March 17, 2015 - The five states bordering the Gulf of Mexico-Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas-have pulled together in an effort to wrestle management authority of the red snapper fishery from the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council (GMFMC). In a jointly signed letter submitted to federal authorities on March 13, the states outlined a proposal to shift management of Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper away from the federal government. This unprecedented effort includes a new framework for cooperative state-based management of this incredibly important fishery and would create the Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority.
"The Gulf States are making it crystal clear that they have no confidence in the GMFMC's ability to manage red snapper in a fair and equitable manner," said Jim Donofrio, RFA's executive director. "Our Gulf chapters have been working diligently to bring about change within the Council system only to have their efforts thwarted by an organization that is under the control of an entrenched group of individuals associated with environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund."
The dissatisfaction with the performance of the GMFMC by state management authorities and their stakeholders has been brewing for a long time and the problem is only exacerbated by the fact that the fishery has been rebuilt to well beyond the most optimistic historic levels while the recreational red snapper seasons set by the GMFMC have been cut to levels counted in days with no justification.
"I think the straw that broke the back of any credibility within the GMFMC was the recent vote for sector separation," Donofrio said. "There was overwhelming opposition for this unprecedented move, but the Council went ahead with it anyway."
According to Robert Barham at the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the states are far more capable of handling the collection of more precise landings data than the GMFMC, which relies upon the flawed Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP). Along with the other Gulf States, Louisiana is confident we can provide precise landings estimates and more frequent stock assessments-the data needed to better manage this fishery and allow our fishermen to take full advantage of the available resource. The states are also more receptive and can be more responsive to the wants and needs of constituent's-we can set flexible, tailored management measures that address local needs as well as Gulf-wide conservation goals.
"A change has been a long time coming-we want to thank the state directors for pulling together to create a viable solution for fixing red snapper management," Barham said.
On the dock, anglers and the industry were pleased with the proposed action.
"Gulf of Mexico red snapper at the federal level has proven to be an absolute failure for the recreational fishing community from a management standpoint," explained Jamie Wilkinson, Vice President and Group Publisher at F+W Media and member of the RFA Board of Directors. "The Gulf states should be commended for putting forward a proposal that aims to provide recreational fishermen an increased opportunity to benefit from the rebuilding success of red snapper."
Thanks for the information, its about time the Federal Government got out of the way.
Andy
Quote from: ACDIII on March 19, 2015, 02:40:50 PM
Thanks for the information, its about time the Federal Government got out of the way.
Andy
It's not a done deal by any means, Andy. Big Brother does not willingly give up control of anything. Plus I'm sure all the special interest groups, commercial fishermen, charter operations, "conservationists", and environmentalists will do everything possible to keep this from happening.
You been doing any fishing? I haven't been in so long I might have forgotten how :)
Mike
It should work if enough pressure is put on the feds. The feds don't manage they just forbid. Dominick
Mike, I have not been since Oct last year. Going down to Apalachicola next weekend and hopefully get a few repairs done to the boat and get it in for service. Our fishing club will have a tournament over in Destin in Mid May and another tournament the first week of June.
Thanks for sharing the article!
The feds typically manage fish stocks on a larger scale, both temporally and spatially. Herin lies the management strengths and weaknesses. Unforturately not all stakeholders nor all areas (on a smaller scale) will recieve equal representation with regards to the council's recommendations. These are often driven largely by political and economic considerations rather then science. The council's recomendations are just that, and do not need to be followed by NMFS. NMFS typically is most effective at properly managing fish and/or shark stocks that have a wide distribution, and multiple stakeholders. They manage on a longer timescale, on the order of decades, instead of years or seasons. States are typically more shortsighted in fish stock management, but are able to stay in better touch with local stakeholders, and finer scale management measures. Effective stock management requires a blend of the two.
The fact that the Red Snapper management measures (although considered over-restrictive, especially to the recreational sector) appear to be having a positive impact, tells me that they are working. The goal is to rebuild the stock to near carrying capacity, and to strengthen the overall size/age class structure. These fish are somewhat long lived, and as with most species of this r-type, require more, larger/older females (which are highly susceptable to top-down influences) to ensure adequete annual recruitment. This takes time. Furthermore, despite there being significant improvements to the overall amount and type of suitable Red Snapper habitat in the GOM, population levels are still likely well below the levels seen in the 70s before heavy exploitation on a grand scale began to really occur. Carrying capacity for these species is likely larger now, then it was then, so the population has room to expand.
If states were to gain greater control over bottomfish stock management, it is likely that they would increase TAC (total allowable catch), above a maximum sustainable yield, and some local stock structure might revert back. States tend to be less adapt at managing commercial fisheries, espec. those that cross boarders, and operate outside of territorial waters. However, they are often more in touch with the recreational sector, and are better able to respond on finer spacial and temporal scales. They are also typically more adept at raising funds to aid in management. The ultimate goal is to develop a robust stock capable of balanced and sustainable utilization. This takes time. Unfortunately states tend to abandon long term management goals in favor of short-term gains, and many groundfish stocks, in particular have suffered as a result. There are however many notable exceptions, where states have been able to sucessfully manage their groundfish stocks. These are difficult problems, that sometimes require hard solutions.
The GOM Red Snapper management may appear to be a blunder, and failure from our short-term perspective, but we may actually look back on it 10 years down the road with a different, possibly more meaningfull perspective. There are hundreds, if not thousands of cases where stakeholders have deemed existing restrictions on take to be excessive, when in fact the opposite has been shown to be true. I hope this does not prove to be the case here. To the contrary, I think given a few years time, people will be pleasently surprised by the posirive results of what now appear to be overly restrictive and unfair measures.
Admittadly, this is not my particular area of expertise, but I am a fisheries biologist for NMFS, and I believe 9 times out of 10 fish stocks are undermanaged. This may be a case of the opposite occuring, but in the case of these widely dustributed, long-lived species, it is always best to er on the side of caution.
Just my opinion.
Not to be argumentative, Tightlines, but going back to the 70's to justify todays quota system is pretty weak. The Magnuson-Stevens Act was 1st passed in 1976, so the Feds have had almost 40 years to get it right, and have failed miserably, in spite of draconian adjustments to the original act, especially the 2006 revision. 10 years ago I could catch and keep 2 Red Snapper 180 days a year. Last year it was a whopping 8 or 9 days. I think I fished only 1 of those days because weather kept me off the water the other day I was planning to fish. In the same 10 year span, by the Feds own numbers, the Gulf Red Snapper population doubled from 15 million to 30 million fish. Does that sound like a fishery in trouble? And using POUNDS to determine the ACL (allowable catch limit)??? I've been creel checked exactly once in 25 years, and that was a ramp check by the FWC. No one even knows how many Snapper days we'll have this year. How's that for larger scale temporal and spatial management?
I've only fished the Gulf for 25 years, so I have no idea how many Red Snapper there were in 1976. I do know that I catch a lot more today than I did 15-20 years ago. I don't even like Red Snapper, I generally let them all go anyway.
I'm not a marine biologist, just a retired engineer. I spent my career making complex manufacturing systems work efficiently. There is practically nothing efficient or equitable about the current Federal Red Snapper ACL system. The states could certainly do no worse.
Just my opinion.
Mike
Quote from: Wally15 on March 20, 2015, 11:49:21 AM
There is practically nothing efficient or equitable about the current Federal Red Snapper ACL system. The states could certainly do no worse.
Just my opinion.
Mike
Mike I for one totally agree with you. That is not to say that John does not have a valid argument. How's that for sitting in the middle of the road? Dominick
Well, I have no idea how the snapper population has varied over the years so I won't comment.
However, here on the best coast, rockfish management is a joke. They play with the limits and specie restrictions so much that you can watch how the populations are affected.
I remember the sudden explosion of Lingcod one year. You would catch a Ling for every rockfish. But of course you couldn't keep them, right?
This year the Ling limit is up to three, and black cod is restricted. A fine example of reactive management.
And the Feds let the Enviro-laden panels do as they please, ignoring scientists and their studies.
I used to be active in the politics of it a bit, but the sheer insanity made me quit.
Not to beat a horse, but I am currently attending the American Fisheries Society annual conference, and have had the oportunity to catch a number of presentations on current research findings surrounding GOM Red Snapper. Varied research conducted throughout the GOM shares many similar findings, especially with regards to current age/size class population structure. The population size has expanded considerably since the more restrictive management measures were put in place. Overall numbers have reached nearly 20-40% of the stock rebuilding goals. However, all of the assesments suggest the population is strongly scewed towards younger fish with estimates of 30-40% of the population being fish under age 4. There are very few fish over age 10, and even fewer in the 20-30 year range. Research has shown that the older 20 year+ females are crucial to maintaining long-term stock recruitment. Other interesting findings suggest that the artificial reef habitats (especially those with a stronger verticle component) in the 60-80meter depth range are holding/sustaining large numbers of the smaller fish, while the few larger fish are typically segregating to the deeper water natural banks.
Current population size has expanded to roughly the size of that of the late 80s, though the population structure is atypical of the species. Hopes are that within a few more years, the population structure will begin to take a more 'natural', and robust approach. However, natural recruitment increases will take on the order of a decade or two.
Although I am no population biologist, I am concerned anytime a given size class is allowed/encouraged to expand beyond typical. High numbers of smaller/younger fish doninating these communities can, and likely will, outcompete the valuable larger fish for the same limited resources. Personally, I think it would be good to think long-term here, and ensure a robust age/class structure by maintaining some controls (less restrictive measures) on the expansion of these smaller/younger population segments. We need more fish, but not all at once. A blip in the age/size class structure can be detrimental to long term goals.
Rest assured there are alot of minds working on this one. Time will tell how effective this top-down single species management plan works.
I don't know where they are getting there numbers, but they don't jive with what is seen offshore. I fished heavily in the 70's and 80's and the snapper population is much larger now than it was back then, at least off TX. I just returned from several days offshore and we couldn't seem to catch anything other than snapper and they weren't small ones either. Several went over 35 lbs and the average was 15-20 pounds. We are finding snapper in places that they never were before. I've caught them in 600' of water. We are also noticing that other species are disappearing, probably eaten by the snapper. Then there are the seasons. Recreational fisherman get 10 days but the charter and head boats get 40 or 50 days, yet they are taking the same recreational fishermen out to fish. Makes sense, doesn't it. It begs the question why do people who can't fish get poundage to sell to recreational fishermen and they aren't considered commercial. It's a mess.
The statement you made "If states were to gain greater control over bottomfish stock management, it is likely that they would increase TAC (total allowable catch), above a maximum sustainable yield, and some local stock structure might revert back. States tend to be less adapt at managing commercial fisheries, espec those that cross boarders, and operate outside of territorial waters. " sounds somewhat elitist. I believe Texas Park and Wildlife has a much better record of managing fish than NMFS ever has.
This is definately a 'hot topic' and as I stated before, this really is not my area of expertise. I am not a population biologist, and my experience in this region is limited to recreational fishing. I have held the long-standing belief that recreational fishermen are often underrepresenred in stock assesment data, and many other types of data. Much of the management decisions are based on numbers obtained from comnercial catch and landings, and admittadly the bandit reel gear and commercial sampling nethodology may suffer from gear selectivity issues. The good thing about commercial carch data is that it provides a long-term/comparable data set for population assesment work. I have always belived that scientist, and managers could learn alot from talking to the recreation, and charter guys.
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.
Boy am I glad, I am not working closely with this issue...someone may want to hang or burn me at the stake.
Quote from: Rancanfish on April 01, 2015, 02:20:26 PM
Well, I have no idea how the snapper population has varied over the years so I won't comment.
However, here on the best coast, rockfish management is a joke.
Yup, I can take you to some deep reefs that have lots of yelloweye, others that appear to be carpeted with canary rockfish, both have been 100% protected here for years but never threatened. They recently added quillback (never was that many this far south) copper and China rockfish to the no keep list and reduced the number of blue rockfish (they are everywhere) to 3 a day....and I know where they are thick. The people pushing this are anti consumptive use and their goals appear to be elimination of sportfishing.
Put your test gear put on mud flats and you will not catch rockfish, their twisted thinking means no rockfish on hooks= no rockfish. ODFW also uses creel check data and they were saying there was a drastic drop in yelloweye retention....DUH!! After they made it illegal to kill them we quit killing them.
Quote from: Tightlines666 on August 18, 2015, 10:17:26 PM
Boy am I glad, I am not working closely with this issue...someone may want to hang or burn me at the stake.
We try to restrict our punishment to tar and feathers....
Quote from: day0ne on August 18, 2015, 09:52:31 PM
I don't know where they are getting there numbers, but they don't jive with what is seen offshore. I fished heavily in the 70's and 80's and the snapper population is much larger now than it was back then, at least off TX. I just returned from several days offshore and we couldn't seem to catch anything other than snapper and they weren't small ones either. Several went over 35 lbs and the average was 15-20 pounds. We are finding snapper in places that they never were before. I've caught them in 600' of water. We are also noticing that other species are disappearing, probably eaten by the snapper. Then there are the seasons. Recreational fisherman get 10 days but the charter and head boats get 40 or 50 days, yet they are taking the same recreational fishermen out to fish. Makes dense, doesn't it. It begs the question why do people who can't fish get poundage to sell to recreational fishermen and they aren't considered commercial. It's a mess.
The statement you made "If states were to gain greater control over bottomfish stock management, it is likely that they would increase TAC (total allowable catch), above a maximum sustainable yield, and some local stock structure might revert back. States tend to be less adapt at managing commercial fisheries, espec those that cross boarders, and operate outside of territorial waters. " sounds somewhat elitist. I believe Texas Park and Wildlife has a much better record of managing fish than NMFS ever has.
It's the same here in Pensacola, FL. There are so many Red Snapper it's hard to catch anything else..!! They are big too.
So many that when you pull up to a local wreck or live bottom the fish start coming up to the boat.
My head hurts.
All I know is that I go out and catch a ling on virtually 99% of my drops. One day this year it was 100%.
What I'm not seeing is many vermillion. I believe the Lings ate them all.
I think what the FMC needs to do is put a restriction on the Ling cod that gives them a no vermillion limit for awhile.
Quote from: Tightlines666 on August 18, 2015, 10:17:26 PM
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.
Quote from: day0ne on August 19, 2015, 05:09:54 AM
Quote from: Tightlines666 on August 18, 2015, 10:17:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Reel 224 on August 18, 2015, 11:36:02 PM
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. ;D 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.
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 can take my comments back out if you prefer Lee.
We should stay on fishing related stuff.
Quote from: Keta on August 19, 2015, 02:41:43 PM
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
Quote from: Rancanfish on August 19, 2015, 03:07:30 PM
I can take my comments back out if you prefer Lee.
Quote from: Reel 224 on August 19, 2015, 03:49:26 PM
Quote from: Keta on August 19, 2015, 02:41:43 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: humboldtdan on August 19, 2015, 06:35:34 PM
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.
Thanks for your points. But you are assuming we are assuming. ;D
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?
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
Here is a good book on the topic..for those who are interested in more 'words'.
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!
Quote from: Tightlines666 on August 19, 2015, 08:42:34 PM
Here is a good book on the topic..for those who are interested in more 'words'.
Where can this book be obtained from?
Joe
https://fisheries.org/shop/54060p
Published in 2007, so a bit dated, but still a great resource.
Much of what you say isn't considered is considered. Models aren't perfect, but they are the best we have. And I am not assuming anything because it is in the words you all have written. You may not like Marine Protected Areas, but the bottom line is the science is sound regarding their benefits. You all seem to forget that there are laws regarding MPAs in California and other places and there is the MSA for federal managed species. There are also laws regarding pollution, etc. and guess what, polluters say similar things i.e., we are not having the effect the fishermen are. In most cases, commercial fishing can have a larger impact on marine resources than recreational fishing. However, sportfishing is not without its impacts and to think otherwise is to have your head in the sand. Most of the time, armchair biologists never read the scientific literature before they make their statements of fact. Enough of the rant because I am sure many of you will continue to think what you want to think regardless of what scientists say.
Hey guys. This is the kind of sniping Alan is trying to avoid. Enough said on the subject. Okay? Dominick
Quote from: Dominick on August 19, 2015, 09:07:50 PM
Hey guys. This is the kind of sniping Alan is trying to avoid. Enough said on the subject. Okay? Dominick
Rodger.
It is hard to talk fisheries science..which is often of great interest to fishermen..without getting into management, and management is awfull close to politics.
Back to fishing, and fishing gear.
I apoligize for reviving this thread. Guess we should keep the controversey to Delron vs. CF undergear washers and the like.
Quote from: Tightlines666 on August 19, 2015, 09:24:39 PM
Guess we should keep the controversey to Delron vs. CF undergear washers and the like.
i wouldn't even go in there but willing to try both and see what makes me happy...
politics religion and in some other countries football(soccer) ;D it's a never ending debate if i may say so...
Quote from: humboldtdan on August 19, 2015, 08:59:21 PM
Much of what you say isn't considered is considered. Models aren't perfect, but they are the best we have. And I am not assuming anything because it is in the words you all have written. You may not like Marine Protected Areas, but the bottom line is the science is sound regarding their benefits. You all seem to forget that there are laws regarding MPAs in California and other places and there is the MSA for federal managed species. There are also laws regarding pollution, etc. and guess what, polluters say similar things i.e., we are not having the effect the fishermen are. In most cases, commercial fishing can have a larger impact on marine resources than recreational fishing. However, sportfishing is not without its impacts and to think otherwise is to have your head in the sand. Most of the time, armchair biologists never read the scientific literature before they make their statements of fact. Enough of the rant because I am sure many of you will continue to think what you want to think regardless of what scientists say.
That is not completely true that we will continue thinking what ever we want to think, we are just voicing our opinions with in my case 60 years of living and fishing here in the East coast, I trust that you are giving your honest opinion on your experiences as a Scientist/Biologist. I respect your view and knowledge of the subject. If we were not allowed to exchange views with one another then none of us would learn from each others experiences. Intelligent conversation and exchange of views is what makes this country great...Free speech. I personally don't view this conversation as political in that we are expressing our view on how we perceive the agencies control of fisheries as it pertains to the angler. If my view is in any way offensive to anyone it is certainly not my intention.
Joe
Tight lines the data is flawed and ridiculous.
Quote from: Dominick on March 19, 2015, 06:18:04 PM
It should work if enough pressure is put on the feds. The feds don't manage they just forbid. Dominick
Now Now Now! ::) :-X :-* ;D
Quote from: broschro on August 20, 2015, 12:37:30 AM
Tight lines the data is flawed and ridiculous.
Nearly all datasets have flaws, inconsistances, and limitations...learning to understand these, and account for them when analyzing and applying the data is the key. Herin lies the difference between good and bad science. Describing and understanding chaotic and complex biological systems is challenging to say the least. Failing to try to gain a better understanding of a problem simply because it is difficult or basing your understanding solely on limited personal observations will most certainly lead to a failure to advance knowledge.
Best available science is based on best available data, the tools and methods used to analize this information, and builds on the large body of replicated work and knowledge that has been complied by many others before. Many confuse good science, with facts and knowledge, and this can get further mudied by best practices, and application.
The frameworks of personal experience, and cultural understanding are not inherent in the application of the scientific principles themselves. However, the 'personal experience'..so to speak, affects ones perception, and therfor will inherently affect observation-based data collection. True scientific methology aims to negate, or at least account for these affects.
We know the application of the scientific method, and research works accross many fields, and it often yields surprising results and knowledge advancements. For instance, look at all of the incredable knowledge and understanding we have developed about the human body through research focused on an issue (such as cancer).
Now, I have gotten off topic.
I, and most scientist, like to hear constructive criticism of their work..it is an integral and important part of the process. If someone says the data is 'flawed'...great show me how it is flawed, and offer up a suggestion or possible means to address these shortcomings.
I guess for me, the more I learn about something, the more I come to respect and appreciate it. This doesn't mean everything I have learned is 100% right, but utilizing the learning process does lead to understanding.
As far as GOM Red Snapper goes the 'Feds' may not know everything, and they may or may not have the best management/implimentation strategies, or even goals for that matter..but they are charged with a difficult task, and are mandated by law to monitor and manage this stock.
This includes setting goals, timelines, utilizing best available science and knowledge to develop management strategies to enact these goals, and to monitor/evaluate /reassess, and sometimes redirect, while considering all interested, and vested parties interests. Throughout this process they must maintain open communication, transparency, and document all that occurs. That is one tall order, no matter what the task, and some might say they are doomed to fail at in some respect. Any decision that is made, and actions taken will inevitabley upset some (if not most), and may include economic or other losses or sacrafices, but that doesn't mean it is not going to help to achieve the goal for which the agency was tasked with achieving.
I hope I am not 'stirring the pot' here, or offending anyone with my personal beliefs..not my intention at all. I think these types of issues should be discussed and may best be addressed in an open public forum type format/environment.
As Lee, and Dominick said though... we want to avoid politics, and any sort of 'sniping', or personal attacks here.
This is the best forum, and group of guys I know, and we certainly want to keep it that way.
Sorry bout the long post here :( Especially when I just got done saying I would stick to fishing and fishing gear.
Hope I don't go 'Poof' :-\
Quote from: Tightlines666 on August 20, 2015, 01:53:38 AM
I hope I am not 'stirring the pot' here, or offending anyone with my personal beliefs..not my intention at all. I think these types of issues should be discussed and may best be addressed in an open public forum type format/environment.
We need to hear from all sides, keep it up.
Its bs i can go out 9 times out of ten and catch red snappers. Not little ones ether fished with a local of 50+ years and he says he has never seen so many and caught his biggest fish a few weeks ago on my boat. If you go to the Florida Sportsman and look up red snapper fishery management in the North East fishing Forums you will see we have been trying to communicate with the scientist, but they can never give us a straightforward answer. this isn't hurting my livelihood but it is killing the charter fisherman as we know them here in North Florida. Noaa has had plenty of time to work this out 7yrs now but still cant get it right.this is unacceptable.
Quote from: Dominick on August 19, 2015, 09:07:50 PM
Hey guys. This is the kind of sniping Alan is trying to avoid. Enough said on the subject. Okay? Dominick
We are "playing nice" here and it's good to hear from both sides.
Politics (both sides) should NEVER be involved in fish and wildlife management, unfortunately the "save the earth" crowd have control of the system now and will never voluntarily give it up. The stripminer/clearcutters are almost as bad, see Pebble Mine.
Quote from: Keta on August 20, 2015, 03:55:03 PM
Quote from: Dominick on August 19, 2015, 09:07:50 PM
Hey guys. This is the kind of sniping Alan is trying to avoid. Enough said on the subject. Okay? Dominick
We are "playing nice" here and it's good to hear from both sides.
Politics (both sides) should NEVER be involved in fish and wildlife management, unfortunately the "save the earth" crowd have control of the system now and will never voluntarily give it up. The stripminer/clearcutters are almost as bad, see Pebble Mine.
Lee: what you say is spot on when it come to any of this making seance, special interest groups are controlling a lot of decision making sadly though there aren't enough fisherman involved to counter them as need be. Everyone is trying to protect there side of the issue without listening to the real problem when it comes to hard line fishing regulations, that are causing a lot of hard feelings about who is making these decisions and why these decisions are made.
Joe
The health of the resource comes first though, our grandkids need to enjoy what we have.
Quote from: Keta on August 20, 2015, 05:59:43 PM
The health of the resource comes first though, our grandkids need to enjoy what we have.
True,true so very true.
Joe
Well Lee..your comment about W.Coast Rockfish mis-management modivated ne to attend a few scientific presentations.
One thing I learned is that the NMFS has been able to successfully integrate state-collected, observer-recorded catch data, and independent habitat-dependent data into its latest RockFish population assesment. I asked how much data they had, and was surprised to hear WA, OR, & CA have a combined headboat, and 6 pack annual observer data pool of over 150,000 drifts. They are taking a more proactive approach to weighing recreactional and charter boat catch data, along and integrating state resources, and looking at a finer scale habitat and specific reef-by-reef approach in their population modeling schemes.
So here is a case of good cooperation between the feds and states regarding pop assesments.
Not surprisingly, the data shows shifts in certain (not site-specific China Rockfish) species distributions.
This finer scale approach, along with better representation of headboat and 6-pack data seems a promising model, that the S. Atlantic, and GOM guys might benefit from.
I also caught a few more presentations on the use of recreational survey, targeted, and non-targeted recreational sampling, and headboat/charter boat provided catch data on the E coast of FL, and in the panhandle region.
One thing the FL state guys demonstrated was tremendous cooperation from the recreational, charter sector.
A second was the close ties (at least with respect to specific size-age clases) between the fed commercial data, and the state rec sector data. However, not surprisingly, the rec sector showed an obvious bios towards landing larger/older fish, and it was stared that the commercial sector data is biased toward younger/smaller fish. FL state data suggests, state rec data should be more heavily sampled and included in GOM or region-wide population assesments.
Also, the pop assesment and related models seem to inadequetly account for habitat-specific, and finer scale differences in a given species.
The other thing is that my friend who worked collecting GOM Red Snapper samples out of Panama City, nust have did too good of a job..since the Fed data is strongly biases and oversampled on bandit reel boats in the region. There were alot of smaller/younger fish landed and sampled in this sector.
The 3 or 4 age/size class pulses coincidong with favorable conditions coupled with increased restriction, suggest that the management measures are having a population-wide impact as well.
Thank you tightlines for the info and effort. Respect earned.
Quote from: Tightlines666 on August 20, 2015, 09:34:11 PM
So here is a case of good cooperation between the feds and states regarding pop assesments.
Not surprisingly, the data shows shifts in certain (not site-specific China Rockfish) species distributions.
We try in Oregon and this is one of the reasons we created OCEAN. http://www.oceaned.org/ (http://www.oceaned.org/)
China rockfish have never been "common", the same for quillback this far south, so loosing them is no big deal. My problem is canaries, blues and yelloweye that are still abundant. We do need to be conservative when it comes to harvesting fish that are 60-90 years old, yelloweye and other deep water rockfish.
Quote from: Keta on August 22, 2015, 02:46:55 PM
Quote from: Tightlines666 on August 20, 2015, 09:34:11 PM
So here is a case of good cooperation between the feds and states regarding pop assesments.
Not surprisingly, the data shows shifts in certain (not site-specific China Rockfish) species distributions.
We try in Oregon and this is one of the reasons we created OCEAN. http://www.oceaned.org/ (http://www.oceaned.org/)
China rockfish have never been "common", the same for quillback this far south, so loosing them is no big deal. My problem is canaries, blues and yelloweye that are still abundant. We do need to be conservative when it comes to harvesting fish that are 60-90 years old (yelloweye) though.
Honestly, I really don't know much about these species
Your attitude towards conserving the long-lived species is commendable. The crazy thing about most of those long-lived species is that it is believed that they spend the majority of their entire lives on a single reef complex. They give new meaning to the phrase 'home bodies'.
I sometimes wonder if the root cause of the decline of certain species of fish is actually taken into consideration in that we seam to be focused on the angling aspect more then other causes or conditions that has and have, had a tremendous impact over many decades.
To kill the snake, do we cut off the tail or the head? I have read many learned and well articulated views here so far,but how do they apply to the problem as I have just stated it? I'm not trying to be controversial rather then that I'm asking questions to see how much thought is put into this issue from all boarders. Discussion is the beginning, but listening and taking the issues to the test is most important. If we ignore those facts that we think are not important enough to consider then we are failing to do our best efforts.
Joe
Quote from: Tightlines666 on August 22, 2015, 02:53:59 PMThe crazy thing about most of those long-lived species is that it is believed that they spend the majority of their entire lives on a single reef complex. They give new meaning to the phrase 'home bodies'.
Yup, once they go from zooplankton to fish they stay on the first good structure they find. Off of Oregon our hard bottom habitat is surrounded by muck and moving to another hard spot rarely happens.
Quote from: Reel 224 on August 22, 2015, 02:54:42 PMTo kill the snake, do we cut off the tail or the head?
We need good biologists and managers with out a political agenda and no political interference. The health of the resource should always come first.
If you are refering to accounting for non-fishing related affects on species, they are complicated and enumerating the 'causation connection' can be challenging/ problematic, to say the least.
In recent years there has been a shift towards examining entire ecosystem complexes, and accounting for affects of habitat and oceanographic conditions. There are many more tools, and datasets available to scientist now days, and many expanded models have been developed to try to integrate everything into one (or several) indice(s). However, the more factors that are integrated into this broad-sweep monitoring approach, the more assumptions, and uncertainty is introduced. Ecosystem models and related data sets have been improving. This approach like any other tool, has its strengths and weaknesses. It can sometimes enlighten (especially with regards to the long-term/big scale picture), but can also mislead.
These broad-scope models can be fit/applied to single-species complexes as well to some good affect. A case in point are the Pacific Salmon. There is a tremendous amount of data available, and research dedicated to Pacific Salmon (kind of akin to cancer medical research). In recent years some of these system-wide models have yielded surprising results. Scientist are sometimes able to predict with some degree of certainty population shifts and even future recruitment and survivability factors.
Your right that when it comes to examining fish, the lense is often directed at fishermen. But there is a good reason for this. Fishermen are closely connected to the fish they pursue, and can provide a valuable means of monitoring/sampling that would otherwise be very costly or difficult. In the other hand using fishing as the only means of monitoring or directed management can be problematic. Selectivity issues, as well as accounting for habitat, and bottom-up effects immediately come to mind.
Also, bear in mind, I am only talking about science, and monitoring...management is a whole nother ball game.
They do have a relatively good handle on our salmon with the exception of the drainage I live in, salmon do not need 70°+ water as it kills them. Our river needs to be periodically dewatered, like nature did before the dams, to kill off the massive population of c.shasta and their intermediate host the polychaete worm that kill far too many Klamath Basin fish. Non basin fish die rapidly when put into our water.
Quote from: Keta on August 22, 2015, 03:26:51 PM
They do have a relatively good handle on our salmon with the exception of the drainage I live in, salmon do not need 70°+ water as it kills them. Our river needs to be periodically dewatered, like nature did before the dams, to kill off the massive population of c.shasta and their intermediate host the polychaete worm that kill far too many Klamath Basin fish. Non basin fish die rapidly when put into our water.
Lee, funny thing is I tried to avoid any of the scientific presentations on Salmon, and especially watershed and inland stuff (not an easy task where nearly 50% of the presentations at the Portland-based conference dealt with Salmon). I happened to catch 2 presentations on the Klamath basin Salmon, and you are absolutely correct...inland watershed management, and hot water and parasites in particular are a major problem. Getting diverse groups to cooperate and do the right thing for the salmon is a serious challenge, especially when it bears an economic cost.
Your pretty smart for a fishermen :)
Quote from: Tightlines666 on August 22, 2015, 03:38:51 PMYour pretty smart for a fishermen :)
I try, it's real hard but I try... ;D
I've tried for years to get the water diverted back to the upper basin wildlife refuges if not to the farms but the eco extremists are clueless and fight doing what needs to be done on the Klamath. The Klamath system is upside down, it starts in flat land and enters the Pacific through the mountains. Upper Klamath Lake is a dammed late eutrophic lake, even with the low dam the lake averages 6'-8' deep and is over 5 miles wide and 20 long) that gets over 70° by early July, and should be a large meadow/pasture. Add the #### from millions of birds, the rich volcanic muck on the bottom (200' deep in some places) and the lake is an algae petri dish.
Those Fisherman that you make comment about, lead their lives in other professions as well as you. They are Doctors,Lawyers,Engineers,etc. We have more then the fishing intellect. Even those of us that are farmers also lead other lives like those that I mentioned. You can look at all the models you want but it will not tell you all of the variables that are affecting sea life. As a Field Engineer in civil Engineering, I would often times surprise PE's in our office when dealing with their so called expertise in design and application. Some times it just ain't going to work. ;D ;) Not only does the problem of Retention of our lakes and streams from dams cause problems, but the many Nuclear Power plants that are discharging cooling water that is as much as 20deg above normal conditions for Streams and bays. We are not looking at the delicate balance of these conditions that man has created close enough. IMO
Joe
The link below is the typical catch of late on the Pastime princess. If you look closely at the catch the majority is red snappers and we were not even granted a one day season this year. Something is really wrong with the system.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/deepseafishingdaytona/albums/72157658448206851
Dwight photos 12 and 13 show pretty big Snappers. Just like Giants baseball wait til next year. Dominick
Quote from: Dominick on September 10, 2015, 09:17:40 PM
Dwight photos 12 and 13 show pretty big Snappers. Just like Giants baseball wait til next year. Dominick
Those are babies. You need to drag a 30 pounder off the reef with the tank. That will draw some sweat out of you if it does not cut you off first. :D I got a 45 pounder a few months ago that Captain Al said was the largest that he had seen on the Pastime. They do get bigger. ;)
Quote from: Newell Nut on September 10, 2015, 10:55:40 PM
Quote from: Dominick on September 10, 2015, 09:17:40 PM
Dwight photos 12 and 13 show pretty big Snappers. Just like Giants baseball wait til next year. Dominick
Those are babies. You need to drag a 30 pounder off the reef with the tank. That will draw some sweat out of you if it does not cut you off first. :D I got a 45 pounder a few months ago that Captain Al said was the largest that he had seen on the Pastime. They do get bigger. ;)
Is that an invitation? Dominick
Another problem with red snapper is the high mortality rate of released fish. Just last week I was fishing with fellow forum member JoePlo out of Mexico Beach. We must have caught 50 ARS that particular day. Joe caught two very large ones (20+) and both died despite our best efforts to revive them, including venting their bladders.
Barotrauma seems to affect ARS more than any other reef fish that I'm aware of. The smaller reds seem to have a higher survival rate, but even 5-6 of those died. It's frustrating watching good fish get turned into shark food.
Speaking of shark food, Joe caught a very nice gag grouper and a shark helped himself to the back half of the fish. Pic attached. Wonder if the FWC would have ticketed him for having a "short" fish? In case anyone is wondering, that's a legal mangrove snapper on the cleaning table.
Mike Pate
Batotrauma is very common with many deep water species.
Alaska has instituted a practice into law requiring all charter boats and others to have a deep descender release device on board.
Many kinds of such devices are out there including the DIY kind - a heavy lead head jig with no barb and extra weight added. The line is then attached to the bend in the hook. The point pierces the lower lip of the fish and it's released to the depth caught, then lifted smartly to release the fish at depth.
For ex.
http://www.sheltonproducts.com/SFD.html
Quote from: Dominick on September 11, 2015, 12:03:34 AM
Quote from: Newell Nut on September 10, 2015, 10:55:40 PM
Quote from: Dominick on September 10, 2015, 09:17:40 PM
Dwight photos 12 and 13 show pretty big Snappers. Just like Giants baseball wait til next year. Dominick
Those are babies. You need to drag a 30 pounder off the reef with the tank. That will draw some sweat out of you if it does not cut you off first. :D I got a 45 pounder a few months ago that Captain Al said was the largest that he had seen on the Pastime. They do get bigger. ;)
Is that an invitation? Dominick
Certainly, come on over. John will be here around Christmas. Sal may show up when he retires. Fishing is slow right now but Oct thru June should be good times. The biggest red snappers are really chewing in the spring months along with cobia and mangos.
Quote from: Steve-O on September 11, 2015, 12:38:05 AM
Batotrauma is very common with many deep water species.
Alaska has instituted a practice into law requiring all charter boats and others to have a deep descender release device on board.
Many kinds of such devices are out there including the DIY kind - a heavy lead head jig with no barb and extra weight added. The line is then attached to the bend in the hook. The point pierces the lower lip of the fish and it's released to the depth caught, then lifted smartly to release the fish at depth.
For ex.
http://www.sheltonproducts.com/SFD.html
Yeah, I've had two of the darn things, both DIY's, and lost both on the reefs releasing ARS. I'm thinking the fish head back into their holes as they near the bottom and before I can release them. Anybody got one they particularly like and is effective. Store bought or DIY, doesn't matter.
Mike
Not trying to be critical, but if you are venting by poking a hole in the fish they may have a very high mortality rate. Most people don't know how to correctly vent and there is always a risk of infection. In my opinion, the only effective way to release fish suffering from barotrauma is to get the fish back down to recompression depth as quickly as possible. I know some of the southern states recommend venting, but studies have shown that survival may be low for fish that are vented prior to release. Survival is reasonably good for fish that are descended immediately without venting.
https://sites.google.com/site/barotraumainfish/
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=36345&inline=true
Problem is, since 2008 anglers have been mandated by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
and NOAA Fisheries to carry and utilize dehooking devices and venting tools on reef fish caught
in the Gulf of Mexico.
Note the carry and utilize.
I stayed home worked on rods but the link is today's catch on the Pastime and again the primary fish caught is the red snapper.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/deepseafishingdaytona/albums/72157658117863149
Looks like alot of young, healthy Reds. That last one looks a little bigger. Most are likely less then 5 years old (TL<450cm). Certainly not many fish in the 15-30 year old range (TL> 950cm). Obviously you guys continue to see great numbers of Red Snapper. That is a pretty nice Cuda there too. What have the surface water Temps been like this past month? Over the 84 degree long term ave. for Aug?
Looks like you had another good day on the water. Keep living the dream.
BTW how did that reel you were going to test out work?
If you are referring to the 200-400 SS gear sleeve then it is working fine and Tom told me not to use it because it had not been hardened yet. The only issue was the first day with the old AR dog. No issue since I changed the dog.
We have had water temps between 80 and 84. The biggest red snappers will show up soon and hang around until July. 15 to 40 lb range. If we had an extra 30 minutes to travel out each day we would get the big ones now.
Quote from: Newell Nut on September 13, 2015, 12:20:36 AM
If you are referring to the 200-400 SS gear sleeve then it is working fine and Tom told me not to use it because it had not been hardened yet. The only issue was the first day with the old AR dog. No issue since I changed the dog.
Glad to hear the sleeve fits well, and is working good, despite not being hardened. I will definitely need one once they go into production for my current build.
Don't get me started. The red Snapper stocks are so healthy even someone who doesn't ever fish can tell you that. once you get out to 130 feet or more it's the majority of the fish we catch. We have to stop going out that far and wait for the other fish to come in.That's why Dewight talks about it getting better soon. The cooler the water gets the bigger fish will move in there are plenty 20 to 30 pound fish out there all day long,and when you fish in the hundred and thirty foot Depth you rarely catch fish under 20 pounds it is ridiculous. But the scientists know Lol. Look up salty kayak on YouTube. He is in New Symerna fishes in a 17 foot Key West and rarely fishes in anything over 80 feet and the majority of the fish he catches are red snapper. google it and look at his videos from last week fat fat red snappers in 60 feet. Oh yeah and i almost forgot. The majority of the fish that have been killed have been killed" have been killed by our lovely government. THEY blow up the oil rigs in the Gulf instead of taking them apart?they blow them up along with thousands and thousands of red snapper and other fish! Google it I love this website and the people on it. I'm not trying to start a fight. I just know from experience that the red snapper population is substantial enough to let recreational fishermen start keeping a few. It's the greedy government that keeps us from having these.
I saw a show on tv the other day about commercial fishing. They were catching red snapper on hydraulic reels that had 20 hook leaders. The leaders were coming up with a red snapper on every hook. What I found most disturbing about the show was that it was sponsored by the Fresh From Florida campaign .It was basically a state funded infomercial that made no reference to the recreational angler.Its bad enough we have the Feds unwilling to do anything about the imbalance in the system, and now the state is using my tax dollars to bolster sentiment for the commercial fisherman. Joe