NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From A.P. Press

"Over 300 people with an interest in fluke turned out to participate in the "Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund" rally Monday night in Manasquan.

The affair raised money and demonstrated unity in trying to save the fishery. Recreational and commercial fishermen, state and federal legislators, businessmen, and representatives of clubs and activist organizations were among those who attended."

This post edited by twofinbluna 12:23 AM 01/24/2008
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,064 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Never easy to get 300 fishermen to come to a meeting and so it speaks to just how important this fluke issue is to have that turn out. Great idea to come together and fight this, no doubt it will help get things done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
twofinbluna wrote:
Never easy to get 300 fishermen to come to a meeting and so it speaks to just how important this fluke issue is to have that turn out. Great idea to come together and fight this, no doubt it will help get things done.


The only question is....for who?

NY doesn't sound like it's gonna be too happy when the official wod comes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
loligo wrote:
twofinbluna wrote:
Never easy to get 300 fishermen to come to a meeting and so it speaks to just how important this fluke issue is to have that turn out. Great idea to come together and fight this, no doubt it will help get things done.

The only question is....for who?

NY doesn't sound like it's gonna be too happy when the official wod comes.

No one is going to be happy with the 2008 regs. SSFFF has nothing to do with this years regulations, never did. There was no way to affect a change in either the MSA or the SAW(which hasn't happened yet) for 2008. They have nothing to do (or say) about what regs should or should not exist in any state. It's about fighting to assure that we actually have regs in the future. It's about changing the laqw to recognize that when a stock has quadrupled in size from it's low point that we should not be forced to shut down the fishery anyway because of a date on a calendar. If the fish were actually in trouble there would be little argument to be made. However, the exact opposite is true. Fluke are currently at the largest biomass ever recorded in the over 40 years they have been taking such measurements, and they are still going to be forced to shut down the fishery (or lower quotas to the point that it will be effectively shut anyway for commercial and rec fishermen) because of a deadline that someone forgot to tell the fish they were supposed to meet.

The whole issue is to get flexibility put into MSA (the same language that was stopped by the enviro industry lobby during the recent reauthorization) and to hire independent scientists to review the Fluke science (not just the Assessment but the reference points, etc....the whole shebang)

The question from the science end is if we see more fluke than anyone in history can remember seeing (from Mass to NC) and the stock is higher than ever recorded by the scientists (as it currently is) than how can we expect to see the stock be doubled from it's current status? Is the target too high to be achievable? Are the estimates of our current biomass too low? Is it a combination of the two? Is it the methodology used in determining those things? Is it the data input into and used in that methodology? Is it both?

We need these questions answered, regardless of the outcome. We need to pay for it ourselves, no one else is going to do it for us.

This has nothing to do with Jersey alone. This is not a "jersey" thing. It started there because that's where it started. If it stops with Jersey and never moves beyond it (which it has already started to move outside of NJ anyway) then we might as well hang up our gear and take up golf.

Just my .02

This post edited by CaptTB 07:11 AM 01/24/2008
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,425 Posts
the truth

The real truth is they may be trying but impossible to achive
you cannot keep a record of fish in the ocean to many factors related to impact the out come . you truly think you can monitor all the fluke and know what the mass is. Thats the whole joke:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
Tony's dead right on this, and it's not just about fluke, but about who will be fishing and how they will be fishing in the future (and whether those decisions will be made by the fishermen or by a bunch of the Big-Oil Main-line mega-rich and their minions).

Bottom line - we need better science and better laws, and nobody's going to give them to us, we're going to have to get 'em ourselves.

Ref the science, one thing I'll strenuously suggest is that we want scientists on our side who can - and do - get along with the NMFS and Council people, particularly the front-line people. Doing it by confrontation, though undoubtedly more instantly satisfying, isn't the way to get it done, 'cause it's the government people's game, their ball, their field, their concession stand and their scoreboard. We have to aim for the point where our people are a cooperating part of the management process, and that's not impossible, though a bit more difficult to do. And more expensive.

And it can't be a one-shot deal. The scientists you hire this week have to be around for forever, and you have to be collecting money to pay 'em forever. And if their money doesn't come from the fishing industry, they aren't working for the fishing industry. Simple as that.

Togmaster, we're never going to have all the answers, but the more we do have, the better we can make the management system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,425 Posts
agreed

Nils I agree and the best way is to start a new reference point
from the current data not old flawed data. Wit htechnology we get better and to use the 98 stats kills Ny in the running
They need to start a fresh ball game and take it from there
The base line is way off
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
togmaster wrote:
Nils I agree and the best way is to start a new reference point
from the current data not old flawed data. Wit htechnology we get better and to use the 98 stats kills Ny in the running
They need to start a fresh ball game and take it from there
The base line is way off

Togmaster, the issue is about reference points for the STOCK, not recreational quota allocations, commercial allocations, state regs, coastwide regs or any regs/allocations.

You are correct that other changes in management need to be made. If you were at the Addendum VIII hearing in NY a few years ago you would have heard me saying that the base year does need to be changed, and changed to match what has been done in every other fishery (timeframes greater than 1 year since it could be a bad year for some and good for others) but that it was criminal that NMFS/MAFMC/ASMFC would stick such a contentious issue into the end of a document who's main focus was an even more contentious issue, namely paybacks, and it should be it's own topic.

However, at this stage that is like arguing about how you want your eggs cooked, over-easy or sunny side up.

Since the real outcome of this whole thing if nothing is done or changed is going to be as removal of ALL THE EGGS from EVERYONE both commercial and rec, NY and NJ, does it make much sense to divert the issue about how to cook the eggs that no one will be allowed to have anyway?

Right now it is uncertain that there will be a long-term fishery, despite the fact thast the fish are more abundant now then ever recorded.

We are trying to assure there actually is a long term. Once that is done we can decide to argue over how to manage that long-term.

This post edited by CaptTB 10:24 AM 01/24/2008
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
nzajoe wrote:
http://www.ssfff.net/index.html go now

Nice to see that there is another organization out there (like RFA). If we keep splintering we will never be able to focus enough funds in one area. If you have 30 groups going in the same general direction but doing it there way, a lot of money will be wasted. Here is where the term "aggregate" is applicable ;). Support one or two major organizations. They already have a war chest building and have established contacts. The continued splintering removes money from bigger organizations and makes them less effective.

ALSO,

Your site states that you are a NON-PROFIT ORG Do you have a charter?

Why aren't you using .org Anybody can buy a .com .net etc. BUT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN PURCHASE A .ORG are the ones that can prove that status.

What state are you registered as a non-profit organization?

LooneyTunes
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
MakoMike wrote:
CaptTB wrote:
EVERYONE[/B] both commercial and rec, NY and NJ,

Leving more than a few people out there, no?

Ummm. no, I'm not. Is there someone else other than commercial and recreational fishermen who fish for Fluke?

The NY, NJ comment was since I am from NJ and Togmaster was talking about NY. If you think it would help to list every state on the coast that catches fluke I'd be happy to oblige
;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
LooneyTunes wrote:
nzajoe wrote:
http://www.ssfff.net/index.html go now

Nice to see that there is another organization out there (like RFA). If we keep splintering we will never be able to focus enough funds in one area. If you have 30 groups going in the same general direction but doing it there way, a lot of money will be wasted. Here is where the term "aggregate" is applicable ;). Support one or two major organizations. They already have a war chest building and have established contacts. The continued splintering removes money from bigger organizations and makes them less effective.

There is a lot of divisiveness in the rec community, always has been. Many CCA members want nothing to do with RFA. Many RFA members want nothing to do with ASA. Not to mention that ASA,CCA,RFA, ABC, pick an acronym, often don't work together. By affiliating themselves with any one organization only alienates those who may belong to another.

The .net is because .com was taken (owned by a domain broker) and the domain was purchased within several hours of the group coming up with the name, long before the designation as a non-profit in the state of NJ was acquired.
quote:
ALSO,

Your site states that you are a NON-PROFIT ORG Do you have a charter?

Why aren't you using .org Anybody can buy a .com .net etc. BUT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN PURCHASE A .ORG are the ones that can prove that status.

What state are you registered as a non-profit organization?
See above for that answer.

Lastly, "I" am not using anything. I am not on the Board of Directors nor do I have anything to do with the actual organization itself (meaning bank accounts, charters, bylaws, whatever)

I bought the URL because I could, it was available, and I host and maintain the website for free through my business hosting as part of my contribution to the group. I also paid for everything out of my own pocket to save the group $$ as well.

SSFFF is a one trick pony. Fluke, the whole fluke and nothing but the fluke so help us fluke.

When this issue is over, so is the group.

In the vast combined experience of all those involved it is readily apparent that any large organization in the rec community can only accomplish so much on any one issue. Most every time one of the aforementioned acronyms has tried to focus on but one issue, those who did or do not care about that particular coast, species or area get pissed that their money is going to something they have no interest in. Large organizations often cannot, and will not, use all their resources on a single issue at a time. Partly because there is typically more than one thing happening at a time and partly because different members/contributors want different things to be addressed, and most are not willing to sacrifice one to allow all efforts to be devoted to another.

By having no affiliation with ANY other group, but working with EVERY other group that exists and is willing to work with them, these problems disappear (at least to a large extent.)

This is evidenced by the fact that RFA is where some monies/effort devoted to the MSA side of things is going (they have a permanent presence in D.C. and a proven track record) while at the same time ASA is on-board and has offered to try and raise funds (which is something they excel at along with their long track record of pushing for good science)

We could certainly purchase the .org at this stage, but is it really needed? Again, the website existed before the organization officially did. Since this started in NJ it was registered there.

This post edited by CaptTB 12:30 PM 01/24/2008
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
74,095 Posts
CaptTB wrote:
MakoMike wrote:
CaptTB wrote:
EVERYONE[/B] both commercial and rec, NY and NJ,

Leving more than a few people out there, no?

Ummm. no, I'm not. Is there someone else other than commercial and recreational fishermen who fish for Fluke?

The NY, NJ comment was since I am from NJ and Togmaster was talking about NY. If you think it would help to list every state on the coast that catches fluke I'd be happy to oblige
;)

Tony,
Just pulling your chain a little. But I do see in some of these groups (not this one, its too new yet to judge) a lot of the "locals only" attitude. But wouldn't it have been just as easy to say "both commercial and Rec. everywhere
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
MakoMike wrote:
CaptTB wrote:
MakoMike wrote:
CaptTB wrote:
EVERYONE[/B] both commercial and rec, NY and NJ,

Leving more than a few people out there, no?

Ummm. no, I'm not. Is there someone else other than commercial and recreational fishermen who fish for Fluke?

The NY, NJ comment was since I am from NJ and Togmaster was talking about NY. If you think it would help to list every state on the coast that catches fluke I'd be happy to oblige
;)

Tony,
Just pulling your chain a little. But I do see in some of these groups (not this one, its too new yet to judge) a lot of the "locals only" attitude. But wouldn't it have been just as easy to say "both commercial and Rec. everywhere

Yes, it would have, I just wasn't thinking in those terms, I was answering a single person and making a point about no boundaries are at issue here, they all are.

Plus, I was busting your stones back (hewnce the winky smilie)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,425 Posts
CAPT>TBYou are correct that other changes in management need to be made. If you were at the Addendum VIII hearing in NY a few years ago you would have heard me saying that the base year does need to be changed, and changed to match what has been done in every other fishery wrote:



Tony if I can recall that day I met you outside the doors and thats what i was refering to in the plan you introduced I was just not defending NY just using it as the most unlawful landings that did the damage to us
We are all in this boat together and Nj I give Kudos for fighting for there right to fish
We need a couple of die hards here in Ny that dont bend over so easy
Ny had some boomerrangs in there if you know what I mean
But hopefully at this poinj tthe Recs and comm. can fight for something
It's very easy for the regualar guy who don't do this for a living to just fish and give back and be happy.
But if it was there lively hood I bet there views would change very quickly.

But in reality this is justthe after math of something that shoul;d have been addressed 25 years ago when those in the feild felt like ok will let it go whats a few fish .
Well that has escalated into what we have today and with the numbers in place looks like a total SHUTDOWN is the only way they will make there numbers

This post edited by togmaster 12:45 PM 01/24/2008
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Thanks for clarifying

CaptTBThe .net is because .com was taken (owned by a domain broker) and the domain was purchased within several hours of the group coming up with the name, long before the designation as a non-profit in the state of NJ was acquired.
[quote wrote:

looneytunes said:
ALSO,

Your site states that you are a NON-PROFIT ORG Do you have a charter?

Why aren't you using .org Anybody can buy a .com .net etc. BUT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN PURCHASE A .ORG are the ones that can prove that status.

What state are you registered as a non-profit organization?
See above for that answer.
Lastly, "I" am not using anything. I am not on the Board of Directors nor do I have anything to do with the actual organization itself (meaning bank accounts, charters, bylaws, whatever)

I bought the URL because I could, it was available, and I host and maintain the website for free through my business hosting as part of my contribution to the group. I also paid for everything out of my own pocket to save the group $$ as well.

We could certainly purchase the .org at this stage, but is it really needed? Again, the website existed before the organization officially did. Since this started in NJ it was registered there.[/quote]

Thank you, CaptTB

I just wanted to know who this new group was. I see you have an affiliation of sorts which gives a warmer fuzzy feeling.

LooneyTunes
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Thanks for clarifying

CaptTBThe .net is because .com was taken (owned by a domain broker) and the domain was purchased within several hours of the group coming up with the name, long before the designation as a non-profit in the state of NJ was acquired.
[quote wrote:

looneytunes said:
ALSO,

Your site states that you are a NON-PROFIT ORG Do you have a charter?

Why aren't you using .org Anybody can buy a .com .net etc. BUT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN PURCHASE A .ORG are the ones that can prove that status.

What state are you registered as a non-profit organization?
See above for that answer.
Lastly, "I" am not using anything. I am not on the Board of Directors nor do I have anything to do with the actual organization itself (meaning bank accounts, charters, bylaws, whatever)

I bought the URL because I could, it was available, and I host and maintain the website for free through my business hosting as part of my contribution to the group. I also paid for everything out of my own pocket to save the group $$ as well.

We could certainly purchase the .org at this stage, but is it really needed? Again, the website existed before the organization officially did. Since this started in NJ it was registered there.[/quote]

Thank you, CaptTB

I just wanted to know who this new group was. I see you have an affiliation of sorts which gives a warmer fuzzy feeling.

LooneyTunes
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
just a clarification....

last time I looked, you could register (or buy if it was already registered but for sale) any url you wanted to regardless of your tax status - or anything else that I'm aware of. Whether a site is .com or .org might be an indication that it's owned by a business or a not-for-profit of some kind, but I don't think it's proof positive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
774 Posts
NilsS wrote:
last time I looked, you could register (or buy if it was already registered but for sale) any url you wanted to regardless of your tax status - or anything else that I'm aware of. Whether a site is .com or .org might be an indication that it's owned by a business or a not-for-profit of some kind, but I don't think it's proof positive.

Never actually looked into that myself. I wanted .com simply because it is typically the first thing people type in. They might remember the "name" but don't always remember it was something other than .com

I was somewhat (but not totally) surprised that an acronym such as ssfff.com was owned by a domain broker, but at least .net was available.

I actually looked up .org a few weeks ago and saw it was available, but never pursued it any further. Perhaps I will just so no one else can get it ;)

looneytunes, glad that answered all your questions. I hosted the first several meetings of the founders on my riverboat back in Sept. and Oct. (while at the dock, unfortunately) and after the meeting where they decided what to call the organization I went home and registered the name.

To date every group they have reached out to has jumped on the bandwagon so to speak. Another benefit to larger orgs is they can far more easily lend their support to an issue they feel similarly, while at the same time not have to tap their own funds significantly (if at all) which serves two purposes. 1)It eliminates the "I don't fluke fish so why spend my money" argument while at the same time it affords the org. they support the full weight of the national group, whether it be in D.C. or just in the media or wherever.

It's been great so far to see the willingness of groups like the RFA and ASA to help us in this fight, which is proof positive they recognize the importance of the issue and the reasoning behind our attempts to deal with said issue. Recognizing that we are in this situation because of the way a law is worded, despite the fishery being extremely vibrant, makes it far easier to get people to step up and help solve the problem.

Capt.TB

This post edited by CaptTB 02:24 PM 01/24/2008
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top