Thread: Commercial vs. Recreational

That is the view of big government. Make it to where there is nothing fun left in the land. And that we aee dependent on big business. Although there isnt a huge impact for each individual the rec. Fisher people as a whole need a voice/platform

Originally Posted by rwoods663

That is the view of big government. Make it to where there is nothing fun left in the land. And that we aee dependent on big business. Although there isnt a huge impact for each individual the rec. Fisher people as a whole need a voice/platform

I look at it differently after reading the studies. Big government HAS messed up the red snapper fishery, no doubt. Like a car being driven in reverse, using only the rear view mirror, we go WAY over that way, then over-correct and go WAY over the other way, never finding the sweet spot. But now, the choices offered include those that FAVOR the recreational fisherman! Let's jump on that! A ten percent reallocation in poundage that has the commercial cartel up in arms? It looks like the government is TRYING to do right by the recreational fishermen, at least in the case of red snapper (which I don't normally fish for). As well, the increase in poundage for spanish mackerel might SEEM to be a great thing for mackerel fishermen, but that depends on how strong the commercial market is for that fishery. If the market is expansive and strong, then the boats will be out scooping up huge schools. If the market is weak, then the commercial fishermen may pursue mackerel AFTER they've exhausted their limits on the other species. Most of the time, the pier fishermen will be unaffected by a limit increase for spanish -- but maybe at least the rule-makers are trying to do right by us (if it's something that recreational fishermen, by their responses, feel strongly about).

Originally Posted by Big Dawg

Knowing the commercial guys catch is easy as they can track how many pounds were sold to buyers. Since there are no check stations for recreational guys to take their snapper to for counting and weighing, the numbers used in their charts to justify making changes to the season and limits is nothing but smoke and mirrors. In other words they are pulling those numbers out of their ass and publishing them as facts. What a sham this is.

You're right, BD! Fecundity and biomass studies don't reveal anything but trends and the harvest estimates on the recreational side are ALL approximations. I think that what is lacking are sound logic and sound enforcement practices, accurate harvest records, accurate scientific prediction methods and leadership that is results-based. I think that they first decide what they want the results to be and then manipulate the statistics, show through graphs and bars, to correspond with the already-decided outcome.

Originally Posted by eym_sirius

I think that what is lacking are sound logic and sound enforcement practices, accurate harvest records, accurate scientific prediction methods and leadership that is results-based.

That is the heart of the problem. This year, snapper caught by Alabama fishermen had to be reported. The end result was the state's estimate of total catch was only about half what the feds estimated we caught.

Yep, correct, calculating the commercial catch is easy, they must report what they sold and the buyers must keep records on what they bought and from who. Records don't match = someone getting fined or losing their permits.
Recreational catch is calculated using statistic based on a limited number of creel surveys, an estimate of the number of fisherman, an estimate of the number of hours spent fishing to produce an estimate of how many fish are caught per day which is then multiplied by an estimate of the average weight of the fish being caught to come up with an estimate of how many pounds caught vs. an estimated quota based on a whole other set of statistics.
Sure, bet that is reallllyyyyy accurate, no room for error in that calculation!

This is why AL MRD did their own intensive reporting and survey work last summer, to get much better numbers for all these factors. And its no surprise their estimate had much less statistical error and was a whole lot lower than the NMFS estimate.

Originally Posted by CarlF

Yep, correct, calculating the commercial catch is easy, they must report what they sold and the buyers must keep records on what they bought and from who. Records don't match = someone getting fined or losing their permits.
Recreational catch is calculated using statistic based on a limited number of creel surveys, an estimate of the number of fisherman, an estimate of the number of hours spent fishing to produce an estimate of how many fish are caught per day which is then multiplied by an estimate of the average weight of the fish being caught to come up with an estimate of how many pounds caught vs. an estimated quota based on a whole other set of statistics.
Sure, bet that is reallllyyyyy accurate, no room for error in that calculation!

This is why AL MRD did their own intensive reporting and survey work last summer, to get much better numbers for all these factors. And its no surprise their estimate had much less statistical error and was a whole lot lower than the NMFS estimate.

All the more reason for Alabama to set their own creel limits and season length for Red Snapper in Alabama waters. Other Gulf Coast states have, so why not Alabama? I personally love to fish for Red Snapper, but I refuse to spend the money for fuel for my personal boat or pay the cost of a head boat or charter trip under the current NMFS regulations.

What ever happened to the commercial and recreational landings sections available through the Outdoor Alabama website?
Marine Resources Division Fisheries Section | Outdoor Alabama

Up until the website was revamped ALMR published detailed landing data by method, by species and by month to allow the public to actually see for themselves where the resource was utilized. A search on the internet now reveals nothing but outdated data still lingering in cyberspace. WHAT IS GOING ON with ALMR?

Some interesting numbers I came across in my most recent search...
Lagniappe: Something Extra For Mobile

To the editor: I am involved in the effort you write about (Holbert, March 14-27) and you’re missing some facts yourself. I became involved in the net ban because I found a dead loggerhead sea turtle in a gill net. You totally missed the "bycatch" issue, the main reason they banned the nets in Florida. Remember the dead sea turtle ad? Google the phrase "the destructive gillnets" and tell me you aren’t for the ban. And as for the "2 million Spanish" your buddy Vern Minton was quoted in the Mobile Press-Register in Oct. 2006 as saying definitively that the 2005 harvest of Spanish in Alabama was 2 million pounds. Are we not to trust the Director of Marine Resources of our own state? And by the way, before you automatically assume that a gill net ban would put so many out of business, check your facts. (1. 70% of all gill net license holders had gross landings of less than $25,000 and I don’t mean net landings. That means they made a few bucks at best and that’s 70% chief so where are all the lost jobs? (2. We have searched in vain for a large wholesaler of Spanish in Alabama and Wallace seafood co is the biggest and is one of only two. So, a million pounds of Spanish were caught in Alabama in 2005 and where were they processed? NOT ALABAMA. Where were they consumed? NOT ALABAMA. (3. 2.4 million pounds of mullet were harvested in 2005 mainly for roe, the fish simply being discarded. Where was the roe processed? NOT ALABAMA. Where was it consumed? NOT ALABAMA! I am available to discuss the real facts with you anytime you wish. I am VERY involved with the net ban initiative and supplied Jamie Ison with her talking points. Call me if you want the truth.
Sam Wilson CCA Alabama

Sounds like the 'Good Ole Boy Club" is alive and well in Alabama. Here in Tennessee we have slowly but surely retired most of our Good Ole Boys to the back porch where they can sip Jack Daniels and talk about the good ole days.

Pier#R, the MDR link you posted still has some current red snapper data. When you open that link look to the right and you will see an index of links. Open the "Red Snapper Mandatory Reporting FAQ" link. When that page opens you will see a headline, PRELIMINARY RESULTS of ALABAMA 2014 RED SNAPPER REPORTING. Open that link and you can see the data. Very interesting when compared to what the Feds are saying. Yet another reason that Alabama should take over the management of it's state waters.

That's right BD.
Those are the numbers ALMR came up with their MANDATORY RED SNAPPER reporting this past year.

I was referring to the sets of data for ALL fishes (and methods).
They used to have reports similar to the NMFS data queries @ MRIP Logon

The last report I obtained was dated 2013 and that only included data through 2011.
I'm just wondering is this an oversight or planned to deny the public ready access to catch data?