Reef Fish Amendment 33 - LAPP
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTU
1
TimestampEnter your full nameemail addressCommentsCity, State, Zip CodeCheck all that apply
2
3/29/2012 12:22:37James Poseyjposey@gulftel.comAn IFQ fairly implemented for those of us in the Northern Gulf who basicaly were shut out of the Red Snapper fishery, it could make a big difference in the ability to continue .Those of us with the old 200lb Red Snapper per trip lisc. have been losing conservitively, 15,000 dollars per year.We are small businesses , primarily one or two vessel owners.Gulf Shores Al.36542Commercial Fisher
3
11/9/2014 19:25:49David Registerusnrxdoc1@yahoo.comThis amendment needs to be reopened, I think the time is right to review adding more fish to the IFQ program, This year we have seen AmberJacks close early and Vermillion snapper catch shares are the lowest in years and a sustainable (ifq) system needs to be implemented.
Dave
St. Pete Fl 33708Private Recreational Angler, Commercial Fisher
4
4/21/2012 10:47:41Deborah Jane Polkshefishes210@gmail.co,ir/Ma’am,

I strongly oppose the Exempted Fishing Permit submitted by the Gulf Headboat Cooperative (Cooperative).

The Gulf of Mexico fishery resource belongs to the the general public and should not be allocated to any specific group with special privileges granted to that group. Since this Cooperative purports to service the the recreational fisherman this cooperative should be subject to the exact same rules and regulations every other recreational fisherman must abide by - especially management closure of the season.

Further, I disagree with the benefit of the stated goals of the Headboat project, in particular goal 2. I fail to see how this meager data collection effort can effectively be extrapolated to assess the impact of the entire recreational fishing group on the overall Gulf of Mexico fishery.
Gulf breeze FL, 32561Private Recreational Angler
5
4/24/2012 14:22:53charles weaverhweaver@sswce.comwent to the steps this weekend and saw at least 6 longliners working the area
my catch is way down in the area this year already. now you plan to give headboats a quota so i can watch them fish out the reefs i put out and paid for while i cant fish? and then split the quota for recreational into parts?. i bet i know who gets the short end of that deal. why not let me have a quota for the year and report after each trip? i would be happy to participate in a pilot program
charles
auburn al 36830Private Recreational Angler
6
4/24/2012 15:54:26John Martinamarcafina@aol.comFish are a natural resource and belongs to the people, If at any time that resource in in jeopardy then Commercial fishing of that resource should be the first to be Shut Down .
John Martin
Orange Beach Al.Private Recreational Angler
7
4/25/2012 4:39:46Tim Phillipsnogappa_71@hotmail.com I understand the commercial fishermen want have the seasons staggered and spread out so they can stay in business. But, by doing this an enormous amount of fish are being killed and wasted so they can stay in business. If you were to have have the Snapper and Grouper seasons together I know the limits could be raised. What amazes me when I talk to people about this, they understand. Why can't anyone with the authority to change these regulations? Just let the corporations take over and in a few years they can ruin the fishing industry just like they have everything else in the US.Lynn Haven Fl 32444Private Recreational Angler
8
4/25/2012 5:24:19Ken Karrken.karr.beacehes@gmail.comPlease use true facts not assumptions to determine the fate of the fish industry.
The "almost", "maybe" and "could have" are not scientific terms to determine the facts. They are words that prey on the feelings of man not facts.
Panama City Beach, Fl 32408Private Recreational Angler
9
4/25/2012 6:33:24Curt Gwin JrBillfishintimecg@gmail.comThere is no reason for an IFQ system for the listed fisheries. They are not being over fished. All an IFQ program would do is let people sit at the dock and make more money than the actual people fishing for these fisheries. It's not right, it's like playing stock market with fishing and fishing is hard enough to make a living in now. Please think about the lives of the fisherman before you think about yourselves. Destin,Fl,32541Charter/Headboat For-Hire, Commercial Fisher
10
4/25/2012 10:39:34Glenn Flowersmrflowers4u1982@yahoo.comThe vermillion snapper are in trouble, we have noticed a major decline in there stocks in the last few years, it could be a verity of reasons, over fishing, Bp oil spill, high populations of red snappers taking over natural bottoms where the vermillion's live and breed. We thought that maybe it would pick up during April for the spring run, unfortunately it has not.

Boats normally catch 5-9000lbs a trip during April are now coming in with less than 2000lbs and are worried about there lively hoods some are catching even less than that.

The IFO program could save the fishery if implemented immediately just like it did for the snappers.
pensacola,Fl 32526Commercial Fisher
11
4/27/2012 11:08:07Nicholas Patzigpmsbigred1@yahoo.comThe red snapper ifq and the grouper ifq has placed a huge burden on the small individual commercial fisherman in that those ifq programs divided the resource in a very unfair way that the small business fisherman is having to buy shares or lease allocation in order to continue to make a living for himself and his family. This is highly unfair to the fishermen who have maintained their permits for many years and doesn't allow that fisherman to use those permits when it becomes necessary when situations change in the fisheries he normally participates in. If you are a commercial fisherman then that means you have devoted your life to the food fish industry in order to produce wild caught fish to the citizens of this nation.. We all have a stake in this industry not just the ones that target and exploit one certain fishery at the detriment of the other fishermen and the fish causing regulators to have to restrict fisheries due to overfishing. Just because a fisherman decides to hammer one specie of fish shouldn't give him any more right to those fish than the other permitted vessels. We all have invested our lives and wealth to continue to be fishermen. There should never be an IFQ placed on any fishery and the ones that are already IFQ should be changed back to the way it was. Trip limits and TAC's are the way to end overfishing. NMFS just needs to keep diligent track of the landings with electronic trip tickets. There is nothing more unfair than an IFQ, it makes a select few rich men have control of a fishery and makes the great majority of the other fishermen have to buy a resource from one of the very few rich fishermen just to try to make a living. Stop this insane practice and never consider it again. Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548Private Recreational Angler, Charter/Headboat For-Hire, Commercial Fisher
12
4/27/2012 12:19:39Nicholas Patzigpmsbigred1@yahoo.comIFQ's cause mor problems than they correct. Unintended consequences are increases in dead discards resulting in uncorrected lose of perfectly good fish not accounted for and reducing the stock causing the regulators to compensate for the lose of the resource. If one fisherman has Red Snapper shares and has none or very little Porgy, Trigger, Vermillion, etc and he doesn't feel the cost of the shares or allocations cost verses net yield is not worth keeping gutting and iceing those bycatch then he will cut it up for bait or throw it back possibly dead. If I have to by vermillion snapper allocation from someone else for $1.50 lb just to be able to keep vermillion snapper that fish grosses $2.75 of which 3% has to go back to the government and what do you tell your crew. Are you going to tell them that their crew share will be of the $2.75 from the dealer or $2.75 - 3% or the $ 1.16 that is the net? No crew will ever stick around for long if he knows he is only going to share on the $1.16. Leasing allocation is an expense like 3% to you guys and bait at $1.50 lb, Tackle, ice, groceries, fuel, slip rent, repairs etc. and if I,m not going to benefit from keeping the by catch then what incentive do I have to want to keep it. Furthermore what damage has been done to the fisheries fleet and the livelyhoods you have hurt? What will you tell them? I don't think you all have looked at any of the unintended consequences. The Red Snapper IFQ is a great example. Allocation leases for $3.25 lb and groses $4.00 to $4.50 which means the person leasing the allocation nets between $0.63 and $1.11 respectively after expences and crewshare the boat makes nothing. Where does the owner and captain get paid. Is this what you want to reduce the fishery down to? Is this your idea of fair?
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548Private Recreational Angler, Charter/Headboat For-Hire, Commercial Fisher
34
5/5/2012 4:40:17Chris McCaffityfreefish7@hotmail.comI support Mr. Harper's comments and suggest using Trip Poundage Limits to MANAGE the quotas rather than catch shares to allocate the resource to a few big corporations.

Subject: stop funding new catch share program NOW

To Whom it may Concern:
My name is Don Harper, my wife Laura and I have four sons, all of them are commercial fishermen and boat captains. Our son Donnie Harper owns and captains the “Miss Stacie” and we have two commercial fishing boats the “Miss Evelyn Orene and the “Big Jim II”, myself, my wife Laura and my son Daniel Harper are partners in these boats. Our son Billy Harper captains the commercial fishing boat the “St. Andrews Bay” for captain Tom Harris. We make our living fishing the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and have been all our lives.
My family has a long history in the fishing industry. There is a book called “Man in the Everglades” written by Charlton W. Tebeau. There is a chapter in this book that talks about my Great Grandfather, Capt Duncan C Brady. Capt Brady was the captain of a whaling vessel out of Nova Scotia. In the late 1800’s during a storm, his ship went down off the coast of Savanna. Ga. Capt Duncan C. Brady did not go back to whaling. He made is way down to the bottom of southwest Florida around 1885, settling in the Ten Thousand Islands area. Capt Brady was the prime mover in naming Flamingo in 1893. This area, where my people called home, is now called Everglades National Park. Between my ancestors, myself and my sons we have caught millions of pounds of fish in the Gulf of Mexico. With all this history of commercial fishing in the Gulf, my sons and myself should have a big say in what goes on in the gulf fisheries.
I feel very strongly that IFQ’s are not about fish management, but are about power, control and money. The Gulf Council is talking about turning all reef fish into IFQ’S fish. I am very opposed to this. Fish house owners with big money behind them have access to buying up permits from commercial fishermen getting out of the business, some of these permits have old history that the fish house owners have had nothing to do with catching and if it goes to all reef fish IFQ’s they will own more of the Gulf Fisheries. What you all are doing is putting a lot of the smaller fishermen out of business and giving it to the fish houses with the big money and they do not even catch the fish. We get $1.50 per pound if we catch Red Snapper for the IFQ holders, while they make $3.50 per pound for doing nothing. Don’t you all see how lopsided this is? We pay for fuel, ice, bait, tackle, and men out of our $1.50 and people can say this a good thing for our fishing community? We know it is not helping, we are living the truth.
Everyone on the Gulf Council need to think about this. This one thing, going to IFQ’s on reef fish could collapse the whole Gulf Fisheries. Who is going to catch the fish when most of the fishing boats are put out of business? It takes experienced captains to catch reef fish, so when you put us out of business there will be none left. Don’t be fooled, there is not enough money to be made by leasing IFQ’s to stay in business. This is a very hard business and only the very best can make it work.
If you go to IFQ’s on the rest of the reef fish, this fish industry will be over. Greg Abrams is one of the biggest fish buyers in the south as you all on the Gulf Council know, and he is also telling you the same thing I am. So does Bob Spaeth, another big fish house owner, he too has seen how IFQ’s are putting so many fishermen out of business. These people that want IFQ’s are not wanting what is best for the fishing industry but what is best for their pockets. Do not let us down, vote NO on more IFQ’s.
If you do decide to go to IFQ’S catch shares on all reef fish, please make it fair and move the control date up to our present year that you decide to start the IFQ’s on these fish and let us fishermen pick out our best five years or how ever many years you decide to use. You should use newest years to present and oldest years to make it fair for all of us in the Gulf Fishery.
Like I told you in previous letters, there are not many Bandit Boats that target reef fish, we need to be able to stay in business and you need us in business also.
They are not making any more captains that can fish reef fish, it is a dying art. It takes years and years of fishing with a captain that knows how to fish the bottom, to make a living from it. There are more people getting out of this fishery than getting into it, do not be fooled by these fish houses and captains that want it all for themselves.
Please, if you do go to IFQ’s on reef fish make it fair for all of the Bandits Boats and let use choose old years and new years to present, lets be fair to all and not just a chosen few.
I hope we can all act accordingly with this IFQ problem to keep us all fishing in the Gulf Fishery. Again, there are no new captains out there “none”, what is left is all we have. There is no new blood wanting in the fishery. What is out there now is it, once that experience is gone it will be gone forever.


Sincerely
Captain Don Harper
Fourth generation fisherman

Morehead, NC, 28557Commercial Fisher
35
6/13/2012 14:13:52Claudia Friesscfriess@oceanconservancy.orgDear Mr. Gill,

On behalf of Ocean Conservancy, we submit the following comments regarding the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council’s (Council) development of Amendment 33 to the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan (Amendment 33) to develop an individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for red porgy, vermilion snapper, gray triggerfish, greater amberjack, and the jacks complex. The Council decided at is April 2012 meeting to discontinue work on Amendment 33 until after it had heard further public comment on the issue by the June 2012 Council meeting. We write to express our support for the further development of Amendment 33. Well-designed catch share programs are an essential tool for the responsible management of living marine resources, and an IFQ program for the above mentioned species deserves at least full consideration in the form of fishery management plan alternatives and analyses. We encourage the Council to move forward with the development of Amendment 33 for the reasons outlined below.


Management Background and Need for Action

The first species to be put under an IFQ system in the Gulf of Mexico was red snapper in 2007. The IFQ program eliminated the derby fishery for red snapper, has been extremely successful in preventing quota overages and reducing red snapper discards, and has also increased the value of landed red snapper. As a consequence of the red snapper IFQ program and other management controls that have been enacted in recent years, there has been a shift of fishing effort to less tightly regulated fisheries, most notably red porgy and vermilion snapper for which commercial landings have been increasing markedly in recent years. Red porgy was in the original Reef Fish fishery management plan (FMP) but was removed in from the FMP 1998. Due to the increased targeting of red porgy over the past decade, this species should be added back into the FMP and managed with ACLs that prevent overfishing. Without an ACL, the landings increase trend for red porgy can be expected to continue until the population becomes depleted and restrictive measures will have to be put in place. Landings for vermilion snapper will likely also continue to increase, and the Council itself has been concerned about the vermilion snapper ACL being reached and exceeded. Red porgy and vermilion snapper are, therefore, good candidates for inclusion in an IFQ program due to concerns of increasing fishing effort and mortality that could lead to population depletion, derby fisheries, and early closures and other restrictions if inadequately managed.

Greater amberjack and gray triggerfish are both subject to rebuilding plans that have recently had to be revised or are currently being revised because the Council and NMFS have missed rebuilding deadlines and targets partially due to quota overages, particularly for greater amberjack. The gray triggerfish commercial quota was just reduced by over 40 percent in an interim rule, and the fishery will probably close early this year. Amendment 37, modifications to the gray triggerfish rebuilding plan, is currently under development and considers a range of additional commercial management measures to achieve the desired reductions in landings. Both greater amberjack and gray triggerfish are great candidates for an IFQ program from an ACL management and accountability standpoint. IFQ programs are very effective at eliminating quota overages and early fishery closures, and they make measures like overage paybacks unnecessary. It makes sense to include the other jacks in an IFQ program for greater amberjack due to species misidentification and misreporting issues.


The Potential of an IFQ Program to Achieve Management Objectives

As described above, an IFQ program can help meet National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act by preventing ACL overages and providing for individual accountability. Additional biological benefits of a well-designed IFQ program that can be expected if ACLs are set appropriately are biomass increases for the managed species due to a better control of fishing mortality. Furthermore, IFQ programs can help control discards if designed correctly and used with other tools such as catch observing (via on-board observers or electronic monitoring systems). With the right kinds of catch-quota balancing mechanisms in place, fishermen will be able to match their quota holdings with catches, and discards due to insufficient IFQ shares can be minimized.

In addition to the biological benefits, there are also economic gains that could be achieved with a well-designed IFQ program. An IFQ system eliminates derby fishing and prevents early fishery closures which eliminates market gluts and allows fishermen to get the best and most stable price for their catch. Even though the species proposed for inclusion in an IFQ program in Amendment 33 are not as valuable as the ones already in IFQ programs, there is no reason not to expect the prices for these species to increase, just as they did for the other Gulf IFQ species. An IFQ program would also provide fishermen the benefit of running a predictable business and not having to go fishing in dangerous conditions, promoting National Standard 10 of the MSA.


Conclusion

Ocean Conservancy appreciates your consideration of our comments on Amendment 33 to the Reef Fish FMP. We hope that we provided sufficient rationale for the Council to reconsider its decision to halt the development of the amendment. IFQ programs, if properly designed and used along with other proven fishery management tools, can achieve biological, economic, and social management goals. The use of an IFQ system for vermilion snapper, red porgy, gray triggerfish, greater amberjack and the jacks complex should be carefully evaluated via the FMP process. We look forward to providing further input as the Amendment is developed.

Sincerely,

Claudia Friess
Ocean Conservancy
Fisheries Scientist
106 E. 6th St, Suite 400
Austin, TX 78701
Austin, TX 78701NGO
36
6/16/2012 7:12:27Betty R Adamsbetty@floridagulfcoast.comI am 100% against sector separation for the Gulf of Mexico. As a Real Estate Broker it is hurting our tourism, prospective buyers, and every aspect of our economy. I live in a fishing village where you only have a little over a month to fish for snapper. Gas is high and thus going fishing is expensive. Only allowing two fish/person is unaffordable. Our area thrives on the fishermen.Beacon Hill, Fl 32456Private Recreational Angler, Other
37
6/16/2012 21:58:56john Farleycommericialfisher11@yahoo.comChis made a point lets have a trip poundage. With all the new ways the electronic trip program works. IT should be easier maintain a level that fills each quota without any long closure are giving certain people a higher share % The council should MANAGE the quotas rather than using catch shares schemes. The only ones I see likeing the IFQ's is the people who eneded up with alot of shares. They are the only ones making the money!! (example Red grouper shares 12 dollars a pound it would take years for me to get my money back), You have new and old boat owners that are trying to make living. but are unable to fish becasue of the IFQ. system. It seems like one thrid of my gross goes to buying IFQ allocation So I can go fihing! Please figure out a new system, Because this ain't working...Thank you Palm Harbor, FlCommercial Fisher
38
8/10/2012 9:58:19Robert GravoletRMST70124@aol.comI am an avid recreational fisherman, both inshore and offshore. I spend considerable money supporting, storing and operating my small boats. Why should any part of the "recreational" catch be given to the charter businesses that run commercial fishing operations? They may not be selling the fish directly, but they are making money by fishing. Those are clearly commercial operations. The take limits for charter fishermen should be included in the commercial limits. As it stands now, the tight limits on recreational fishermen make it almost impossible to make a worthwhile offshore trip. The limits are tight and seasons are often closed. If you don't catch your targeted fish there are often few options to "save the day" by catching other species. Those trips generally cost from $500 to $1000, even for small boats like mine. It's becoming too costly to justify the limited catch. Please do not give any part of the recreational catch allotment to the charter operations. Their catch should be part of the commercial catch. Let common sense and not politics rule for a change! New Orleans, LA 70124Private Recreational Angler
39
8/10/2012 11:40:25chris Brubpacherchris@albachco.com I have been fishing inshore and offshore as a recreational fisherman since I was 6 years old. I am now 55. I can't begin to tell you what I spend and have spent on fishing off the louisiana cost. I have a camp and 45 ft. sportfishing boat in Venice. I have watched the charter boat fishing industry take over the entire area. Fishing every day with 3 or more clients catching limits for all on the boat more often that not. If you really want to help the fish and in trun the recreational fisherman you should be setting lower limits on the Charterboat fisherman and the commercials. They are the ones taking more than their share. Every commercial fisherman and now sharter boat captains have one goal "Catch as much as you can as long as you can". Regardless of what's left for the next generation. I know that all comercial fisherman and Charter boat captain look at us as intruders into there territory and their business but the truth is we are the only reason there's any fish left. They are reaping the benefit of our hard work and money spent and work to supprot the CCA and other organizations that fight for us and the fish. So in response to this legislation I would have to say not only do I not support it nor should you but HELL NO. As it stands right now I have to watch the commercials spend days at one of my favorite rigs and catch all that is there and I cannot keep any of what they are catching. How fair is that?? Now i'm supposed to sit back and watch all these Charter boats do the same. When hell freezes over. So again please vote in favor of the recreational fisherman.

Thank you

chris Brupbacher
new orleans la. 70124Private Recreational Angler
40
9/22/2012 13:48:01Nicholas Patzigpmsbigred1@yahoo.comNOT NO, BUT HECK NO, NOT EVER. We would rather compete with all the other fishermen and catch what we can catch than have a very select few win and all the rest lose. Equal opportunity for all. We want no more quota systems that gives a natural resource to one or a select few individuals. IFQ's
are the most unfair systems ever devised. The average diversified fishermen who fish in several different fisheries and spreads out his effort loses and the fishermen who target one specie and exploits them and ultimately causes the overfishing is the winner. The diversified fishermen spreads out the pressure on the resource and ultimately should be the fishermen that should be the preferred alternative.
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548Private Recreational Angler, Charter/Headboat For-Hire, Commercial Fisher
41
11/6/2012 14:30:57william rogeroflogator376@yahoo.comFish are a natural resource and belongs to the people, If at any time that resource in jeopardy then Commercial fishing of that resource should be the first to be Shut Downsan mateo, fl.Private Recreational Angler
42
1/18/2013 13:36:11john beaughj_beaugh2hotmail.comIf you are going to cut the days at least give us the 27 days on friday and sat and sundaylafayette la 70509Private Recreational Angler
43
1/30/2013 13:37:02gary c jarvisgjabd@aol.comWhy would anyone who has any intrest in actual scientific and biologicaly sound management of a specific species question the success of the IFQ red snapper and grouper IFQ programs? It is the most acountable fishery in the Gulf Of Mexico. It is the most intensely enforced fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. It has reduced dead discards ,in fact total discards in the commercial red snapper fishery by up to and inexcess of 80%.It has increased the value of the fishery and the resource to the Nation by over 50 million dollars in only 5 years. It has been one of a leading factors of the rebuilding success of the red snapper fishery due to the reduction of all dead and alive discards and the fact that the anual allocation set aside for the North American consumer and to generate commerce for the United States has not been over fished.In fact a annual average of 3%-4% of the anual allocation (a estimated half a million pounds over 5 years ) set aside for the consumer has remained in the GOM to be free to live ,spawn and help regenerate the red snapper stocks. Since 2007 the access to the red snapper resource by this countries consumers has increased over 36% due to the IFQ program. To want to reallocate any portion of the consumers allocation into a unaccountable recreational fishery that has not stopped over fishing their anual allocation, that has no data colletion systems in place to account for harvest rates or harvest levels or that can not make provision for in season adjustments to prevent over fishing its allocation, that has a tendency to high grade to attain the daily bag limit, with recreational regulations in some states that refuse to be compatible to federal regulations and stock rebuilding time lines would be a mockery to the intent and ideals of Fishery Management , destin fl 32540Charter/Headboat For-Hire, Commercial Fisher
44
1/30/2013 14:57:01gary c jarvisgjabd@aol.comI would recomend that before you consider any of these public comments as a basis for future consideration that you require a simple Q and A test to decipher if the person making such comments have any idea at all of the subject matter or to determine that they only have digested internet propaganda and or talking points that have no basis in reality.This will vastly reduce the burden it is to read some of these assine comments from a constituency that has absolutly no idea of the reality of any aspect of fishery management let alone what has been or may be part of future management plans.I recommend that before you can make public comment that you must complete reading a section on this web site that has the history of management by species up to this present date and then any future considerations on the horizon. Also a brief over view of present regulatory process and the requirements under federal law as it pertains to fishery management. I also suggest a general knowledge on the importance and difference between anylitical examination of factual information and antidotal examination from ones own LIMITED EXPERIENCE.This web site and the council process will actually have some inteligent thoughts and ideas to consider for once.destin fl 32540Charter/Headboat For-Hire, Commercial Fisher
45
2/25/2013 5:05:08thomas adams4tomadams@gmail.comOnce the TAC reaches the original TAC (9million or whatever) the new TAC could be split in to hundreds of tags -- each tag being one fish at average weight- and given to thr active federal permit holders. There should be some reason why we bought these permits. These tags could be used at a hail out -hail in system. Obviously using up 2 tags per customer on board(since you can limit out in 10 minutes) each trip and let us use them anytime. If we each got 200 tags and you were aheadboat taking 50 people -you would get 4 extra trips --if you only take 6 you would get 33 extra trips after the season is over. Something has to be done to save the charter industry. I dont believe the commercial fishermen want new entrants into the fishery as it will drive the price down. They already have enough TAC or they wouldnt be offering to lease it to CFH. This will take care of the extra fish,save the charter for hire and keep the price up for commercial fishermenmexico beach,flPrivate Recreational Angler, Charter/Headboat For-Hire
46
4/1/2013 8:01:31John Taylorjohnboy5463@yahoo.comThe issue I see is the feds. are trying to push their power too much yes there needs to be a motoring system in play be cause the gulf can be over fished but.Really the first problems that needs to be address is other countries that fish the gulf and don't have the same rules and regulations as our own country isn't our country that pays for the reefs to be built, the scientist, ect. Then really do the headboats, and charters poach or is it the greedy rec. fishermen that think they have more rights? Look at the numbers from 2012 we didn't even come close to hitting the allocated numbers we were millions of pounds short. So this should not be rec fisherman against the commercial side we need to come together and fight the feds. they have given their selves authority that is not theirs to give Largo, FL 33774Private Recreational Angler
47
4/28/2014 17:42:42Dave Registerusnrxdoc1@yahoo.comIFQ's work great for managing species but until the recreational side starts accurately tracking the catch, the two sides will never agree. If other reef fish are overfished than this is good, but are they?st pete fl 33708Commercial Fisher
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
Loading...