Politics Vs. Biology
 
Fishing For Freedom
We are a non-user group specific organization that seeks to protect Florida's environment, people, and economy through responsible scientific, sociological, and ecological management.
 
 
The Net Case Appeal to the Supreme Court
 
 
Fishing For Freedom's Group Picture at the First DCA
 
 
Our Court Case is Set for Oral Argument on May 15th
 
 
The Cortez Commercial Fishing Festival! A Smashing Success
 
 
Donations For The Fight Page
 
 
Supporters of Fishing For Freedom - They Support Us - Let's Support Them
 
 
Fishing For Freedom Chapters and Members Pictures
 
 
October 22, 2013 THE JUDGE RULES - A MUST READ
 
 
Legal Reasoning For Overturning The 2" Rule on Seine Nets that the CCA Does Not Want the Public to Know
 
 
September 14th Update: Right Before Judge Fulford and the Media's Eyes and TV Cameras - The FWC Lies Are Exposed
 
 
Judge Fulford Fishes For The Truth; Tells The FWC And Glogau That She Is Going Fishing With Us
 
 
Updated 4/15/2012: Your One Stop For FFF Reader Submitted YouTube Videos and 11 FFF Videos
 
 
March 14th, 2012 --- Resolution Number 4 And Counting
 
 
February 4th, Dixie County Resolution on Fishing Nets
 
 
February 1, 2012 Collier County Resolution On FWC Fishing Nets
 
 
February 1, 2012 Wakulla County Resolution On Nets
 
 
Need a laugh? Watch this factual FWC Court Video
 
 
February 7th , 2010 - Brand New YouTube Videos Submitted From Allen3200
 
 
4/18 Follow-up FACTS to the post above.The CCA Symbol Exposed
 
 
Posted 11/22 Mr. Osteen's Remembrance Card
 
 
5/08: 90 year old Johnny Osteen's case
 
 
Pictures of FWC Professionalism at work on 91 Year Old Mr. Osteen
 
 
Nov. 14... Can You Believe This? Sansom Reappointed After Telling Board Members Under His Rule Not To Cooperate With State Investigators About Disappearing Money
 
 
A Heartwarming,1939 Memory of Cast Netting Mullet
 
 
The Simple, Accurate Way to Measure a Commercial Fishing Net
 
 
Faces of a Fishing Village
A tribute to the men and women of America's working waterfronts
 
 
Added July 18 ... How the FWC was formed and what you may not know
 
 
DCA Rules FWC Can Not Be Challenged In Court
 
 
Video! FWC's Lies, Refusal to Provide Due Process and Arrogance Exposed at 1st DCA Hearing
 
 
FMP/FWC Netted Dolphin Fraud Parts 1 & 2
 
 
A Crabbing Family Wants You to Know
 
 
FWC/FWRI/Fishing For Freedom 500 Square Foot of Mesh Area Net Test Data
 
 
Protest Articles
 
 
Full Moon Summer Solstice Mullet Madness
 
 
Expose' #2 The Turtle Deception Revealed
 
 
"Rally in Tally" Pics
 
 
Van Lewis Fillets The Net Limitation Act
 
 
Contact Your Senators & Representatives
 
 
Meet Christina Johnson of our West Coast Office
 
 
Our N, S, and W Headquarters
 
 
The Marvin Thomas FWC Abuse Case
 
 
Abuse: 2 Down 3 to Go. See end of story
 
 
Updated (One small portion) 06/12/2010 - FWC Abuse of VP
 
 
FWC Abuse of Charles Beckham
 
 
Join Fishing For Freedom
 
 
The Limited Net Fishing Amendment
 
 

Video! FWC's Lies, Refusal to Provide Due Process and Arrogance Exposed at 1st DCA Hearing

Dont want to or can't watch the video? See my court notes at the end of this post.

Watch the FWC's arrogance, constitutional corruption and the stupidity of their "rational basis" argument.


We are awaiting the opinion of the DCA... YOU watch the video and YOU decide who will prevail.

Instructions for the video or audio link: Scroll down the page until you reach "11/14," then click on "06-1554 11-14-06 WAKULLA FISHERMEN’S ASS., INC., ET AL. v. FLORIDA FISH & WILDLIFE CONSERVATION" Video or Audio.

Click Here For The Video and/or Audio Link to the DCA Oral Argument.

Our Attorney Ron Mowrey brought out:

1. The 2” mesh rule violates Article X, Section 16 and many other constitutional sections.

2. The 2” mesh rule was passed through the now proven wrongful testimony of Brent Winner (FWRI’s Net expert) and ex-FWC Executive Director Russell Nelson.

3. In 1997 the MFC/FWC claimed the by-catch with 2” mesh nets would be “negligible” and only result in a 5% by-catch. NOW, the state’s own tests have proven what the fishermen and their experts have claimed since 1997 … that the by-catch is OVER 90%.

4. The FWC rejected ALL of our independent, paid tests, of the past. All of which resulted in “devastating” by-catch results using the 2” mesh nets.

5. The FWC rejected Federal rules that if by-catch is NOT considered, that the tests must be thrown out.

6. The FWC agreed to be bound by test results and stopped the tests early.

7. Asserts that only a gill net that UNNECESSARILY KILLS AND WASTES FISH is a gill net that is prohibited by the constitution. (As the Supreme Court declared, the constitution must be read as a whole.)

8. FWC statistics from the tests bear out that 630 million juvenile mullet are unnecessarily killed and wasted for every 45 million pounds captured under the FWC’s 2” mesh rule.

(FFF Note: The FWC ex-Executive Director Russell Nelson's affidavit also included that if you were to take 2-3 million pounds of juvenile mullet out of the resource yearly that you would threaten to reverse the recovery. Since he only stated 2-3 million pounds, the undisputed unnecessary killing and waste of 630 million juvenile mullet for every 45 million pounds must be "rational" to the FWC's "wisdom." You've got to laugh at the stupidity.)

9. Contrary to his own opinion 9 years ago (which was used in the 2” mesh case in 1997), the FWC’s own expert, Brent Winner, claimed that substantial by-catch is NOT good for the resource.

FWC/State Attorney Jonathon Glogau argued:

1. Glogau kept referring to the unnecessary killing and waste testimony in 1997... Even though that testimony has been disproved by the FWC’s own tests and the testimony he used (Like Brent Winner’s) has been changed.

2. Claimed the mullet population is getting “healthier.”

(FFF’s note inserted here) The mullet harvest has dropped from 10 million to 9 million to 7 million to a lower 7 million to 5 million pounds in the last 5 years with no less fishermen targeting the species. This is NOT a sign of a resource “getting healthier.”

3. Glogau admitted no tests were conducted in 1997 when the ALJ deemed the 2” mesh net to be reasonable with no substantial by-catch.

4. When the Chief Judge pointed out that the 2006 FWC net tests were stopped by the FWC when they did not turn out in the FWC’s favor, Glogau fired back that the tests turned out exactly as the FWC thought they would.

(FFF’s note: This is tantamount to saying that, We EXPECTED the testimony of our experts in 1997 to be proven to be lies or totally incompetent in the 2006 net tests, therefore we’re right and they are wrong. Are you scratching your heads too? I surely am.)

5. Claims that the mullet stock’s health is “undisputed.”

(FFF Note; Where has Mr. Glogau been all this time? The health of the mullet has always been a center point of our argument.)

6. Claims that roe mullet don’t school with smaller mullet.

(FFF Note: This is simply an absurd comment from someone that doesn‘t have to pick out the juvenile fish. Juvenile fish do not go offshore during roe season… And near shore where the juvenile fish live is the ONLY place you can use a 500 square foot net.)

7. Attempts to assert that since “most” of the mullet are caught during roe season that it doesn’t matter what happened the rest of the year.

8. Claims the statistics are “uncontested.”

(FFF Note… What!?!?)

AT THIS POINT THE CHIEF JUDGE STATES HE IS “BOTHERED” BY THE TRIAL JUDGE’S DECISION TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGEMENT.

9 Glogau claims the “rational basis test” is all the FWC needs to prove it’s case.

10. Glogau tells the court a couple of times that it’s not up to the court to debate the FWC’s wisdom or questions on resource issues.

THE CHIEF JUDGE MAKES A REMARK THAT THE FISHERMEN WOULD HAVE NO DUE PROCESS IF SO… AND IF WE DIDN’T HAVE STANDING TO BRING THIS CASE TO COURT THAT WE WOULD HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS AT ALL. FURTHERMORE THE JUDGE STATED THE FWC WANTED NO OVERSIGHT NO MATTER HOW CONSTITUTIONALLY QUESTIONABLE THE RULE WAS.

11. Glogau was forced to admit that the FWC’s 2” mesh net unnecessarily kills and wastes 90% (or more) of what it captures…

12. THEN Glogau turns right around and states that the 2” mesh net doesn’t harm the resource… CONTRARY to his own expert’s current affidavit!

13. Glogau is forced to admit that the FWC’s 2” mesh net illegally gills 90% illegal, juvenile fish.

14. While arguing, Glogau states that the 2” mesh net makes “NO ECONOMIC SENSE.” Nothing that Glogau stated in this hearing rang truer than that statement.

(FFF Note: Thank you Mr. Glogau. The Supreme Court declared that “commercial viability is relevant.” If a 2” net doesn‘t capture an economically viable amount of marketable fish, a smaller mesh net will capture even less marketable and more juvenile fish than the 2“ mesh net.)

15. Claims that FWC… NOT the courts… should make the rational decision.

(FFF Note: And you see what the FWC’s “rationality” has lead to in this instance... 90%+ waste.)

Mowrey’s Cross

1. FWC’s expert now states that one must consider the by-catch if the by-catch is unusually large.

(FFF Note: I think the 90%+ by-catch falls into the “unusually large” category… Don’t you?)

2. The Feds stated in their testimony that the 2” net “WILL DESTROY THE RESOURCE.”

3. States that the “sole purpose” of the amendment as determined by the Supreme Court was to prevent “unnecessary killing and waste” of the resource.

4. Stated to the DCA Justices that the Judge Janet Ferris (of the trial court) stated that the FWC would be likely filing for a “summary judgment” against our case and that the court would likely dispose of our case at that time.

(FFF Note: And they are still allowing this Judge to sit on the bench. This is an example of “why“ we attempted to have this judge recused.)

Text-only version of this page  |  Edit this page  |  Manage website  |  Website design: 2-minute-website.com