Save the Goliath Grouper!

[archman]

When in doubt about how something works, ask an expert on that something.

 

[johndiver999]

Yes, knocking the GG status down from having some sort of "special status" down to "Acceptable to take" is a huge step because it has SYMBOLIC significance.

There is a large contingent of people who feel that this "charismatic" species should NEVER AGAIN be subject to take. It is a simple concept. They see them as docile, friendly, approachable, photogenic, particularly vulnerable to exploitation and unsafe for human consumption (due to high levels of mercury in adults). They go so far as to "name" certain individuals, apparently thinking this conferes more value and worth to them.

To them, an open season is entirely unacceptable.

There is a large contingent of consumptive users who are confronted with frequent and persistent "stealing" of their hooked or speared fish which makes them convinced there are "too many". In understanding this issue, it is very important to recognize that many anglers are fishing the high relief, easily identifiable artificial reefs and wrecks. This is the exact same (artificial) habitat which GG prefer. This further exacerbates the problems and negative interactions. These people witness the GG taking a large proportion of the desirable species and it is not surprising that they extrapolate this behavior to occuring all the time and naturally (i.e., "eating all the fish").

To many of these people, a continued, indefinite closure of the species is entirely unacceptable.

How can one identify a middle ground between these two political extremes? The FWC has apparently tried to do this with their current proposal; but as expected, it is not going to be wholeheartedly accepted by anyone. It is a weak compromise, but the camel does appear to be inserting his nose into the corner of the tent.

Taking 200 juveniles is not going to harm the population, but it will probably not satisfy the consumptive users either. THAT is what scares the "tree huggers".

 

[Pipehorse]

See my comment about hooked fish - a goliath grouper is not going to go after a free-swimming juvenile bull shark. An immobilized one on a line, sure. Calling it an "apex predator" because of an instance like that would be like calling myself an MMA champion if I could beat up a professional fighter while he's hogtied and dangling from the ceiling. A few years ago an acquaintance of mine took drone footage of a goliath grouper that had been caught and "released" without venting the swim bladder getting mauled by a very persistent great hammerhead shark; hammerheads having relatively small mouths it had a very hard time biting into the goliath (a bull or tiger shark on the other hand would have easily torn it to pieces). If the grouper hadn't been crippled and immobilized the hammerhead would have ignored it.



But is a goliath grouper really the "top of the food chain," or a side branch? After all, it is feeding at the same trophic level as much smaller grouper, reef sharks, and even some larger invertebrates such as octopodes.

So I understand your reasoning, a GG eating a wounded shark doesn’t make it an apex predator, but a wounded GG getting attacked by a hammerhead makes the hammerhead an apex predator? Sorry, that sounds like a logic fallacy called nonsense. And my example of a White Shark being killed by Killer Whales, by your reasoning makes the White Shark not an apex predator. Goliath Groupers are apex predators, you and johndiver, should try selling some place else, because I am not buying.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Yes, knocking the GG status down from having some sort of "special status" down to "Acceptable to take" is a huge step because it has SYMBOLIC significance.

There is a large contingent of people who feel that this "charismatic" species should NEVER AGAIN be subject to take. It is a simple concept. They see them as docile, friendly, approachable, photogenic, particularly vulnerable to exploitation and unsafe for human consumption (due to high levels of mercury in adults). They go so far as to "name" certain individuals, apparently thinking this conferes more value and worth to them.

To them, an open season is entirely unacceptable.

There is a large contingent of consumptive users who are confronted with frequent and persistent "stealing" of their hooked or speared fish which makes them convinced there are "too many". In understanding this issue, it is very important to recognize that many anglers are fishing the high relief, easily identifiable artificial reefs and wrecks. This is the exact same (artificial) habitat which GG prefer. This further exacerbates the problems and negative interactions. These people witness the GG taking a large proportion of the desirable species and it is not surprising that they extrapolate this behavior to occuring all the time and naturally (i.e., "eating all the fish").

To many of these people, a continued, indefinite closure of the species is entirely unacceptable.

How can one identify a middle ground between these two political extremes? The FWC has apparently tried to do this with their current proposal; but as expected, it is not going to be wholeheartedly accepted by anyone. It is a weak compromise, but the camel does appear to be inserting his nose into the corner of the tent.

Taking 200 juveniles is not going to harm the population, but it will probably not satisfy the consumptive users either. THAT is what scares the "tree huggers".

That last point is fair; one of the fishing guides from the southwest coast that spoke on Wednesday said (paraphrasing) "We want the price to be lower, the slot limit bigger, and allow spearfishing."

My concern is that the whole process this time around has the appearance of political pressure overruling best management practices. If FWC had taken their alternative metrics and said "we will consider reopening when genetic diversity, juvenile abundance, adult abundance on natural reefs, etc. meet targets X, Y, Z, etc." and there had been some independent scientific buy-in to that, I wouldn't have taken a day and a half off work to drive up to St. Augustine and object. Instead they came up with a wish list that looks nice on a Powerpoint slide, admitted they aren't meeting those objectives, and said "we'll figure it out maybe 10 years from now, but let's reopen in about 18 months." While the proposal is a compromise and the commissioners did throw conservation interests a bone by considering adding Martin County as a no-take area, I can see fishing interests trying to push for taking more and bigger fish while they have the momentum.

As for harm to the population ... I can't say for certain. Most of the fishing pressure is going to fall on inshore nursery habitat that's been taking other knocks of late; 50 of those 200 tags are going to be valid within the bounds of Everglades National Park so I would expect about a quarter of the effort to be in ENP/Ten Thousand Islands.

 

[CuzzA]

50 of those 200 tags are going to be valid within the bounds of Everglades National Park so I would expect about a quarter of the effort to be in ENP/Ten Thousand Islands.

I'll bet you they don't sell 50 tags total. I'd be surprised if they sold 1. Actually, I'd be surprised if they sold 1 lottery ticket.

I am seriously interested in the idea that people believe someone is going to spend $500 for a tag with no guarantee you will catch the species AND it will be within the slot.

It would be more like dumb luck that you just so happen to catch one and you just so happened to have a tag. Anyone with that kind of money to throw away ain't fishing the estuaries for juvenile jewfish. They are offshore catching 20 lbs. gags and 50 lbs. carbos off their $100k-$1 million dollar boats.

The slot pretty much guarantees the program is a failure by design. If it was designed to actually open up a limited harvest they would eliminate the slot. Then perhaps I could see someone paying $500 to take a 600 pounder.

 

[Manatee Diver]

Then perhaps I could see someone paying $500 to take a 600 pounder.

I think they would pay a lot more. Endangered African big game are often in the 6 figures.

 

[Belzelbub]

I think they would pay a lot more. Endangered African big game are often in the 6 figures.

I’m not sure. The slot limit is kind of limiting. 20”-36” is a small GG. Lots of other grouper can be caught in those sizes. $500 for a small GG just doesn’t seem like it will be a big draw.

Several other forums and groups seem to be saying the same.

 

[greeniguana]

Yes. Catching a GG in that proposed slot will be like hitting PowerBall.

I can count the slot sized snook I've caught in my lifetime on my fingers.

Unlike snook, you're only going to even have a snowball chance in hell of getting a slot sized GG in a couple different places in the state.

Maybe this will be a boon for buisness for Chockoloskee guides. That's not a place you can just launch your sea ray and fish.

 

[Manatee Diver]

I’m not sure. The slot limit is kind of limiting. 20”-36” is a small GG. Lots of other grouper can be caught in those sizes. $500 for a small GG just doesn’t seem like it will be a big draw.

Several other forums and groups seem to be saying the same.

I wasn't thinking about this stupid idea. Instead you issue a very small handful of permits and charge a lot more. But they should be trophy size.

 

[The Chairman]

So, buy as many of these tags as you can and sit on them. I certainly will.