 |
Corpusfishing.com
Fishing Reports and information for the Coastal Bend
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wilded
Finger Mullet
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Round Rock, Texas
|
 Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
That boat should be a start on the reef!
_________________
Make time for the important things in life. ET
http://wildedtx.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jay Gardner AKA snookered
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe instead of groups doing the shimper license by-back program, they should do the commercial license by-back program......just kidding......
Even with all the illegal catches and extra pressure, I don't think the main problem is hook and line fishing......shrimper by-catch and cull is the main culprit, and the main issue that needs to be addressed....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross
Finger Mullet
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 10
Location: N. Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| snookered wrote: |
I'm not sure the commercial red snapper fishermen are totally to blame either for the dilemma.......especially when science (however sound or unsound, that's another argument) shows that the greatest pressure on red snapper is the gulf shrimper.......
how many of you have been offshore and traded beer for cull? how many of you have gone through the cull and seen what's in there? almost all of our juvenile red snapper........ |
I don't believe commercial fishermen are the sole reason Snapper have declined. I do believe, however, that they are a huge reason the population has declined. As much pressure as the commercial sector puts on the population, I don't see how the population can rebound as long as no one enforces the rules or their quota is cut down considerably.
As for the shrimpers, there is a buy back on shrimp boat licenses. This helps keep the pressure from shrimpers down to some degree. Also, I have heard shrimpers are having to use a different net that supposedly cuts down on the bycatch.
I doubt almost all of our juvenile snapper can be found in shrimp cull. Yes, I do believe there is some, but to a lesser degree than what you are saying. This is a good reason to support the barrier reefing project. This will provide a place for the juvenile snapper to hide.
I just don't think the shrimpers have near the affect on the snapper population as the commercial fishermen.
| snookered wrote: | | the texas great barrier reef is a great idea.......how many tons of material do they need to put down? per foot? per 100 feet? per mile? per 700 miles? think about the scope of that project......now think about how much $$ its going to cost.......think about permitting, and even if regulators will allow it.......and what THAT costs....... |
I won't speak of what I don't know about here. I would like to see some figures myself. I just know that I will support this project the best I can.
| snookered wrote: | how much money will it take to build a great barrier reef? question is, will that "fix" anything?
landlocked beachbum, you raised an interesting point.......would "tons of artificial reefs really go a long way in MITIGATING the impact commercial guys have?"
also raises another good scientific question, does the placement of more artificial reefs equate to more fish in the system? complicated answer...where did the snapper live before man built oil rigs? were there more or less fish before/after rig placement?
good topic.... |
As for, whether or not more reefs would equate to more fish. Just look at Alabama. Alabama harvests more than half the recreational GOM quota from their state waters. Do you know how they do this with so little shoreline? They were able to obtain this by allowing an artificial reef program, both public reefing and private.
The reefs would provide a safe haven for juveniles to grow. It would provide more structure for the fish and fishermen. Can it produce more fish? Of course, more structure equals more habitat. More habitat leads to more bait which leads to more food which leads to more snapper. More reefs would be beneficial to all reef species as well. If Alabama can produce snapper like they do from their reefs, why can't Texas?
Another thought, would a shrimper pull his nets in an area where there are artificial reefs? Likely not due to the risk of tearing up a net and the associated costs of repairing or replacing the damaged net. That would cut down on shrimper bycatch. The commercial guys wouldn't be able to fish these structures either as they are in State Waters. They only pressure would be from the recreational anglers and natural predators.
Another thing, NMFS doesn't count any snapper not found on natural structure. They don't count fish found on wrecks, rigs, reefs(artificial) or anything that isn't natural. Where are most Snapper found? Generally around some sort of man made, artificial, structure like rigs and wrecks. Why does the NMFS not count these fish?
What I still don't understand is why the recreational angler is penalized. Why not cut the quota for the commercial guys drastically? Politics? Money?
If the recreational angler is hurting the population enough to cause the federals to cut the limit in half, why not change to a different system? Why not let us keep the first 4-5 fish we pull up with a no cull rule in effect? I trust my fellow fisherman more than a commercial fisherman trying to make money.
Even with the reduced limit recreational anglers are still going to catch undersized fish that have to be thrown back. These fish can survive if vented properly, but some will still not make it.
Also, when throwing back Snapper how many times have you seen Flipper eat it or a 'Cuda? I know I have witnessed it several times.
How many times have you seen a trail of undersized snapper floating behind a head boat? I have seen it all too often.
If the federals were to say we can keep the first 4-5 fish we pull up, then you wouldn't have to throw any fish back for Flipper to eat. You wouldn't see the floating trail of undersized snapper floating behind a head boat either.
In theory, keeping the first 4-5 fish you pull up would save quite a few fish. Why didn't the federals think of this or implement this instead of cutting the limit? I guess it just makes too much sense for them to do something along these lines!
Last edited by Ross on Fri May 04, 2007 2:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wilded
Finger Mullet
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Round Rock, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I went on a tuna trip offshore PA with some guys that traded beer for shrimp and cull. I was amazed at the baby snapper and flounder in the two coolers we got. I bet it was 75% 
_________________
Make time for the important things in life. ET
http://wildedtx.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross
Finger Mullet
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 10
Location: N. Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wilded wrote: | | I went on a tuna trip offshore PA with some guys that traded beer for shrimp and cull. I was amazed at the baby snapper and flounder in the two coolers we got. I bet it was 75% |
Last year while I was fishing the Port Mansfield area we traded beer for cull everyday for 4 days. During those 4 days I bet we found less than a handfull of juvenile snapper in the cull. I did see some, very few, flounder in the cull.
Again, I'm not saying the shrimpers don't have an affect on the population. I know better than to think they don't.
I think if we were able to cut down on the shrimper bycatch and then cut down on the commercial quota and enforce the laws in place we would see a more snapper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Gardner AKA snookered
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
right on wilded, during certain times of the year, there is amazing amounts of flouder and redsnapper in cull......remind me again, which two species have we seen decline recently?
the shrimpers BRD's (bycatch reduction devices) are required, however, compliance is the problem, as most shrimpers wire that door shut......
I am not always in agreement with the RFA, but there is a really good letter from Thomas J. Hilton here at
http://www.rfatexas.org/editnutstjh12307.htm
one of ideas I keyed on was getting the commercial fishermen to do something else, as it seems that 80% of the snapper sold in american markets comes from somewhere other than the GOM.....
I say have those commercial boats and fishermen become head-boats! let you average joe go out, catch his personal limit, AND a couple for the market to sell......win-win-win
just an idea... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Gardner AKA snookered
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ross et al., yes, during certain times there are little to no red snapper in the cull.......during certain times there is a LARGE amount of red snapper in the cull......its when they hit a certain size year class that they are caught......
and you're right, commercials AND shrimpers seem to need more regulation than the sportsfishing communities..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross
Finger Mullet
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 10
Location: N. Texas
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| snookered wrote: | Ross et al., yes, during certain times there are little to no red snapper in the cull.......during certain times there is a LARGE amount of red snapper in the cull......its when they hit a certain size year class that they are caught......
and you're right, commercials AND shrimpers seem to need more regulation than the sportsfishing communities..... |
I completely agree.
I have heard Tom Hilton talk about trying to get a buy out program started for the commercial licenses. It's a great idea, but would the commercials be willing to sell out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Gardner AKA snookered
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
doubtful......they have the market cornered and they know it......they have powerful lobbyists, and will continue to protect their rights.......
I hate to see the "US VS. THEM" side of things, there is typically a negotiation "middle" that can be reached where everyone gives a little......I don't see that in this scenario, where the recreational fisherman is the one that has to lose out..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
