Gill Nets are Back??

[sfurman]

CCA FLORIDA OPPOSES THE LATEST ATTEMPT BY COMMERCIAL NETTERS TO CIRCUMVENT THE GILL NET BAN
THE RECENT CIRCUIT JUDGE RULING IS ABSURD

Once again a small group of commercial netters are trying to get the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to allow larger mesh sizes in nets so they can be used as gill nets. Circuit Court Judge Jackie Lee Fulford has issued a ruling that the use of net mesh size to define the difference between an illegal gill net and a legal seine net is a “legal absurdity” and has enjoined the enforcement of the Constitutional Amendment and the FWC rules implementing it!

“Judge Fulford has simply ignored almost 18 years of legal precedent on the issue and offered her own opinion” said Jim Williams, CCA Florida Chairman. “The 2 inch mesh size used by the FWC to define and clarify the difference between illegal gill nets and legal seine nets has resolved previous enforcement issues and successfully maintained the full intent of the Constitutional Amendment.”

In November of 1994 an overwhelming 72% of Florida voters said “yes” to the Constitutional Amendment limiting marine net fishing. The amendment includes both a prohibition on the use of gill and entangling nets in all state waters and a size limit on other nets. Although the restrictions have been in place for nearly 18 years, there are still small factions within the commercial fishing industry that refuse to accept the legal reality that the constitutional prohibition on gill nets means no gill nets.
Numerous administrative challenges and lawsuits have been filed over the last 18 years in an effort to challenge these regulations and allow the use nets that are currently outlawed. All of the attempts have failed as the Courts have supported the clear intent of the Constitutional Amendment. Early Court decisions have upheld the implementing rules which established a 2 inch size stretched mesh size as the “bright line distinction” between a legal seine net and an illegal gill net. The size was established based on the historic mesh sizes prior to the enactment of the gill net ban. The Courts ruled that the 2 inch maximum size for seine nets was “historically based, rational and practical”.

“The commercial net fishermen in Wakulla County raised concerns about the viability of the allowable cast nets and seines with the 2 inch mesh to catch mullet; however, the commercial landing data shows a very different story” said CCA Florida’s Ted Forsgren. Landings data from the FWC indicate that mullet landings in Wakulla, Franklin, Jefferson, and Dixie Counties were 579,527 pounds in 2010 and 493,614 pounds in 2011. Total statewide landings of mullet in 2011 were 12.5 million pounds.

The Constitutional Amendment and the implementing rules of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission have brought inshore finfish populations to high levels of abundance. “Populations of mullet, redfish, sea trout and other fisheries are at all time highs and the increased abundance has allowed the FWC to reduce take restrictions on a number of species” said Forsgren.

“CCA Florida will continue to be the outspoken advocate and protector of the Constitutional Amendment which has protected Florida’s marine fisheries and the multibillion dollar economic impact to Florida’s economy,” said CCA Florida Chairman Jim Williams.

ccaflorida.org

[22acrowd]

Did they ever really go away?

[sfurman]

Yes they did. They used to use nets that stretched over 500 yards or more and had much larger mesh, you are not seeing the big trout you are seeing today by accident but, based on the complacency of today and the fact that most fishermen these days seem to take the abundance of fish we now enjoy for granted I can see those days coming back again, good luck getting them off the water a second time.

[Heywood]

A 2" inch mesh net is just a small gill net. I have a picture of hundreds of dead baby ladyfish that I found at the Kitchen one winter. You could clearly see the drag marks of the nets they used.

[Mark R]

I believe the "ban" is still in effect pending appeal.........

[sfurman]

The nets they are using actually are 2" gill nets, they have a very fine type of twine not typically used for seine nets. Seine nets use a heavy twine so that the fish are a lot less likely to be gilled, which is undesirable in a seine net. They are not mono but with the new materials we have available today they can get away with a finer twine that is tough for the fish to avoid. They use these nets for two reasons, one they are much lighter and easier to handle and two, they just don't give a damn and it helps to prove their point that the nets gill small fish.

If they actually used the correct gear intended for the type of fishing they are doing there would be very little if any gilling at all.

This judge was duped by the netters, they finally found a bleeding heart judge that would ignore the facts and buy into their crap. This judge wanted to see the nets in action, The netters took her out on a field trip and they spent the entire day looking for a school of smallish sized fish that the netters knew would demonstrate their claims. There were others that know better tagging along and they said it was a shameful display and a charade. Anyway they judge clearly had her mind made up and here we go again, back to court.

I am really concerned this time too, our judges and lawyers are getting more and more liberal and I fear we could lose this one. If we do we will not be able to get nets out of our water again and it will devastate our fisheries. The FWC cannot police the thousands of netters that show up during the mullet roe run and everything that gets in the way is fair game.

Please get involved, if you love fishing like I do, get involved, and I don’t just mean posting your opinion on the internet. Join CCA, get involved with CCA see how hard we fight these battles and what this is all about. Get involved or kiss you big trout good bye. Quite making up excuses!

[John]

I don't think the judge was duped as much as colluded, the judge shares the same last name as many of the well know fishermen from the Cortez area.

Kind of says it all really

[Edward]

The rape of gill nets. I came to Fl. in 83 and the fishing was good. By 1990 it was like the dead sea. Mullet boats everywhere just circling every cove, stretching across every major cut catching everything coming out with the tide. A catch of 3 trout around 12"was a good day. A 16" worthy of a pic. I don't think I caught one red for 2 or 3 years. The 1st spring after the ban in 94, I was wade fishing not far from the Fort, I must have caught 60 10"-12" trout and 5 12" reds. Did I become a better fisherman, no, the killer was taken out of the equation and the youth were being allowed to grow. I caught more big trout last year than ever before. They continue to get bigger and bigger as the years go by. Gill nets can never be allowed to return as it takes years to recover.

[TerryW]

Here is a petition from CCA - http://www.yousign.org/en/netbanpetition

[ChrisR]

I'm having trouble locating a copy of her ruling. Can anyone help point me in the right direction?

[BlueCrab]

http://cvweb.clerk.leon.fl.us/cvimage/o ... r=&subnet=

Seems like a lot of fuss over a castnet with a mesh greater than 2".

One thing you have to understand is the pecking order of state law: State Constitution>Florida Statutes>Florida Administrative Code (FAC). What is at issue here is FAC. The net ban is an amendment to the constitution, it is plainly written without caveats (which it has to be to be put on a ballot). Florida Statutes, on the other hand, are developed by staff, public input is requested, debated, etc. and are much more detailed. The FAC is developed by the agencies that have to carry out/enforce the laws. It is procedures based on the Florida Statutes.

I can tell you by personal experience that the FAC gets surprisingly little respect in the courtroom. You can prove a state agency violated the FAC and it means little.

This could easily be solved by some hotshot state legislator by sponsoring a bill that makes the 2" FAC rule part of the law. But, I don't think that can be done because it would require amending the constitution, which is a higher bar.

[ChrisR]

Thanks for the link BlueCrab!

[DaveR]

I'm a bit too angry right now and have had a couple of glasses of wine so I know better. I'll just write that this is an outrage and those responsible should not go unpunished.

[Todd]

That was a very interesting read and it should be read in its entirety if you truly want to understand what is going on.

It appears, to me, the judge firmly ruled in the mullet fishermans favor by her language. This will be a mess for sure. The judge does make a very valid point, as noted above by Bluecrab, that the only way to put and end to all of this is to further amend the constitution which is a long road to go down.

The best we can do at this time is to make our, and our neighbors, and our friends, and anyone else you can reach out to voices heard. I would reference Rik's post from today as a great way to get that done. Simply signing a petition and posting on facebook is not good enough. If you care send an e-mail or call your representatives and while you are at it, get someone else to do that also.

http://paddle-fishing-forum.com/viewtop ... 55&t=38997" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BlueCrab]

I signed the petition. IMHO, the laws that give the FWC the authority to implement rules will trump the Mullet Fishermen's arguments. Yes, the FAC concerning fishing for mullet are more stringent. So what? The law is also more stringent on spear fishermen, general gun users, and gig fishermen. It is within the FWC's authorit-tye (sorry, couldn't resist) to be more restrictive and be discriminating against a group.

..and I think the fact she overturned a constitutional amendment over a FAC rule will piss off the higher court because it sets a very bad precedent (not to mention it is ass backwards - IMHO). She should have just said you can't enforce the FAC because it conflicts with the amendment. She went nuclear instead, which to me indicates an agenda.

..and that ain't the Guinness talkin' neither.

[Todd]

We have won round one. Don't think we have heard the last of it though.

http://myfwc.com/media/2678706/NetLimit ... tiveV2.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;