FWC Red Grouper

[Blind Squirrel]

CCA Press Release on FWC red grouper decision:




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For More Information:
June 28, 2005 Ted Forsgren (850) 224-3474




CCA FLORIDA APPLAUDS ACTION BY FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION TO OPPOSE FEDERAL GROUPER PROPOSAL

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has voted unanimously to oppose the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposal which would prohibit recreational fishing for all Gulf grouper for three months. Instead, the Commissioners at their June meeting recommended reducing the red grouper bag limit from two to one per day.
“We greatly appreciate the Florida Commission’s action,” said Ted Forsgren, CCA Florida Executive Director. “Their recommendation responsibly addresses any problem which may exist. We are urging the feds to abandon their proposal and support the FWC recommendation.”
In addition to the FWC’s action, nine members of Florida’s congressional delegation led by U.S. Congressman Adam Putnam (R-Bartow) sent a letter to Dr. William Hogarth, Director of NMFS, indicating great concern over the federal proposal.
The June 17 Congressional delegation letter states, “To place a three month moratorium on recreational grouper fishing would place an undue hardship on the many men and women who earn a living in this industry and would not be a feasible long-term solution to ensuring that the red grouper population is protected.”
The additional members of Florida’s Congressional delegation who signed the letter are Ander Crenshaw (R-Jacksonville), Jeff Miller (R-Pensacola), Kendrick Meek (D-Miami), Connie Mack (R-Ft. Myers), Ginnie Brown-Waite (R-Brooksville), Michael Bilirakis (R-Palm Harbor), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Miami), and Tom Feeney (R-Orlando).
According to CCA Florida, the federal proposal against recreational anglers is caused by a bizarre and unprecedented increase in the “estimated” recreational catch of red grouper in 2004. The validity of the 2004 recreational landings is being questioned because NMFS claims that estimated recreational landings of Gulf red grouper increased from 1.536 million lbs. in 2003 to 3.530 million lbs. in 2004, a whopping 130 percent increase! Such an increase is unprecedented in the history of red grouper landings since regulations began 14 years ago. No such increase has ever occurred since 1990. There have been dramatic reductions caused by new regulations but never such an increase. The estimates become even more suspect when you consider that Florida anglers and fishing activity was impacted by a record four major hurricanes in 2004.
“The early recreational catch numbers for the first four months of this year are down dramatically and more in line with the catches of 2001 through 2003,” said Forsgren. “That fact makes the 2004 estimates even more questionable.”
CCA Florida indicated that commercial longlines have been the longstanding and
major problem in the red grouper fishery. Commercial fishers land more than 80 percent of the total red grouper take and longliners take 60-70 percent of the commercial landings. In 2001, the FWC voted unanimously to prohibit commercial grouper longlining out to 50 fathoms; however, NMFS did not take action on the recommendation.
“The draconian federal proposal is being pushed on the recreational sector in order to fit a plan which favors and sustains the commercial longline fleet,” said CCA’s Forsgren. “The federal management scheme allocates more red grouper to just 25 longline boats than the total amount allocated to millions of recreational anglers.”

[Ed Walker]

Originally Posted by Blind Squirrel

The federal management scheme allocates more red grouper to just 25 longline boats than the total amount allocated to millions of recreational anglers.”

It is time for this to change once and for all.

[Old Bateman]

Couldn't help but notice the "R" besides 8 of the 9 congressmen opposing the moratorium on recreational grouper catch!

[ScottZeagle]

Originally Posted by Blind Squirrel

CCA Florida indicated that commercial longlines have been the longstanding and
major problem in the red grouper fishery. Commercial fishers land more than 80 percent of the total red grouper take and longliners take 60-70 percent of the commercial landings. In 2001, the FWC voted unanimously to prohibit commercial grouper longlining out to 50 fathoms; however, NMFS did not take action on the recommendation.
“The draconian federal proposal is being pushed on the recreational sector in order to fit a plan which favors and sustains the commercial longline fleet,” said CCA’s Forsgren. “The federal management scheme allocates more red grouper to just 25 longline boats than the total amount allocated to millions of recreational anglers.”

I don't understand how anyone can overlook this point. Limiting recreational takes is going to have almost zero impact as long as longliners are able to take whatever they want. Recreational fishermen at least have the ability to "throw back" an undersized fish. I'm not positive, but I don't believe there is a lot of "catch and release" done by longliners - regardless of size or species.

Am I wrong???

I fully realize that commercial fishermen need to make a living, and that restraunts depend on them to put food on the table for customers, but I also know that there are better, more enviromentaly friendly, ways to commercially take fish. Holding recreational fishermen responsible for decimating fish populations is like blaming hybrid car owners for high fuel prices...

Just my opinion, of course.

Scott

[WreckDiver]

Originally Posted by Old Bateman

Couldn't help but notice the "R" besides 8 of the 9 congressmen opposing the moratorium on recreational grouper catch!

Rick did you notice the "R" on the list of "No" votes for the Energy bill because it includes provisions for mapping and boundries for drilling in the eastern gulf. None other the Mel Martinez.

Webers can you tell us where he is at on the fisheries issue?

[biggsy]

Originally Posted by ScottZeagle

I don't believe there is a lot of "catch and release" done by longliners - regardless of size or species.

One of the other amendments discussed last night was not using reef species for bait and only two types of perch (sand and one other). This is only a proposal and not law. I believe that would affect longliners, but how can you govern what they do?

One more interesting point was that the bycatch mortality for longliners is 33%...that number seems awfully low. Recreational hook and liners is about 10%. Using their numbers, that's a huge difference when the commercial take is 81% of the allotment.

The longliners were attacked real hard in Naples last night and I would gather most of them are NOT FRA members.

[Ray Odor]

This is the letter I will present to the NMFC if I can get in the door.--Ray

An open letter to:
The National Marine Fisheries Commission

Gentlemen and Ladies of this commission,

As appointed members of this commission, you are entrusted to
represent the interest of our fisheries and the users of our fisheries . One would suggest that all appointees to such a respected position of trust would be asked to take the Hippocratic Oath before assuming their duties.

Your major thrust should be, “primum non necere”, or, in plain
English, first, “DO NO HARM

You have taken a position of harmful changes to our recreational
Fisheries and businesses’ from records taken during Florida’s most drastic hurricane seasons, ever, in the lives of most Floridians living today.

Relying on collected, fragmented information, due to weather, personal loss and hard ship, you’ve chosen to implement severe restrictions on a portion of the people and businesses who rely on their livelihood from the sea, many of them who had their livelihood destroyed by mother nature. Banks have given these people loan extensions, the Government has provided help to rebuild and replace their boats and places of business and just plain people have pitched in to help them.

Why, one would ask, do you want to invoke a position of “harm” to these people, while allowing the commercial taking of the species to continue?

Would it not be more appropriate instead to take the position of “a helping hand” to all the seashore people and businesses’ who depend on the
recreational and tourist trade to sustain their livelihood?
Would it not be more humane and helpful to conduct your studies in a more representative period of weather before making our drastic regulation changes?

I trust you will give our suggestion’s your highest priority and consideration.

Respectfully Submitted

Ray Odor
2527 E. 149th. Ave.
Lutz, Fl. 33559