NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Recreational and commercial boats must cut the
number of red snapper brought to shore and shrimpers must bring up
less in their trawls to keep one of the Gulf of Mexico's most popular
catches from dying out, federal regulators decided Thursday.

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council reduced the recreational
catch limit from four fish to two per person, and set a limit for all
commercial boats at 5 million pounds for the year instead of 9.1
million pounds as in past years.

The two-fish recreational catch limit had already been put into effect
on a temporary basis this year. And the commercial catch had been put
at 6.5 million pounds before the current season began.

A federal judge struck down the previous red snapper plan earlier this
year because of a lawsuit filed by three conservation groups, saying
the plan was unlikely to rebuild the species by a 2032 deadline.
Regulators had until the end of this year to approve a new plan.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Recreational and commercial boats must cut the
number of red snapper brought to shore and shrimpers must bring up
less in their trawls to keep one of the Gulf of Mexico's most popular
catches from dying out, federal regulators decided Thursday.

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council reduced the recreational
catch limit from four fish to two per person, and set a limit for all
commercial boats at 5 million pounds for the year instead of 9.1
million pounds as in past years.

The two-fish recreational catch limit had already been put into effect
on a temporary basis this year. And the commercial catch had been put
at 6.5 million pounds before the current season began.

A federal judge struck down the previous red snapper plan earlier this
year because of a lawsuit filed by three conservation groups, saying
the plan was unlikely to rebuild the species by a 2032 deadline.
Regulators had until the end of this year to approve a new plan.


Thanks Chuck(Chucky dot) You have given me an idea(Chucky dot) I have a plan
for red snapper(Chucky dot)

Wait for it(Chucky dot)









Wait for it (Chucky dot)








Wait for it(Chucky dot)











Supper!

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

Let me suggest this to anybody wishing to stop trash posts:

1) If you must respond, it is counterproductive to repost the trash
post. If you don't want to see it, why copy it (again and again)?

1) If you must respond, it is extremely counterproductive to repost
the trash poster's links. If you don't want to see it, why copy it
(again and again)?
--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.



Thank you Gene. It's time someone explained how to 'keep the peace' to the
local sheriff.

On Jun 8, 8:11?am, Gene Kearns
wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:57:00 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Chuck's dot was an attempt to keep trash posts out of the group. What's the
reason for your crap?

Let me suggest this to anybody wishing to stop trash posts:

1) If you must respond, it is counterproductive to repost the trash
post. If you don't want to see it, why copy it (again and again)?

1) If you must respond, it is extremely counterproductive to repost
the trash poster's links. If you don't want to see it, why copy it
(again and again)?
--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

eMail


Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

Back when I was deleting the text of messages like this, a large
number of people all bitched about "censorship".

Munging the title leaves the hateful crap there for everybody to read.

That normally reduces bitching down to the Jim, Charlie Morgan, and
Don White (see below) contingency. Two of those three would complain
if I posted that Monday followed Sunday, and the third hasn't had a
positive thing to say to anybody in months.

There isn't a good way to do this that will make everybody happy.
In fact, it isn't about making anybody happy- it's about picking up
trash.

On Jun 8, 8:27?am, "Don White" wrote:


Thank you Gene. It's time someone explained how to 'keep the peace' to the
local sheriff.

Oh, I'm sooooooo sorry Don.
I'll try to post some "The US Sucks!" posts- I'm kidding, but I'm sure
you would find that more to your taste and more consistent with your
typical contribution here.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:11:14 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Let me suggest this to anybody wishing to stop trash posts:

1) If you must respond, it is counterproductive to repost the trash
post. If you don't want to see it, why copy it (again and again)?

1) If you must respond, it is extremely counterproductive to repost
the trash poster's links. If you don't want to see it, why copy it
(again and again)?

Absolutely right. Better to put the originator in the kill file if a
chronic offender, and resist the temptation to say anything at all.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:12:05 GMT, "Jim" wrote:


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
roups.com...
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Recreational and commercial boats must cut the
number of red snapper brought to shore and shrimpers must bring up
less in their trawls to keep one of the Gulf of Mexico's most popular
catches from dying out, federal regulators decided Thursday.

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council reduced the recreational
catch limit from four fish to two per person, and set a limit for all
commercial boats at 5 million pounds for the year instead of 9.1
million pounds as in past years.

The two-fish recreational catch limit had already been put into effect
on a temporary basis this year. And the commercial catch had been put
at 6.5 million pounds before the current season began.

A federal judge struck down the previous red snapper plan earlier this
year because of a lawsuit filed by three conservation groups, saying
the plan was unlikely to rebuild the species by a 2032 deadline.
Regulators had until the end of this year to approve a new plan.


Thanks Chuck(Chucky dot) You have given me an idea(Chucky dot) I have a plan
for red snapper(Chucky dot)

Chuck's dot was an attempt to keep trash posts out of the group. What's the
reason for your crap?

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

There isn't a good way to do this that will make everybody happy.
In fact, it isn't about making anybody happy- it's about picking up
trash.

Now we're getting to the real issue (Chuckie dot) You are not smart enough
or honest enough to be the keeper of the trash (Chuckie dot)
By the way, do you prefer Chuckie or Chucky? My spell checker likes Chucky.

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:11:14 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:57:00 -0500, John H.
wrote:

Chuck's dot was an attempt to keep trash posts out of the group. What's the
reason for your crap?

Let me suggest this to anybody wishing to stop trash posts:

1) If you must respond, it is counterproductive to repost the trash
post. If you don't want to see it, why copy it (again and again)?

1) If you must respond, it is extremely counterproductive to repost
the trash poster's links. If you don't want to see it, why copy it
(again and again)?

Why thanks, Gene. Any help is appreciated.

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 12:27:56 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:


"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
.. .

Let me suggest this to anybody wishing to stop trash posts:

1) If you must respond, it is counterproductive to repost the trash
post. If you don't want to see it, why copy it (again and again)?

1) If you must respond, it is extremely counterproductive to repost
the trash poster's links. If you don't want to see it, why copy it
(again and again)?
--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.



Thank you Gene. It's time someone explained how to 'keep the peace' to the
local sheriff.


Yup, Gene's a pretty nice guy!