Forum | East Coast Red Snapper Ban

lilmule said:

The congressman is obviously swayed by the economic loss of revenue to the people he represents.I havnt a clue if the red snapper is being effected much by the fisherman in general or even by commercial fishermen,if its endagered somehow then it would be wrong to oppose it on strictly a monetary basis.

If numbers are dwindling then by all means protect it until its numbers remain stable if not its all mute.

If anywhere fla should have a rather large population,if so then one can understand why he is working to keep it from happening,even though it may not be elsewhere.

If it is implimented would it effect commercial fishermen as well,just where do you think that red snapper came from on the menu?

I agree, the congressman is probably just trying to keep his constituents happy and employed, because unhappy voters mean no re-election for congressmen!

I wish I could remember where I read it, but I do know that there is some controversy as to whether the population estimates on red snapper are correct.  Some "experts" are saying that the numbers are dwindling, others say the population is fine.  So which expert do you believe?  Especially when your business is directly effected.

If it does indeed turn out that the red snapper is in trouble, I can see restricting commercial and sportfishing harvest, but does there need to be an out-right ban?  On the sportfishing side, size limits could be changed, slot limits implemented, bag limits reduced or seasons instituted, all of which would protect the species without causing excessive financial hardship on the guides and charter captains.

Then a commercial harvest quota could be set and once that number reached, commercial red snapper harvest must be stopped.

While this wouldn't totally please the commercial/sport fishermen OR those wishing to protect the red snapper, it would be a reasonable compromise for all concerned.