Comments on: THE “ENVIRONMENTALIST” STIGMA http://www.reel-time.com/articles/conservation/the-%e2%80%9cenvironmentalist%e2%80%9d-stigma/ The Internet Journal of Saltwater Fishing Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:35:08 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Henry Hauch http://www.reel-time.com/articles/conservation/the-%e2%80%9cenvironmentalist%e2%80%9d-stigma/#comment-249 Henry Hauch Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:45:21 +0000 http://reel-time.com/videos/permit-videos/the-%e2%80%9cenvironmentalist%e2%80%9d-stigma/#comment-249 Being in the fishing business (Offshore Florida Charter Fishing), I can firsthand tell you that the Red Snapper issue is more politics than science. I as well as most Anglers that fish these waters (covered by SAFMC) have never been contacted by the SAFMC or your PEW foundation which you support. The NOAA dierctor, and her appointment of her commerece director both being PEW members is certainly a conflict of interest, which answers many of the questions raised by the Anglers involved. WHY does it have to be an "All or Nothing" solution to this matter? Closing all bottom fishing, so as to threthen tens of thousands of working class jobs (Yes these are real people's lives, not just 'tough decisions', and 'short term econimic considerations'), was not needed to bring Red Snapper in the Gulf, from a "dire" situation, to what I and thousands of others have personally witnessed as a "Nusience Fish" because of their over abundance. So why are the PEW and SAFMC willing to 'Sacrifice' these current Generation(s) for some down the raod future generation? What makes the current generations so less worthy of surrorting their families and putting a roof over their head? You fish in the NE, where this fishery is not an issue. As such I would speculate that you have not come down and personally involved yourself with those that are involved, and who's lives are affected by these decisions which you support. You may employ 'catch and release', but what is being proposed and supported by PEW is NO FISHING..Period! We would not have the option to run sport fishing charters even as 'catch and release'. Maybe PEW did not explain this to its supporters, nor that literalls tens of thousands of people would end up out of work! Mismanagement has ked to many problems, but the SAFMC recently showed it's true face, and ultimate support for PEW and it's funding of the studies to support their cause. When mortality rates were claimed as a reason to support closing ALL bottom fishing, the manditory use of circle hooks was brought up as a sucess in the Gulf of Mexoco, and sugessted that same for the Atlantic. The SAFMC however suddenly removed this from the rule which requires Venting tools and De-Hooking devices to be used. There can be only one reason for this given the overwhelming evidence of circle hook use minimizing mortality. I use them for amm bottom fising, and a lot of trolling. The use of circle hooks would not support the PEW's contention that high mortality rated mean that all fishing must be stopped to allow a 15 to 35 YEAR rebuilding to take place. Even the motality studies claimed of standard mustard hooks is beyond what science really supports, but circle hook use would cut it to levels not supporting their agenda. What is a rule telling you that No Fishing will be permitted in your area for 15 to 35 years. What would you do for a lliving? What about the thousands of others that fish both for a living and recreational in your area, what would they do? Your support of PEW, may someday come to this very issue. If you have not investigated both sides of the actual issue at hand, and not just the "enviormental" controversy, then I suggest that before throwing you support on one side or another, you actually get involved with the real people that are involved daily in this. Now one from PEW or the SAFMC has ever contacted me or any or the other fisherman, both commercial and recreational I know, nor have I heard any reports of such. Fisheries management can take place without eliminating the fisherman. The MSA has fundimental flaws, despite a "good" premis. This act does nothing to consider the effect on peoples lives that depend upon the fisheries. Humans are also part of the enviorment, and to make rules to protect one spesis, that has a dramatic and negative impact on another, is not sound enviormental stewardship, yet this is exactly what is being proposed by your PEW foundation. Again, it does not have to be all or nothing, and the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper stock has demonstrated. The fact that the data being used to support this proposal was funded in large part by PEW, the fact that the Acting director of NOAA and the Commerce department which sign's off on these rules are PEW members, and perhaps most importantly the fact that the Actual conditions in the water as observed by the ones that are their daily, do not support the PEW's studies (SEDAR), show that this proposal is not in the best interest of all involved, including "future generations" and perhaps the fisheries itself. Without firsthand involvment by those making the proposals, and those supporting their agenda, their is no basis for any justification to implement such rules. Without developing a plan to sustain the fisherman along with the fisheries, in any proposal, the "EXTREME" enviormentilist agenda has come forth. If you take the fisherman out of the fisheries, you will be left with an aquarium! This may be fine for those that have no interest in fishing, don't like to eat fish (at least Non-Imported), and those that do not feed and provided shelter by means of fishing related businesses, but for the majority of this countries citizens that's not the case. Henry ACME Ventures LLC www.ACME-Ventures-Fishing.com Being in the fishing business (Offshore Florida Charter Fishing), I can firsthand tell
you that the Red Snapper issue is more politics than science. I as well as most Anglers that fish these waters (covered by SAFMC) have never been contacted by the SAFMC or your PEW foundation which you support. The NOAA dierctor, and her appointment of her
commerece director both being PEW members is certainly a conflict of interest, which
answers many of the questions raised by the Anglers involved.

WHY does it have to be an “All or Nothing” solution to this matter? Closing all bottom fishing, so as to threthen tens of thousands of working class jobs (Yes these are real people’s lives, not just ‘tough decisions’, and ‘short term econimic considerations’), was not needed to bring Red Snapper in the Gulf, from a “dire” situation, to what I and thousands of others have personally witnessed as a “Nusience Fish” because of their over abundance. So why are the PEW and SAFMC willing to ‘Sacrifice’ these current Generation(s) for some down the
raod future generation? What makes the current generations so less worthy of surrorting their families and putting a roof over their head?

You fish in the NE, where this fishery is not an issue. As such I would speculate that
you have not come down and personally involved yourself with those that are involved, and who’s lives are affected by these decisions which you support. You may employ ‘catch and release’, but what is being proposed and supported by PEW is NO FISHING..Period! We
would not have the option to run sport fishing charters even as ‘catch and release’. Maybe PEW did not explain this to its supporters, nor that literalls tens of thousands of people would end up out of work!

Mismanagement has ked to many problems, but the SAFMC recently showed it’s true face, and ultimate support for PEW and it’s funding of the studies to support their cause. When mortality rates were claimed as a reason to support closing ALL bottom fishing, the manditory use of circle hooks was brought up as a sucess in the Gulf of Mexoco, and sugessted that same for the Atlantic. The SAFMC however suddenly removed this from the rule which requires Venting tools and De-Hooking devices to be used. There can be only one reason for this given the overwhelming evidence of circle hook use minimizing mortality.
I use them for amm bottom fising, and a lot of trolling. The use of circle hooks would not support the PEW’s contention that high mortality rated mean that all fishing must be stopped to allow a 15 to 35 YEAR rebuilding to take place. Even the motality studies claimed of standard mustard hooks is beyond what science really supports, but circle hook use would cut it to levels not supporting their agenda.

What is a rule telling you that No Fishing will be permitted in your area for 15 to 35 years. What would you do for a lliving? What about the thousands of others that fish both for a living and recreational in your area, what would they do? Your support of PEW, may someday come to this very issue. If you have not investigated both sides of the actual issue at hand, and not just the “enviormental” controversy, then I suggest that before throwing you support on one side or another, you actually get involved with the real people that are involved daily in this. Now one from PEW or the SAFMC has ever contacted me or any or the other fisherman, both commercial and recreational I know, nor have I heard any reports of such.

Fisheries management can take place without eliminating the fisherman. The MSA has
fundimental flaws, despite a “good” premis. This act does nothing to consider the effect on peoples lives that depend upon the fisheries. Humans are also part of the enviorment, and to make rules to protect one spesis, that has a dramatic and negative impact on another, is not sound enviormental stewardship, yet this is exactly what is being proposed by your
PEW foundation. Again, it does not have to be all or nothing, and the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper stock has demonstrated.

The fact that the data being used to support this proposal was funded in large part by PEW, the fact that the Acting director of NOAA and the Commerce department which sign’s off on these rules are PEW members, and perhaps most importantly the fact that the Actual conditions in the water as observed by the ones that are their daily, do not support the PEW’s
studies (SEDAR), show that this proposal is not in the best interest of all involved, including “future generations” and perhaps the fisheries itself. Without firsthand involvment
by those making the proposals, and those supporting their agenda, their is no basis for any justification to implement such rules. Without developing a plan to sustain the fisherman along with the fisheries, in any proposal, the “EXTREME” enviormentilist agenda has come forth. If you take the fisherman out of the fisheries, you will be left with an aquarium! This may be fine for those that have no interest in fishing, don’t like to eat fish (at least Non-Imported), and those that do not feed and provided shelter by means of fishing related businesses, but for the majority of this countries citizens that’s not the case.

Henry
ACME Ventures LLC
http://www.ACME-Ventures-Fishing.com

]]> By: Capt. Scott McCune http://www.reel-time.com/articles/conservation/the-%e2%80%9cenvironmentalist%e2%80%9d-stigma/#comment-135 Capt. Scott McCune Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:45:48 +0000 http://reel-time.com/videos/permit-videos/the-%e2%80%9cenvironmentalist%e2%80%9d-stigma/#comment-135 My 2 cents...I hope I don't make too many people mad! I don't think that recreational fisherman have a problem with limiting harvest, however they do not like commercial fisherman getting the larger percentage of harvest…it doesn’t make sense to me either…there are way more recreational anglers than commercial…and if you are too much of a city slicker to know how to fish or want to fish for yourself you shouldn’t have the ultimate right to have someone else mass harvest them for you…heck…learn how to use a rod and reel if you want to eat fish! As with politics anything with money attached can influence the bending of laws, I see this problem on the water a lot...so now the commercial guys are taking even more of their already larger percentage. I tell you what...the sale of redfish and speckled Trout got stopped...I would not like to be in the business of catching any fish in large scale (who stocks are tough to maintain) that the recreationalist like to target...that is just common sense...that is why I stopped doing Snapper trips over five years ago...considering the huge group of people that represent recreational anglers and the much smaller group benefitting from the commercial mass harvest side I AM amazed with how long it has taken to shutdown some fisheries to commercial fishing and/or recreational fishing...but then again somebody in politics is benefitting financially somewhere! It just makes sense to go to a fair chase method of fishing PERIOD for fish that are showing signs of depletion…if it still gets worse then ban all fishing! My 2 cents…I hope I don’t make too many people mad!

I don’t think that recreational fisherman have a problem with limiting harvest, however they do not like commercial fisherman getting the larger percentage of harvest…it doesn’t make sense to me either…there are way more recreational anglers than commercial…and if you are too much of a city slicker to know how to fish or want to fish for yourself you shouldn’t have the ultimate right to have someone else mass harvest them for you…heck…learn how to use a rod and reel if you want to eat fish! As with politics anything with money attached can influence the bending of laws, I see this problem on the water a lot…so now the commercial guys are taking even more of their already larger percentage. I tell you what…the sale of redfish and speckled Trout got stopped…I would not like to be in the business of catching any fish in large scale (who stocks are tough to maintain) that the recreationalist like to target…that is just common sense…that is why I stopped doing Snapper trips over five years ago…considering the huge group of people that represent recreational anglers and the much smaller group benefitting from the commercial mass harvest side I AM amazed with how long it has taken to shutdown some fisheries to commercial fishing and/or recreational fishing…but then again somebody in politics is benefitting financially somewhere! It just makes sense to go to a fair chase method of fishing PERIOD for fish that are showing signs of depletion…if it still gets worse then ban all fishing!

]]>