# Red Snapper minimum size and bag limit?



## Death From Above (Sep 28, 2007)

If you had the power to change the recreational Red Snapper minimum size and bag limit what would you implement?


----------



## need2fish (Oct 2, 2007)

Limit 5 - take the first five - no culling.


----------



## pogypumper (Mar 24, 2008)

I was perfectly happy with 16" size and 4 bag limit.


----------



## specslayer (Oct 9, 2007)

theres no shortage of 20" snapper so i think thatd be good and 5 per person


----------



## cobe killer (Apr 13, 2008)

that is a reasonable catch need2fish and the first 5 will GREATLY reduce mortality of UNDERSIZED fish. some times you'll geta big one and sometimes you won't. but if you don't kill all the small ones to get a FEW big ones there will be MORE bigs in a couple of years.even a 12 in. snapper is a good meal with trimmings.:hungry


----------



## FlounderAssassin (Sep 28, 2007)

> *cobe killer (11/29/2008)*that is a reasonable catch need2fish and the first 5 will GREATLY reduce mortality of UNDERSIZED fish. some times you'll geta big one and sometimes you won't. but if you don't kill all the small ones to get a FEW big ones there will be MORE bigs in a couple of years.even a 12 in. snapper is a good meal with trimmings.:hungry


wile i 100% agree with you...how would/could it be enforced???


----------



## rauber (Oct 10, 2007)

4 snappers per person. no releasing of blown up snappers. just take the first 4. you cant enforce it but people will get used to it. if somebody wants to break the rules he will find a way to do so anyway.


----------



## bwendel07 (Sep 30, 2007)

I like the idea of keeping the first4 or 5 or whatever without culling but nomatter if you have your limit or not you will still catch Snappers after your limitammount and therefore culling will be inevatable. (Be realistic if you have cought your limit of snappers and there is a chance of a grouper bite you will continue to fish)So a size limit I see is defanetely needed, andthe best chance for a fish is to get it back in the water as soon as you can. And I know almost everyone on here (wheather or not they will admit it) if it was keep the first 4 and later that afternoon they catch a 30" snapper that first 12" will get thrown overboard. I am not condoning this but it does happen, so with a 16" limit you will prevent some culling. and giving the 12" one a better chance to be released immediately rather than thrown back dead.


----------



## Death From Above (Sep 28, 2007)

I'm for a minimum 16" and 10 fish limit for individual recreational fisherman. Charter boat customersno minimum size and 5 fish limit per person (NO CULLING). Reduce the commercial take to compensate for the increased recreational take.


----------



## Brad King (Sep 30, 2007)

16" minimum and two per was fine with me. Just extend the season back out to traditional length


----------



## cape horn 24 (Sep 29, 2007)

I would like to see 15" min. lengthand 3-5 bag limit per person, it helps justify a trip better than 2 and no need to be greedy with5+. But I do like, keep the first 4-5 with a min.

BA


----------



## reelhappy (Oct 31, 2007)

if we are not culling than i say5 is a good amount to take! and that's year around!


----------



## Sea-r-cy (Oct 3, 2007)

18",2 fish no closed season. 

Sea-r-cy


----------



## cuzmondo (Oct 1, 2007)

I'd like to see a 14 - 15" size limit with a four or five per angler limit. Releasing so many slightly undersize fish only to see Flipper scarf 'em up or that they likely die a few days later seems ridiculous to me. At the very least, the season should remain open April through October.


----------



## Lickety-Split (Oct 3, 2007)

I like the 2 fish 16" cause that gives you the chance to catch other stuff on shorter trips. As a charter you HAVE to get your limit of snapper before you think about other fish. Although it would be alot more profitable if I could make a full day of snapper fishing. I think the shortened season sucks. Maybe each lic. or charter permit should get a given amount of (2 or 4 or 6 snapper per person)fishingtrips to use when they want. Dont know how they could eye ball that though.


----------



## Death From Above (Sep 28, 2007)

So far looks like consensus is 

Minimum size 16" with a 4-5 bag limit


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

As i have said I am not enemy WE know I am not y'alls friend but i fell compelled to say to you.



As y'all have said you have the largest body of anglers* 2.7 million in Florida alone* if each of you go catch 2 red snapper 5,400,000.fish multiplied by the 4 pounds the nmfs says is the average size you get 21,600,000. million pounds. I believe that the tac is only 6.something million pounds. 

That is over fishing and why for hire wants separation. *And you need a stamp type monitor in your sector to prove you don't catch any more or any less "not a average" *



*Remember this tac is measured by pounds not numbers of fish this the real battle!!!!!!!!!!! *


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

That's a screw job to the recreational anglers and you know it! If some people in the "for hire" sector want to cut and run leaving the recreational angler at even moreat a disadvantage all I ask is we know who they are so we can talk bad about them, cuss them, and make sure we do all we can so they never run a charter again. This whole snapper issue is a bad situation to begin with but anyone who wouldthrow other people under the bus to "save our selves" is a cowardly son of a bitch. If it sounds like I take this idea personally I do.


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

Nobody *but the law* has thrown anybody under the buss I'm trying to help you understand the numbers and why the motivation of the for-hire people behind it all.......


----------



## lbhuntley (Oct 6, 2007)

Someone help me understand why NMFS and Gulf Coast Councilare against fishermen? Could it be there is alegitimate, regional and nationalconcern about "overfishing?" The attitude of "I caught a lot of fish so there must be a lot of fish" is ludicrous!Northern cod were overfished and a moratorium placed on harvesting in 92. They have yet to recover. How dowe depend on anything other than best science and statistical methods? If anyone has a better model than the SEDAR process to manage the stock, please share it with us. When do we accept the fact that red snapper are overfished and everyone mustaccept thisrealitytopreserve the stock? All sectors must be able to account for their catch. NMFS sets the TAC, based on best science,and each sector fishes their allocation. If the stock rebounds, the TAC is increased andeveryone benefits. We are fooling ourselves when we think building 1,000,000+ reefs will solve the problem. If there are no fish, reefs are barren. The "edge" is a great example. In fact, a reef may serve as a net sink. Build a reef, snapper migrate to the structure andwe catch. Reefs may simply serve to concentratesnapper, making them easier to harvest.Recreational must find a way to account for their catch sowe don't overfish!Charter isattempting todo this.Give them a chance.Red snapper maybenefit.


----------



## cobe killer (Apr 13, 2008)

THERE MAY BE 2.7 MIL. REC. FISHERMEN IN FLORIDA BUT I'D BE WILLING TO BET THAT NOT EVEN 10% FISH FOR RED SNAPPER BECAUSE THAT VAST MAJORITY OF SNAPPER ARE CAUGHT IN THE NORTHERN GULF AND THAT IS ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE STAE OF FLORIDA. SO THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU CAN FIGURE EVERY REC. FISHERMEN IN ON THAT TOTAL. THANK YOUUUUUU!


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

AMEN!



one thing there is some science that says migration is only three miles or less but that is a whole other subject.



last post! yes that is why pure rec. fishermen should / need to have Red snapper stamps to prove this.


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

You have got to be kidding me!! I don't even know where to begin. Now all of the sudden the data is all right and snapper are being overfished, just because this argument helps you save your own ass and throw everyone else under the bus?? Anyonein the charter industry who wants to stand up and tell me man to man that snapper stocks in the northern gulf are overfished and in trouble go aheadand then I will call you a lying son of a bitch. I hope everyone takes this issue as personally as I do. This is not a disagreement about how to handle the snapper issue, this is a direct attempt to screw the recreational fishermen and divide the fishing community into three sections, leaving the rec guy the short end of the stick. And I charter inshore and offshore for a living, but I know a stupid answer to a big problem when I see one. Why don't we have to get better TAC data on bluegills, largemouth bass, redfish, sailfish, blue marlin?? Oh that's right cause there's no commercial fishing for any of these fish and the recreational guys seem to take perfectly good care of fish stocks. No population of fish on the planet has ever been threated by recreational fishermen, that's a fact. Commercial guys whack em stack em leave the rest of us to pay the bill. If the red snapper is in as bad shape as you now claim it is ending commercial fishing for them is the only answer, period!


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

Well I went to call you bad names as was my natural reaction. For the sake of arguement why am I a moron Eugene?


----------



## CAPT. PAUL REDMAN (Oct 3, 2007)

We are fooling ourselves when we think building 1,000,000+ reefs will solve the problem. If there are no fish, reefs are barren. The "edge" is a great example. In fact, a reef may serve as a net sink. Build a reef, snapper migrate to the structure andwe catch. Reefs may simply serve to concentratesnapper, making them easier to harvest.are no fish, reefs are barren. The "edge" is a great example. In fact, a reef may serve as a net sink. Build a reef, snapper migrate to the structure andwe catch. Reefs may simply serve to concentratesnapper, making them easier to harvest.

*HOLY SHIT THIS IS THE DUMBEST THING I THINK I HAVE <U>EVER</U> READ ON THIS FORUM*


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

Oh boy.

Can I agree with both sides? I'm for a snapper stamp and agree 100% that the commercial sector is the part of the equation that is f'ing it all up.

Add on that NMFS (Crabtree) will readily admit the data sucks but "that's the best we can do," and we're pretty screwed.

If I told my boss -- and NMFS is the goverenment which allegedly works FOR the people -- that sucks I know, but it's the best I could do, howe long do you think I'd have a job.


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

Matt 



I am not try to make you madder with these numbers I am only trying to explain the nmfs way of doing things I think there as messed up has you! But it is how they us them *against us all *and the motivation behind sos plan because history in the regulations are *choking us all.*



my reply to your expletives was going to be go with*god*and still is



so i will retract my other comnent about you.



Capt. Eugene


----------



## CAPT. PAUL REDMAN (Oct 3, 2007)

> *capt.eugene coley (12/1/2008)*As i have said I am not enemy WE know I am not y'alls friend but i fell compelled to say to you.
> 
> As y'all have said you have the largest body of anglers* 2.7 million in Florida alone* if each of you go catch 2 red snapper 5,400,000.fish multiplied by the 4 pounds the nmfs says is the average size you get 21,600,000. million pounds. I believe that the tac is only 6.something million pounds.
> That is over fishing and why for hire wants separation. *And you need a stamp type monitor in your sector to prove you don't catch any more or any less "not a average" *
> ...


*THIS IS THE EXACT WAY THAT THE NMFS PUTS IN THEIR NUMBERS DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE 2.7 MILLION ANGLERS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA FISHING FOR RED SNAPPER*


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

I have a question, does anyone here believe that the red snapper stocks in the northern gulf are in trouble or are currently being overfished?


----------



## Death From Above (Sep 28, 2007)

> *Matt Mcleod (12/1/2008)* If the red snapper is in as bad shape as you now claim it is ending commercial fishing for them is the only answer, period!


I agree....close commercial red snapper fishing for3 years and watch what happens to the numbers. Let them fish for mingos.


----------



## Death From Above (Sep 28, 2007)

> *Matt Mcleod (12/1/2008)*I have a question, does anyone here believe that the red snapper stocks in the northern gulf are in trouble or are currently being overfished?


Currently no.........in the late 70s early 80s yes.


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

capt. eugene says *H^%*% NO*they are not! NMFS. says yes they are *that is the battle.*


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

Then we should stand together charter and rec and fight THAT battle. Once we start talking all this stupid magical TAC number crap we lose. We want to dispute the TAC numbers and the false data not negotiate with it! And before someone tells me that's the way it works and that I'm naive I'll cut you to the chase and say I don't believe that. TOGETHER we have the power to demand accountability!


----------



## TOBO (Oct 3, 2007)

Captin Egene says, wait right there,,,,,,,,no one cares what you say. If I remember correctley when we stood togther, remember Pannama City last year, we seemed to get somthing accomplished. Did you have a problem with the recreational fisherman then? Don't tell me you care either b/c you don't, you just want CYA, and you will walk over anyone regardless of the situation. To me that makes you and the rest of your group allPOS!


----------



## dbyrd2100 (Jun 21, 2008)

> *FlounderAssassin (11/29/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *cobe killer (11/29/2008)*that is a reasonable catch need2fish and the first 5 will GREATLY reduce mortality of UNDERSIZED fish. some times you'll geta big one and sometimes you won't. but if you don't kill all the small ones to get a FEW big ones there will be MORE bigs in a couple of years.even a 12 in. snapper is a good meal with trimmings.:hungry
> ...


Just like the circle hooks deal. It'd be pretty damn easy to cheat that one but I find myself using them every time. Rec fisherman (the majority of the ones I know anyway) are willing to follow the rules if they think its protecting the fishery.


----------



## lbhuntley (Oct 6, 2007)

Capt. Paul, excerpt from a study "Age and growth of red snapper from an artificial reef off Alabama in the northern Gulf of Mexico"co-authored by Dr Robert Shipp, Chair and Professor, Department of Marine Science, University of South Alabama: 

These results have important implications for management of GOM red snapper. That growth of fish off Alabama is similar to growth of fish in the northwestern GOM is consistent with the management paradigm that northern GOM red snapper constitute a single stock (Goodyear, 1995a) and contrary to the hypothesis that fish off Alabama are unique (Szedlmayer and Shipp, 1994). Moreover, if fishing mortality rates are higher off Alabama than other places in the northern GOM but growth is the same, production of red snapper may be lower off Alabama than in other areas. Furthermore, if <U>red snapper recruit to artificial reefs off Alabama from other areas in the northern GOM, Alabama's red snapper fishery may serve as a net sink for stock-specific production.</U> 

Capt, it's going to take more than "gut feeling" to properly manage red snapper. I'm sure Dr. Shipp and Dr. Cowan,Professor, Department of Oceanography and Coastal Studies, LSU, would be interested in appearing on Gulf Coast Outdoors tohelp all local fishermen better understand the management process. I'll be glad to invite them. Dr. Shipp also represents therecreational sector on the Gulf Council.


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

I'm not sure what your point is with that clip of shipps study, but if it is to prove that artifical reefs do not "grow" more red snapper than you have misread shipps findings. His study found that, as far as I understand, the snapper stock in the north GOM has unrealized potential BECAUSE of the use of artifical reefs. And that it may be possible to obtain an artifically large stock of fish up here with the use of reefs. Claiming that artifical reefs do not add habitat and have the direct result of growing the population of fish, is to me like claiming the world is flat.


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

And another thing, what is the deal with everybody who is pushing the sos plan wanting to go push there agenda on the "Gulf Coast Outdoors Show" ?


----------



## frydaddy (Oct 1, 2007)

Reef's protect the juvenile fish and yes, they do help "grow" the fish since the artificial reefs keeps the predator fish from eating them. It's like us going inside the house to get out of the elements. I can't believe anyone would think they didn't or wouldn't help grow fish. Fishermen are not the only ones looking for lunch.

In the mean time, we still have to save the season we have before it goes in line with the fed's.


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

> *Matt Mcleod (12/8/2008)*And another thing, what is the deal with everybody who is pushing the sos plan wanting to go push there agenda on the "Gulf Coast Outdoors Show" ?




It's the best show ever Matt. I'm on it!



Really though, we've been trying to get Shipp and the LSU guy on there for about a year. Schedules and planets and most everything else just never come together.


----------



## lbhuntley (Oct 6, 2007)

Sept 9, 08</DIV>Dr. Cowan, a local TV stationproduces a biweekly fishing program called "Gulf Coast Outdoors".Theoriginators indicated they would contact you for a possible visit a month or so ago.Have you received your invitation? I'm interested because they rely on "gut instinct" instead of science when discussingred snapper. I ask them to providebalanceby inviting you as a guest. Hope you will be able to attend. Larry Huntley, Pensacola</DIV>

Larry, I have not been contacted, but I would be more than happy to participate. Dec 2, 08</DIV>Again, if there is interest in doing so, I am willing to come over and talks to folks about this in more detail. Dr Jim Cowan</DIV></DIV>Joe, maybe the planets are aligned. Dr James Cowan - 225-578-9400.</DIV></DIV>


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

> *lbhuntley (12/9/2008)* Sept 9, 08</DIV>Dr. Cowan, a local TV stationproduces a biweekly fishing program called "Gulf Coast Outdoors".Theoriginators indicated they would contact you for a possible visit a month or so ago.Have you received your invitation? I'm interested because they rely on "gut instinct" instead of science when discussingred snapper. I ask them to providebalanceby inviting you as a guest. Hope you will be able to attend. Larry Huntley, Pensacola</DIV>


I have a few questions about this. What are you talking about with this "gut instinct" thing? Whois "they"? (besides everyone is is not as smart as you) And what are we even arguing about? Obviously you want this Cowan guy to help you prove some point, what is it? 

It is truly interesting how life works, now everyone pushing the sos plan thinks they have science on their side. Couple years ago they didn't think these same scientists could find their ass with both hands. 

And this has nothing to do with Dr. shipp who I respect and Mr Cowan who I don't know but am sure is good at his job. Science is on the side of the recreational angler, we are reasonable people who respect our resource and just want the right tobe able tofish.Recreational anglers have never in the history of our planet "overfished" a population of fish. That is our friends the commercial fishermen that seem to alwaysput us in that position.


----------



## lbhuntley (Oct 6, 2007)

Matt, I don't read all posts so I may have missed the science you base yourcomments on. Please either summarizethe science one more time or refer me to the studies. If you don't basediscussions on science what would you call it? I call it "gut reaction" or instinct. If you have sound science that counters mythoughts I welcome it. I'm interested in facts, andrebuilding the snapper populationso all benefit.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

> *lbhuntley (12/9/2008)*Matt, I don't read all posts so I may have missed the science you base yourcomments on. Please either summarizethe science one more time or refer me to the studies. If you don't basediscussions on science what would you call it? I call it "gut reaction" or instinct. If you have sound science that counters mythoughts I welcome it. I'm interested in facts, andrebuilding the snapper populationso all benefit.


It seems to me that if you guys really thought there was a shortage of snapper or they were being over fished and you were truly worried about the future of snapper you would stop commercial fishing for them. 

As for my thoughts, I have been fishing these waters for over 25 years. The snapper are doing better now than they have in the last 25 years. That opinion is based on my trips, other peoples trips and the facts I have heard from people I trust. Not a couple guys who "want the best for the snapper" but want to increase their allowable catch at the same time:banghead


----------



## Telum Pisces (Sep 27, 2007)

> *lbhuntley (12/9/2008)*Matt, I don't read all posts so I may have missed the science you base yourcomments on. Please either summarizethe science one more time or refer me to the studies. If you don't basediscussions on science what would you call it? I call it "gut reaction" or instinct. If you have sound science that counters mythoughts I welcome it. I'm interested in facts, andrebuilding the snapper populationso all benefit.


My science is what I see with my own eyes. In just the little time that I have been diving/spearfishing, red snapper populations are growing on every wreck that I dive. And I dive mostly public numbers. They dominate every wreck/reef in our area. And not just juvinile snapper either.


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

> *lbhuntley (12/9/2008)*Matt, I don't read all posts so I may have missed the science you base yourcomments on. Please either summarizethe science one more time or refer me to the studies. If you don't basediscussions on science what would you call it? I call it "gut reaction" or instinct. If you have sound science that counters mythoughts I welcome it. I'm interested in facts, andrebuilding the snapper populationso all benefit.


I guess I still have questions. 

First what statements did I make that I need to back up with science?

What thoughts do you have? I think you believe artificial reefs hurt the snapper fishery, is that true?

Do you believe the snapper fishery needs "rebuilding" ? I know some people think we need stamps and TAC numbers and studies and research. But does anyone actually believe we need to "rebuild the snapper population"?

I believe the snapper fishery is in amazing shape! We have the best snapper fishing we haveever had in my lifetime. I run offshore and inshore charters and they are everywhere.There was only 1charter this year that I went snapper fishing and did not catch a limit, IN A 21' BAY BOAT. And out of all the trips I ran this year I probably snapper fished 50-60 trips. I mean geeez! And its not that I'm that good at it, nearly every single member of the forum would have no problem at all catching a 4-6 person limit of snapper on any given day. Now, I can't garrantee you a limit of redfish every day, I can't garrantee you a limit of flounder every day, I can't garrantee you a limit of sheepshead, grouper, kings, trout ect.... But snapper, not even a challenge any more. Now this is not the scientific data that you wanted and I don't presume to know more than the scientists but sometimes you have to apply a certain amount of common sense and reasonable thought. 

Andif you do agree that snapper populations in the northern GOM are in great shape and there is no overfishing happening, then why do we need stamps and TAC's and shorter seasons?


----------



## lbhuntley (Oct 6, 2007)

Water Hazard, the resource belongs to all Americans, not just recreational fishermen. Why do you think you deserve all of the snapper? When snapper are overfished everyone gets less, but we don't eliminate the non-fishing public's participation. Commercial simply provides a way for the non-fishing public to enjoy their share. Only 16% of Floridians have recreational salt water fishing license but you want 100% of the resource. I don't think the public or politicianswill support you and they shouldn't. Let's share the resource equally. If we properly manage red snapper, the TAC will increase and everyonebenefits. The TAC is projected to go to 12 million lbs if scientifically managed. That may mean 6 snapper/12 months for recreational. Please don't suggest we manage based on"I caught a lot of fish my last trip."


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

*



lbhuntley (12/9/2008)Water Hazard, the resource belongs to all Americans, not just recreational fishermen. Why do you think you deserve all of the snapper? When snapper are overfished everyone gets less, but we don't eliminate the non-fishing public's participation. Commercial simply provides a way for the non-fishing public to enjoy their share. Only 16% of Floridians have recreational salt water fishing license but you want 100% of the resource. I don't think the public or politicianswill support you and they shouldn't. Let's share the resource equally. If we properly manage red snapper, the TAC will increase and everyonebenefits. The TAC is projected to go to 12 million lbs if scientifically managed. That may mean 6 snapper/12 months for recreational. Please don't suggest we manage based on"I caught a lot of fish my last trip."[/quot

Click to expand...

*


> I pretty much disagree with everything you just said. First of all the snapper resource does belong to all Americans, but that hasNOTHING to with having the right to commercial fish for them. The public and politicians have supported no commercial fishing for large mouth bass, small mouth bass, redfish, bream, sturgeon, blue marlin, white marlin, stripped marlin, snook, tarpon, jewfish, permit, this is just a short list of the fish you CANNOT commercial fish for. God knows how many more species the non-fishing public is being deprived of. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
> 
> You insult only yourself when you suggest our argument is " I caught fish on my last trip". I am talking about years and hundreds of trips of observation. It is not scientific data but it is anaccurate observation.
> 
> ...


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

> *lbhuntley (12/9/2008)*Water Hazard, the resource belongs to all Americans, not just recreational fishermen. Why do you think you deserve all of the snapper? When snapper are overfished everyone gets less, but we don't eliminate the non-fishing public's participation. Commercial simply provides a way for the non-fishing public to enjoy their share.


You won't find anywhere in my post where I said that I deserve all the snapper. Answer my question though, if you think they are being over fished and you are truly concerned why don't you stop commercially fishing for them? Answer my question and quit putting words in my mouth.


----------



## Voodoo Lounge (Sep 28, 2007)

> *lbhuntley (12/9/2008)*Water Hazard, the resource belongs to all Americans, not just recreational fishermen. Why do you think you deserve all of the snapper? When snapper are overfished everyone gets less, but we don't eliminate the non-fishing public's participation. Commercial simply provides a way for the non-fishing public to enjoy their share. Only 16% of Floridians have recreational salt water fishing license but you want 100% of the resource. I don't think the public or politicianswill support you and they shouldn't. Let's share the resource equally. If we properly manage red snapper, the TAC will increase and everyonebenefits. The TAC is projected to go to 12 million lbs if scientifically managed. That may mean 6 snapper/12 months for recreational. Please don't suggest we manage based on"I caught a lot of fish my last trip."


Larry, I was brought up to respect my elders, so I'llhold my tongue.But I will say that we (recreational fishermen/women)do deserve "our local fish", over the financial gains of a few commercial entities. I can hardly find local fresh seafood around here anymore, because you and your cronies make more money sending "our fresh catch" to New York city and others up north!! If we are 16% of the state population, then apparently we are the 16% that enjoy the sport and the tablefare, and we Do deserve 100% of the recreation take!!

Not once have I heard you speak of your own experience, you are merely a sheep in the herd, believing what you are being told!!


----------



## atlast740 (Dec 19, 2007)

im going to ask a stupid .... classify rec fisherman and commercial fisherman


----------



## lbhuntley (Oct 6, 2007)

Water Hazard, the GOM red snapper commercial sector is strictly regulated via the individual fishing quota program.Eligible participantswere assigned an initial %of the commercial snapper quota in 06based on historical landings (in my case the average of best 5 years/1998-04).New participants cannot enter the fishery without buying existing quota and possessing a valid reef permit.A fisherman's yearlyallocation depends on the annual quota.The % of the fishery doesn't change but the quota can be adjusted. Itdecreased from approx3.3 million (07)to2.55 (08). A fisherman with a .04% IFQ sharecould catch1320 lbs, then 1020 lbs. Ifsnapperisn't recovering,NMFSsimply lowers the annual quota.NMFS knows who is fishing and where(VMS), when you are returning to port and where (tomonitor your catch/you cannot unload your fish until law enforcement has an opportunity to check. I have been checked 4 times), logbook reports, and who you are selling to. Everything is monitoredelectronically except logbook. There are only 4 legitimate wholesale buyers in Pensacola. My point is that the commercial catch can be readily adjustedbychanging the annual quota to end overfishing. Presently the recreational side does not have a reliable way to "count"fishto adjust quota. Untilthis isdetermined, there will not be stability on the recreatonal side. Some ideas being discussed arecharterusing #of historical trips which can be converted to pounds to determine their initial %.Pounds could then be converted back to trips which couldbe traded or sold within the charter sector. Full time charter are rewarded, and theyfish year round. Usingthis data,private recreational would be assigned 60% of the quota in pounds. A method to monitormight be stamps. Regardless, private recreational must find a way to "count" their catch like charter is trying to do. If this can be accomplished,recreational willbe able to effectivelymanagetheir share and fish year round. Charter is headed in the right direction. Recreational must spend their energy on an acceptableplan, not "listing" the so called bad guys,complaining toMiller, etc. The Magnuson-Stevens federal lawmandates an end to overfishing. Ranting and raving will not solve the problem.The ultimate goalmust beto manage the fisheryin such a way that theannual quotaincreases andwe all benefit,including all fish-eating Americans.


----------



## nextstep (Jun 27, 2008)

ibarroganthole 

ive said it before and will say it again, you need to start farming and quit selling wild game retail. as for your science it is seriously flawed. just labeling something as science doesnt make it right.


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

Larry, (LBHUNTLEY)

Thanks, that's great.

I have two suggestions (well, three but I'll remain polite).

First, use the return and insert some paragraphs please.

Second, I'd agree with you except there is no overfishing going on. You want my "science" on it? Observation. The most basic form of study.

From Wikipedia: An *observational science* is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study.

Where do you think Newton, Galileo, Divinci and just a few other "bright minds" came up with the theories, laws and formulas that still hold true and shape our world today?

It's not possible to count every red snapper in the Gulf. So you take what you can get. If I have 100 reefs and each reef has between 200 and 500 3 to 5 pound red snapper on it. Then I have between 20,000 and 50,000 fish weighing between a total of 60,000 to 250,000 pounds. And I'm on the low side of the scale as far number of reefs in the water. I know several people who have more than 1,000 spots that produce snapper in far greater numbers than I have used for demonstration. If a single person can have that many pounds on private numbers, then a 2.5 million pound TAC is way out of line.

Are there better ways to more closely monitor recreational catch? Yes. Would I support a minimal fee for a red snapper stamp to help this out? Yes.

Should we say the sky is falling when we don't really know? No.

Get a clear picture before jumping to drastic action. Allow the 2-fish bag limit to work for a period before moving on. That's one of my big gripes. Why not let your last move take effect before making another? Isn't that prudent?

And, no, I don't expect you to suddenly switch sides and realize I'm right, I'm not crazy. I just don't understand how you (or anyone else) thinks further reduction of limits is a good idea.


----------



## whome (Oct 2, 2007)

LBHUNTLEY,

I will make this simple for you since you cannot understand my question.

Do you think that red snapper are in danger? *A simple yes or no answer is all I need.*


----------



## JHOGUE (Oct 4, 2007)

This is getting out of hand and it's the biggest crock of shit ever. there is no shortage of red snapper in the gulf of mexico and no reason to blow this out of the water! building reefs is a great way to not only help with the growth of our

snapper stock but to concentrate them, or aleast keep them in our area. because there are so many snapper that the live bottom and reefsthat pensacola hasto offerare so overcrowded. no one in the world could ever count the amount of 

red snapper in the gulf of mexico, everyone is only talking about the reefs that they know are there. no one could ever fathom how much live bottom there is to the west that doesn't even mark on the bottom machine yet you can pull 20-30

pound sows out of it for days or the rigs that hold some of thelargest fish. these fish will never be counted for..another thing i think that the reason everyone is attacking the commercial fisherman is because they just don't understand for one 

amazing example ofdumbass my dad was unloading fish at the fish house one afternoon and there was a man watching all the snapper come off the boat. he walked over and started preaching about it. saying this is the reason the snapper 

stocks are going down cause you caught these 2,000 pounds of snapper in close, on all our public wrecks, all this because there was a cobia rod in the tower. if that was the case there would have been no reason to run half way to venice.... so this is 

my little 2 cents if you wanna fire back with some negative comments go ahead but if there nothing more than bashing commercial fisherman then keep them to your self, i don't want to hear it cause you don't know what your talking about.

Thanks, Jeremy



RED SNAPPER ARE ABOUT AS ENDANGERED AS A DAMN WILD HOG!!!!!!


----------



## Travis Gill (Oct 6, 2007)

Well put Jeremy. I love how everyone thinks the commercial guys are at fault when its not true. There is obviously no shortage when you can catch over 2000lbs on a day trip.


----------



## Death From Above (Sep 28, 2007)

Jeremy.......Does your dad commercial snapper fish, charter or both?


----------



## JHOGUE (Oct 4, 2007)

Yes. commercial and charter


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

JHogue is pretty damn right.



There's stuff to the West that only the fish will tell you where it is.



You don't mark bottom, you mark fish. Lots of fish. Big fish.



There's no shortage, just no way to count them appropiately.


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

To All recreational 



You want to prove your observational science go to nmfs. gulf council meetings and volunteer for reef fish stamps.



Counting all fish caught in all sectors is paramount to proving what we all say there is no problem with red snapper!!!



The fight is not with commercial/for-hire/recreation. It is with the science used by nmfs. and the gulf council.(':bowdown')





(':clap');(':clap') (':letsdrink');





(':usaflag');



capt. coley


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

> *capt.eugene coley (12/11/2008)*To All recreational
> 
> You want to prove your observational science go to nmfs. gulf council meetings and volunteer for reef fish stamps.
> 
> ...


Then stop pushing the sos plan.


----------



## Ocean Man (Sep 27, 2007)

My vote would be no size limit and the first 5 caught. The only argument I hear against this is that people will cull off the smaller ones. Well the same people that would cull with that rule are already culling withthe 2 fish limit (or 4 from before) so that argument makes no sense to me. In fact what a minimum size limit does is force people by law to cull. I have no problem with size limitsfor inshore shallow water fish that are healthy upon release but when you are fishing in 100ft or more the fish you throw back are going to die anyway. They have their guts hanging out there mouth and air bubbling out from under their scales. Just because they swim down, doesn't mean they swim away.


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

> *Matt Mcleod (12/11/2008)*
> 
> 
> 
> Then stop pushing the sos plan.






I stopped Matt



Your post just shows how blinded by rage you are! and just how blind to the process of our government you are.



My post was just a little advise! 



Sorry your so Mad at me Matt. 



I'm trying to make sure my three kids will have roof and food in the future.



one more piece MAY GOD BLESS YOU Matt. 





:clap' :clap' :clap' :clap'


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

> *capt.eugene coley (12/11/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *Matt Mcleod (12/11/2008)*
> ...


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

right back to you Matt LOL?



I'm going to assume that is LOTS OF LOVE because I don't use blind hatred!!!


----------



## Inn Deep (Oct 3, 2007)

I just wonder how many of you realize that a huge # of the red snapper caught commercialy fishingin the gulf go straight to Canada? I havecommercial fish out of one of the local seafood distrutors. Thefreezer rigs are headed straight to Canada. This wasLast Year.


----------



## ammo angler (Oct 21, 2007)

Great idea andawesome survey. Buttheresults are predicitable. You cannot trump the 370 page report that was published by the Gulf Management Council on the plight of the Red Snapper with opinion. And thats all we have is opinion, and first hand accounts of how our honey holes have herded a bunch of starving snapper around them. Untill something sound comes along to counter the survey and science then I fear your frustration will endure. Shrimp boats take there toll on the fish stocks, have you ever been in the close vacinity of a processing shrimp boat?. the waste is staggerring. Sure enough the two fish limit is not much when you think of what resources it takes to place a boat,freinds, and customers over a fishing hole. But if the limit was six, it still would not be enough for most folk.Most fisherman (me included) just want to fill the dock full of fish and take that endearing familly photo that will prop up our egos for many years. I think the limit should be three.For those tourist who think it is a waste of time to go out for two or three fish...then go fish the Atlantic. Perhaps the eatern sea board could careless about fish stocks. I fear the days when you could not see the boat deck for red....are gone.

Good luck 

Rich

Navarre


----------

