# Fall REd Snapper season



## grey ghost (Jul 24, 2011)

Does anybody know the dates for the Fall red snapper season?? I read it was gone be a 6 day season, somewhere on this forum, thks for any info!!??


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

Last I heard they haven't set the dates yet.


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

They are going to set the dates during their September meeting. I'm hoping for a few weekends instead of weekdays only, that's will give more people access to the extra days and stretch it out a bit.


----------



## grey ghost (Jul 24, 2011)

*fall red snapper*

Yeah, I need them dates, i am gone take a lil fall snapper vacation!!! lol Ten 4 on the wheather, it will probly be 8ft seas that week!! thks for info


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

For all who think were going to get a fall red snapper season. = fail= the reports are in from Crabtree, WE went over by one million pounds. Not only do WE not get a fall season WE will be blessed next year with about a 30 day season. There ya have it.


----------



## outcast (Oct 8, 2007)

*Fall Red Snapper Season*

*From:* Bob Zales [mailto:[email protected]] 
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:30 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* fall red snapper rec season
*Importance:* High

It appears that the rec red snapper quota for 2011 will be over by 500,000 to 1,000,000 lbs, including the 345,000 we were provided from the underage last year. There will be no fall season and you can look for fewer days than 48 next year in the rec season. The avg size for this year is 6.3 lbs which is .5 lbs larger than projected. More info will follow later in the week.
Bob 

*Capt Bob Zales, II*


----------



## Lyin Too (Aug 31, 2009)

Capt Bob, how do you charter boats still make a living with this BS going on? Cant yall (and us monkey boats) get some help from Gov Bentley or someone?


----------



## Jaw Jacker (Jul 29, 2009)

Lyin Too said:


> Capt Bob, how do you charter boats still make a living with this BS going on? Cant yall (and us monkey boats) get some help from Gov Bentley or someone?


+1 there has got to be something we can do.


----------



## PaulBoydenCustoms (Dec 3, 2008)

This is just plain stupid!!!


----------



## 706Z (Mar 30, 2011)

It'stotal *BS!*


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

Let's not forget that FLORIDA can still have our own season.  We do have 9 miles offshore in state waters we can fish. At some point Florida is going to have to tell the feds to piss up a rope. Or we can just have our own personal seasons :thumbsup:


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

capt. Jon pinney said:


> we can just have our own personal seasons :thumbsup:



for it!!


----------



## J.Sharit (Oct 3, 2007)

Capt. Jon Pinney said:


> Let's not forget that FLORIDA can still have our own season.  We do have 9 miles offshore in state waters we can fish. At some point Florida is going to have to tell the feds to piss up a rope. Or we can just have our own personal seasons :thumbsup:


Texas seems to be the only gulf coast state that anit scared of losing
that fed funding for doing what they feels right and untill they quit lumping groups of fish into what they call a complex model and start getting some species-specific data it's just gonna get worse. 


Oppose FWC 68B-44 The Shark Rule......more crap


----------



## Thisldu (Oct 2, 2007)

Let me see if I got this right when this whole red snapper fiasco started a few years back:

Catch smaller and less fish = Reduced season and bag limits


After catch observations over the years:


Catch Larger and more fish = Reduced season and bag limits


Guess there won't be a season at all at this rate.

Of course this is coming from a government that can't balance a check book.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

JoeZ said:


> for it!!


Most of the FWC will be in the woods come deer season and if your unlucky enough to get caught the fine is about the same as a tank of gas...just saying:whistling:


----------



## feelin' wright (Oct 7, 2007)

Those idiots dont even look at the numbers they just decide on how to futher restrict the season. 

We as a recreation community need to put pressure on our marine resource divisions (county) and have all new reefs placed in state waters. We need to build a substanible fishery in state waters so we can tell the Feds to f**k off. I personally will never deploy a reef in federal waters all will be in states waters.


----------



## ycanti (Jul 13, 2011)

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/08/next_years_red_snapper_season.html


----------



## neuby (May 8, 2009)

feelin' wright said:


> Those idiots dont even look at the numbers they just decide on how to futher restrict the season.
> 
> We as a recreation community need to put pressure on our marine resource divisions (county) and have all new reefs placed in state waters. We need to build a substanible fishery in state waters so we can tell the Feds to f**k off. I personally will never deploy a reef in federal waters all will be in states waters.


I completely agree. And next time the feds start threatening our road money or any other money we remind them that THEY DONT ACTUALLY HAVE ANY MONEY and simply give them the middle finger and tell them to keep their 'handouts' just like Rick Scott did with the billions of $'s in high speed rail money slated for central florida...


----------



## Chet88 (Feb 20, 2008)

ycanti said:


> http://blog.al.com/live/2011/08/next_years_red_snapper_season.html


Well that pretty much kills the fall season.This over regulation is getting out of hand.


----------



## DreamWeaver21 (Oct 3, 2007)

"Using more data from scientific research projects would give a more complete picture of the fish living in the Gulf. The present system relies largely on surveys of what anglers bring to the dock, Blankenship said."

Some people need to learn to guess the weight of their fish more accurately. Personally I stopped dealing with the survey people. They used to call me and ask about my trips and send me paper forms to fill out and I would answer them and fill them in but like other people have said, if you catch fish then you are killing them all and they shorten the season. If you don't catch fish then there must not be any and they shorten the season. Either way we are screwed so I just don't bother talking to the survey people anymore...unless they are doing the surveys in person and the chick is cute, then I will make an exception.


----------



## 20simmons sea skiff (Aug 20, 2010)

elect me king, i will have a grill for every boat


----------



## FelixH (Sep 28, 2007)

DreamWeaver21;716379... if you catch fish then you are killing them all and they shorten the season. If you don't catch fish then there must not be any and they shorten the season. Either way we are screwed...[/QUOTE said:


> That seems to sum it up pretty well.


----------



## chris592 (Jul 5, 2008)

If there is such a shortage of snapper the need to stop the commerical fishing then...


----------



## Strictly Bizness (Oct 2, 2007)

chris592 said:


> If there is such a shortage of snapper the need to stop the commerical fishing then...


ha!!!! that will never happen. that is the group of fisherman that pay all of the lobbyists. the lobbyists are the one's wispering in the federal governments ear over a plate of shrimp cocktail.


----------



## Kenton (Nov 16, 2007)

Strictly Bizness said:


> ha!!!! that will never happen. that is the group of fisherman that pay all of the lobbyists. the lobbyists are the one's wispering in the federal governments ear over a plate of shrimp cocktail.


 
Yeah that does not make sense why this never impacts the commercial fisherman.


----------



## neuby (May 8, 2009)

A few comments- First, there is obviously issue with the quota amounts as the stock is clearly been rapidly expanding the past few years. One problem I have heard personally from a friend at NMFS is that stock assessments for snapper are only done on natural bottom (i.e. no wrecks are sampled.)

The reason we are currently dealing with the shorter season issue is also attributed to the fact that quota limits are set by weight, but the recreational bag limit is set by unit. So in order to determine weight of the recreational catch, they came up with a great formula: They simply get a very small sampling of fish brought in and weigh them to determine the average weight of the fish (1), and extrapolate this out by some combination of phone surveys and pulling numbers out of their asses to determine the average number of anglers on a boat (2) to determine the average weight of fish on the average boat (3) and then make another wild ass guess of the average number of boats that are fishing on an average day (4) and then multiply this by the average number of trips (5) the average boat makes during an average season. If the number is to big, the "average season" is shortened. As you can imagine when you multiple 5 things together, only 1 has to be off a little bit to skew the end result.

Obviously this commercial fishery does not have the same problem since they actually weigh their fish. I can even partly justify to myself the separate quotas, as from a commercial fisherman's perspective, it is their job and livelihood and if the quota is reached early, they are done fishing for the year and on the Obama plan. However, I would make the point to the environmentalist that I am quite certain the percentage of fish that is landed and discarded by the commercial industry (rotting in seafood markets) is much greater than the average recreational angler (left in freezer for a year).

I personally would be happy with a tag system being put in place. Say every license holder that requests snapper tags is issued 100 tags (I can dream OK) that may be used whenever we want. If I am having 25 people over for a fish fry I can go kill 15 snapper that morning. If I decide to target other species that day, then I can simply save my tags unless I accidently catch that 25 lb fish or make use of one of the tags to take the 16 incher home that gut swallowed a hook and clearly is not going to survive despite best efforts to dehook and vent him. The head boat and charter guys could work on the same system but get a larger allocation of tags. They then could have the liberty to decide how to distribute their tags- if they have the guys in town that have been coming down from Atlanta for 10 years and tip well, then they hook them up and use more tags. Alternatively if the non-tipping jerks show up, they put the group on beeliners and give them a couple of snapper tags for good measure. When FWC stops these boats coming in, they must all have tags in them or you are fined plus lose your tag allocation and they can estimate the weight of the fish to get a better sample of the average size.


----------



## Gonzo (Sep 17, 2010)

neuby said:


> A few comments- First, there is obviously issue with the quota amounts as the stock is clearly been rapidly expanding the past few years. One problem I have heard personally from a friend at NMFS is that stock assessments for snapper are only done on natural bottom (i.e. no wrecks are sampled.)
> 
> The reason we are currently dealing with the shorter season issue is also attributed to the fact that quota limits are set by weight, but the recreational bag limit is set by unit. So in order to determine weight of the recreational catch, they came up with a great formula: They simply get a very small sampling of fish brought in and weigh them to determine the average weight of the fish (1), and extrapolate this out by some combination of phone surveys and pulling numbers out of their asses to determine the average number of anglers on a boat (2) to determine the average weight of fish on the average boat (3) and then make another wild ass guess of the average number of boats that are fishing on an average day (4) and then multiply this by the average number of trips (5) the average boat makes during an average season. If the number is to big, the "average season" is shortened. As you can imagine when you multiple 5 things together, only 1 has to be off a little bit to skew the end result.
> 
> ...


_There was a Capt on this forum that actually showed using NOAA or FWC or whomever is so called managing the fishing industry that used their data since around 2009,2010 and for 2011 in which the actual season should have been around 81 days for this year. Left me wondering how they could arbitrarily choose 48 days instead. Not sure the title of the thread, but it was great info!_


----------



## Gonzo (Sep 17, 2010)

Here is that post made by Tom Hilton who runs Hilton Offshore: 

The quota closure analysis for the 2011 red *snapper* recreational *season* can be found at:

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/GulfRedSnapperQuotaClosure4-19-11.pdf

Here is my response;

Mr. Strelcheck,

According to your analysis; 
"An important dynamic in the recreational red *snapper* fishery that can affect *season* length is the ability of the recreational sectors to compensate for reductions in *season* length by compressing their effort into a limited *season*. This dynamic has been observed in other fisheries, such as the red *snapper* commercial fishery prior to implementation of the Individual Fishing Quota program, and is commonly referred to as ‘effort compensation’, ‘effort stuffing’, or a ‘derby fishery.’ The term ‘effort compensation’ includes the dynamics of more anglers on the water during the open *season* (rather than spreading their effort across the year), and the ability of individual anglers or for-hire vessels to run multiple trips in a day."

"Based on an average weight of 5.9 pounds, the *season* length is estimated to be between 39 and 48 days. The shortest *season* is based on effort compensation continuing to increase as the *season* is shortened, while the longest *season* assumes effort becomes saturated and anglers cannot compress any additional effort into the open *season* as the *season* becomes shorter. Based on methods used historically to project the red *snapper* *season* and an average weight of 5.9 lbs ww, the *season* is estimated to be 46 days. It is estimated that each day the red *snapper* is open, an average of 72,000-88,000 lbs of red *snapper* are landed."

The problem with what you are claiming is that you are totally discounting your own numbers from years past in an obvious attempt to set the stage for the justification of catch shares via the "derby fishery" argument;

*2009* - Since the rec TAC of 2.45 million pounds (MP) was reduced by the supposed fishing overage of 1.22 MP in 2008, the balance became 1.23 MP. Once all the figures came in, y'all claimed that the rec sector overfished its quota by 1.7 MP in 2009. So, 1.22 MP + 1.7 MP = 2.92 MP / 76 day *season* = 38,421 pounds caught per day. 38,421/5.0 pounds per fish = 7,684 fish caught per day.

*2010* - (projected) Since the rec TAC of 3,403,050 pounds was reduced by the supposed fishing overage of 1.7 MP in 2009, the balance became 1,703,050 pounds, which your office then computed to be caught in 54 days. 1,703,050 / 54 day *season* = 31,538 pounds caught per day. 31,538/5.34 pounds per fish = 5,906 fish projected to be caught per day.

*2011* - Since the rec TAC was NOT reduced by any overages from previous years, it supposedly was to provide full value of 3,520,650 pounds. If you assume, and you do in your analysis, that effort remains constant at 2009 levels, and compensate for the larger size projected for 2011 to be 5.9 pounds; 7,684 fish caught per day x 5.9 pounds = 45,336 pounds caught per day. 3,520,650 pound TAC / 43,336 = *81 day season*.

What is troubling however, is that your office is somehow estimating that each day the 2011 red *snapper* is open, an average of 72,000-88,000 lbs of red *snapper* are landed...(more specifically, 3,520,650 / 48 days = 73,347 pounds projected to be caught each day). *If you take the TOTAL COMBINED poundage caught per day from the previous 2 years, it totals up to be 69,959 pounds (38,421 + 31,538), yet your office is now claiming that the recs are going to somehow catch 73,347 pounds, or 12,432 fish per day? Really? *

That directly contradicts your *OWN* figures. It looks as though your office is part of the problem here, as since you have repeatedly demonstrated a severe bias and discrimination against the recreational anglers in the Gulf of Mexico. An example of this clear discrimination is the commercial sector is enjoying an increased bounty year/round while the recreational sector is barred access to the fishery using biased, discriminatory, and distorted reasoning. Another glaring example of your bias against recreational anglers was the sector separation presentation at the last Gulf Council meeting. By your own admission, if the private recs got 54%, and the CFH got 46% of the allocation, then there was no reduction in either group's seasons - however, you apparently and arbitrarily determined that the private recs did not deserve a 54% allocation and therefore should be penalized in 11 out of the 12 scenarios presented. Did I mention that you have refused to add the 1,000,000 pound under-fishing credit from 2010 to this year's quota, when you are surely quick to *DEDUCT* any overages from the next year's quota? Clearly discriminatory, and not something that the American Public should expect from its public servants.

Any reasonable person can clearly see that your actions above are in direct violation of National Standard 4, which states; 
*"Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges." *

This 2011 48 day red *snapper* *season* is clearly not justified, by *YOUR OWN *documentation of past effort/landing results, and needs to be revisited to provide *Fair and Equitable* access to the fishery for recreational angling community *as dictated by law*. The Gulf Coast communities, fishermen, and businesses deserve a Fair and Equitable determination of our Red *Snapper* *Season*, which we view to be in the neighborhood of 81 days, especially when considering the recent disaster of 2010 in the Gulf and its devastaing effects on our collective livelyhoods and economies.

Regards,
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton 

PS:
Hopefully, if we can expose the failed logic being employed here which is resulting in loss of access to our fishery, loss of economic opportunities, and loss of our freedoms, we can get some Congressional relief which I believe is coming our way.

*"An important dynamic in the recreational red snapper fishery that can affect season length is the ability of the recreational sectors to compensate for reductions in season length by compressing their effort into a limited season. **This dynamic has been observed in other fisheries, such as the red snapper commercial fishery prior to implementation of the Individual Fishing Quota program, and is commonly referred to as ‘effort compensation’, ‘effort stuffing’, or a ‘derby fishery.’** The term ‘effort compensation’ includes the dynamics of more anglers on the water during the open season (rather than spreading their effort across the year), and the ability of individual anglers or for-hire vessels to run multiple trips in a day."*

Two things stick out here; 

1) If "effort compensation" is really a problem, then the NMFS itself is responsbile for causing the problem due to their unjustified truncated seasons. Simply set the seasons based on fair and equitable parameters, such as illustrated by the more reasonable 81 day *season* scenario, then that solves the "effort compensation" problem. Voila! Simple.

2) This is a thinly-veiled squeeze play by Crabtree and Co. to try to justify the implementation of catch shares - plain and simple. As mentioned in the effort compensation gobbledy ****, this dangerous "race for fish" or "derby fishery" was the justification for implementing the commercial IFQ system about 5 years ago. This, coupled with NOAA Fisheries' recent announcement that they want to alter National Standard 10 to include CFH and Headboats, echoes the same agenda - instead of catch shares being an "option", if they alter N.S. 10 then catch shares would be "required" due to the safety requirements as required by "law".

NOAA Fisheries needs a serious flushing, as this smells to high heaven.


----------



## Downtime2 (Sep 27, 2007)

If they are soooooo endangered, shut it down. I mean, shut it ALL down!! Why should a commercial fisher be allowed to keep fishing when they are endangered? If I am to believe fisheries management, AJ, Reds and grouper are all but exticint! Why would you shut down rec guys and let commercial keep going, Far as weighing and reporting their catch...bullshit. Maybe when they are checked. Other than that, bullshit.


----------



## Chris Phillips (Oct 1, 2007)

I say no one give them any info by phone or dock survey unless you are legally required to, it really can't get much worse at this point...


----------



## FelixH (Sep 28, 2007)

The standard answer to any surveys, I think, should be "No, we didn't target red snapper, and no, we didn't keep any red snapper, but we caught and released about 100."


----------



## 52fish (Feb 27, 2008)

We the sport fishermen need to have a riot somewhere to protest this government bull shit. The sport fishing industry represents more people, with more money that creates more jobs than the PETA and commercial interest combined. But the liberal tree huggers and the big commercial interest make the rules for the sport fishermen. 

If we let this insanity continue we might as well quit fishing. :thumbdown:


----------



## shkad14 (Apr 26, 2008)

52fish said:


> We the sport fishermen need to have a riot somewhere to protest this government bull shit. The sport fishing industry represents more people, with more money that creates more jobs than the PETA and commercial interest combined. But the liberal tree huggers and the big commercial interest make the rules for the sport fishermen.
> 
> If we let this insanity continue *we might as well quit fishing*. :thumbdown:


That is the point. Remember, Obama wants to end sport fishing http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20843


----------



## Thisldu (Oct 2, 2007)

52fish said:


> We the sport fishermen need to have a riot somewhere to protest this government bull shit. The sport fishing industry represents more people, with more money that creates more jobs than the PETA and commercial interest combined. But the liberal tree huggers and the big commercial interest make the rules for the sport fishermen.
> 
> If we let this insanity continue we might as well quit fishing. :thumbdown:


That's what they want.


----------



## smann316 (Aug 2, 2010)

No chance of ANYTHING changing with the current administration in Washington.


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

smann316 said:


> No chance of ANYTHING changing with the current administration in Washington.


Really?
A: this process started way before Obama with the Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976 started it.
And B: NOAA, NMFS and the Gulf Council act with autonomy and little federal oversight. 

So, until you alter the makeup of the federally appointed boards (that has barely changed since 2003 or so) nothing will change.


----------



## spb65 (Mar 15, 2008)

That just about sums it up in a nut shell.


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

So what does this mean for all the "guberment did it" conspiracy theorists?


----------

