just to keep from offending anyone.  

[humboldtdan]

As a NMFS biologist and an avid fisherman, it really bothers me when people assume that we do what we do or make the decisions we make because our ultimate desire is to end fishing altogether.  Most of the people I work with are also fisherpeople.  In most cases, we are dealing with limited data and making decisions based on the best available science, as required by law.  Mistakes are going to be made with limited data.  In many cases, the first things that get cut in state and federal budgets is monitoring of fisheries and fish populations.  I am sorry, but an individual's random observations are not science and would never hold up in a court of law vs. actual scientific data collected for the purpose of managing fisheries.  As a fisherman, I know I am going to have good days and bad days.  I tend to not remember the bad days.  We should be managing fisheries based on the precautionary approach i.e., making decisions regarding fishing impacts that can be reversed if the data tends otherwise.  Given the long rebuilding times for many fish species I would much rather be wrong about restricting people too much than to allow a fishery to be irreversibly damaged.  In addition, we are dealing with ecosystems so loss or dramatic reductions in fish populations can have a cascade of negative effects to ecosystems.  The good news is that management is resulting in improved fishing opportunities for many previously overfished species.  Certainly, the effects of reducing harvest are never positive to fisherpeople over the short term.  However, long term management of fishable populations of fish will ultimately benefit us, our children and our children's children.

[Tightlines667]

As a NMFS biologist and an avid fisherman, it really bothers me when people assume that we do what we do or make the decisions we make because our ultimate desire is to end fishing altogether.  Most of the people I work with are also fisherpeople.  In most cases, we are dealing with limited data and making decisions based on the best available science, as required by law.  Mistakes are going to be made with limited data.  In many cases, the first things that get cut in state and federal budgets is monitoring of fisheries and fish populations.  I am sorry, but an individual's random observations are not science and would never hold up in a court of law vs. actual scientific data collected for the purpose of managing fisheries.  As a fisherman, I know I am going to have good days and bad days.  I tend to not remember the bad days.  We should be managing fisheries based on the precautionary approach i.e., making decisions regarding fishing impacts that can be reversed if the data tends otherwise.  Given the long rebuilding times for many fish species I would much rather be wrong about restricting people too much than to allow a fishery to be irreversibly damaged.  In addition, we are dealing with ecosystems so loss or dramatic reductions in fish populations can have a cascade of negative effects to ecosystems.  The good news is that management is resulting in improved fishing opportunities for many previously overfished species.  Certainly, the effects of reducing harvest are never positive to fisherpeople over the short term.  However, long term management of fishable populations of fish will ultimately benefit us, our children and our children's children.

Well put!  

What office do you work in?  I am with the PIRO observer program, and deal with providing that high quality data of which you speak.

[Rancanfish]

Thanks for your points. But you are assuming we are assuming.   

Many of us lay people get really bugged by experts in their field that tell us we don't see what we see, when many are in the field more than they.  Working with limited information, (using your words), decisions are made that affect the common man. The same guys that have been able to hook and line fish the same areas for generations without wiping them dry. I understand the need for regulations, as some control is needed.

If science was the only consideration ever in regards to regulations, there would not be enviro-sponsored preserves today.  In my last experience, granted it was long ago, the science panel was completely ignored and sponsored regulations pushed through anyway.  I gave up participating in the process as I know they are tainted by politics.

I am in a field where I run into a lot of educated architects, that make glamorous designs that won't work in the real world.

Just saying.  This does have to do with fishing right?

[Reel 224]

As I see it fishing as an angler has the least impact on the various species of fish that we are talking about. There are certainly many other factors that have created the decline of fisheries in our waters. Heavily Targeted species by commercial fishing fleets, Pollution in our waterways from various unlawful practices.

If there is a study to be made and decisions to be made then wouldn't it be in every-ones best interest to make sure it is an accurate and conclusive one? Often decisions are made with the impact it will have on our economy and Anglers spend Millions of dollars on tackle,Boats,clothing as well as various other items. Something to consider.

Joe

[Tightlines667]

Here is a good book on the topic..for those who are interested in more 'words'.

[Sledge]

I confess, it's a very rare occasion that I am able to visit this fishery.  But any news of the states wresting back their power and control of their own affairs from the Federal gub'ment is good news!

[Reel 224]

Here is a good book on the topic..for those who are interested in more 'words'.

Where can this book be obtained from?

Joe