Snook Opening

[Heywood]

Did anyone else read that report? It made no sense to me what so ever.

I saw a lot of references to juveniles, but not a lot on breeders. A lot of assumptions in this report. And the fact they use recreational catch surveys concerns me as well, those things are not that accurate, especially if they interview guides. Some of those guys cant count.

Lets open it up and kill those fish that will be breeders next year.

[shamus]

Lets open it up and kill those fish that will be breeders next year.

Couldn't you use that argument every year.

[mauso1]

In other words...F!@# off.

Pretty much..bet everyone who sent an objection got the exact "standard" response

Did anyone else read that report? It made no sense to me what so ever.

Yep and IMO it was not impressive and flawed data at best

My main concern when I wrote them originally was " what if we have an extreme cold weather event ( freeze for you global warmers ) in winter 2014 ?
They should and could have set the re opening to the spring season and not pissed off anyone.

[John]

the Commission felt confident with the knowledge that an estimated 90% of anglers catch and release snook

So their data to open up for harvest is reliant on the good will of anglers, where did they dig up that 90% stat from.

This whole thing is a bad decision and a complete Sham, from what I have heard through the grapevine, they are missing the $ from the Snook stamp that nobody has bought since the moratorium. I wouldn't be surprised if the Snook Foundation was suffering similar loss of revenue and did a lot of whispering in the ears of the FWC to open it back up.

[DoubleM]

Get sum soap fish. Am I the only one looking forward to eating one soon? My spook jrs ready.

[mauso1]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Snook Foundation was suffering similar loss of revenue and did a lot of whispering in the ears of the FWC to open it back up.

Tru that

[Heywood]

the Commission felt confident with the knowledge that an estimated 90% of anglers catch and release snook

So their data to open up for harvest is reliant on the good will of anglers, where did they dig up that 90% stat from.

This whole thing is a bad decision and a complete Sham, from what I have heard through the grapevine, they are missing the $ from the Snook stamp that nobody has bought since the moratorium. I wouldn't be surprised if the Snook Foundation was suffering similar loss of revenue and did a lot of whispering in the ears of the FWC to open it back up.

There it is. Hate to say it John, but I totally agree with you. I've felt all along that its been about the money.

Just be careful standing up for your believes. You might be called an "Internet Bully" like I was.

[sfurman]

Would it be better if they just put it up for a vote and just let the fishermen decide how it should be managed? How would you guys do it?

[ChrisR]

Get sum soap fish. Am I the only one looking forward to eating one soon? My spook jrs ready.

I'm going to eat one.

[krash]

Would it be better if they just put it up for a vote and just let the fishermen decide how it should be managed? How would you guys do it?

The only way you could make some people happy would be to only allow "no" vote, I say let it be and see what happens. Or maybe they could make it optional and only the people who want to keep one can, the others can release.

[FrankC]

You know, we have kept only one snook for the table and that was back in 1974 or 1975. We stopped buying snook stamps many years ago and have no plans on ever buying another stamp. The rules are so restrictive that they are not worth the effort to fish for them.

People worry about another freeze. You do realize that they do occur and have happened from time to time over the centuries. There are still snook in the waters even so. It is normal for wildlife to go through cycles, and you will never change that.

There is a difference between conservationists and preservationists. While I agree whole heartedly with conservation, I disagree with preservationists. The preservationists do not spend one dime to protect a species, and that was brought home from many years of duck hunting where money was spent to protect the species rather than allowing nature to take its course. We have more birds through the efforts of spending money to further habitat rather than allowing habitat to be destroyed. Georgia was never a big area for Canadian geese, but we are over run with them today to the point that they are pests due to conservation work. The same goes for deer. You cannot do that with the weather and fish populations.

If you are really worried about the species, quit targeting them. Even if no one ever killed one, they will still be subject to natural conditions and populations will vary from time to time. You cannot farm them, as nature determines when they will have swings in population.

[John]

Frank, I would love to see us over run with Snook, but it's far from the case.
No offence meant here to you but as a year round Florida angler I can you Snook are a long way from recovered.
In the last 2 years I have fished over 100 times a year in areas where before the freeze I regularly caught Snook. Snook of all sizes and mostly in the under 24" range.
In those 200 trips I have caught 6 Snook, that's it.
Did I suddenly become an incompetent Snook fisherman, have Snook decided the habitat is no longer to their pleasing or are there just a lot less Snook?

I'll admit to leaning on the preservation side, I'd love to see them awarded the same status as bonefish and Tarpon, they are equal to them in my eyes for the sport they offer to the angler.

I have always bought my Snook stamp even though I had not kept a Snook since 2003, (I realized that catching a slot Snook was a true treasured moment and couldnt bring myself to lessen this opportunity for others, and myself, just to eat it) I wanted to support the FWC's efforts to promote protect and preserve the species.
But this time around I will not buy the stamp, the FWC does not have my or the Snooks best interests behind this decision.

[FrankC]

John, I believe you know that I hold you in high esteem, but it is impossible to change nature and things which occur naturally. Red tides, freezes, and other factors are much more devastating than man. Several years ago we saw the results of red tide with acres of gamefish floating belly up. The last freeze also did the same thing to certain species. These things occur naturally and, although depressing, they are beyond human control.

We can keep the narrow limits on legal fish size and possession limits to minimize effects on populations, but we cannot trump natural occurrences. When nature kills off a species in an area, it also allows new growth as conditions improve. A natural balance will be maintained unless people really hurt the population of a resource by netting and other commercial means.

Up here the freeze depressed the population of trout severely, but they have rebounded nicely. The redfish population is in exceptional shape. Thankfully that was a rare event, but it did occur and will happen again. There is nothing that can be done about it.

I see people becoming nearly militant about certain species, but that is unfortunately wasted effort which only causes disagreements. It has no effect on nature.

We should concentrate on things where we can have an impact. I have seen the shad population in local rivers devastated by the use of mono nets. The diamond back terrapin population has been severely harmed by acts of man. The snake and turtle populations in local rivers is depressed by messing with the balance of alligators. And our local river has been harmed greatly by allowing a dye plant to be built on a natural river which had been listed as protected. Once the fish die offs were noted, the state still has not curtailed the plant effluent. They did curtail swimming and caution about eating fish from the river. We are also facing harm to the marshes which are the breeding grounds of the Atlantic.

We enjoyed eating king mackerel roe and flesh years ago. Now we have to watch for mercury contamination. There are things where the efforts of the public can have an effect, and we should direct our efforts towards these things.

[John]

You're argument defeats itself Frank, if we as a human population can do nothing to help a species overcome natural reduction, why then has there been a 3 year moratorium on Snook harvest. Simply, because continued taking of a species thrown in to peril was against good judgement, to undo that affirmative action while the recovery is still along way from complete goes against the original intent of the moratorium.

[Rik]

........to undo that affirmative action while the recovery is still along way from complete goes against the original intent of the moratorium.

The 'open it up' side is using science to justify their stance. Lots of reports and graphs and measurements and numbers and spreadsheets. The 'keep it closed' side is using conjecture and personal experience. Lots of "I don't see recovery in my area" and "There used to be dozens under that dock light but now there are only 2 or 3" and "I haven't caught a slot snook in 2 years". While valid observation, it is not something that can be used to develop policy.

Agree or disagree with the science presented, science backed arguments will almost always win. Now, the FWC has certainly had it's science challenged in previous issues. Often it seems as if the science was developed to support a side instead of developing good policy.

Might be time for a scientific approach from the 'keep it closed' folks.

[FrankC]

Studies have been done whether properly or improperly. Hopefully the population will increase in the area, but nature will be the final judge.

I have a hard time getting my mind around how a species with such strict limits would be harmed by reasonable numbers taken compared to natural factors. The weather die off was very bad and management is important to the recovery of course. The fish have been native to the area for many years and will naturally rebound given favorable weather conditions. I am no way in favor of removing realistic regulations.