Mackerel Amendment 26 - King Mackerel Allocations & Mixing Zone Delineation (Responses)
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
Still loading...
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
TimestampEnter your full nameemail addressCity, State, Zip CodeCheck all that applyComments
2
6/4/2015 10:47:33patrick laniercaptainlanier@verizon.netseminole,fl 33776Commercial FisherI hold king , Spanish and dolphin/wahoo permits. The Gulf has been closed since I started the fishery so I travel to the east coast to fish. I bought a trailer boat so that I would be able to fish anywhere according to closures and migration. I invested a lot of money into getting started at the beginning of the 2015 year. If I lost the ability to fish any area due to permit separation it would be devastating as this is my only source of income for my family of 4. Thank you, Patrick Lanier.
3
4/10/2016 22:12:44Devan DeBarrdevndeb@hotmail.comFt. Walton BeachPrivate Recreational Angler, Commercial FisherThis is regards to the proposed AM26 for the King Mackerel fishery. It would appear that allot of the re-allocation is VERY dependent on the re-structuring of the boundary lines. Should this NOT occur, then we are still stuck with the current share percentage in the West Coast, Northern region. It is BY FAR the smallest of ALL regions and needs to be increased. Along with revising the opening date of 1 Oct, this resulted in a 58 day season...the shortest in the history of the fishery. By opening on 1 July, we at least had an opportunity to fish what Mackerel were here before the traveling fleet arrived from the Western Gulf to close it. I understand the reasoning behind the shift, however that DID NOT materialize. The fishermen in the southern part of the subzone STILL didn't have an opportunity to use their permits, as the season was again closed before the fish arrived on their southern migration. I welcome an increase in the allocation...It's LONG past due. As for the increase in the Rec catch, I am all for that...but only to a 3 bag limit. By doubling the bag limit, I believe it would close the rec. side before the end of the fishing year. I would also welcome a small shift of a VERY small portion of the Rec ACL to the Northern subzone. Even an increase of 250,000 lbs would PROBABLY keep the season open long enough for the guys in the southern part of the Northern zone to go out and catch some Macks as they return from the north.
4
4/10/2016 22:26:09DEVAN DEBARRdevndeb@hotmail.comFt. Walton BeachPrivate Recreational Angler, Commercial FisherRegarding the AM26 Provision that would allow the SA gill netters to sell incidental catch for kings...You took that provision away from RS holders against MOST arguments from the people with only restricted species permits. That action put a serious dent in allot of small time operators who depended on selling their 2 Kings a day. If you proceed with allowing Gill Netters to sell "Incidental" catches of Kings, then you MUST allow it for ALL RS permitted persons.
5
6/1/2016 16:56:46Robert wheatleyRwheatley @ ref insert.com77518Private Recreational AnglerThis same old song !!! The commercial fishermen do NOT OWN EVERY SNAPPER in the gulf ! We are not all rich ! We do enjoy catching fish and the comments by Katie's seafood are a slap in the face to us!!!!
6
11/16/2016 15:19:29Marcus Kennedymarcus@synfab.comMobile, AL 36608Private Recreational AnglerI urge the council to choose Alternative 1 which is to maintain the current rec/comm allocation of king mackerel and DO NOT redistribute unused recreational quota to the commercial sector. The NMFS statement that recreational king mackerel quotas have not been attained and that rec king catches have decreased in recent years should not be considered evidence of decreased interest in catching recreational king mackerel. My extensive personal observations in the N Gulf have been of a reduced availability of king mackerel. In recent years there has also been a significant reduction in king mackerel tournaments and a reduction in participation in the few king tournaments that are still occurring. This is due in part to the reduced availability of kings in the N Gulf resulting in reduced success in catching kings. Further, although other alternatives have conditions that should minimize the chance that the redistribution of unused quota would result in an increased chance of an in-season closure of recreational king mackerel fishing they do not guarantee it.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
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
Loading...
 
 
 
Form Responses 1