Pensacola Fishing Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I hate to be this way but I got an email from NOAA which asked me to take a survey on what I spend on fishing. I started thinking about what they have done with the information they have had in the past in relation to red snapper, trigger fish and grouper and I decided not to take the survey.


This is my response to the survey request:

Normally, I'd be happy to help an organization whose goal is to effectively manage the Gulf fishery, but to be honest I have very little trust in your organization. Over the past few years NOAA seems more concerned with increasing their power than actually managing the fishery. I see no upside to giving you information that no doubt will be used to justify increases in licensing and fees which will eventually hinder peoples access to the resource, which I believe is NOAA's ultimate goal.

In other words it is non of your business what I spend my money on. I suggest you stick with your original mandate and stop being a tool of the left in attempting to control the people of this country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,379 Posts
Well, at least now you won't have to worry about whether you've forgotten anything when you head out or be in the dark about any recent changes to the fishing regs. The the FWC officers will be happy to provide that valuable info each time you head out or return from a trip during their routin.....I mean "random" stops.:whistling:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
In this case that may have been the wrong decision. Recently the good guys in Congress passed and the President signed a law that instructs the US Comptroller General to conduct a study of whether the very old allocations of fisheries stocks (quotas) should be changed (updated). One major provision is that the economic impact and revenues have to be considered. Since in FL alone recreational anglers contribute 9+ times more economic impact than commercial fishing this could definitely mean an increase in the recreational quotas. The NOAA Survey is probably part of that study. See the article below.



President Trump signs the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018 (S. 1520), a bill that was developed with support from and in consultation with the TRCP, Coastal Conservation Association, American Sportfishing Association, Center for Sportfishing Policy, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Yamaha, Recreational Fishing Alliance, and many others.
This bill requires the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico within one year to:

  • Recommend criteria—including economic, ecological, conservation, and social factors—that could be used for allocating/reallocating fishing privileges in a mixed-use fishery.
  • Identify sources of information that could reasonably support the use of the above criteria.
  • Assess the budgetary requirements for performing periodic allocation decisions in both councils.
  • Develop recommendations of procedures for allocation reviews and potential adjustments in allocation.
The bill also requires the Comptroller General to consult with NOAA, the applicable Councils and their Science and Statistical Committees, applicable state fisheries management commissions, and the recreational, commercial, and charter fishing sectors in conducting the required study.
The TRCP and its partners have worked with the Government Accountability Office and with the councils to help establish allocation criteria and ensure that future guidance documents include specific instructions for councils to help break the impasse on examining allocations.
Soon, anglers may get even more of a fair shake, and we can all stop living in the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I stand corrected LOL If that is the case I'll fill it out, I just hate giving info to the government if I dont have to.



Thanks for pointing this out to me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
540 Posts
My first thought was the same as you Chummy, how can they use this against us. What may seem like a simple question can be distorted to fit another narrative. Darn, It really sounds like I do not trust our own guberment. Golly Gee Whiz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Yeah I hate sound like a conspiracy weirdo too, but we have a history with NOAA.


To me NOAA has become just another tool of the left, a screwdriver, and we all know what screwdrivers are used for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
This really is legit guys. The Senate (especially Senators from the Gulf states) are really pissed about the current system that deprives rec anglers. They are also the reason the feds had to grant management of ARS to the states, albeit within the current quotas. Part two is to now force an update of the quotas shifting more tonnage to the rec side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,008 Posts
In this case that may have been the wrong decision. Recently the good guys in Congress passed and the President signed a law that instructs the US Comptroller General to conduct a study of whether the very old allocations of fisheries stocks (quotas) should be changed (updated). One major provision is that the economic impact and revenues have to be considered. Since in FL alone recreational anglers contribute 9+ times more economic impact than commercial fishing this could definitely mean an increase in the recreational quotas. The NOAA Survey is probably part of that study. See the article below.



President Trump signs the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018 (S. 1520), a bill that was developed with support from and in consultation with the TRCP, Coastal Conservation Association, American Sportfishing Association, Center for Sportfishing Policy, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Yamaha, Recreational Fishing Alliance, and many others.
This bill requires the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico within one year to:


  • Recommend criteria—including economic, ecological, conservation, and social factors—that could be used for allocating/reallocating fishing privileges in a mixed-use fishery.
  • Identify sources of information that could reasonably support the use of the above criteria.
  • Assess the budgetary requirements for performing periodic allocation decisions in both councils.
  • Develop recommendations of procedures for allocation reviews and potential adjustments in allocation.
The bill also requires the Comptroller General to consult with NOAA, the applicable Councils and their Science and Statistical Committees, applicable state fisheries management commissions, and the recreational, commercial, and charter fishing sectors in conducting the required study.
The TRCP and its partners have worked with the Government Accountability Office and with the councils to help establish allocation criteria and ensure that future guidance documents include specific instructions for councils to help break the impasse on examining allocations.
Soon, anglers may get even more of a fair shake, and we can all stop living in the past.
Where did you find this and do you know who it was written by?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,243 Posts
I'll believe it when I see it. Unless NOAA is gutted I trust them zero.
One of the FWC survey girls was at the ramp a few days ago, I told her we caught twelve jewfish and 73 red snapper but all we got were heads because of the shark overpopulation. I asked her about the coming changes to speckled trout regs and she said yes they were talking about it but my comments could really make a difference. I didn't want to be rude but couldn't help but laugh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
I understand the distrust and lack of any confidence in NOAA, but we have a good start at some meaningful changes in the system and Congress is pushing it - especially those elected in the Gulf states. I hate to think that rec anglers wont participate to help keep this moving. If we dont, I can see NOAA big sticks going to the Secreatry and Congress and saying "we tried, but they didnt respond so there's nothing we can do".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,303 Posts
If they already know,as you stated, that we contribute 9+ more than the com sect, what else do they need to know? I think you have alot of faith in something that never worked for you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
If they already know,as you stated, that we contribute 9+ more than the com sect, what else do they need to know? I think you have alot of faith in something that never worked for you.
If the rec sector really does contribute 9 times the economic impact then shouldn't they get 9 times the quota the commercial guys do? LOL

I know that's a stretch, but realistically, a reallocation is long overdue with rec getting significantly more of an allowable quota of all species than the commercial sector.

It's also long past time for the commercial fishing industry to come up with innovative and more sustainable methods. They're still fishing basically the same way they've done for a hundred or more years. I am aware there have been some limited farming operations, but nothing on the scale that's needed to supply fish to the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
If they already know,as you stated, that we contribute 9+ more than the com sect, what else do they need to know? I think you have alot of faith in something that never worked for you.

The 9+ is from a study by Univ of FL a few years ago, and now there is a federal effort by the Comptroller to update the numbers. The commercials claim a $17 billion impact but that includes imported seafood and the sales of seafood. Actually the impact of comm fishing in FL alone is only $1 billion compared to somewhere around $10B rec.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top