Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"It is neither necessary nor consistent with currect laws to designate these fish as gamefish. There is no biological evidence that declaring gamefish status will achieve sustainable harvets" Official comment from the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries.
I am against gamefish status. "It is taking fisheries management out of the hands of the scientists and putting it into the hands of lawyers, accountants and people in the General Assembly". "We are denying a segment of the population a North Carolina public trust resource and assigning it just to another group" Rob Bizell, Chairman of the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission
Again I ask you LLN-Post some facts and data.
Last edited by Bill Hitchcock; 04-08-2011 at 04:19 PM..
How are these facts for you Bill: You have your knickers in a twist about three fish that are literally not in the top 10 species of importance to Seafood Dealers Business.
Trout come in at a pidlin, 11th place. So..how can the world possibly end if the three fish in question do not even make it into the seafood dealers top 10. The report is available on line on the DMF web site.
From : A BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC PROFILE OF SEAFOOD DEALERS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by John Hadley and Scott Crosson1
For the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries December 2010
Seafood dealers were asked to list the most important species of fish or shellfish for their business. The results can be seen in Table 2 below. While some dealers specialize in one species, many depend on several species; therefore, the responses do not sum up to 72 as many seafood dealers mentioned more than one species that are vital to the success of their
business.
Table 2.
Most Important Fish and Shellfish Species to Seafood Dealers’ Businesses
Species
Shrimp
Flounder
Blue Crab
Oysters
Groupers
Tuna
Clams
Scallops
Spot
Sea Mullet
Spotted Sea Trout
Black Sea Bass
White Perch
Vermillion Snapper
Spanish Mackerel
Other
Shrimp, flounder, blue crabs, and oysters were the most common species mentioned. This was followed by a wide array of species with much less frequency. The “other” species category included swordfish, dogfish, black drum, catfish, triggerfish, cobia, weakfish, striped bass, tilefish, and king mackerel.
LLN,
Here is a list of America's top 10 vegetables. Potatoes, Iceberg Lettuce, Tomatoes, Onions, Carrots, Celery, Corn, Broccoli, Green Cabbage and Cucumbers. In your world you would ban spinach, green beans and peppers simply because they didn't make the top 10.
You are attempting to allocate a fishery away from the majority and ban them a public trust resource.
Who gave you the authority to determine what seafood is or is not available to the general public? It's already been proven that there is no biological or scientific merits to gamefish status. Gamefish status will not help the resource. Gamefish status will not help stocks to recover. So why are you so hot and heavy to take away a public trust resource?
Last edited by Bill Hitchcock; 04-09-2011 at 04:28 AM..
Bill you are the one whining about the dire consequences of making three species of game fish, true game fish, and about how bad such a status will be.
I have simply provided you a list of how important (erhhhh..make that un-important) these fish are to the seafood dealers in this state. This data, i.e., facts, are from those on "your side."
I remain dumbfounded at the uproar from waterman community about bestowing gamefish status on three species that by seafood dealer's data are so incredibly unimportant to them.
I can think of only one reason for the level of protest, and that, my friend is too ugly to put in print.
The ranking of importance is your sides' data, not mine. If you equate a listing of how important a fish species is to the dealer, to a random listing of veggies, then all I can say is "Bless your heart."
Like the other threads, you have started on this, and I against better judgement, have participated, I will concede you the last post. Have a great day!
You never address the question or issue. Once again-What does it matter what rank a speckled trout is. You want to ban a public trust resource and allocate it to a very small user group.
Using your logic its perfectly OK to ban wahoo, dolphin (mahi mahi), king mackerel and cobia because they didn't make the top 10 list.
Mixing shell fish and finfish is like mixing beef and chicken. Take out the shell fish and you'll see that trout is #6.
I remain dumbfounded at the uproar from waterman community
I couldn't have said it better and it is very obvious.
Next time you have a plate of seafood be sure to thank a consumer fisherman!
OK, Bill, I guess you can call me a liar, I just can't let your innane statements stand.
Designating these three species gamefish, opens them up to the entire group of fishermen in this state, on an equal basis. No more of one guy catches six on a hook and line, while another nets thousands. And discards thousands either.
What could possibly be more democratic than allowing the entire state, and many of those that will come in to the state to fish for gamefish, managed as gamefish, "ker...ching" than to allow each person an equal means/chance/method of fishing for them. Thanks for making a point for me.
Bill, I don't have the data handy, but is pretty easy to obtain, but the number of folks with trip tickets for these three fish, is really low, and I think the number of folks with tickets for all three of these fish is less than 100.
You know a site where these numbers are available, and I suspect as passionate as you are about the issue, you already know the numbers. And I know why those numbers have not been bantered about by the anti-gamefish crowd.
Yes, I am too lazy to look them up but the point is that the low number of tickets, when combined with the firm data I have provided you on the importance to fish house owners, deflates your arguments that we are denying access to the many (quite the contrary) and that we are taking food off the table (feeble and untrue argument)
But I will grant you this, next time I am in an NC seafood restaurant and see either RedFish or Stipers on the menu I will pass. Uhm...I bet you grinned on that one, since you know that I will never, ever, see those on the menu. So they have absolutely no impact on or relevance to your "no mo seafood" argument.
I am a flounder, scallops, oysters, and shrimp kind of guy, myself. Yep, me and the fish house guys see eye to eye on our seafood, that is for sure. Cheers
Here are the only numbers that really matter. Recreational fishermen catch far more of these fish than commercials do but you and your political action group want to allocate all of the fish to yourselves. You want to ban consumer fishermen thus banning the general public from a public trust resource. That is the bottom line truth of the matter.
Bill: You failed to address the issues I raised with facts.
And once again, you are talking 100's of 1,000's of recreational fishermen and women vs a couple of hundred (IF THE TRIP TICKETS ARE ACCURATE) commercial guys.
By posting incomplete and utterly mis-leading data, you have hurt your cause. Keep on postin, Bill.
OBTW, I am not a member of any political action group. I just want to stop waste such as this:
and this:
and of course, this:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
