Has anyone seen this? http://www.floridasportsman.com/confron ... index.html
Now, I'm a newcomer to FL so maybe you all can help me understand something. After two years of new restrictions, everyone seems to agree that there are more snapper now than there used to be. So why would fishermen complain?? The program has demonstrated success - would these anglers prefer that their "sacrifice" was in vain? This seems akin to people complaining that banks are profitable again after the huge bailout. Like it or not, the plan worked - so where's the problem?? Would failure have been any more palatable?
Red Snapper conundrum
Red Snapper conundrum
Everyone is entitled to my opinion
-
- Supporter 2010 - 2014
- Posts: 1203
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:06 pm
- Location: under my lone palm
I think that fisherman question the data used in determining that red snapper were overfished. I think the point of the article is showing that NOAA thinks that their closure worked, whereas the fisherman think that the fish were plentiful to begin with, and that the closure didn't effect the "results" that NOAA is touting.
I don't closely follow this issue, but that is how I understand it.
I don't closely follow this issue, but that is how I understand it.
I recently talked to a captain that went out with a research team that may or may not have been a part of this situation. The story he told says it all...
The scientists (not fishermen) went fishing for a species and the captain on board told them that they were doing it all wrong. Sure enough, the scientists did not catch much and they wrote it off as the fish population numbers being down. The captain took the scientists out on his boat and did things his way and they caught a bunch of fish. The data could not be used because they were not on the research vessel.
It is that kind of bureaucracy that cause people to believe things like recreational fishermen should be held to pay for the damage commercial fleets are doing... and global warming. The whole system is corrupt. Advocacy groups, politicians, law makers... its all about lining pockets, not what is good for the future of the fishery.
This state used to be a tourist driven economy and the fishing guides thrived. Between the limits, regulations, taxes and fees they are close to running a lot of guide out of business because the cost of trips is going up but there are less consumers willing to spend the money to take a trip.
This whole thing makes my head hurt because I know there is nothing a single unarmed man can do about it and together we do not have enough money to buy our way back to where things should be.
The scientists (not fishermen) went fishing for a species and the captain on board told them that they were doing it all wrong. Sure enough, the scientists did not catch much and they wrote it off as the fish population numbers being down. The captain took the scientists out on his boat and did things his way and they caught a bunch of fish. The data could not be used because they were not on the research vessel.
It is that kind of bureaucracy that cause people to believe things like recreational fishermen should be held to pay for the damage commercial fleets are doing... and global warming. The whole system is corrupt. Advocacy groups, politicians, law makers... its all about lining pockets, not what is good for the future of the fishery.
This state used to be a tourist driven economy and the fishing guides thrived. Between the limits, regulations, taxes and fees they are close to running a lot of guide out of business because the cost of trips is going up but there are less consumers willing to spend the money to take a trip.
This whole thing makes my head hurt because I know there is nothing a single unarmed man can do about it and together we do not have enough money to buy our way back to where things should be.
Paddles - they aren't just for the bedroom anymore.
~Mark~
~Mark~