Why aren't catch shares just auctioned at the start of each season?

2

Replies

  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Tom, You're right, it is time. However, and without devolving into a political conversation, you think the current administration will make things better? Look who they chose to head the NOAA: Chris Oliver.

    http://www.savingseafood.org/news/washington/americas-fishing-industry-unites-support-chris-oliver-noaa-fisheries/

    What does that tell you?

    Based on the cataclysmic shift with the Gulf Council appointments today, I would say it bodes well for reasonable and rational fisheries management for our Gulf of Mexico fisheries for a change.
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,199 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    scam? the new rec season with the potential to harvest 250,000 lbs per day...

    Unless the MS act is thrown out therse won't be another federal rec season for 5 +years.

    It all makes sense now. Our seasons are being set based on " POTENTIAL to harvest " numbers.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,414 Admiral
    drgibby wrote: »
    It all makes sense now. Our seasons are being set based on " POTENTIAL to harvest " numbers.

    that's their #, not mine.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    that's their #, not mine.

    Whose numbers? EDF's? Good one.

    Anyone who claims that a 39 day private rec season is going to crash the Gulf of Mexico red snapper fishery is either smoking crack, or worse, getting drunk on the EDF Koolaid!
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,881 Admiral
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Based on the cataclysmic shift with the Gulf Council appointments today, I would say it bodes well for reasonable and rational fisheries management for our Gulf of Mexico fisheries for a change.

    Please explain.

    Because when I see a bunch of seafood producers in love with a candidate, it puts me on edge.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    Which of the new Gulf Council appointees were supported by a bunch of seafood producers?

    You are probably referring to the new head of NMFS - Chris Oliver. According to Jim Donofrio, Mr. Oliver is going to do the right thing for recreational fishermen and judging from the actions of people appointed by Trump this far, I have to say I am encouraged. Mr. Oliver is from Texas and is an avid recreational fisherman, and understands the issues at play here.

    Best,
    Tom
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Which of the new Gulf Council appointees were supported by a bunch of seafood producers?

    You are probably referring to the new head of NMFS - Chris Oliver. According to Jim Donofrio, Mr. Oliver is going to do the right thing for recreational fishermen and judging from the actions of people appointed by Trump this far, I have to say I am encouraged. Mr. Oliver is from Texas and is an avid recreational fisherman, and understands the issues at play here.

    Best,
    Tom

    The CFA fully supports and endorses Chris Oliver.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    The CFA fully supports and endorses Chris Oliver.

    So does www.Freedom2Fish.org!
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 9,881 Admiral
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Which of the new Gulf Council appointees were supported by a bunch of seafood producers?

    You are probably referring to the new head of NMFS - Chris Oliver. According to Jim Donofrio, Mr. Oliver is going to do the right thing for recreational fishermen and judging from the actions of people appointed by Trump this far, I have to say I am encouraged. Mr. Oliver is from Texas and is an avid recreational fisherman, and understands the issues at play here.

    Best,
    Tom

    Yes, I was referring to Oliver, and I hope you are correct -- but I will suggest it's a bit more than an understanding of the issues that we should hope for, and to that end we shall see....
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    Yes, Oliver was endorsed by all the Catch Share groups and he was the executive director of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, heavily influenced by commercial interests. However, Jim Donofrio has met with Mr. Oliver and he had high praise and optimism for the future with him at the helm.

    As you said, we shall see....until he shows otherwise, we should give Oliver the benefit of the doubt.
  • Fintastic.IncFintastic.Inc Posts: 251 Deckhand
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    BTW, blood, sweat, and tears to get to that point.
    10 day derby's, eff the weather.. They paid their dues..
    Lol, blood , sweat and tears? Many of the larger shareholders couldn't fish their way out of a bucket much less have any history (pre IFQ) in the commercial fishery whatsoever. Nice try though.
    www.fintasticinc.com
    Lagerhead Fishing Team
    Team Cabo Loco
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,414 Admiral
    Lol, blood , sweat and tears? Many of the larger shareholders couldn't fish their way out of a bucket much less have any history (pre IFQ) in the commercial fishery whatsoever. Nice try though.
    ok, and you been fishing how long? 10 years maybe?
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Fintastic.IncFintastic.Inc Posts: 251 Deckhand
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    ok, and you been fishing how long? 10 years maybe?

    Right at 20 years, for a living that is. And still going strong. Your point is?
    www.fintasticinc.com
    Lagerhead Fishing Team
    Team Cabo Loco
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    Anumber1 normally doesn't have a point. He is a paid commercial rep.

    Congress and the Gulf Council are looking at requiring the commercial fat cat IFQ Shareholders to pay for their access, as they should have over 10 years ago. This has cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of $$.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,414 Admiral
    Right at 20 years, for a living that is. And still going strong. Your point is?
    didn't you buy your reef permit with no landings knowing full well that you would be excluded from any shares?

    Sour grapes is my point.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,414 Admiral
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Anumber1 normally doesn't have a point. He is a paid commercial rep.

    Congress and the Gulf Council are looking at requiring the commercial fat cat IFQ Shareholders to pay for their access, as they should have over 10 years ago. This has cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of $$.
    Tommy, I'm not paid or compensated in any shape, form or fashion.
    I pay dues to an industry org. and I serve on the local and state BOD for that org.
    Our dues pay for a very well respected lobbyist in Tallahassee.

    You spew so much off the wall **** it's no wonder the council members eyes glaze over whenever you speak.:rotflmao
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    Whatever. You may have noticed that the Gulf Council hasn't been known for being very credible the last few years - who really gives a **** about what their eyes are doing. Now we have a new Council (one that hasn't been bought and paid for by the enviro/commercial interests) and I believe REAL fisheries management will be accomplished now and for the foreseeable future.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,414 Admiral
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Whatever..
    Postulate much? lmao.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    Not really - like I said, you rarely have a point.
  • Fintastic.IncFintastic.Inc Posts: 251 Deckhand
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    didn't you buy your reef permit with no landings knowing full well that you would be excluded from any shares?

    Sour grapes is my point.
    Well you have gotten older since we last went through this so I'll refresh for you. I purchased my permit in late 99 well before the word IFQ was an idea. No I didn't commercial fish much since my charter business was and still is very busy. The point is that if you can't see the wrong in what happened in the initial allocating of the shares then you are either uneducated or in bed with the crew who's idea it was, and seeing the wealth of info you have on the subject I will bet on the second assumption.
    www.fintasticinc.com
    Lagerhead Fishing Team
    Team Cabo Loco
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,414 Admiral
    Well you have gotten older since we last went through this so I'll refresh for you. I purchased my permit in late 99 well before the word IFQ was an idea. No I didn't commercial fish much since my charter business was and still is very busy. The point is that if you can't see the wrong in what happened in the initial allocating of the shares then you are either uneducated or in bed with the crew who's idea it was, and seeing the wealth of info you have on the subject I will bet on the second assumption.
    The initial share allocation was based on trip ticket records within a certain time frame, you either had them or didn't. period

    How hard is that to understand?
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    Whatever the allocation is, they need to start leasing them directly from the government.
  • Fintastic.IncFintastic.Inc Posts: 251 Deckhand
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    The initial share allocation was based on trip ticket records within a certain time frame, you either had them or didn't. period

    How hard is that to understand?
    It’s not hard to understand, it is just a giant bunch of BS. You can say whatever you want and are more than welcome to your opinion. We can disagree, but you know that the “real fisherman” got screwed over and have been taken advantage of.
    I’ll give you an example.
    A while ago I had some guys offshore on a charter. These guys were all in the investment and financial business. One of them in particular was an owner of well over 20,000 lbs of various IFQ shares. On the first stop he caught a short Red Grouper, and after I unhooked and released the fish he made a comment to me I’ll never forget. He asked “ How Big a Gag Snapper has to be in order to keep it?” This man makes money leasing “real fisherman” the right to provide for their families and has no “blood, sweat and tears” in this fishery.
    www.fintasticinc.com
    Lagerhead Fishing Team
    Team Cabo Loco
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,414 Admiral
    It’s not hard to understand, it is just a giant bunch of BS. You can say whatever you want and are more than welcome to your opinion. We can disagree, but you know that the “real fisherman” got screwed over and have been taken advantage of.
    I’ll give you an example.
    A while ago I had some guys offshore on a charter. These guys were all in the investment and financial business. One of them in particular was an owner of well over 20,000 lbs of various IFQ shares. On the first stop he caught a short Red Grouper, and after I unhooked and released the fish he made a comment to me I’ll never forget. He asked “ How Big a Gag Snapper has to be in order to keep it?” This man makes money leasing “real fisherman” the right to provide for their families and has no “blood, sweat and tears” in this fishery.
    I understand it has been bastardized since being opened up to all.
    However (whether you agree with CS or not) the initial allocations were based on catch history within a certain time frame.

    You either had it or you didn't..

    Hence the blood sweat and tears, even if one owned boats and hired crews to run them it's a risky business.
    Are you even full time or is this just a hobby for you?

    I don't care who you are or what you do, if you run your own business and you don't have sleepless nights wondering if you made the right call, you either got that silver spoon up you *** or it's a part time gig..
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • XafXaf Posts: 947 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Tarponator,
    Actually is a great question - why aren't they auctioned off each year? Or, at the very least require that they lease their % of allocation directly from the government at say, $1 to $1.50/pound - they can still their % of allocation fish year-round, they should be paying for the privilege. This could create a revenue stream to the tune of 10's of millions of dollars per year that COULD be dedicated to our fisheries.

    We could throttle back the commercial IFQ allocation to 2006 levels - 4.65 million pounds. Take the rest of the commercial quota and open it up to true auction or lottery to provide avenue to bring in new entrants into the commercial fishing industry. Right now, they are locked out.

    Another thing would be to prohibit leasing of OUR fish (and these OUR fish by they way) to other commercial fishermen. NOBODY should have the right to collect our nation's resource royalties and pocket 100% of the proceeds as is happening now when the Sea Lords lease their allocation to other commercial fishermen.

    Lastly, commercial is commercial and recreational is recreational. Prohibit this loophole where commercial captains are taking recreational fishermen on "charters that can't be called a charter".

    ALL of these things are causing the havoc that we are experiencing in our recreational fisheries right now - the push to privatize our fish needs to be eliminated.

    I'm trying to make sense of this whole fisheries management issue. Are there any other national resources that are allocated to private/commercial entities to profit from/manage? Their is something about granting someone something in perpetuity, that doesn't seem right to me.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    Xaf wrote: »
    I'm trying to make sense of this whole fisheries management issue. Are there any other national resources that are allocated to private/commercial entities to profit from/manage? Their is something about granting someone something in perpetuity, that doesn't seem right to me.

    Not that I know of - every other industry that profits from the harvest of our Public Trust Resources is required by law to pay royalties to the nation for the privilege - not in the IFQ fisheries for some odd reason. Especially strange since they have been gifted "ownership" rights to what we ALL own.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,414 Admiral
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Not that I know of - every other industry that profits from the harvest of our Public Trust Resources is required by law to pay royalties to the nation for the privilege - not in the IFQ fisheries for some odd reason. Especially strange since they have been gifted "ownership" rights to what we ALL own.
    They pay Tommy, maybe not what you want them to pay but they pay.
    3% I think?

    Please stick to facts instead just blowing smoke.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    They pay Tommy, maybe not what you want them to pay but they pay.
    3% I think?

    Please stick to facts instead just blowing smoke.


    %3 is max allowed by law so it will take congress to change that.
  • Fintastic.IncFintastic.Inc Posts: 251 Deckhand
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    I understand it has been bastardized since being opened up to all.
    However (whether you agree with CS or not) the initial allocations were based on catch history within a certain time frame.

    You either had it or you didn't..

    Hence the blood sweat and tears, even if one owned boats and hired crews to run them it's a risky business.
    Are you even full time or is this just a hobby for you?

    I don't care who you are or what you do, if you run your own business and you don't have sleepless nights wondering if you made the right call, you either got that silver spoon up you *** or it's a part time gig..

    Sir I don’t want to get into some crazy pi$$ing match with you but I can assure you I am offshore well more than 250 days a year which I imagine is well more than most. So if that is a silver spoon in my a$$ then I guess I am a part timer
    www.fintasticinc.com
    Lagerhead Fishing Team
    Team Cabo Loco
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,570 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    They pay Tommy, maybe not what you want them to pay but they pay.
    3% I think?

    Please stick to facts instead just blowing smoke.

    If you have ever read the Magnuson, it's very clear - I have enclosed a screen shot addressing both royalties and the cost recovery fee in the Magnuson.

    The facts are that the Magnuson allows for the Councils to levy resource rent, or royalties as explained in (d).

    The facts are that the Magnuson allows for the Councils to collect a 3% Cost Recovery Fee as explained in (e). Anumber1 is obviously confused about the 3% CRF, which is designed to pay for the costs of administering and enforcing the IFQ program, which, btw doesn't even cover all the costs so the American taxpayer is forced to subsidize the difference.

    It's peculiar that Art and Tom Ard, self-proclaimed "fisheries experts", are so uninformed of the actual facts, or so willing to continue to misinform people.

    Which is it?
    msa.jpg 99.2K
2

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file