Blog: Red Snapper Rules: Pay to Play or Same Old Way?

[TOP SHOT]

Managing red snapper recreationally by having anglers purchase a tag for each snapper he/she hopes to catch (within a total of allowable catch) - that's just nuts.

Or is it?

Recently an idea that the Coastal Conservation Association floated before the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council ended up floating itself right out into the public domain. The reaction, which has since died down a bit, was fast and furious...

What do you think?

Read Doug's entire blog here

[dtwilson17]

I do not like the idea of this at all. This is just another tax! Lets see, I am going to pay someone so I can catch fish that swim in public waters. And I'm doing this for conservation? As if fuel, ice, beverages, bait, equipment, boat, motor, trailer, truck, and a fishing license isn't enough. Now lets pay a little more, oh and by the way if you don't have tags we are going to fine the hell out of you, take your boat and all your gear. What kind of liberal b.s. is this? Why not just shut down the snapper season all together and let the numbers get back up? Just what, exactly does this tax do anyway? Are they putting wrecks in the gulf for people to fish? Or is this more money in pockets that supposedly are looking out for Rec. fishermen.

[Catch-All]

First some background - CCA does great things for inshore fishermen, inside 3 miles. Having said that, they are a non-stop disaster for recreational offshore bottomfishermen. Over here on the east coast their track record at SAFMC public hearings consists of:

Amendment 14 (deepdrop MPAs)....CCA-FLA testified in favor of it

Amendment 16 (shallow-water grouper/snapper closures....CCA-FLA said YES

2006 Snowy Grouper/Golden Tile 80% reduction in recreational bag limits.....
CCA-FLA was in favor of it

This all a matter of federal public record. It is infuriating to see CCA-FLA get up at public hearings and say they represent all rec anglers and then say they are in favor of whatever's the latest SAFMC harsh, un-needed restriction on rec anglers.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, to the subject matter at hand. Once again, CCA is going in the wrong direction. Advocating IFQ's for rec anglers is playing right into the well-moneyed hands of the enviro-fascists. If the CCA-concocted IFQ plan were to go into effect, there would be no stopping the $6 BILLION-funded Pew Charitable Trusts from buying up all the red snapper IFQs, effectively shutting off rec anglers completely. Same goes for Pew's cash-rich front groups like Environmental Defense, Ocean Conservancy, Audubon Society, ad infinitum. They'd be buying IFQ's too.

Before the re-authorization of the original Magnuson Act, the system was creaky, unwieldy and a PITA. But at least it was workable and whole sectors of the commercial & recreational fishing community weren't getting shut out of fisheries and losing their businesses, their jobs, their homes and their way of life. The Re-Authorized Magnuson Act was heavily manipulated by the well-funded Enviro-fascist lobby. They knew what they were doing. The enviro-fascists got language inserted that:

-requires regional NMFS fisheries councils to immediately and harshly shut down a fishery if alleged overfishing is occurring. Gradualism is not allowed. Consideration for economic impacts are not allowed.

-allows the NMFS councils great leeway in determining just what "overfishing" is. If you get a Regional Director with an anti-recreational bias like Roy Crabtree (he oversees both SAFMC & GMFMC), you're powerless to prove that a species is not being overfished. Crabtree just keeps moving the target to fit his agenda. NMFS scientists who disagree with him risk career suicide.

I never thought I'd hear myself saying this but I'd like to see us go back to the system in place before the Magnuson Reauthorization.

Catch