# Extend snapper season



## Ozeanjager (Feb 2, 2008)

Due to the bp oil spill our two month snapper season has been cut by two thirds .... Has any one the experience or know how to petition the powers that be to extend snapper season in federal closed waters the number of days that it was closed when they reopen .


----------



## phowell (Jan 1, 2008)

why would you want to snapper fish,there is so many toxins in the water ,you would be safe to release them back


----------



## DHB699 (Oct 1, 2009)

phowell said:


> why would you want to snapper fish,there is so many toxins in the water ,you would be safe to release them back


 What toxins???


----------



## neuby (May 8, 2009)

NOAA (noaa.gov) makes the federal regulations for guld waters beyond 9 miles; FWC (myfwc.com) in Florida (or the comparable organization inwhatever state you reside in) makes the rules for state waters which the feds put pressure on states to adopt, regardless if a state may have better fishery management scientists.

Clearly the quotas have not been met, but given these people at NOAA did not want us to fish anyway, not sure how much luck you will have. I think the petition is a great idea as at the very least it can bring some attention to the matter.

For the record, all the snapper I have caught and eaten this year has been very tasty with no hint of oil and I have not seen any tests showing toxicity in any type of finfish related to the oil spill.


----------



## standrew (Dec 15, 2009)

Its not like the fish will just show up tasting like oil...Really? Like if it doesn't taste like oil than its OK? That is STUPID.... There are toxins in the water from the dispersants that were used. Bioaccumulation in higher species will also play a role in this down the road. I'm on the water almost everyday and I'm about to stop eating fish from the bay in PC. There are too many unknowns.


----------



## Bullshark (Mar 19, 2009)

I have a feeling there is a lot they are not telling us. One of my wifes clients little brother started to get flu like sympyoms a week ago and the mother treated it as she should have for the flu. It got worst and she took him in to the doc. The doc said he was posioned from swimming in the water off pensacola and if she did not take him in when she did she would not have had a son. How that did not make the news I will never know. I think it did not b/c it happened durring the swimming ban and they had their bases covered. I'm pretty sure the only way the whole truth will come out is if it's forced. BP has given millions to companies to promote the gulf coast and I feel a lot of that is being used to make it look as rosie as possable. I don't think I will eat fish for a good while from this area. For as much oil that has leaked every day we are not seeing it like we should. All they did was hide it where the snapper live at the bottom...


----------



## bpy (Aug 2, 2009)

To be fair, when the incident first happened, NOAA came out with a press release saying they would analyze the catches and consider extending the season if the quotas were not met. 

Maybe they didn't think it would take as long as it did to stop the leak......maybe they underestimated the damage.....maybe they figured the extension would only help those in Texas and east of Cape San Blas....

But, after their statement, I would be surprised if we don't see something from the soon with the closure coming up this Friday.


----------



## standrew (Dec 15, 2009)

Pretty strange how the slick shrank to about a quarter of its size in about 3 or 4 weeks..... Out of sight out of mind, right? The fisheries closures were at first following the slick boundaries and would move a good bit due to currents and wind. Now its all pushed back closer to the source and the closure is still in affect. Lots we don't know gentleman......


----------



## Bullshark (Mar 19, 2009)

bpy said:


> To be fair, when the incident first happened, NOAA came out with a press release saying they would analyze the catches and consider extending the season if the quotas were not met.
> 
> Maybe they didn't think it would take as long as it did to stop the leak......maybe they underestimated the damage.....maybe they figured the extension would only help those in Texas and east of Cape San Blas....
> 
> But, after their statement, I would be surprised if we don't see something from the soon with the closure coming up this Friday.


Yes they did and they opened up the scallop season earley which showed they were willing to pull the trigger to help sportsmen. I think there un willingness to do the same with snapper is a sign there is something else in play. Like toxic fish.


----------



## neuby (May 8, 2009)

standrew said:


> Its not like the fish will just show up tasting like oil...Really? Like if it doesn't taste like oil than its OK? That is STUPID.... There are toxins in the water from the dispersants that were used. Bioaccumulation in higher species will also play a role in this down the road. I'm on the water almost everyday and I'm about to stop eating fish from the bay in PC. There are too many unknowns.


Well, that is exactly how the government tests- they have 'sensory assessors' that smell the fish.

*FROM http://www.fda.gov/Food/ucm217598.htm*
*Criteria for sensory testing:* A sample consists of the edible portion of the species of seafood being tested. A panel consisting of a minimum of 10 expert sensory assessors will evaluate each sample in both a raw and cooked state. In order for an area to be considered acceptable for re-opening from a sensory standpoint a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the expert assessors must find NO detectable petroleum or dispersant odor or flavor from each sample. If any sample fails, the site from which it was collected remains closed.

Only after passing do the samples the go to labs to undergo chemical tests. Of course none of the data from these tests can be found anyway, with the exception of a couple of press releases that state no oil has ever been found in samples collected from open or closed waters.


----------



## neuby (May 8, 2009)

Bullshark said:


> Yes they did and they opened up the scallop season earley which showed they were willing to pull the trigger to help sportsmen. I think there un willingness to do the same with snapper is a sign there is something else in play. Like toxic fish.


It was FWC, not NOAA that opened up scallop season early. Our state government is VASTLY different than the current federal administration.


----------



## bpy (Aug 2, 2009)

Bullshark said:


> Yes they did and they opened up the scallop season earley which showed they were willing to pull the trigger to help sportsmen. I think there un willingness to do the same with snapper is a sign there is something else in play. Like toxic fish.


Maybe so....'cause they sure have been quiet. But wasn't there a study last week, with NOAA involved, where they tested some 400 fish all over the area and found no trace of oil in them?


----------



## bpy (Aug 2, 2009)

EDIT: It was also the FWC, not NOAA, that was originally quoted when discussing extending the season.

here is a link from back in May:

Red snapper season could get extension | snapper, season, red - News - TheDestinLog.com


----------



## standrew (Dec 15, 2009)

neuby said:


> Well, that is exactly how the government tests- they have 'sensory assessors' that smell the fish.
> 
> *FROM http://www.fda.gov/Food/ucm217598.htm*
> *Criteria for sensory testing:* A sample consists of the edible portion of the species of seafood being tested. A panel consisting of a minimum of 10 expert sensory assessors will evaluate each sample in both a raw and cooked state. In order for an area to be considered acceptable for re-opening from a sensory standpoint a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the expert assessors must find NO detectable petroleum or dispersant odor or flavor from each sample. If any sample fails, the site from which it was collected remains closed.
> ...


Crazy isn't it... BTW, not trying to call you stupid.


----------



## neuby (May 8, 2009)

It is all pretty crazy and even to the point of stupid at times- I just wish we had some real facts and evidence like the results of the chemical tests, but worry that there are too many other motivations that have nothing to do with oil weighing in on these decisions. 

I guess from my perspective watching all of these commercial shrimpers, fisherman, etc. harvesting in state waters, while federal waters reamn closed hundreds miles to the east at the direction of NOAA, just smells fishy (pun intended).


----------



## Bullshark (Mar 19, 2009)

neuby said:


> It was FWC, not NOAA that opened up scallop season early. Our state government is VASTLY different than the current federal administration.


I did not check on that b/c it did not matter to the point I was trying to make. The point was regardless who is in charge of the testing there is no reason what so ever the season should not be extended and the millions of dollors in advertising be shifted to driving distance states as some kind of end of summer vacation campiagn. Something like come to Pensacola where fishing season has been extended and the fish have not been fished this year. That would be the logical thing to do unless the meat is toxic. Nothing else makes sence to me if everything is as good as they lead us to believe.


----------



## feelin' wright (Oct 7, 2007)

Why would you want to extend the federal red snapper season when you cannot fish in federal waters? I can understand your point in extending the season for state waters though. From NMFS site this is the criteria that will be followed to open waters back to fishing. I would not think they will extend snapper season for the feds by looking at their criteria. It's not like they want you to harvest fish anyways. Just my .02 but I think next year it will be catch and release only maybe we will be able to keep fish in federal waters in 2012. 

*What are the criteria for re-opening closed areas? 
*An area will be reopened when there is no longer a risk of seafood contamination or adulteration. 
o NOAA Fisheries Service will open areas that were closed based on the oil spill trajectory if cumulative mapping shows no oil was ever in the area. 
o When the oil spill is contained or the oil is no longer present in an area, cleanup is underway, and/or there are indications the cleanup is reducing the presence of visible oil, the acceptability of the seafood can be assessed. This assessment includes further sampling followed by sensory and chemical analysis to detect the presence of oil in samples. 
*How does NOAA Fisheries Service conduct analysis of seafood? 
*NOAA Fisheries Service has developed screening methods to quickly assess contaminant loads in water and in seafood; e.g. shrimp, crabs, finfish. 
Sensory Analysis: Federal and state sensory testing analysts have been trained for months to detect certain thresholds of chemicals that are not normal to fish background odors. Each fish sample is tested by 10 trained expert assessors who conduct a blind nose sensory evaluation of the raw odor of the fish. If the fish passes the sensory smell test, the analysts cook it and sensory smell test again. If the sample passes that test, the analysts will taste the sample to ensure no contamination. NOAA has 40 screeners and 15 expert assessors and is currently training another 40 screeners and 15 expert assessors. 
Chemical Analysis: The standards applied for oil are based on current standards developed by the FDA. 
It is likely that NOAA Fisheries Service will be developing new standards for dispersants and is working with the FDA in the implementation of these new standards


----------



## neuby (May 8, 2009)

Bullshark- I completely agree and believe if there was the first sign of any toxic meat, one of our gulf state university researchers would have found it by now as I am sure some are doing their own unofficial testing of samples. If this is left up to NOAA though, I just do not see it happening. As for Florida waters, the waters outside of Escambia county have never been closed, and have had additional fishing pressure on them with NOAA's closure of federal waters. Of course it has been one of the best years I can ever recall even in state waters with the additional pressure stemming from the federal closure, but I am not sure the state will extend the season unless the feds do first.


----------



## Bullshark (Mar 19, 2009)

I hope your right. BP was one of the largest donaters to this administrations campaign so I'm worried they will kind of push the regulations to get us back to normal to avoid ill will if the tests come back on the fence. I'm not saying it's an Obama thing b/c BP/oil always donates in big ways to campaigns on both sides. I will wait until 2012 i'm pretty sure. It just seems like everyone is in bed together so I don't know who to believe or what agenda they are using to pass this or that.


----------



## Bullshark (Mar 19, 2009)

neuby said:


> Bullshark- I completely agree and believe if there was the first sign of any toxic meat, one of our gulf state university researchers would have found it by now as I am sure some are doing their own unofficial testing of samples. If this is left up to NOAA though, I just do not see it happening. As for Florida waters, the waters outside of Escambia county have never been closed, and have had additional fishing pressure on them with NOAA's closure of federal waters. Of course it has been one of the best years I can ever recall even in state waters with the additional pressure stemming from the federal closure, but I am not sure the state will extend the season unless the feds do first.


You would think so but how are people getting sick from swimming but the fish are fine to eat. It makes no sence. Listen i'm not trying to argue with you. This is just what i'm thinking and I think it's good to hear others ideas


----------



## beachsceneguy (May 20, 2008)

I for one have stopped eating the fish. They are not telling us everything. The fish might be ok thats the operative word. MIGHT !! They have bs us all the way. the water in gulf shores is so toxic they have double red flags out. Someone tested the water over there. I do not know who is testing the water in Florida. I wish channel 3 would do an independent water test.


:thumbdown:


----------



## beachsceneguy (May 20, 2008)

yeah NOAA admitted they had no test for disperrsents. BE WARY!!


----------



## Gulf Coast Outfitters (Oct 8, 2007)

I am not entirely worried about oil in fish. I figure that if it had enough oil in it the fish would be dead prior to me getting it. I mean if you cant smell or see oil in the flesh it should be good. If you put the fillet in water to soak it and see a slick, yeah, wouldn't eat it.

My big worry is the dispersants, no one knows what effect they have. After 28 days they lose the toxicity, supposedly. 

We already have enough to worry about when taking fish and bringing it back for family and friends to eat. The amount of mercury in Mackerals and Sharks is enough to limit the amount of meals each month.

As far as testing there are a number of independent labs out there that will test just about anything for a fee. The fees usually arent that bad, 200-300 bucks. Anyone wanna pitch in and send em some fish?


----------



## FelixH (Sep 28, 2007)

neuby said:


> Well, that is exactly how the government tests- they have 'sensory assessors' that smell the fish.
> 
> *FROM http://www.fda.gov/Food/ucm217598.htm*
> *Criteria for sensory testing:* A sample consists of the edible portion of the species of seafood being tested. A panel consisting of a minimum of 10 expert sensory assessors will evaluate each sample in both a raw and cooked state. In order for an area to be considered acceptable for re-opening from a sensory standpoint a minimum of seventy percent (70%) of the expert assessors must find NO detectable petroleum or dispersant odor or flavor from each sample. If any sample fails, the site from which it was collected remains closed.
> ...


So, by that standard, if 3 of 10 'sensory assessors' detect an odor or flavor of oil, it's still ok?


----------



## Bullshark (Mar 19, 2009)

weatherman said:


> I am not entirely worried about oil in fish. I figure that if it had enough oil in it the fish would be dead prior to me getting it. I mean if you cant smell or see oil in the flesh it should be good. If you put the fillet in water to soak it and see a slick, yeah, wouldn't eat it.
> 
> My big worry is the dispersants, no one knows what effect they have. After 28 days they lose the toxicity, supposedly.
> 
> ...


I really don't trust the chance that BP did not hire them already and give them that thing to sign. They just keep gettin caught doing shady things. EX: BP caught using altered image of command center - Yahoo! News
Otherwise I would throw some $ down.


----------



## Gulf Coast Outfitters (Oct 8, 2007)

Bullshark said:


> I really don't trust the chance that BP did not hire them already and give them that thing to sign. They just keep gettin caught doing shady things. EX: BP caught using altered image of command center - Yahoo! News
> Otherwise I would throw some $ down.


Good point, I am sure we could find a place in North Dakota or something.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

One thing the feds and the media are looking for is dead fish regardless of species. Im not defending BP's use of dispersants, but I look at it this way, what BP has used in the Gulf is like putting a teaspoon of any substance into a swimming pool and trying to get a read on the amount of toxics present. 
If the NMFS gets ONE photo of a school of dead snapper, they will most likely close snapper harvest for 5 years. As others have said, they don't want us out there anyway. If they did, they would'nt keep making us jump through hoops.


----------



## barebones1 (Nov 24, 2009)

Bullshark said:


> I have a feeling there is a lot they are not telling us. One of my wifes clients little brother started to get flu like sympyoms a week ago and the mother treated it as she should have for the flu. It got worst and she took him in to the doc. The doc said he was posioned from swimming in the water off pensacola and if she did not take him in when she did she would not have had a son. How that did not make the news I will never know. I think it did not b/c it happened durring the swimming ban and they had their bases covered. I'm pretty sure the only way the whole truth will come out is if it's forced. BP has given millions to companies to promote the gulf coast and I feel a lot of that is being used to make it look as rosie as possable. I don't think I will eat fish for a good while from this area. For as much oil that has leaked every day we are not seeing it like we should. All they did was hide it where the snapper live at the bottom...


 every year when it gets hot people get sick and some waters are closed to swimming due to "fecal" content. If the doctor said this was from oil, the health department needs to be informed to test and close the water for swimming


----------



## Bullshark (Mar 19, 2009)

The health department should already be testing it. It was durring the swim ban a few weeks ago and as far as the mother told my wife it was due to oil. Even if it were from poo should there not be the same ban?


----------



## jspooney (Oct 2, 2007)

Bullshark, I am personally not allowing my children into the water and I'm no longer eating the fish until I feel like tests show it is safe (aqain, the unknowns are my concern) but I would like to know if the doc had any proof or if it was just his opinion. I'm not saying he is wrong, but doctors do make bad calls sometimes. Did he offer a valid argument for his conclusions?


----------



## Realtor (Oct 1, 2007)

I just spoke (about 45 minutes ago) to a couple boat workers. I asked "where is the oil now" they responded all over the place. I said where have you seen it? response was 10-13 miles out.


----------



## phowell (Jan 1, 2008)

DHB699 said:


> What toxins???


 what toxins,are you aware of situation in the gulf


----------



## The LaJess II (Oct 3, 2007)

May re-open Snapper season in the fall from FWC

FWC News - Gulf red snapper sport season closes July 24


----------



## neuby (May 8, 2009)

So is snapper open this Saturday, July 24th? I see conflicting dates all of the time- some say 23rd some say 24th.


----------



## ReelDuel (Oct 4, 2007)

phowell said:


> what toxins,are you aware of situation in the gulf


 
wouldnt the toxins kill the Snapper??


----------



## lastcast (Oct 12, 2007)

FWC Saltwater Fishing Regulations - Gulf Red Snapper

Skip


----------



## JoeyWelch (Sep 25, 2009)

Ya'll just throw them old dangerous, toxic , poisonous, fish back. I'll take em.


----------



## Bullshark (Mar 19, 2009)

barebones1 said:


> every year when it gets hot people get sick and some waters are closed to swimming due to "fecal" content. If the doctor said this was from oil, the health department needs to be informed to test and close the water for swimming


I had this a little wrong. The doctor said there was a swim ban and you took your kid swimming and now Medicare won't cover the cost.


----------



## feelin' wright (Oct 7, 2007)

Charlie Crist is trying to extend the snapper season in state waters but is also pressing NOAA to open up federal waters to fishing. They did open up federal waters but they are 100+ miles south of Pensacola Pass. Don't think their will be many boats travel that far to try to catch a snapper. Wouldn't this be close to the middle grounds? Any ways the article in on PNJ.com


----------



## DHB699 (Oct 1, 2009)

phowell said:


> what toxins,are you aware of situation in the gulf


 Have you seen or heard of Any Dead Fish ???? :whistling:


----------



## SHunter (Jun 19, 2009)

Toxins can accumulate in the liver and reproductive organs of anything including us. Some times they go away and sometimes they don't. If I eat something that I catch I will do the smell test that they are doing in labs that I saw on TV. If it smells like oil, then you know it is there. If my child was still young, I would take her to UWF swimming pool instead of the gulf. It is just unbelievable what a major corporation has done to our natural resources to make us have to worry about being poisoned.


----------



## Bonsaifishrman (Mar 17, 2009)

DHB699 said:


> Have you seen or heard of Any Dead Fish ???? :whistling:


I agree, if there were a lot of dead fish out there, the sharks would not be congregating close to shore. They would hang out at the smorgasboard. But then I could be wrong on this. :blink:


----------



## Ozeanjager (Feb 2, 2008)

phowell said:


> why would you want to snapper fish,there is so many toxins in the water ,you would be safe to release them back


been eating fish thru this whole thing bro, not problem ,no worries no bad taste. just use common sence . sea lab dolphin island agrees


----------



## Ozeanjager (Feb 2, 2008)

Bullshark said:


> Yes they did and they opened up the scallop season earley which showed they were willing to pull the trigger to help sportsmen. I think there un willingness to do the same with snapper is a sign there is something else in play. Like toxic fish.


 

or political agenda .... as a fisherman we all know how acurate the snapper evaluation is.


----------



## Ozeanjager (Feb 2, 2008)

Bullshark said:


> I did not check on that b/c it did not matter to the point I was trying to make. The point was regardless who is in charge of the testing there is no reason what so ever the season should not be extended and the millions of dollors in advertising be shifted to driving distance states as some kind of end of summer vacation campiagn. Something like come to Pensacola where fishing season has been extended and the fish have not been fished this year. That would be the logical thing to do unless the meat is toxic. Nothing else makes sence to me if everything is as good as they lead us to believe.


amen ! what happened in1979 when twice the oil was released from the itoc rig over 9 months ... i dont recall any affects ... yes it was in the bay of campichi but shallow water moves faster with currents ,


----------



## Ozeanjager (Feb 2, 2008)

beachsceneguy said:


> I for one have stopped eating the fish. They are not telling us everything. The fish might be ok thats the operative word. MIGHT !! They have bs us all the way. the water in gulf shores is so toxic they have double red flags out. Someone tested the water over there. I do not know who is testing the water in Florida. I wish channel 3 would do an independent water test.
> 
> 
> :thumbdown:


well i personally know the pensacola guy whos job it is to catch and test fish . Dave Bartee . And when this discussion came up , he said eat them ... they are fine here . I have been in the water ... and been eating fish ... just my personal experience


----------



## Ozeanjager (Feb 2, 2008)

jlw1972 said:


> Ya'll just throw them old dangerous, toxic , poisonous, fish back. I'll take em.


amen ! ... i have just changed my stance .... the fish are all toxic , the water is unsafe , heck the very air is a posion fume . EVERY BODY stop fishing , diveing ,sell ur boats for pennies on the dollar and move to montanna .... i will let you know when its safe to come back.


----------



## nextstep (Jun 27, 2008)

SHunter said:


> Toxins can accumulate in the liver and reproductive organs of anything including us. Some times they go away and sometimes they don't. If I eat something that I catch I will do the smell test that they are doing in labs that I saw on TV. If it smells like oil, then you know it is there. If my child was still young, I would take her to UWF swimming pool instead of the gulf. It is just unbelievable what a major corporation has done to our natural resources to make us have to worry about being poisoned.


i dont eat the reproductive organs or livers of fish that i catch, so im good!:thumbup:

if there were any major fish kills the media would be all over it. those pics would put a photographer's kids through college.

panic and sensationalism is not gonna help with the clean up or get our local economy going again.

*Study Finds Pensacola Has The Nation’s Worst Water*

December 13, 2009

Pensacola has the worst drinking water of any American city, according to the results of a national survey released Saturday.

In the study, there were 21 chemicals found in Pensacola’s water that exceeded health guidelines, including radium, lead, bezene and carbon tetracholride.
In an unprecedented analysis of 20 million tap water quality tests performed by water utilities between 2004 and 2009, Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that water suppliers detected a total of 316 contaminants in water delivered to the public. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set enforceable standards for only 114 of these pollutants.
Another 202 chemicals with no mandatory safety standards were found in water supplied to approximately 132 million people in 9,454 communities across the country. These “unregulated” chemicals include the toxic rocket fuel component perchlorate, the industrial solvent acetone, the weed killer metolachlor, the refrigerant Freon and radon, a highly radioactive gas.
Pensacola’s worst water ranking was among 100 of the nation’s largest water systems in cities over 250,000 in population. In North Escambia, water systems are operated by small independent water companies such as Walnut Hill Water Works, Molino Utilities, Central Water Works, Bratt-Davisville Water System and the Town of Century. These smaller water systems were _not_ part of the worst water results. Only the water provided by the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA) in the Pensacola metro area was part of the water study. The smaller North Escambia water systems were not included in the study by EWG.


----------

