Page 1 of 1

Petition for upholding the net ban!

PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:58 pm
by dave c
Sign this petition to uphold the net ban they say there are only 3 days left. . Commercial fisherman have plenty of opportunities already to overfish without bringing back gill nets.

Re: Petition for upholding the net ban!

PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:04 am
by diggin4grouper
if you were educated on the subject you would know better than to sign it !

commercial fishermen are not the entirely at fault , we all are !

when you see some one keeping and under or over slot fish and you do or say nothing your part of the problem too ! grow a pair and turn them in and say something to them !

now since the net ban nothing has changed fish stock are at the same level as they were , now for smart people that read what the lawsuit was about and not listen to the CCA , RFA, or any other conservation society propaganda that dont have the recreational fishermen interest at heart .

the whole lawsuit was to change a mesh size from 2 inch to 3 or 4 inch on current nets , so that the smaller juveniles could pass through the net and the bigger fish caught , which in turn would let the smaller fish have a chance to spawn and produce more fish for other seasons , but CCA and others have used photos that are 30 years or older from other states to prove there point , case in point the photo going around facebook with only red fish in it , photo was from 1991 and was from North Carolina from a red fish FARM ! yes they do raise red fish for fish markets , now that being said if you dont know what is caught in the nets by direct knowledge by seeing it for your self , the crap you read and hear from the conservation society's that there catching reds - trouts and so on is not as it seems

with gill nets they have to be tended , and that means has to be with in line of sight of the fishermen . usually less 50 yards or so if the gill netter is to be within the reg's and the law , yes there are a few unwanted fish that are trapped and with a legal and responseable netter he will check his net every 10 mins and release any unwanted fish such as reds and trout , now days with social media the commercial fishermen have a way to tell the truth that so many have turned a blind eye too .

there have been many photos posted from oct 26th to nov 6th of full boats of mullet and people filming them at boat ramps in the photos that were taken of them comeing in and picking there nets it was all mullet and not one net had any other type of fish than mullet ...

so take the time and learn whats going on before coming to a rash decision , CCA and other groups are not the savior they claim to be , they are the one's that put the stevens act back into effect that have put more and more regulation on what you can catch and when . while the government blows up billions of pounds of red snapper what does the CCA do !! humm they ask for a smaller season and less fish per angler ..

now that brings me to another point , have you ever seen the mexicans and the cubans and a few others that have these big azz cast nets with 2 inch mesh come out to where your fishing and keep ever thing that they catch in the net while throwing in front of where your fishing for sheepshead , black drum, red drum , snook , mangroves , ect ! thats the crap that really hurts the fishery , and these are the poachers that need to be turned in in for this , and as i rap this up heres a little FYI for you

recreational fishermen can only catch bait fish and red fish in a cast net , all other fish is illegal to keep , so next time you see a poacher turn him in and take a picture or video of him or her and there tag number and report them and do your part to protect the fishery , commercial fishermen have done more to protect it while there numbers are still in-decline that most groups that say commercial fishing is bad

Re: Petition for upholding the net ban!

PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:49 am
by dave c
Nope your BS didn't change my mind and how could you possibly know who I may or may not be turning in. I have seen plenty of commercial fisherman dump dead marine life back into the sea and that was enough for me. Yes the fisheries are totally mismanaged and the ocean is dying and I do not care to see the few laws we have left changed.

Re: Petition for upholding the net ban!

PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:55 am
The net ban is in place again.

Re: Petition for upholding the net ban!

PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:36 am
by diggin4grouper
dave c wrote:Nope your BS didn't change my mind and how could you possibly know who I may or may not be turning in. I have seen plenty of commercial fisherman dump dead marine life back into the sea and that was enough for me. Yes the fisheries are totally mismanaged and the ocean is dying and I do not care to see the few laws we have left changed.

Dave , you call it BS but in real life its called actual facts , truth will set you free and the information is out there for you to learn what goes on not just what you see in staged pictures and conservation propaganda

Re: Petition for upholding the net ban!

PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:56 am
by diggin4grouper
pretty simple here when a 3rd grader has to explain what the lawsuit was about ... ture=share

Re: Petition for upholding the net ban!

PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:36 pm
by diggin4grouper
here is another good read for yall

Source : ... ic-to-Know

Legal Reasoning For Overturning The 2" Rule on Seine Nets that the CCA Does Not Want the Public to Know

Long Read... But truthful and educational

Despite the CCA's rhetoric, there is no "BAN." In Florida, there can be only ONE subject an amendment addresses. This is called the "Single Subject Rule," AKA "Sole Purpose" and/or "voter intent." The "Single Subject" of this amendment was, "To PREVENT unnecessary killing, overharvest and waste of the marine resource." (Fl Sup. Ct 1993)

The Amendment is very specific in it's description of what a gill net is, and that description makes EVERY net ever made a "gill net" except cast nets. The FWC has admitted that every net made that voters approved of falls under Article X, Section 16's definition of a "gill net." But, the constitution allows netting. The answer to this dilemma can be found in Millender, SC 85,880 where the Florida Supreme Court instructed the MFC/FWC to "HARMONIZE" the amendment. Taking "no gill nets" without "HARMONIZING" the amendment has been the problem all along. More to come on this.

The FWC brought in two members of NOAA to sit in on our discussions about nets with the FWC. We have on CD, even the NOAA experts agreeing that the Florida Constitutional definition of a gill net describes every net ever made. They even stated, "even our plankton nets gill fish."

Clearly, net fishing was NOT banned, it was LIMITED. The Title of the amendment must accurately describe it's contents by law. Additionally, the Supreme Court determined that ALL of the nets allowed in the constitution must be "commercially viable." (Millender, SC 85, 880.)

So, if you have two nets... One being 2" stretch mesh (hole size) as legally permitted today by the FWC and one being 3" stretch mesh or larger to fish with... The FWC/FWRI's own tests PROVE...

The 2" stretch mesh will catch 98% waste.
The 3" stretch mesh or larger will catch 2% waste.

Let me add in... Our own paid tests proved the above AND the evidence in front of Judge Fulford proved the exact same results. No longer can the FWC and their controlling partner, the CCA, claim that 2" mesh nets are "commercially viable and no longer can they claim these nets don't violate the constitution with their 98% unnecessary killing and waste. Fter years of lying to the public, the FWC finally admitted that we were telling the truth in court. (Sorry Ted and the CCA... You are now "odd man out.")

FWC Attorney Jonathon Glogau admitted that our proposed nets "gill fish" just like the FWC's mandated nets. (As EVERY net will.) Only, ours doesn't gill as many and only has a 2% waste as mandated by the Florida Constitution.

Which do you suppose complies with the PREVENTION of unnecessary killing and waste? One that wastes 98% or one that wastes only 2%? Duh!

Irrationally, certain members of the FWC have threatened us that they will make the meshes even smaller... Let's not forget, that on video in a public FWC meeting we have the FWC/FWRI's own expert, Gil McRae, declaring that the smaller the mesh size, the MORE gilling, unnecessary killing and waste will occur and the LESS selective and commercially viable the net becomes. "Even less selective than the 2" mesh net." This is another example of where the FWC simply ignores the Supreme Court's order in Millender.

Which leads into the next point... This was NOT a vote for a "constitutional taking." The public voted that net fishing was supposed to be "limited" so that one's livelihood was not lost. But, for those net fishermen that can not throw a commercially viable cast net, that is EXACTLY what the FWC have created by forcing fishermen to waste the resource... and their time... at a 98% rate.

The CCA loves to claim that the Fishermen are attempting to circumvent the amendment. No, legally, the CCA is attempting to circumvent the ONLY purpose of the amendment and continue to force net fishermen to waste the resource at a PROVEN 98% rate.

Here's your choice. The Florida Supreme Court stated that you must "harmonize this amendment," that "commercial viability is relevant" and that "absurd and illogical rules will not be adopted." Ask yourself, does a net that has an unprecedented waste rate of 98% comply with the "sole purpose" of "preventing unnecessary killing and waste?" Is a net that only catches 1 marketable fish out of 50 commercially viable? Is a rule that forces fishermen to waste 49 out of 50 fish captured a "logical rule?" (All which has been proven by our tests, the FWC tests and before Judge Fulford on the water with the FWC angrily looking on.)

For those of you that haven't thought of it, the current 2" stretch mesh rule causes the majority of the fish to be destroyed before they ever have an opportunity to spawn.

Our larger mesh net that only has a 2% by-catch (waste), GILLS FAR LESS FISH than the CCA/Florida Sportsman backed net, yet is still LIMITED to only 500 square feet of mesh area.

The FWC, FWRI and our fishermen know that the 2" mandated nets supported by the CCA and Florida Sportsman magazine have led to the decline of many protected fisheries...such as several Grouper species. The forced use of these nets have cost dozens of species, including Grouper, hundreds of thousands of lives of those species. The 2" stretch mesh nets are NOT in the least "selective," leading to hundreds of thousands of 3" to 7" fish being needlessly destroyed.

Juvenile fish would have grown to an age where they stood a chance of survival and moved "off shore" by the time they would have had a chance to be captured with large mesh nets... Not so with the small 2" mesh nets. It's exactly like walking around a pond... You will see the minnows clinging to the bank to avoid being eaten by the larger fish waiting in the deep water. It's after the 2" stretch mesh size is when the young decide to migrate into the deeper waters.

Under the Magnusun Stevens Act (The FWC's Federal money line), the FWC have been mandated to "reduce by-catch" by all possible means. AFTER the public approved traditional 90% large mesh seine nets in the Limited Net Fishing Amendment, the MFC/FWC redesigned the net into the ecological disastrous 2" small mesh seine nets of today. This redesign by the MFC/FWC resulted in increased by-catches from 5%-10% to 98%. That is NOT what the public voted for by any stretch of the mesh. ;)

If the FWC would like 27 pages of brilliant reasoning to defend a change in the nets mesh size, they simply look at Judge Sander Saul's ruling in our favor that they had sealed. He was the deciding Judge of the Bush-Gore Presidential Ballot Case. His 27 page order has more than ample ammunition to defeat any CCA case. His order claimed we were right and the FWC net was unconstitutional.

Of course the FWC could establish the Constitutional Due Process mandated by the Florida Constitution in Article IV, Section 9 that they have refused to establish for 11 years. All of this would have been over a long time ago if the FWC actually obeyed the constitutional mandate. Similar to Saul's echo, the Chief Judge of the 1st DCA called the FWC "imperious" and a "danger to the rights of the common citizen." And boy, have we seen this in our lives due to their tyranny.

Of course if the FWC also obeyed Article X, Section 16 this net debacle would not continue... Nor would it continue if they were to obey the Statutes that our elected officials mandated the FWC obey in the year 2000. (Those pesky due process standards that protect the environment (1st), economy and citizens.)

Additionally, if the FWC were to obey their agreement as written in the Blue Crab Bill and signed into law a few years ago, we would have the same constitutional due process as other constitutional agencies have provided citizens. The only problem here is that I told the Senate EXACTLY what the FWC would do a few months down the line and that the FWC were lying to them about their agreement to obey the due process procedures. These procedures, written on page 5 of the bill, have NEVER been followed... Leaving the fishing community protection less and the legislature looking like fools for believing the FWC in the first place.

Or maybe the FWC would like to apply the science to our industry as they claim to do in every other sector of fishery management. Because even the FWC's own scientists claim they are wrong.

Better yet, how about the U.S. Constitution, the supposed guaranteed rights and equal protection of the law for ALL CITIZENS? The FWC position on these issues is a little hard to defend when their commissioners have stated that they refused to obey statutes that defend our rights and will only use statutes to prosecute fishermen. "We are going to rule you by Politics only," as stated by Commissioner Wright, is a pretty brazen thing to say...especially since he supposedly has a law degree.

The FWC have denied all disabled accommodations that would allow disabled fisherman to use the same material and mesh size allowed in a cast net to fish with... Leaving the disabled absolutely no way to provide for themselves. WHY? IF the FWC were to change the mesh size to unlimited monofilament mesh of 500 square feet or less, ALL problems would be solved for the regular AND disabled fishermen.

How about the FWC simply keep their promise to the Legislature to provide us with our requested nets in 2005? The FWC held three meetings (of which I traveled 2,700 miles for) to garner our support for increased fines and penalties in exchange for the nets we are STILL requesting. The FWC got their increased fines and penalties against fishermen and then refused to provide the promised nets. Simply despicable.

It is also noted that Commissioner Stephenson questioned how fishermen could pay their bills with what is going on with the continued mandate of the 2" stretch mesh net? The answer, they can't without fishing so dangerously that they risk serious injury or death. Or, their environmental footprint is so extreme from wasting 49 fish out of every 50 captured. (For the readers information, you can't keep or sell the 49 juvenile fish wasted for each marketable fish captured.)

In the constitution itself, it provides for "seines AND OTHER RECTANGULAR NETS." The FWC have never provided fishermen with any other "rectangular net" outside of a seine. Gill nets were long nets, but some of us (me included) carried small "feeler nets" which would gill, but were NOT considered "gill nets." Exactly like the requested nets, these nets were also called "test nets." You used them just to see what was in the water. Most fishermen though, would use a small portion of their gill nets as a "feeler net" so not to capture too many fish they were not seeking in murky water.

Here is the "kicker." FWC Head Commissioner, Rodney (Big Dog) Baretto, told everyone at an FWC meeting and throughout Florida on The Florida Channel, that the FWC could LEGALLY RAISE THE MESH SIZE TO WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO... No constitutional amendment needed. We've known this all along. Now the public knows it. It's time to do something about it.

And to those of you in the CCA that simply believe Ted's deceptions... You simply do not know why our victories (and we do have them) have been sealed due to an out of control due process less, check and balance less, constitutional body that has been ignoring the will of the voter, the supreme court and what the laws and constitution actually say. We learned along time ago that without controversy, Ted would most likely lose 100 grand plus a year job... So CCA sheeple, if you want to test the truth versus what you hear from Ted, try reading the entire amendment (Article X, Section 16), supreme court rulings (Millender, SC 85, 880), what the ONLY purpose of the amendment as determined by the voters and supreme court, the 379 Florida Statutes (Especially the Rule making authority of the FWC and the Standards they are mandated to obey) and little ole Article IV, Section 9 of the constitution of Florida that mandates the due process the FWC refuses to adopt. Did you know that Ted and the CCA doesn't support due process and equal protection of the law for all? And if you belong to an organization that doesn't support due process for EVERY American, what does that make you? < That is exactly why we still have this controversy after 15 years fighting the FWC.