Notices
Like Tree157Likes

Gill netter neighbor

Old 01-10-2019, 12:29 PM
  #181  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 190
Default

Originally Posted by glacierbaze View Post
What would be a typical winning bid to harvest a hundred acres of Forest Service timber? Never understood why we give marine resources away.
My understanding is NF timber is often sold below market value. I am not sure why. Possibly access, red tape, aggravation maybe to be able to award to special circumstance bidders.
Finsinchessy is offline  
Old 01-10-2019, 01:20 PM
  #182  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 394
Default

As a rule the gov likes to keep prices on food products as low as possible and many States do not even place a sales tax on it. Unlike lawyers, insurance salesmen, law enforcement, firefighters, stock brokers, salesmen, etc etc which one can live a happy life without its a totally different story when it comes to folks that provide food to us.
gillnetflounderman is offline  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:09 PM
  #183  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 272
Default

Originally Posted by glacierbaze View Post
What would be a typical winning bid to harvest a hundred acres of Forest Service timber? Never understood why we give marine resources away.
so true glacier, but in addition to that, can you imagine a logging company that would cut down four trees and only take one to market while leaving the other three to rot? Of course, the logging company has to actually pay for the trees they harvest. If the trees were free they just might be that wasteful. I doubt there is an industry anywhere in the world that thinks that is okay with the obvious exception we are discussing here.
PhilRhodes is offline  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:28 PM
  #184  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 233
Default

Originally Posted by PhilRhodes View Post
so true glacier, but in addition to that, can you imagine a logging company that would cut down four trees and only take one to market while leaving the other three to rot? Of course, the logging company has to actually pay for the trees they harvest. If the trees were free they just might be that wasteful. I doubt there is an industry anywhere in the world that thinks that is okay with the obvious exception we are discussing here.
Aren't most logging companies required to.plant trees for ones the log as well?
ECU_Pirate is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 06:53 AM
  #185  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 300
Default

Originally Posted by gillnetflounderman View Post
Commercial fishermen are simply fishermen that do it to make a profit, much like charter fishermen and fishing guides. Commercial fishermen catch fish to provide seafood to consumers much like farmers grow and harvest crops to provide food and if you guys feel compelled to argue against my statement then by all means knock yourselves out. As a side note do you have any idea as to how much tax dollars are given to farmers each year to not grow a crop? Farmers get plenty of tax dollars and I do not have any problem with that at all since people that provide food for us to eat need all the breaks they can get and that would also include commercial fishermen. Am against catch shares since I hate to see the big dogs end up with all the shares . The gov likes catch shares since less fishermen makes their job much easier.
You can't equate farming with commercial fishing. Apples to watermelons. Why? Because in farming (whether crop or livestock), you have a totally known commodity and you have the ability to calculate, with a high degree of accuracy, what your yield is going to be based on acreage, conditions, etc. Your argument would be more valid if farmland was owned and planted by the govt and then everyone got to access it to pick corn or harvest cows. But, wonder if that were the case and some people used a combine (taking a massive disproportionate amount) while others had to pick by hand? Of some people used pens to harvest a bunch of cows at once while other shot one at a time?
The govt can only estimate (with a low degree of accuracy) the health of our marine resources. But when one method takes 100 fish out of that resource (netting) and another takes 3 (hook/line), how is that justifiable? Just because that's your chosen career path?
bonecrusher1 is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 07:59 AM
  #186  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 394
Default

GEEZUS, Alright already, I never meant to imply that commercial fishing was exactly like farming but only to suggest that they are alike in some ways. A farmer can not be sure that the seed he plants in the spring will produce x amounts of product later in the Fall. They would not need crop insurance if that was the case. Commercial fishermen don't know what Nature will throw their way each year either. Either way both provide a product to eat and normally try to do it in such a way as to make a profit. totally agree though bonecrusher1 that the gov can only estimate with a low degree of accuracy the numbers of our marine fish since its pretty hard to count something that you can not see. It might not seem fair to see a commercial keep up to 75 specks per day while recs are only allowed 6 or is it 8 per day. But then again I know more than a few recs that will end up catching and killing more specks during a year than will most commercial fishermen. So should a annual limit be placed on recs?
gillnetflounderman is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 07:59 AM
  #187  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: over yonder
Posts: 10,085
Default

Originally Posted by gillnetflounderman View Post
As a rule the gov likes to keep prices on food products as low as possible and many States do not even place a sales tax on it. Unlike lawyers, insurance salesmen, law enforcement, firefighters, stock brokers, salesmen, etc etc which one can live a happy life without its a totally different story when it comes to folks that provide food to us.
same ole broken record..shut it all down for 2 years let’s see if there is any benefit.
ccat is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:23 AM
  #188  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 394
Default

Shut it dawn for a couple of years to achieve what? One of the primary reasons that flounder landings are relatively low is due to the sharp decrease in effort by commercial netters over the past 15 years. Then again that is exactly what the Fishery management plan demanded that the MFC do. Now folks are all upset that landings have dropped. Back about 15 years ago when I was on the southern flounder advisory committee we were told by the fisheries experts that we should have a spawning stock ratio of 25% in order to bring flounder back to a viable condition. Somewhere between 2005 and 2009 the experts decided to up that target from 25% to 35% so that automatically meant that the stocks were still being overfished. How can we meet our targets when the damn target is always changing? Another thing back in 2003 we were told that 50% of female southern flounder are mature or able to reproduce. Think it went to 14 inches followed by 15 inches now for 50% of these flounder to reach maturity. As I said the damn target keeps on moving which implies to me that no one seems to know what to do in the first place. I have fished flounder with my 2, 100 yd nets each Fall now for the past 5 years and have noticed no increase or decrease in my landings during that 6 weeks period that I fish. Getting back to my first sentence, A total ban on flounder for 2 years will likely improve flounder numbers at the end of those 2 years but this will not keep most recs from pissing and moaning about netters which means that the NCDMF must doing something to appease these recs.
gillnetflounderman is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:38 AM
  #189  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Weddington, NC
Posts: 2,420
Default

Is it Southern flounder or Summer flounder that you guys are arguing about?

Doesn't NC just manage both stocks based on where they are caught? In other words, all inshore flounder are considered southern no matter what species it actually is?
Squid Row is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:00 AM
  #190  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 379
Default

Originally Posted by Squid Row View Post
Is it Southern flounder or Summer flounder that you guys are arguing about?

Doesn't NC just manage both stocks based on where they are caught? In other words, all inshore flounder are considered southern no matter what species it actually is?
The discussion above is about Southern Flounder, but it spills over to all flounder landed in state waters.

For recreational anglers a problem with Southern will probably spill over to rules affecting Summer and Gulf on the nearshore reefs and ledges. The DMF is currently managing recreational harvest the same for all flounders- Summer, Southern and Gulf. It's my understanding from a very knowledgeable guide that we're seeing fewer Summer flounder this far South with warming ocean waters and the one's that do make it this far South have a hard time hitting the current uniform minimum size limit of 15" for all flounder



Summer Flounder has it's own problems-

http://www.asmfc.org/species/summer-flounder

Stock Status
The 2016 stock assessment update indicates the summer flounder stock is not overfished but is experiencing overfishing. Fishing mortality exceeded its threshold by 26% (i.e., the level beyond which overfishing is occurring). The 2015 estimate of spawning stock biomass (SSB) is at 58% of the biomass target, and only 16% above the threshold. These results appear to be driven largely by below-average recruitment, as the assessment update indicates that the stock experienced six years of below average year classes from 2010 to 2015. Additionally, indices of abundance from state and federal surveys have indicated declines in abundance ranging from 9 to 97% from their most recent peaks (generally 2009 to 2012). The 2016 assessment update estimated biomass has been trending down since 2010.

The Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council approved an acceptable biological catch (ABC) limit of 11.3 million pounds for the 2017 fishing season, a 30% decrease from 2016. After accounting for projected discards in the commercial and recreational fisheries, this ABC is divided into a commercial quota of 5.66 million pounds and a recreational harvest limit of 3.77 million pounds.
Attached Images  

Last edited by Rick S; 01-11-2019 at 09:07 AM.
Rick S is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:08 AM
  #191  
Admirals ClubCaptains Club Member Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Whiteville NC / Little River SC
Posts: 4,255
Default

Originally Posted by ECU_Pirate View Post
Aren't most logging companies required to.plant trees for ones the log as well?
No
lumberman is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:09 AM
  #192  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: On the Flats
Posts: 7,069
Default

NC is better off to band the inshore nets 100%, FL has close to 30 years of data for you guys to look at........
ccat and Aleon like this.
Flatout71 is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:11 AM
  #193  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 902
Default

Originally Posted by gillnetflounderman View Post
GEEZUS, Alright already, I never meant to imply that commercial fishing was exactly like farming but only to suggest that they are alike in some ways. A farmer can not be sure that the seed he plants in the spring will produce x amounts of product later in the Fall. They would not need crop insurance if that was the case. Commercial fishermen don't know what Nature will throw their way each year either. Either way both provide a product to eat and normally try to do it in such a way as to make a profit. totally agree though bonecrusher1 that the gov can only estimate with a low degree of accuracy the numbers of our marine fish since its pretty hard to count something that you can not see. It might not seem fair to see a commercial keep up to 75 specks per day while recs are only allowed 6 or is it 8 per day. But then again I know more than a few recs that will end up catching and killing more specks during a year than will most commercial fishermen. So should a annual limit be placed on recs?

Last edited by Aleon; 01-11-2019 at 09:21 AM.
Aleon is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:25 PM
  #194  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Salter Path
Posts: 1,573
Default

Originally Posted by ECU_Pirate View Post
Aren't most logging companies required to.plant trees for ones the log as well?
No but the industry does because it's part of their successful business. As the largest landowner in NC for example, weyerhouser plants the most trees as part of their successful management plan. It is a completely renewable resource.

Fishing has no comparisons. The commercial fishing industry does not plant fish to stock for the future. On the contrary they will completely destroy a resource by destroying the habitat. See boyue sound scallops as a great example. One the scallop producing capital of the US, they fished it out of existence.
rtaggio and Aleon like this.
one wolf is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:36 PM
  #195  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 272
Default

haha, the first time I heard Comms compared to farmers it came from Brent Jackson. I asked him what did the Comms plant. He was not happy with the question. It's a joke. In NC our marine fisheries are managed for the lowest economic benefit to the public.
Aleon likes this.

Last edited by PhilRhodes; 01-11-2019 at 12:42 PM.
PhilRhodes is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:45 PM
  #196  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Weddington, NC
Posts: 2,420
Default

Originally Posted by one wolf View Post
No but the industry does because it's part of their successful business. As the largest landowner in NC for example, weyerhouser plants the most trees as part of their successful management plan. It is a completely renewable resource.

Fishing has no comparisons. The commercial fishing industry does not plant fish to stock for the future. On the contrary they will completely destroy a resource by destroying the habitat. See boyue sound scallops as a great example. One the scallop producing capital of the US, they fished it out of existence.
Bay scallops are a bad example. Bay scallops only live a little over a year. Once they have a growth ring on the shell they have reached maturity and can be harvested. The habitat is not destroyed in harvesting bay scallops. The dredges used do not dig into the grass beds where scallops live, they scrape across the top and since this is done in winter when the grass beds are going dormant, the plant survives. We could have a hand harvest fishery that would not disturb any habitat, would provide income to fishermen and would allow for the harvest of what the rays leave behind provided a minimum size was implemented, which was never done in the past.

if you want to talk about habitat destruction though, the mechanical clam and oyster fisheries are major culprits. They knock over and destroy everything in their path, flood the markets which drive down the prices for the locals, then move on to commit their destruction in the next area.

Eliminate the mechanical harvest, the price of shellfish will go up for the traditional harvesters and that would allow more fishermen to get in the game too. That would also take some of the pressure off and move some part time netters back into the shellfish game.
Rick S and Aleon like this.
Squid Row is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:18 PM
  #197  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: over yonder
Posts: 10,085
Default

Not
Originally Posted by Squid Row View Post
Bay scallops are a bad example. Bay scallops only live a little over a year. Once they have a growth ring on the shell they have reached maturity and can be harvested. The habitat is not destroyed in harvesting bay scallops. The dredges used do not dig into the grass beds where scallops live, they scrape across the top and since this is done in winter when the grass beds are going dormant, the plant survives. We could have a hand harvest fishery that would not disturb any habitat, would provide income to fishermen and would allow for the harvest of what the rays leave behind provided a minimum size was implemented, which was never done in the past.

if you want to talk about habitat destruction though, the mechanical clam and oyster fisheries are major culprits. They knock over and destroy everything in their path, flood the markets which drive down the prices for the locals, then move on to commit their destruction in the next area.

Eliminate the mechanical harvest, the price of shellfish will go up for the traditional harvesters and that would allow more fishermen to get in the game too. That would also take some of the pressure off and move some part time netters back into the shellfish game.
Part time netting shouldn’t be allowed.....they arent doing it to make a living but to have a commercial versus recreational limit.
ccat is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:31 PM
  #198  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 10
Default

4 per day per person 14 inches or longer
swfishing777 is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:35 PM
  #199  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 394
Default

Originally Posted by PhilRhodes View Post
haha, the first time I heard Comms compared to farmers it came from Brent Jackson. I asked him what did the Comms plant. He was not happy with the question. It's a joke. In NC our marine fisheries are managed for the lowest economic benefit to the public.
Take it a step farther and you will discover that no one is planting anything in our marine waters other than a few shellfish growers.. Texas is raising millions of hatchery red drum, specks and flounder every year in order to try and keep their rec fishermen happy since doing away with netters back in the 70's did not accomplish anything other than putting a bunch of netters out of work. Think the Feds have a striped bass hatchery up near Edenton that they have been running ever since I can remember but that's about it. Its a well known fact that hatcheries work but then again if NC was to actually solve our fisheries problem, then someone in Raleigh might discover that they do not need all of them researchers to study these problems. Not many people now days willing to fix things in such a way as to put themselves out of work.
gillnetflounderman is offline  
Old 01-11-2019, 01:56 PM
  #200  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 272
Default

Texas knows that those hatcheries probably make money. Rec fishing is approching a billion dollar business in NC and is probably more so in Texas. It is funny that NC "plants" stripers in all three major river systems and then the Comms are allowed to harvest and sell them with no restitution to the taxpayers. It is just another of the fisheries scenarios in NC that is just too ridiculous to be fiction.
Rick S and swfishing777 like this.
PhilRhodes is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: