Image:
Over the years, the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) have lobbied different state governments in attempts to regulate commercial fisheries to the brink of near extinction. They accomplish these goals by any means necessary. Deception, lies, demonization... In the CCA's world, it's what ever works. Their lies, propaganda and corruption know no boundaries. The latest attacks are happening in the state of Alabama, where the CCA is lobbying the Alabama legislature to ban gill nets. Although the CCA has no scientific evidence that the gill net fishery is having a detrimental effect on fish stocks, they are still demanding commercial gill netters be banned or "compromise." In fact, scientists are claiming that the main stock that the CCA appears to be targeting this session is actually getting "healthier."
Image:
Let's see; there is Webster's definition of Compromise: 1 a: Settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions.
CCA’s definition; take all and never give anything. (Famous CCA’s representative's quote “How do you eat an elephant?” “One bite at a time” or it is OK TO DEMONIZE TO GET WHAT YOU WANT). These quotes were used during the lies and deception campaign against the farmers of the sea (commercial fisherman) in Florida. A repeat performance is in play in Alabama.
It seems, according to definition that in order to compromise each party should “concede” something. The only problem is that the CCA does not know what the word "concede" means. Even when the data proves they're lying, they never give up, just keep taking small bites (Elephant).
CCA’s current red herring is the Spanish mackerel. They claim Commercial gill netters catch too many of them even though state and federal officials say otherwise. One CCA expert from Dauphin Island said in 30 years he has seen nothing but a decline in fish stocks, one example he gave was mullet. When asked for his data he had none... just perception. He said there is no data available from the past to measure current stocks in any fisheries. He went on to explain that the Marine Resource Office only had data from four years back because no records were kept prior. Who out there believes that! He's dead wrong. National Marine Fisheries Service has Alabama mullet landings dated as far back to the 1950s all the way up to 2005. Landings are consistent and do not reflect that there are less mullet today then there were back then. (Elephant)
Let's apply some logic. Located in a report by author Jack Rudloe a man who founded the Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory an environmental education research center in Panacea Florida.In 1975 the State of Alabama conducted a survey of its recreational fishery. According to Alabama's Marine Resource Division, those species which are sought by both sports and commercial interests were monitored with the following results.
The commercial harvest of spotted sea trout was 28,200 lb.; only 3.5% of the recreational harvest of 798,637 lb. King mackerel harvest for the recreational fishery was almost 800,000 lb. while there was no harvest from commercial interests. And finally, the bluefish recreational harvest was 908,260 lb. while the commercial harvest was less then one percent of this amount. Sounds like some one in Alabama was keeping records? (original copies provided to the Alabama Legislators)
By the information in this 1975 study and the logic of the CCA, recreational fishing should have been banned from these species long ago! These fisheries are still under a lot of recreational pressure to this day, according to NMFS data. CCA continues to overlook their own environmental impact and continue to point fingers at the gill net fishers. Wonder what the current numbers are?
Now that we have established that there is plenty of data that does NOT support a net ban, let's get back to the issue of "compromise". In past years, gill netters of Alabama have “compromised” with the CCA with the hopes that CCA would leave them alone. Giving up over 500 gill net licenses only 105 in existence today (Elephant). CCA’s own admissions there are 80,000 saltwater fishing licenses and 400 recreational gill net licenses that would not be banned by the current purposed legislation (Elephant).
The commercial sector has many restrictions in place, many of which infringe on there constitutional rights that all Citizens should have without question. Examples are in this post (see attached chart).
How many recreational fishers or CCA members would stand for not being allowed to do a simple thing as transit through a river to get home with there catch ? Alabama commercial fishers live with that restriction everyday (fish in the net on the boat = no transit). Ask your self why? One word comes to mind “COMPROMISE”. This is just one example of the many restrictions that currently exist for the Alabama Commercial Fishers. Many others exist; net lengths, mesh sizes, etc. Too many to list.
For better view of gill net restriction map click here:
Image:
Prior to the Net Limitation Act of 1995, Florida Commercial Fisherman did not know what the CCA's definition of “COMPROMISE” meant? They thought they were "working" with the CCA so that everyone could survive. This obviously did not happen. The CCA wasn't happy until people were put out of business and fishing villages were turned into ghost towns. If you ask today? The definition of “COMPROMISE" was changed forever.” If you asked a Florida Commercial Fisherman to translate the word “COMPROMISE" today, to him or her it would mean to LOSE EVERYTHING and GAIN NOTHING!
Image:
The above picture depicts four generations of a six generation family of Florida fishers on one boat.
This is an example of all that is left after the "compromise" took full effect in Florida. (Nothing but photo's)
This is a wake-up call for the good citizens of Alabama... "Don't let this happen to your fisher families." (Elephant)
Other pages:
This is the text-only version of this page. Click here to see this page with graphics.
Edit this page |
Manage website
Make Your Own Website: 2-Minute-Website.com