Net Effect ~~ WRAL documentary - SaltwaterCentral.Com

Post new topic   Reply to topic
 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

Squid Row
Posts: 4299
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:52 am
downeaster wrote:
am not sure as to what you mean by served but a study in 2010 by Hadley and Crosson with the NC DMF did an economic study concerning NC seafood dealers and the below insert is from that study. Am not sure if its what you are looking for or not.

Markets
Seafood dealers indicated that approximately 72% of their seafood is sold to North Carolina buyers, as can be observed in Figure 2 below. These buyers included restaurants, other in-state seafood dealers, and retail customers. This is slightly less than the previous value found of 85% for in-state sales of dealers in the Southern region, similar to the values found for in-state sales of dealers in the Albemarle and Pamlico Sound regions (74% respectively), and greater than the value for in-state seafood sales for dealers in the Core Sound region (55%) (Diaby, 2000, 2002) (Cheuvront, 2002, 2003).
Figure


Thanks Downeaster. I guess what I am looking for is if 72% of the seafood is sold to NC buyers, where do the buyers send it?

I was told by someone a long time ago (someone very knowledgable and on the commercial side who would know) that "almost all" seafood caught in NC ended up eventually out of state

So how much ends up being wholesaled to a place like the Fulton Fish Market as an example vs. being sold to the end consumer at a place like Clems in Oak Island.

My reason for asking is if as I was told (very informally I might add, nothing official) that most of the NC landed seafood ends up being consumed out of state, then the notion of fishing for NC people that own the resource but choose not catch it themselves, becomes a moot point

In other words, it is a curiosity point for me, nothing more
_________________
Squid Row III - Grady White 258 Walk Around, 225 HP Yamaha

Flounder Pounder II - 16 Sandpiper Skiff, 40 HP Yamaha
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

downeaster
Posts: 359
Location: Carteret County
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:42 am
I think its accurate to say that if a NC citizen from Boone wants to buy a fresh bushel of oysters, hard crabs, container of shrimp, carton of fresh flounder etc etc , he has a better chance of getting it from a dealer in NC than anywhere else. If that individual from Boone prefers to run down to Food Lion or WalMart and buy that sheet from some 3 rd world Country then that's his right. Seafood caught fresh from the water needs to be moved fast and can be bought from any NC dealer but Dealers do not deliver as a rule. Much like myself in that I love Nahunta pork products but must drive to past Goldsboro at times in order to get fresh local sausage. I really have no idea as to how many flounder for instance caught in NC waters end up on a NC citizen's table buts its there if they are willing to look for it and stock up when its available. I do know that if we are to ban most commercial gear in NC waters then its for dam sure the fine folk in NC will be eating a heluva lot less fresh local caught.  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

QuickFix
Posts: 249
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:48 am
I would think at the 72% number is pretty close to correct. I know that 100% of our fish are consumed in NC with just a small bit going just across the line into SC. But I consider SC local as a lot of SC seafood ends up in NC!  
View user's profile Send private message

Squid Row
Posts: 4299
Location: 212 Miles too far to the West
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:59 am
QuickFix wrote:
I would think at the 72% number is pretty close to correct. I know that 100% of our fish are consumed in NC with just a small bit going just across the line into SC. But I consider SC local as a lot of SC seafood ends up in NC!


QF - Thanks! What I was told years ago is nearly all of NC landed fish ends up in places like NY

I also know that here in the people's republic of Mecklenburg, if I want to buy fresh, NC seafood that you are the man I am going to call. You provide a great service to people stuck ... I mean living.. in this part of the state.
_________________
Squid Row III - Grady White 258 Walk Around, 225 HP Yamaha

Flounder Pounder II - 16 Sandpiper Skiff, 40 HP Yamaha
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

QuickFix
Posts: 249
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:07 am
Thanks Squid!  

Last edited by QuickFix on Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message

jasonafox
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:11 pm
downeaster wrote:
I think its accurate to say that if a NC citizen from Boone wants to buy a fresh bushel of oysters, hard crabs, container of shrimp, carton of fresh flounder etc etc , he has a better chance of getting it from a dealer in NC than anywhere else. If that individual from Boone prefers to run down to Food Lion or WalMart and buy that sheet from some 3 rd world Country then that's his right. Seafood caught fresh from the water needs to be moved fast and can be bought from any NC dealer but Dealers do not deliver as a rule. Much like myself in that I love Nahunta pork products but must drive to past Goldsboro at times in order to get fresh local sausage. I really have no idea as to how many flounder for instance caught in NC waters end up on a NC citizen's table buts its there if they are willing to look for it and stock up when its available. I do know that if we are to ban most commercial gear in NC waters then its for dam sure the fine folk in NC will be eating a heluva lot less fresh local caught.


So my point is let those citizens have a say, as in a vote. Right now, the only ones with any say are the 13 legislators who threatened the NCDMF with "legislative consequences" were they to attempt to do something. If the majority of North Carolinians decide the higher cost they will have to pay for fish and shrimp harvested in other ways is not worth the future of the resource, then continue as it is today.

You made a rather large jump in your previous post concerning my suggestion of a referendum. There are ways to harvest seafood besides gill netting and trawling in the inshore nursery habitats, like gill netting and trawling in the ocean, pound nets, and gigging to name a few. I think hatchery supported fisheries are an excellent idea as well, but that will take some time to become viable.

All the other states that have outlawed inshore gill nets and trawlers, and per your facts don't consume NC seafood, are not going without fish, crabs, and shrimp.
  
View user's profile Send private message

downeaster
Posts: 359
Location: Carteret County
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:34 pm
First of all other than Florida I am not aware of any States in the southeastern USA that does not allow shrimp trawling in their State waters. Have not heard too much pi-ssing and moaning about shrimping destroying their inside fishing as some of the recs here in NC claim. Why do you claim that pound nets and other gear used to catch flounder are so much better for flounder? In case you do not realize this a dead flounder is a dead flounder regardless if its caught by a gill net, a pound net, a gigger or a rod and reel. I will agree that hatcheries are an excellent idea but groups like the CCA will fight that tooth and nail at least until they get rid of most inside commercial fishing. After a while they will be supporting hatcheries as they have in Texas and Florida due to many recs not catching all they want even after banning the nets in those 2 States.  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

jasonafox
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:53 pm
downeaster wrote:
First of all other than Florida I am not aware of any States in the southeastern USA that does not allow shrimp trawling in their State waters. Have not heard too much pi-ssing and moaning about shrimping destroying their inside fishing as some of the recs here in NC claim. Why do you claim that pound nets and other gear used to catch flounder are so much better for flounder? In case you do not realize this a dead flounder is a dead flounder regardless if its caught by a gill net, a pound net, a gigger or a rod and reel. I will agree that hatcheries are an excellent idea but groups like the CCA will fight that tooth and nail at least until they get rid of most inside commercial fishing. After a while they will be supporting hatcheries as they have in Texas and Florida due to many recs not catching all they want even after banning the nets in those 2 States.


The main issue with gill nets is they aren't selective enough, and when left to soak for too long, kill everything it catches. Now key all the refuting, but I've seen it with my own two eyes.

This is all beside my point. It's all the citizens' resource, and the agency tasked with managing it for us has been strong-armed by 13 thugs from the state legislature and thus prevented from taking any protective measures on behalf of the citizens.
  
View user's profile Send private message

FishingTheNeuse
Posts: 179
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:01 pm
jasonafox wrote:


The main issue with gill nets is they aren't selective enough, and when left to soak for too long, kill everything it catches.



So, the issue is not really the use of the net itself so much as how it's used (how long it is left unattended).

I've read numerous back-n-forths on this...some say the gill nets are NOT themselves nonselective and others say they kill everything - when left to soak too long.

That suggests that problem is the soaking period...

So, serious questions:

(1) Why is it naive of me then to conclude that to improve the 'badness' of gill netting, the regs could be changed to reduce the time between them being pulled?

Or, said another way, is there something in the technique of gill netting that can be modified that can reduce bycatch mortality?

(2) If it is true that gill nets CAN be used in a manner that does not kill everything before the net is hauled, as many claim, why is there so much emphasis on 'banning nets' themselves rather than putting that effort into using the nets in a way that reduce bycatch mortality?

The point of this question is...is the goal to ban gill nets, or is the goal to reduce bycatch mortality? To read some comments and billboards, the nets themselves have taken on a certain evil agency little different than many people assume guns have.

Can the gear be used more effectively / more sustain-ably without an outright ban? If so, would the rec advocacy groups back off the stance of the 'ban gill nets' stance?

If not, can we see the hard data showing that so it cannot be disputed?

Quote:


This is all beside my point. It's all the citizens' resource, and the agency tasked with managing it for us has been strong-armed by 13 thugs from the state legislature and thus prevented from taking any protective measures on behalf of the citizens.



This is a certainly separate issue, with the following points:

(1) It would be MUCH harder for those legislators to get away with stuff like that and for DMF to ignore the input from the stakeholders if the stakeholders provided a united front rather than 2, 3 or even more divided, disjointed suggestions regarding what the problems are and how to fix them.

(2) We have to be careful in jumping to conclusions as to what "protective measures on behalf of the citizens" are. It is real easy to fall into the trap of assuming that equates only to "what I think the answer is."

Now, that's not to say the Evil 13 were right to do what they did. But as you yourself said earlier, that fact alone also does not mean the contra-point is right, too.

My question is, and continues to be...is it possible to find common ground so that every single NC fishing license holder (both coastal and inland) AND seafood consumer that cares enough about the issues to comment at all...say the same thing?

If so, or even close, the power does lie with us.
  
View user's profile Send private message

jward87
Posts: 135
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:19 pm
Yes it can the only time I leave a net unattended is when the spot runs in the ocean we leave them overnight. Any I fish for spotd, mullets, flounder, or trout we set the net drag around a weight on the inside of the nets for 5 to ten minutes and pull the nets up I have never had a dead flounder in the net now as far as what they do in Pamlico sound I dont know but in brunswick county this is how I fish.  
View user's profile Send private message

jasonafox
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:57 pm
I'm not a gill netting expert, by any stretch, I just know what I've seen, and what I can deduct from others accounts, like Mr. Ward who just admitted to letting his soak overnight.

Why are you putting it only on the recreational anglers to compromise and "provide a united front"? We can keep 6 flounders a day over 15" , and hundreds of thousands of us only accounted for 20% of the harvest according to the harvest data. Do you not agree that compromise is a two way street? What more do we compromise, and what difference will it make if we only account for 20% of the harvest anyway? We obviously do not have the power to sway the NCDMF.
I ask what should we recreational anglers do? Should we catch and release everything, and allow the status quo of commercial harvesting to continue? Give me an honest, realistic option to banning inshore gill nets and trawlers.

All I ever hear is backwoods "science" , outright denial and stonewalling, or"you just don't know how to fish". Compromise is a two way street.
  

Last edited by jasonafox on Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:49 pm; edited 6 times in total
View user's profile Send private message

allenj
Posts: 1103
Location: Sneads Ferry
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:57 pm
FishingTheNeuse wrote:
Sorry this is so long... tldnr version: Less in-fighting, more positive discussions, please. We are ALL fishermen "first" and rec, comm or other way down the list.

jasonafox wrote:


I think all those are excellent points, but none of those are really within the DMF's scope of powers, and it's their mission to manage a fishery.



True on both points...he DID make some really good points. And they are outside DMF's purview.

However, those points ARE within the scope of "powers" of everyone here using this forum. Some problems we face in regard to those points:

**Some folks support habitat loss and damage so long as they get THEIR beach house or new development...or the new highway built that saves THEM 6 minutes of travel time on a 2 hour trip.

**Some folks support "cheap" groceries even if it takes tons of chemical fertilizers and run-off to produce it.

Etc. The list could go on.

All this leads to the next point...

Quote:
It's a very complicated issue


Indeed it is.

This is why 1-2 sentence 'sound bite' style snarky responses on forums get so aggravating.

Banning inshore nets won't solve every problem. Some folks act like (they think) it will.

Banning inshore trawling won't some every problem. Something think it will.

Banning commercial fishing won't. Banning this or that won't either. The issues are far too complex to have simple solutions.

I've been reading this forum for quite a while and occasionally jump in. I often get my crap jumped when I say something I think needs to be said to "slow down" the conversation and hopefully get folks to think about an angle they perhaps have not thought of (or have dismissed).

Here's my observation: lots of folks like to complain. Lots like to lay blame. It's always the other guy's fault, and if the other guy would 'just change,' the world would be rainbows and unicorns.

Few solutions are offered. Often, they are derided and ridiculed. That's been my experience.

Only one person here continually tries to steer the conversation to solutions rather than complaints: Chris McCaffity.

We don't all have to agree that Chris' solutions are "the best." But at least he's TRYING to offer a path forward...which is unfortunately rare.

The other thing...another 'complication' if you will...there is no ONE answer. The 'solutions' are probably species specific and the best solution for each species may overlap in complicated ways.

But, here's what I'd like to see as a NC recreational fisherman (40+ years NC fishing experience, but who does not get to fish NEAR as much as he would like these days, but still...): less complaining and finger pointing and more solutions discussed.

True, that's not going to solve everything, either. DMF would have to LISTEN to "our solutions" but one thing is sure: if we speak to them with a UNITED voice, they are far more likely to listen, especially if offered solutions are rational, science based and...well...less "selfish" sounding than most of the 'complaints' are.

I get that 'one voice' is a goal of RFA and CCA and similar groups. But, for whatever reason, in practice they've turned out to be part of the overall divisiveness that is fragmenting the fishing community.

The reason I say a lot of solutions sound selfish and rec groups are divisive is that I don't think "ban nets" or "ban trawlers" are the panacea solutions a lot of folks believe them to be. Those solutions may well be PART of an overall plan, but I just don't think if NC bans inshore gill nets, for example, the fishing will magically improve or the fisheries will magically become more sustainable.

On other words, I think there's a whole of oversimplification going on and with that, a whole lot of unrealistic expectations.



Solution.....
all nets banned inshore
cast net only for mullet
1,000,000 pound yearly hook and line commercial quota for specks
500,000 pound yearly hook and line comm quota for reds
Do you realize how many red drum and small flounder large mesh kills? Apparently not. You should also spend some time fishing in other states, the difference is so clear.
Is that better?
_________________
Bread Man 1
http://breadmanventures.com/
Fishing Topsail/Sneads Ferry
Inshore Fishing/Flounder Gigging Charters
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

ChrisMcCaffity
Posts: 1538
Reply with quote
Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:20 pm
FishingTheNeuse wrote:
jasonafox wrote:


The main issue with gill nets is they aren't selective enough, and when left to soak for too long, kill everything it catches.



So, the issue is not really the use of the net itself so much as how it's used (how long it is left unattended).

I've read numerous back-n-forths on this...some say the gill nets are NOT themselves nonselective and others say they kill everything - when left to soak too long.

That suggests that problem is the soaking period...

So, serious questions:

(1) Why is it naive of me then to conclude that to improve the 'badness' of gill netting, the regs could be changed to reduce the time between them being pulled?

Or, said another way, is there something in the technique of gill netting that can be modified that can reduce bycatch mortality?

(2) If it is true that gill nets CAN be used in a manner that does not kill everything before the net is hauled, as many claim, why is there so much emphasis on 'banning nets' themselves rather than putting that effort into using the nets in a way that reduce bycatch mortality?

The point of this question is...is the goal to ban gill nets, or is the goal to reduce bycatch mortality? To read some comments and billboards, the nets themselves have taken on a certain evil agency little different than many people assume guns have.

Can the gear be used more effectively / more sustain-ably without an outright ban? If so, would the rec advocacy groups back off the stance of the 'ban gill nets' stance?

If not, can we see the hard data showing that so it cannot be disputed?

Quote:


This is all beside my point. It's all the citizens' resource, and the agency tasked with managing it for us has been strong-armed by 13 thugs from the state legislature and thus prevented from taking any protective measures on behalf of the citizens.



This is a certainly separate issue, with the following points:

(1) It would be MUCH harder for those legislators to get away with stuff like that and for DMF to ignore the input from the stakeholders if the stakeholders provided a united front rather than 2, 3 or even more divided, disjointed suggestions regarding what the problems are and how to fix them.

(2) We have to be careful in jumping to conclusions as to what "protective measures on behalf of the citizens" are. It is real easy to fall into the trap of assuming that equates only to "what I think the answer is."

Now, that's not to say the Evil 13 were right to do what they did. But as you yourself said earlier, that fact alone also does not mean the contra-point is right, too.

My question is, and continues to be...is it possible to find common ground so that every single NC fishing license holder (both coastal and inland) AND seafood consumer that cares enough about the issues to comment at all...say the same thing?

If so, or even close, the power does lie with us.
wtg  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

CoastalCarolina
Posts: 2352
Location: Ocean Isle Beach
Reply with quote
Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:38 pm
jward87 wrote:
Everytime I prove a point you start the name calling, class act jasonfox. You have never commercial fish you don't know nothing about it all you do is read information about for every study you find I can grant you I can find one that is the opposite.


Have not seen you prove anything. Whine~ yes, cry~ yes, BS ~ lots. Fact and statistics plus science (other than the recent grad Schill hired that knows nothing) says gill nets do not belong in inside waters. Only a complete idiot can say trawling belongs inside the inlets. DE indicates nearly daily NC comms are incompetent and cannot compete with comms in other states. You are proving his point.
  
View user's profile Send private message

CoastalCarolina
Posts: 2352
Location: Ocean Isle Beach
Reply with quote
Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:41 pm
jaybyrd83ecu wrote:
With the continual discussion of it just being Rec -v- Comms I find it hard to believe that other factors haven't came up.

There is a great increase in chemical and farm run off over the past 30 years. No one is going to them and reducing commercial farm chemical usage. There is also a significant increase in the Cormorant and other marine bird populations that consume millions of pounds of juvenile fish daily. Why not have an open season on them critters and see what happens in a few years? Or how about how our inlets have become increasingly shallow due to Core of Engineers not allowing them to naturally shift or placing jetties to keep it in one place? Do you think those schools of ocean going fish want to come through a shallow inlet whose water looks like a sandy cloud when the tide rips in and out now?


lmao Always blame someone or something else. By the way ~~ ever see the development along the FL coast? know what their fishery is like? Tell schill that BS does not work and you need some new BS.
  
View user's profile Send private message

CoastalCarolina
Posts: 2352
Location: Ocean Isle Beach
Reply with quote
Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:50 pm
ChrisMcCaffity wrote:
I am a commercial fisherman who thinks we should manage our fisheries so they sustainably feed as many people as possible while supporting world-class recreational fisheries. Hatcheries and habitat enhancement seem to be the best way to do this. Think about if you would rather see regulations that increase our freedom and food supply or diminish them.


Always looking to sell more that someone else pays for! How about the comm industry build and maintain a hatchery and take 150% of what you produce annually when mature? No other industry takes from the public trust at no cost. Take, take like a welfare queen.
  
View user's profile Send private message

CoastalCarolina
Posts: 2352
Location: Ocean Isle Beach
Reply with quote
Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:54 pm
downeaster wrote:
I could support a referendum if it were worded something like this; As a voter in NC would you be supportive of a commercial fishing ban in NC waters so that the only ones that has access to its marine resources were the recs that lived along the coast or the money to spend time along our coast ?


No one is talking about banning commercial fishing in NC waters! it is proven gigs and pound nets can take all the resource can sustain without the bycatch of gill nets. Keep the nets but have a TAC and sell zero bycatch as it is known many only want a flounder season in December in order "to pack my reds".
  
View user's profile Send private message

CoastalCarolina
Posts: 2352
Location: Ocean Isle Beach
Reply with quote
Sat Oct 31, 2015 10:57 pm
FishingTheNeuse remember when asked about compromise the reply was they would "not give up one damn shrimp".  
View user's profile Send private message

CoastalCarolina
Posts: 2352
Location: Ocean Isle Beach
Reply with quote
Sat Oct 31, 2015 11:06 pm
72% ~~ about right but sold to dealers that sell out of state. Very little is consumed by NC citizens. Of course they can find it in restaurants in NY and Disney Land and some certainly comes back from the distributors in other states to grocery stores.  
View user's profile Send private message

ChrisMcCaffity
Posts: 1538
Reply with quote
Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:08 am
FishingTheNeuse wrote:
jasonafox wrote:


The main issue with gill nets is they aren't selective enough, and when left to soak for too long, kill everything it catches.



So, the issue is not really the use of the net itself so much as how it's used (how long it is left unattended).

I've read numerous back-n-forths on this...some say the gill nets are NOT themselves nonselective and others say they kill everything - when left to soak too long.

That suggests that problem is the soaking period...

So, serious questions:

(1) Why is it naive of me then to conclude that to improve the 'badness' of gill netting, the regs could be changed to reduce the time between them being pulled?

Or, said another way, is there something in the technique of gill netting that can be modified that can reduce bycatch mortality?

(2) If it is true that gill nets CAN be used in a manner that does not kill everything before the net is hauled, as many claim, why is there so much emphasis on 'banning nets' themselves rather than putting that effort into using the nets in a way that reduce bycatch mortality?

The point of this question is...is the goal to ban gill nets, or is the goal to reduce bycatch mortality? To read some comments and billboards, the nets themselves have taken on a certain evil agency little different than many people assume guns have.

Can the gear be used more effectively / more sustain-ably without an outright ban? If so, would the rec advocacy groups back off the stance of the 'ban gill nets' stance?

If not, can we see the hard data showing that so it cannot be disputed?

Quote:


This is all beside my point. It's all the citizens' resource, and the agency tasked with managing it for us has been strong-armed by 13 thugs from the state legislature and thus prevented from taking any protective measures on behalf of the citizens.



This is a certainly separate issue, with the following points:

(1) It would be MUCH harder for those legislators to get away with stuff like that and for DMF to ignore the input from the stakeholders if the stakeholders provided a united front rather than 2, 3 or even more divided, disjointed suggestions regarding what the problems are and how to fix them.

(2) We have to be careful in jumping to conclusions as to what "protective measures on behalf of the citizens" are. It is real easy to fall into the trap of assuming that equates only to "what I think the answer is."

Now, that's not to say the Evil 13 were right to do what they did. But as you yourself said earlier, that fact alone also does not mean the contra-point is right, too.

My question is, and continues to be...is it possible to find common ground so that every single NC fishing license holder (both coastal and inland) AND seafood consumer that cares enough about the issues to comment at all...say the same thing?

If so, or even close, the power does lie with us.


This is a great example of what unbiased critical thinking can produce.
Greed and/or anger keep many on both sides from thinking clearly about what would be best for everyone and the resource.
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

jasonafox
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Reply with quote
Sun Nov 01, 2015 8:09 pm
ChrisMcCaffity wrote:
FishingTheNeuse wrote:
jasonafox wrote:


The main issue with gill nets is they aren't selective enough, and when left to soak for too long, kill everything it catches.



So, the issue is not really the use of the net itself so much as how it's used (how long it is left unattended).

I've read numerous back-n-forths on this...some say the gill nets are NOT themselves nonselective and others say they kill everything - when left to soak too long.

That suggests that problem is the soaking period...

So, serious questions:

(1) Why is it naive of me then to conclude that to improve the 'badness' of gill netting, the regs could be changed to reduce the time between them being pulled?



Or, said another way, is there something in the technique of gill netting that can be modified that can reduce bycatch mortality?

(2) If it is true that gill nets CAN be used in a manner that does not kill everything before the net is hauled, as many claim, why is there so much emphasis on 'banning nets' themselves rather than putting that effort into using the nets in a way that reduce bycatch mortality?

The point of this question is...is the goal to ban gill nets, or is the goal to reduce bycatch mortality? To read some comments and billboards, the nets themselves have taken on a certain evil agency little different than many people assume guns have.

Can the gear be used more effectively / more sustain-ably without an outright ban? If so, would the rec advocacy groups back off the stance of the 'ban gill nets' stance?

If not, can we see the hard data showing that so it cannot be disputed?

Quote:


This is all beside my point. It's all the citizens' resource, and the agency tasked with managing it for us has been strong-armed by 13 thugs from the state legislature and thus prevented from taking any protective measures on behalf of the citizens.



This is a certainly separate issue, with the following points:

(1) It would be MUCH harder for those legislators to get away with stuff like that and for DMF to ignore the input from the stakeholders if the stakeholders provided a united front rather than 2, 3 or even more divided, disjointed suggestions regarding what the problems are and how to fix them.

(2) We have to be careful in jumping to conclusions as to what "protective measures on behalf of the citizens" are. It is real easy to fall into the trap of assuming that equates only to "what I think the answer is."

Now, that's not to say the Evil 13 were right to do what they did. But as you yourself said earlier, that fact alone also does not mean the contra-point is right, too.

My question is, and continues to be...is it possible to find common ground so that every single NC fishing license holder (both coastal and inland) AND seafood consumer that cares enough about the issues to comment at all...say the same thing?

G

If so, or even close, the power does lie with us.


This is a great example of what unbiased critical thinking can produce.
Greed and/or anger keep many on both sides from thinking clearly about what would be best for everyone and the resource.


Greed??? Chris, I don't make a red cent off a fish I catch. How about you? I respect your opinion, but I'd prefer you keep your judgements on the clarity of my thinking to yourself.

This is a great example of what politically correct, offend no one thinking produces. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. There isn't one actionable item in that hot air, besides everybody get together for a group hug.
  
View user's profile Send private message

ChrisMcCaffity
Posts: 1538
Reply with quote
Mon Nov 02, 2015 7:15 am
jasonafox wrote:
ChrisMcCaffity wrote:
FishingTheNeuse wrote:
jasonafox wrote:


The main issue with gill nets is they aren't selective enough, and when left to soak for too long, kill everything it catches.



So, the issue is not really the use of the net itself so much as how it's used (how long it is left unattended).

I've read numerous back-n-forths on this...some say the gill nets are NOT themselves nonselective and others say they kill everything - when left to soak too long.

That suggests that problem is the soaking period...

So, serious questions:

(1) Why is it naive of me then to conclude that to improve the 'badness' of gill netting, the regs could be changed to reduce the time between them being pulled?



Or, said another way, is there something in the technique of gill netting that can be modified that can reduce bycatch mortality?

(2) If it is true that gill nets CAN be used in a manner that does not kill everything before the net is hauled, as many claim, why is there so much emphasis on 'banning nets' themselves rather than putting that effort into using the nets in a way that reduce bycatch mortality?

The point of this question is...is the goal to ban gill nets, or is the goal to reduce bycatch mortality? To read some comments and billboards, the nets themselves have taken on a certain evil agency little different than many people assume guns have.

Can the gear be used more effectively / more sustain-ably without an outright ban? If so, would the rec advocacy groups back off the stance of the 'ban gill nets' stance?

If not, can we see the hard data showing that so it cannot be disputed?

Quote:


This is all beside my point. It's all the citizens' resource, and the agency tasked with managing it for us has been strong-armed by 13 thugs from the state legislature and thus prevented from taking any protective measures on behalf of the citizens.



This is a certainly separate issue, with the following points:

(1) It would be MUCH harder for those legislators to get away with stuff like that and for DMF to ignore the input from the stakeholders if the stakeholders provided a united front rather than 2, 3 or even more divided, disjointed suggestions regarding what the problems are and how to fix them.

(2) We have to be careful in jumping to conclusions as to what "protective measures on behalf of the citizens" are. It is real easy to fall into the trap of assuming that equates only to "what I think the answer is."

Now, that's not to say the Evil 13 were right to do what they did. But as you yourself said earlier, that fact alone also does not mean the contra-point is right, too.

My question is, and continues to be...is it possible to find common ground so that every single NC fishing license holder (both coastal and inland) AND seafood consumer that cares enough about the issues to comment at all...say the same thing?

G

If so, or even close, the power does lie with us.


This is a great example of what unbiased critical thinking can produce.
Greed and/or anger keep many on both sides from thinking clearly about what would be best for everyone and the resource.


Greed??? Chris, I don't make a red cent off a fish I catch. How about you? I respect your opinion, but I'd prefer you keep your judgements on the clarity of my thinking to yourself.

This is a great example of what politically correct, offend no one thinking produces. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. There isn't one actionable item in that hot air, besides everybody get together for a group hug.


I didn't mention any names of those who may be blinded by greed and/or anger. It is really not my place to judge any individual. Greed and/or anger seem to be ever-present evils that create gridlock and keep positive solutions that benefit everyone from being implemented.
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

jasonafox
Posts: 605
Location: The LA
Reply with quote
Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:29 am
Chris,
Whose comment were you quoting? I think you're a smart, reasonable guy, but if the NCDMF is waiting for every guy with a fishing license to sing the same tune, we might as well catch everything we can now, and to hell with the future, because that will NEVER happen.

"Leaders" don't need a 100% consensus to take action. Problem is, we have lapdogs, not leaders. This flounder situation is just one in a laundry list of issues in this state with the same underlying themes of corruption. This state's government is great at taking a large bit of our hard earned money, and re-assigning it to the handful of chosen ones that have the connections, so maybe that explains the skepticism behind giving these same fools more money to implement hatcheries, when most believe the problem could be solved in other ways that don't involve higher fees to access our public resources.

I for one, would pony up for my share of a hatchery, because I think it's the only thing we may get even a little support on from the commercial industry, but I don't believe many ohers are so inclined. And can you hardly blame them???
  
View user's profile Send private message

cantgitright
Posts: 465
Reply with quote
Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:25 am
Kinda a sad situation, Honestly guys I have fished from snows cut to Lockwood folly inlet since I was just big enough to get in my ole dad's boat, and we still always find quality fish in this area just like we used to!? But what really comes to mind for me is how on a average day of flounder fishing me and the ole man will bring home 6 to 8 quality fish for the friends and family and let the others swim. But if I took the hook and line catch from 5 of the top friends and guides I know in this area daily we couldn't supply 1/4 of the markets and restaurants in Brunswick and new Hanover county with "fresh local fish"..And I see tackle shops in our area advertising "we have plenty of live shrimp" and I wonder they must be getting the bait size shrimp from inland trawling boats? But with that said I guess I'm just wondering what would be be the best way to provide "fresh local" seafood to people who travel from hundreds of miles inland to spend there vacations in our areas just to have " fresh local" on there plate when they spend there hard earned money in our home towns?  
View user's profile Send private message

ChrisMcCaffity
Posts: 1538
Reply with quote
Tue Nov 03, 2015 7:29 am
jasonafox wrote:
Chris,
Whose comment were you quoting? I think you're a smart, reasonable guy, but if the NCDMF is waiting for every guy with a fishing license to sing the same tune, we might as well catch everything we can now, and to hell with the future, because that will NEVER happen.

"Leaders" don't need a 100% consensus to take action. Problem is, we have lapdogs, not leaders. This flounder situation is just one in a laundry list of issues in this state with the same underlying themes of corruption. This state's government is great at taking a large bit of our hard earned money, and re-assigning it to the handful of chosen ones that have the connections, so maybe that explains the skepticism behind giving these same fools more money to implement hatcheries, when most believe the problem could be solved in other ways that don't involve higher fees to access our public resources.

I for one, would pony up for my share of a hatchery, because I think it's the only thing we may get even a little support on from the commercial industry, but I don't believe many ohers are so inclined. And can you hardly blame them???


I was quoting the words of FishingTheNeuse who made some very good points. My comment about greed and/or anger keeping many on both sides from thinking clearly come from frustration with the general mindset many people seem to have. Anger has much more influence than greed, but there are some who want it all for themselves. Anger can be harnessed and used in peaceful ways to advance positive solutions.

You are absolutely right that we will never get 100% consensus on any fishery issues and don't need it. "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

Hatcheries are the one thing most fishermen agree would help everyone and the resource if done properly. I invite you and anyone interested including skeptics to join a discussion about how hatcheries should be run and funded. I will start a thread on the Responsible Fisheries Forum about this next week. I will be meeting with some stocking experts this weekend and want to learn more from them before starting that thread.

You are a smart guy Jason and I appreciate your passion for the health of our fisheries. We don't have to agree on every issue to work together on others. Thank you for taking time to be part of important discussions.
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

sprayman58
Posts: 43
Reply with quote
Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:49 pm
I understood they said that 96 per cent of all flounder consumed in the US came from NC waters. That seems unlikely, if true no wonder they are in trouble. But given all of the other data FOBAR's numbers I just find that hard to believe. I am not for putting anybody out of a job but I find it highly unlikely that someone could support themselves by commercial gigging given the amount of nights that wind, muddy water, etc make gigging impossible. Now extra income from your normal job, sure. But that's not your primary income. So why does a commercial have the right to gig a 14" flounder when a rec. cannot ? They touched on the fact that commercial license are so easy to get by anyone with a couple thousand dollars. Almost all recreational giggers I know are holding commercial license just to be able to gig unlimited numbers and down to 14" and never sell a fish. If you are gigging commercial your size should be the same as mine. I would have no problem with your limits if you played by the same rules. In January you can still find good numbers of 14" fish but no 15". Those mature ones have gone out to spawn. That should tell you at what size they are mature and at what size to put off limits.  
View user's profile Send private message

Computer_Connections
Posts: 149
Location: Wilmington, NC
Reply with quote
Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:13 pm
I think they meant all "wild caught" southern flounder consumed.

Not much different from the "wild caught" red drum supply.

I spent many years involved in this thing we call fisheries management. And at many levels including serving on various MFC advisory committees as well as Seagrant.

As far as this hatchery business, I once had lunch with the infamous Jerry Schill before a MFC meeting and we discussed many things. But my main question to him was what can recs and commercials come together on to support.

He said NOTHING...... except hatcheries.

That was it. Nothing else. NATTA

Then we went to the MFC meeting and he proceeded to stick a knife in my back and attacked me as a no good rec who was out to steal everyone's livelihood and causes children to starve.

I went there in good faith.

How do you deal with this type of attitude?

Personally, I don't think you can.

BW

PS - I forgot to mention I was there to support a petition that would require REC large mesh gill netters to attend their d*m nets. This was somehow taken as a direct threat to COMMERCIAL fishermen??
  
View user's profile Send private message

ChrisMcCaffity
Posts: 1538
Reply with quote
Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:50 am
I am sorry to hear about your experience Computer_Connections. That kind of attitude does not help anything.

Do you think hatcheries are the one thing that most fishermen on both sides can agree on or is there something else?

What do you think about establishing separate Naturally Occurring Quotas and Hatchery Supported Quotas for both sectors and letting stakeholders decide how to manage them?
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

allenj
Posts: 1103
Location: Sneads Ferry
Reply with quote
Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:55 am
How about we outlaw gill nets and make it legal to hook and line commercially with daily limits? Just as they do in other states.
_________________
Bread Man 1
http://breadmanventures.com/
Fishing Topsail/Sneads Ferry
Inshore Fishing/Flounder Gigging Charters
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Capt_Dave
Posts: 12331
Location: Cape Fear, NC
Reply with quote
Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:56 pm
I have deleted several 1st posts this morning about this.

There is already a thread about it. Right here.

Dave
_________________
Captain Dave Tilley
910-264-3973

Let\'s go kill something!
Carolina Beach Fishing Charters
  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic   Reply to topic


Jump to:   

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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Net Effect ~~ WRAL documentary - SaltwaterCentral.Com