The Real Purpose Behind AnglerAction.org?

124»

Replies

  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,203 Admiral
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    One of the biggest shots-in-the-arm for Gulf Red Snapper was the deployment of 10's of thousands of artificial reefs offshore of Alabama and FL panhandle, which have accounted for over 40% of ALL recreationally-caught red snapper in the ENTIRE Gulf. Many of those fish in the AL/FL reefing areas were dispersed by hurricanes to areas off of the west coast of Florida that hadn't seen them in years.




    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
    Hurricane Mitch in 1998 pushed more ARS this way, long before Katrina had an impact.

    Not much for artificial reefs here Tom so how do you and your reef builders account for the ARS here? Magic perhaps?

    Artificial reefs are nothing but anchoring spots for idiots.
    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.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Artificial reefs are nothing but anchoring spots for idiots.

    :huh That sound like an Anti-Fishing ENGO statement.......If all artifical Structure was removed, could the
    natural ecosystem support all of the biomass that would come from it? Most natural structure populates
    to its biomass potential. That serves as a natural biomass limit. Add structure add biomass potential, remove,
    and likewise take away stock. Its a real simple idea to grasp, but those with Anti-Fishing agenda's do
    not want to see more habitat, and those fishing in "bulk" do not like the fish finding shelter in locations that
    only single hook and line anglers can target.
  • Capt EasyCapt Easy Posts: 203 Officer
    Typiclese wrote: »

    Say what you want, but the evidence of how catch shares destroy jobs, ruin livelihoods, disrupt markets is irrefutable. If you have evidence to the contrary please post.

    .
    :rotflmao
    Catch shares do a lot of things but disrupting markets is not one of them. In fact they allow the market to work its magic. No closed seasons. Closed seasons are what disrupt markets.

    Yes catch shares destroy 10 thousand dollar a year jobs for deck hands and turns them into less numerous 25 thousand dollar a year jobs.

    Ruin livelihoods? Sorry it makes livelihoods much more stable.

    Of course this is my opinion, based on 37 years of commercial fishing, almost 25 years of owning a commercial marina, and 12 years of buying and selling up to 750 thousand pounds of fish a year (sold the marina and fish business in 2008). What experience do you have that is giving you irrefutable evidence.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,203 Admiral
    :huh That sound like an Anti-Fishing ENGO statement.......If all artifical Structure was removed, could the
    natural ecosystem support all of the biomass that would come from it? Most natural structure populates
    to its biomass potential. That serves as a natural biomass limit. Add structure add biomass potential, remove,
    and likewise take away stock. Its a real simple idea to grasp, but those with Anti-Fishing agenda's do
    not want to see more habitat, and those fishing in "bulk" do not like the fish finding shelter in locations that
    only single hook and line anglers can target.
    Just based on who and what I see on our artificial reefs here...... I just get a kick out of you yahoo's running 18 miles to a artificial reef while passing loads of good bottom on the way.

    I'll let you know when I join the ENGO's:wink... Trust me if I do I'll shout it out here very loud just to f with y'all.
    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: 1,550 Captain
    Catch Shares are designed to destroy a "sizeable fraction" of the fleet accoding to Lubchenco.

    Here's an anology;

    So, let's say 9 out of 10 captains are forced out of the business due to this forced reduction of the fishing fleet, and the 1 still remaining is making a fortune leasing and fishing his quota - about $1 million/year.

    Capt Easy and other Catch Share proponents then point to the HUGE success of the program - after Catch Shares were implemented, each of those captains are now averaging $100,000 a year EACH!

    If you are benefiting from catch Shares - they are the best thing since sliced bread - the problem is that the vast majority of us will NEVER benefit from Catch Shares.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • TypicleseTypiclese Posts: 385 Officer
    Welcome back NOAA/NMFS Shrill Mr. capt Easy :applause

    Easy, you are the poster child for why catch shares need to be stopped. Your "gift" of our resource to sell was not yours to have sole access to. Based on your profiteering from catch shares gifted public resource, how about you pay us - the tax payer - back for the money we paid for you to get wealthy. No doubt at the expense of others who were not so fortunate to be "gifted" the same numbers.

    I would tell you where to go....to research. But you know as well as I the evidence. But thanks for being here to be the poster child for what is wrong with this system.

    I'm not going to play the child's game of who's is bigger. But since you are incapable of comprehending anything else - my time inside the beltway exceeds your years on the water.

    Now on to just the tip of the evidence.....

    "Catch-share quotas are proven to reduce the size of fishing fleets and cost small fishermen their jobs, Ros-Lehtinen said. The nonpartisan consumer watchdog Food Water Watch estimates that every time a boat stops fishing, three to six jobs are lost, Ros-Lehtinen said, citing a recently released study by the group.

    After such quotas were imposed in New England, the number of boats in the water went from 500 to 253, costing thousands of fishermen their jobs, Ros-Lehtinen said Food Water Watch reported. In Alaska, the crab fleet went from 300 boats to 80, Lower Keys lobster fisherman George Niles said.

    "The commercial and recreational fishing industries play a critical role in maintaining vibrant coastal communities," Ros-Lehtinen said in a prepared statement. "When fishermen lose their jobs it has a ripple effect. Food Water Watch has said if new catch-share programs are implemented that 'many traditional fishermen will be forced out of work, economies of their communities will crumble, there will be increased risk of harm to our oceans and consumers will probably end up with lower quality seafood.' Any regulation that directly leads to all of these negative consequences needs to be addressed."""

    Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Interview 11 Oct 2011.

    Do you really want me to continue with the voluminous amounts of data that are, again, irrefutable as to the affect catch shares. Again, you know it is there. OK, if you insist, here's another one. this one is testimony of a commercial fisherman from Alaska. It is to the Ocean Policy task Force Hearing in Anchorage AK on 21 Aug 2010:

    "My name is Shawn Dochtermann from Kodiak, Alaska. I have commercial fished in Alaskan waters for 31 years and I am here today representing the Crewman’s Association. Alaska’s Bering Sea crab fisheries are an example of the failure of a Catch Share program. Over 1,000 crewmen lost their jobs due to privatization, while many of them had 20 to 25 years experience in the industry. Consolidation continues and hundreds more are losing their crab incomes.

    Crewmembers are also losing jobs as other management programs, such as the Rockfish Pilot Program, get politically privatized without adequate scientific justification. Total allowable catches are already in place. This public larceny hides under ‘the theoretical joys of privatization’ to benefit non-participating investors. A recent study by the University of British Columbia indicates that small-scale fisheries are more efficient and better at meeting socio-economic needs than large scale fisheries, as the residents of local communities are provided with fishing related jobs.

    When the Bering Sea crab catch share system was implemented, crewmembers were denied a historical participation share of $400 million of IFQs – while roughly $1 billion of catcher rights (IFQs) were given to vessel owners. Many of these vessel owners are large corporations. Now high lease fees paid to quota-holding ‘Sealords’ come right off the top of our vessel trip settlements — costing independent contracting crewmen another $35-40 million per year compared to before privatization.

    It does not take much effort to realize our fisheries suffer under a Resource Curse condition, and that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council is a perfect example of Regulatory Capture in action. Once again, it is the Labor component who is disenfranchised and alienated, and driven into indentured servitude under what are in fact sharecropping programs. NOAA is letting this happen in America!

    Vessel owner group representatives have committed perjuries on the federal council record and crewmembers have been coerced into not giving public testimonies for fear of losing their fishing jobs. NOAA has failed to prosecute these criminally false testimonies and coercions. When will these perjuries be investigated?

    The NPFMC and NOAA have also ignored 46 U.S.C. section 10601 and other federal law requiring fairly contracted “lay shares” for crew. Individual crewmen who used to net 5% to 6% are now lucky to net 1% to 2% of the adjusted gross revenues from crab fishing trips. Some quota holders presently scalp off upwards of 75% of gross revenues while an entire crab crew and skipper collectively receive only 12-15%. Crews and skippers historically received 35-40% of the gross revenues.

    Without required active participation, without caps on ownership, without limits on consolidation, and without adherence to the national standards of a ‘fair and equitable’ distribution of rights, Catch Shares will clearly lead to more socio-economic harms.

    Contrary to what others may tell you, when examined from the point of view of fishermen, communities and regional economics, Alaska’s rationalization schemes do not serve as good examples of fisheries management and national policy. An independent review by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Government Accountability Office of the restraints of trade and ownership structures is overdue.

    We have grave concern about OCS Gas and Oil Exploration and the proposed Pebble Mine, as both of these resource extractions could easily damage the renewable resources of the Bering Sea and Bristol Bay with only one disaster. Therefore, we urge this panel to do the right thing and never let nonrenewable resource extraction take a front seat to the precious renewable seafood of Alaska.

    Respectfully – Shawn C. Dochtermann

    Crewman’s Association — Secretary/Executive Director"

    Hear that easy? That is your conscious calling....
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,550 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Hurricane Mitch in 1998 pushed more ARS this way, long before Katrina had an impact.

    Not much for artificial reefs here Tom so how do you and your reef builders account for the ARS here? Magic perhaps?

    Artificial reefs are nothing but anchoring spots for idiots.

    I think Hurricane Ivan had a substantial impact on the areas in the NW coast of Florida in 2004 when it t-boned Orange Beach. Red Snapper love natural bottom, rocks, ledges, and the like. What's your point?

    Your argument sounds a LOT like the usual enviro "attraction" argument that states that ARs just congregate the fish so that any "idiot" can catch them, thereby having a negative net impact on the fishery biomass.

    What about the reefing areas off of Alabama that have produced about 40% of all recreationally-caught snapper year after year? Are they attracting them? If so, from where? Answer: These reefs are producing a sustainable fishery where none existed before, and I know PLENTY of seasoned, experienced captains who understand the value of artificial reefs to their business, the fishery itself, and the fishing communities in the Gulf. They are certainly NOT idiots by any stretch of the imagination.

    Did I mention the benefit to "natural" reefs that ARs provide by relieving pressure off of those "natural" reefs?

    What about artificial reefs that are deployed with no published numbers? None. No "idiots" can fish it because they don't even know its there - what are those reefs doing for the fishery?

    What about artificial reefs designed to help juvenile fish survive from being eaten from other fish or killed in a shrimp trawl? What are those reefs doing for the fishery?

    I do believe there are idiots here, but they are posting arcane statements on this forum - not out fishing on artificial reefs.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,203 Admiral
    Typiclese wrote: »
    Say what you want, but the evidence of how the GILL NET BAN destroyed jobs, ruined livelihoods, and disrupted markets is irrefutable.
    Fixed it for you Typ, I just love how you're all concerned about the small commercial operator now, when you all lied and sold your soul to put the small commercial operator out of business 17 years ago.

    Hypocrite's all.....
    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.
  • TypicleseTypiclese Posts: 385 Officer
    Mature post as always number zero. Thanks for making yet another meaningful post...
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,203 Admiral
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I think Hurricane Ivan had a substantial impact on the areas in the NW coast of Florida in 2004 when it t-boned Orange Beach. Red Snapper love natural bottom, rocks, ledges, and the like. What's your point?

    Your argument sounds a LOT like the usual enviro "attraction" argument that states that ARs just congregate the fish so that any "idiot" can catch them, thereby having a negative net impact on the fishery biomass.

    What about the reefing areas off of Alabama that have produced about 40% of all recreationally-caught snapper year after year? Are they attracting them? If so, from where? Answer: These reefs are producing a sustainable fishery where none existed before, and I know PLENTY of seasoned, experienced captains who understand the value of artificial reefs to their business, the fishery itself, and the fishing communities in the Gulf. They are certainly NOT idiots by any stretch of the imagination.

    Did I mention the benefit to "natural" reefs that ARs provide by relieving pressure off of those "natural" reefs?

    What about artificial reefs that are deployed with no published numbers? None. No "idiots" can fish it because they don't even know its there - what are those reefs doing for the fishery?

    What about artificial reefs designed to help juvenile fish survive from being eaten from other fish or killed in a shrimp trawl? What are those reefs doing for the fishery?

    I do believe there are idiots here, but they are posting arcane statements on this forum - not out fishing on artificial reefs.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
    I know NOTHING about the reefing areas off Alabama but I would guess that they make it easier for lazy or inexperienced captains to eck out a living.

    No enviro here, just years of observation watching folks run past miles of productive bottom to a point on a chart bought by thousands.
    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: 8,203 Admiral
    Typiclese wrote: »
    Mature post as always number zero. Thanks for making yet another meaningful post...
    truth hurts, don't it...
    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: 1,550 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    I know NOTHING about the reefing areas off Alabama but I would guess that they make it easier for lazy or inexperienced captains to eck out a living.

    No enviro here, just years of observation watching folks run past miles of productive bottom to a point on a chart bought by thousands.

    You just made my point - ARs are relieving pressure off of miles of productive bottom - another benefit of ARs.

    A 40 day federal season makes it impossible for anyone to benefit substantially from the extensive artificial reefs in federal waters when it is currently illegal to land them 90% of the year.
  • ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Just based on who and what I see on our artificial reefs here...... I just get a kick out of you yahoo's running 18 miles to a artificial reef while passing loads of good bottom on the way.

    I'll let you know when I join the ENGO's:wink... Trust me if I do I'll shout it out here very loud just to f with y'all.


    There are I guess still people that think Cigarette Smoking does NOT harm your health....That Seat
    Belt Use Does NOT reduce the incident of death and serious injury....That the Government and politicians
    are REALLy looking out for our best interest.....That catch shares rebuild Fisheries.....

    So believing that there are 'some' that actually believe that Artifical Structure does not add to the biomass of the oceans
    is certainly plausable. As Tom stated, and I have said before, we all know that AR's do indeed increase the ability of the
    ecosystem to support greater biomass....and the beneficial side effect of easing pressure on natural structure is certainly
    a wonderfull perk. Those dragging nets or pulling bottom longlines do not benefit however...oh wait, there is another
    benifit of artifical structure :wink
  • TypicleseTypiclese Posts: 385 Officer
    Number zero, you, defender of truth? That's a gas.

    Gill nets and catch shares have nothing in common other than the people behind them.
  • Capt EasyCapt Easy Posts: 203 Officer
    Typiclese wrote: »

    I'm not going to play the child's game of who's is bigger. But since you are incapable of comprehending anything else - my time inside the beltway exceeds your years on the water.

    "Inside the beltway" I asume that means Washington DC. So...are you a lobbyist? Politician? Political hanger on? Bureaucrat?

    You want to tell the fisherman whats good for him? :Horse

    I fell asleep before I could finish your book. I don't have to hide behind 20 paragraphs of BS.
  • TypicleseTypiclese Posts: 385 Officer
    Number zero....obvious you forgot your fellow partner in crime....GILL NETTER

    Originally Posted by gill netter
    "COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN WILL BE HERE FOREVER. WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK AROUND YOUR STUPID LAWS!!!!!!!!"

    So the truth bores you Easy? No surprises there....this is not the fiction you proffer.
  • FS Karl SnapperFS Karl Snapper Posts: 285 Officer
    Tarponator, in surveys the key at the start is to have a truly random selection sampling. You have to avoid responses that represent unrealistic indications of the whole.

    That's why just a few hundred opinions can give you an idea of who's winning a political race, but only if you get a valid sampling, without volunteer responses.

    In this case, consider that 10 people went dolphin fishing and only one found a good school. He's the likely one to report, and you don't get the 9 zeros in the mix. The result would be a badly skewed conclusion. I know that they try to get the low-catches reported but it's just not human nature to have a bad day and then report the painful details.

    With CPUE, if the methodology is solid, you get an idea of whether a stock is up or down, but, of course, you have to be careful and use common sense about it.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,203 Admiral
    Typiclese wrote: »
    Number zero, you, defender of truth? That's a gas.

    Gill nets and catch shares have nothing in common other than the people behind them.
    I just find it extremely humorous that you genitalmen are so durn concerned for the small commercial operator(now that it suits your porpoise).

    As a small commercial operator I don't feel your luv(though I do get a small hemorrhiod now and then, is that you Typ?). I'll be writing my own letter to congress and the GOMFMC outlining how I feel and the bogus concern of the rec sector.

    Good lord, at least be truthful and leave your(sic) concern for the commercial sector out of it, y'all don't give a **** about us and I won't stand for you yahoos climbing on our backs to support your position.
    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.
  • Jack HexterJack Hexter New Port RicheyPosts: 3,990 Moderator
    Karl.. When was the last time you saw NMFS use "common sense?"
  • ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    "...the bogus concern of the rec sector."

    Far from "Bogus" is the hundreds of millions of our dollars that have already been spent,
    and continue to be budgeted on a small group of primarily commercial fishermen, to fund their
    Market Based Fishery Management program, so that they can profit from the public resource
    without having to pay those funds to the rightfull owner of the resource, or its public trustee.
    And, as a result of this wastefull spending policy on a privilidged few, we have ZERO fish
    saved as a result, and a cavernous void growing in the Fishery Data that is so desparetly needed
    to mnage OUR fisheries with. These Comprehensive Stock Assesments which "should" be used to
    determine sustainable harvest rates do not exist in MOST stocks, and are typically outdated where
    they do exist at all.

    Demanding that the government does what it is supposed to do, rather than pandering to ENGO's and
    a small group of the fishing community that profit greatly from the Public's resource, certainly is not
    "Bogus". Those with a Guarenteed "Share" of the fishery should actually be very worried. Without
    reliable biomass data, you too are subject to NOAA's whimsicle determination of fishery stocks as
    determined by the NMFS. Look at the Alaska crab Catch Shares. Shortly before the start of their
    season (no Catch Shares don't allow them to fish whenever they want), it was announced their
    quota was cut by 50%. They though they were on the gravy train with guarenteed quota's, but
    wham, it was slashed overnight. Good assesments? Who knows, with no mandate to use reliable
    data, the "Best Avalible Data" pushed for by groups like Pew, and Catch Share promoting
    EDF does not really have to use science based data at all. Is that a "Bogus" concern?

    Of coarse the 25% increase in GOM ARS quota has Share holders happy, but Recs again are
    paying the price for your profit, with even shorter seasons. This again is directly connected to the
    funding of Your management scheme. If the ARS data was known, the likely result would have
    a much greater ARS limit for the rec sector. That would not be good for commercial interest
    however would it? Commercial fishermen "Should" be just as outraged over NMFS's lack of
    reliable data as Recs are, and it seems some are, but that is split at the line where Catch Shares
    enter the equation. On the Rec side, the CFA (Charter Fishermens Association), a very small group
    with ties and support from EDF, like the GOM reef shareholders, have even testified with EDF to
    keep Science Mandates out of the MSRA and fishery management! How sickening. Realistically,
    good science would benefit all, but Catch Share groups can get their quota, without having the science,
    and that very lack of science is being used to cut limits for everyone else, while increasing it to
    Jane's followers (kind of sounds like a 'cult')

    So is it bogus to think NOAA should follow the law? Collect the data they are mandated to collect?
    manage the fisheries in a way that considers both enviromental and economic issues? Provide fair
    and equal access to the fisheries among all stakeholders? ...Put Science before Policy in fishery
    management?

    The data in question on this thread, is something NMFS is responsable to collect, but they have refused.
    If this data is privatly collected, will they even give it consideration? How would they use it? Selectivly?
    What would they reconcile it with, since they have little biomass data to use as a baseline? Would it
    change a thing in their current policy? None of these issues are "Bogus" and despite Catch Share
    supporters having little concern for anything but the bottom line, most fishermen do care about the
    fishery health, and how the budget that is allowing a few to profit is threatening the very health of
    OUR fisheries!

    So here is a question deserving a serious answer: Do you support or oppose a legislative measure that
    would mandate reliable science be used in regulating our fisheries?
  • touchngotouchngo Posts: 73 Deckhand
    who doesn't want reliable data? I certainly do. The problem is how do we get that from the rec sector? You can't do it without vms. And even that is not criminal proof. With so many rec fishermen jaded by the process, who believes their data anyway? You want biomass data and all these other things, how bout starting with any true data? baby steps would be encouraging.
    Far from "Bogus" is the hundreds of millions of our dollars that have already been spent,
    and continue to be budgeted on a small group of primarily commercial fishermen, to fund their
    Market Based Fishery Management program, so that they can profit from the public resource
    without having to pay those funds to the rightfull owner of the resource, or its public trustee.
    And, as a result of this wastefull spending policy on a privilidged few, we have ZERO fish
    saved as a result, and a cavernous void growing in the Fishery Data that is so desparetly needed
    to mnage OUR fisheries with. These Comprehensive Stock Assesments which "should" be used to
    determine sustainable harvest rates do not exist in MOST stocks, and are typically outdated where
    they do exist at all.

    Demanding that the government does what it is supposed to do, rather than pandering to ENGO's and
    a small group of the fishing community that profit greatly from the Public's resource, certainly is not
    "Bogus". Those with a Guarenteed "Share" of the fishery should actually be very worried. Without
    reliable biomass data, you too are subject to NOAA's whimsicle determination of fishery stocks as
    determined by the NMFS. Look at the Alaska crab Catch Shares. Shortly before the start of their
    season (no Catch Shares don't allow them to fish whenever they want), it was announced their
    quota was cut by 50%. They though they were on the gravy train with guarenteed quota's, but
    wham, it was slashed overnight. Good assesments? Who knows, with no mandate to use reliable
    data, the "Best Avalible Data" pushed for by groups like Pew, and Catch Share promoting
    EDF does not really have to use science based data at all. Is that a "Bogus" concern?

    Of coarse the 25% increase in GOM ARS quota has Share holders happy, but Recs again are
    paying the price for your profit, with even shorter seasons. This again is directly connected to the
    funding of Your management scheme. If the ARS data was known, the likely result would have
    a much greater ARS limit for the rec sector. That would not be good for commercial interest
    however would it? Commercial fishermen "Should" be just as outraged over NMFS's lack of
    reliable data as Recs are, and it seems some are, but that is split at the line where Catch Shares
    enter the equation. On the Rec side, the CFA (Charter Fishermens Association), a very small group
    with ties and support from EDF, like the GOM reef shareholders, have even testified with EDF to
    keep Science Mandates out of the MSRA and fishery management! How sickening. Realistically,
    good science would benefit all, but Catch Share groups can get their quota, without having the science,
    and that very lack of science is being used to cut limits for everyone else, while increasing it to
    Jane's followers (kind of sounds like a 'cult')

    So is it bogus to think NOAA should follow the law? Collect the data they are mandated to collect?
    manage the fisheries in a way that considers both enviromental and economic issues? Provide fair
    and equal access to the fisheries among all stakeholders? ...Put Science before Policy in fishery
    management?

    The data in question on this thread, is something NMFS is responsable to collect, but they have refused.
    If this data is privatly collected, will they even give it consideration? How would they use it? Selectivly?
    What would they reconcile it with, since they have little biomass data to use as a baseline? Would it
    change a thing in their current policy? None of these issues are "Bogus" and despite Catch Share
    supporters having little concern for anything but the bottom line, most fishermen do care about the
    fishery health, and how the budget that is allowing a few to profit is threatening the very health of
    OUR fisheries!

    So here is a question deserving a serious answer: Do you support or oppose a legislative measure that
    would mandate reliable science be used in regulating our fisheries?
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,203 Admiral
    Far from "Bogus" is the hundreds of millions of our dollars that have already been spent,
    and continue to be budgeted on a small group of primarily commercial fishermen, to fund their
    Market Based Fishery Management program, so that they can profit from the public resource
    without having to pay those funds to the rightfull owner of the resource, or its public trustee.
    And, as a result of this wastefull spending policy on a privilidged few, we have ZERO fish
    saved as a result, and a cavernous void growing in the Fishery Data that is so desparetly needed
    to mnage OUR fisheries with. These Comprehensive Stock Assesments which "should" be used to
    determine sustainable harvest rates do not exist in MOST stocks, and are typically outdated where
    they do exist at all.

    Demanding that the government does what it is supposed to do, rather than pandering to ENGO's and
    a small group of the fishing community that profit greatly from the Public's resource, certainly is not
    "Bogus". Those with a Guarenteed "Share" of the fishery should actually be very worried. Without
    reliable biomass data, you too are subject to NOAA's whimsicle determination of fishery stocks as
    determined by the NMFS. Look at the Alaska crab Catch Shares. Shortly before the start of their
    season (no Catch Shares don't allow them to fish whenever they want), it was announced their
    quota was cut by 50%. They though they were on the gravy train with guarenteed quota's, but
    wham, it was slashed overnight. Good assesments? Who knows, with no mandate to use reliable
    data, the "Best Avalible Data" pushed for by groups like Pew, and Catch Share promoting
    EDF does not really have to use science based data at all. Is that a "Bogus" concern?

    Of coarse the 25% increase in GOM ARS quota has Share holders happy, but Recs again are
    paying the price for your profit, with even shorter seasons. This again is directly connected to the
    funding of Your management scheme. If the ARS data was known, the likely result would have
    a much greater ARS limit for the rec sector. That would not be good for commercial interest
    however would it? Commercial fishermen "Should" be just as outraged over NMFS's lack of
    reliable data as Recs are, and it seems some are, but that is split at the line where Catch Shares
    enter the equation. On the Rec side, the CFA (Charter Fishermens Association), a very small group
    with ties and support from EDF, like the GOM reef shareholders, have even testified with EDF to
    keep Science Mandates out of the MSRA and fishery management! How sickening. Realistically,
    good science would benefit all, but Catch Share groups can get their quota, without having the science,
    and that very lack of science is being used to cut limits for everyone else, while increasing it to
    Jane's followers (kind of sounds like a 'cult')

    So is it bogus to think NOAA should follow the law? Collect the data they are mandated to collect?
    manage the fisheries in a way that considers both enviromental and economic issues? Provide fair
    and equal access to the fisheries among all stakeholders? ...Put Science before Policy in fishery
    management?

    The data in question on this thread, is something NMFS is responsable to collect, but they have refused.
    If this data is privatly collected, will they even give it consideration? How would they use it? Selectivly?
    What would they reconcile it with, since they have little biomass data to use as a baseline? Would it
    change a thing in their current policy? None of these issues are "Bogus" and despite Catch Share
    supporters having little concern for anything but the bottom line, most fishermen do care about the
    fishery health, and how the budget that is allowing a few to profit is threatening the very health of
    OUR fisheries!

    So here is a question deserving a serious answer: Do you support or oppose a legislative measure that
    would mandate reliable science be used in regulating our fisheries?
    support
    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.
  • touchngo wrote: »
    who doesn't want reliable data? I certainly do. The problem is how do we get that from the rec sector? You can't do it without vms. And even that is not criminal proof. With so many rec fishermen jaded by the process, who believes their data anyway? You want biomass data and all these other things, how bout starting with any true data? baby steps would be encouraging.

    Actually Catch Share promoterr EDF, and Catch Share fishing alliances have testified in DC, Opposing measures
    that would require Science in Fishery management. They continue to do so with the MSRA rework taking
    place right now. Non-Catch Share fishermen are supporting this.

    Biomass data is "TRUE" data! Biomass data is the most important data, more important than landing
    data, commercial or recreational. Biomass data is the inventory level from which allowable catch levels
    are "Supposed" to be determined from. These numbers are in very short supply, leading the NMFS to use
    a calculated or extrapulated number that uses commercial landings and guesswork to "Fabricate" a
    theoretical biomass number. Far from reality...far from accurate, far from science based...and far from
    True data!

    Monitoring recreational fishermens "catch" can be done with a measure of reliability.....but until NOAA policy
    changes from one of Market based management to one of Science Based, and they are willing to change
    their funding policy, it will be pointless. BTW, monitors on recreational boats are not as necessary as on
    commercial boats, where the 'for profit' purpose of the trip, and lack of trip limits allows for a much greater
    liklihood of cheaters. Even so, for what NOAA is spending on catch Shares, they could pay for observers
    to be at most major ports ramps and docks, taking surveys of landing records of both rec and comm boats!

    Recreational data.....The NMFS could, if they wanted, and if they followed their legal requirements have
    collected a recreational catch history to a degree that would allow a reasonable measure of accuracy
    in which to manage fisheries with....but THEY refused to fund it, choosing to fund Market based management,
    rather than a Science Based Program. If, Even If recreational data was provided, the NMFS's refusal to
    fund Comprehensive Stock Assesments as necessary to determine sustainable harvest levels means that
    there is no data to reconcile catch data with........and that includes the commercial catch data YOU provide!
    As such, again, we are forced to rely on what the NMFS tells us that they estimate the stock numbers to be,
    rather than what they actually are. Its all about spending priorities. Eric Schwaab stated recently that the reason
    better data and stock assesments do not exist is due to budget considerations.....

    So, If NOAA chose to fund Fishery Science and Research instead of Catch Share programs, we all could have
    reliable data to fish in sustainably managed fisheries! But....despite having the money to spend on Catch Shares,
    $100 million in just 3 years, NOAA has ZERO data on 75% of their managed stocks!!! Does this not seem like
    a very real case of putting the 'cart before the horse'? yet this is exactly what pro-Catch share groups are
    pushing for.
  • Capt EasyCapt Easy Posts: 203 Officer
    Man, Acme, You can shovel BS at a fantastic rate.

    The US government could spend it's entire budget on science and not find out the biomass numbers for even a few fish stocks. It's impossible. Educated guesses is the best they can do. No government, university, NGO or fisherman have any idea. Fisherman catch fish till the CPUE falls then ajusts thier methods or gear to catch more fish and eventually the CPUE falls and can't get back up. From there the managers basically have to work backwords to a place were catches could be deemed steady and maybe slowly climbing.

    I recently took part in the SEDAR 29 stock assessment for Black Tip sharks. This was the first stock assessment I've been involved with. Most of the particiants were well educated in science and seemed motivated by science not politics or agendas. They can only use the inputs they are given. On Blacktips there are surveys done with longlines and gillnets by states, universities and Mote Marine in state waters and and longline surveys by Mote and NOAA in federal waters. There was observer coverage data from the commercial bottom longline fleet and logbook data from the commercial longline fleet. Each input is rated by how much weight it should be given. For instance the observer coverage carried more weight than the self reported logbook data.

    The rec sector provides the least verifiable data. But some data is better than none so at least Brettfitz is giving it a go.



    Catch shares may not always and everywhere be the be all and end all but in the Gulf grouper fishery is has been very good. In fact the regulators can now put their energy into the science becuase or the commercial sector is squared away.
  • Capt Easy wrote: »
    The US government could spend it's entire budget on science and not find out the biomass numbers for even a few fish stocks. It's impossible. Educated guesses is the best they can do. No government, university, NGO or fisherman have any idea. Fisherman catch fish till the CPUE falls then ajusts thier methods or gear to catch more fish and eventually the CPUE falls and can't get back up. From there the managers basically have to work backwords to a place were catches could be deemed steady and maybe slowly climbing.

    Fish stocks can and have had biomass determined to a level that at least a ell educated estimate could be made.
    Determining "biomass' from backwards enginering the catch numbers is what has led to the mess we have now.
    Furthermore it has allowed policy to dictate management and regulations. With this method, it has been used to
    show that a better harvest is an indication of overfishing, as well as a less than expected harvest! When more
    money is being spent on management promotion based on the market, than based on science, it should be a
    really obvious problem to anyone interested in conservation and fishery health. ONLY when realistic biomass data
    is used to set a baseline stock level, can catch limits be determined as the msy. Yes fish can be "counted", though,
    and though many factors must be used to determine a biomass number, simply generating this number from
    primarily commercial landing numbers is a lazy and unscientific method of doing so.

    HOW the NMFS used the data is also a very big problem. Consider the Black Sea Bass in the Southeast region. The
    stock assesment still being used as the baseline is from 2000, when on the rec side, 25 fish as little as 8" could be
    kept, and well on the commercial side, there might as well have been no limits. In 2001, having determined BSB
    was overfished, the rec regs were changed to 12" min and 15 pp limit. The gas price spike and economy tumble
    a handfull of years later left a reduced fishing pressure of what the NMFS states as 40% reduction, though it is
    likely much greater. As a result a yearly quantity and quality improvement has been observed by all that participate
    in the fishery. Yet, since this 2000 assesment is the Best Avalible Science, they have closed this fishery this year,
    only 3 month;s into the season. They are still using the estimated biomass numbers from the 2000 assesment to
    determine the ACL, and of coarse the NMFS refused to compile any meaningfull rec catch data, so despite them
    adjusting what they claim rec anglers are catching up each year, they have not adjusted the stock levels up to match
    conditions resulting in reg adjustments nor decreased participation. This is not an isolated example either.

    The money spent on Catch Shares has NOT saved fish or rebuilt fisheries. That budget is huge also. What then has
    it gotten us all for the huge investment? We already had a black and white commercial landing data without it,
    in near realtime reporting. We had a lot more money in the budget for fishery science and research (remember
    NOAA reallocated money from science to Catch Shares). Since its not saving fish or getting us better science, what
    are we getting for this huge investment? WE are getting nothing....Only the small number that are deeded quota
    of the public resource are benefitting. They have gotten the resource for free, and can turn around and sell or lease
    it to others, without having to repay the public trustee for the investment made in the program or the resource
    itself. They may pay taxes on the "profit" made, but that pales in comparison to what is spent every year financing
    Catch Share Programs.

    The money spent on this COULD have a 100% improvement on fishery stock assesments if it were spent on data
    collection rather than Catch Shares. remember, Commercial fishermen do not pay for landing collection either, they
    only pay when monitors are used to make sure they do no cheat! NOAA is legally responsible for data collection, but
    have REFUSED to follow their mandate. Commercial Fishermen are not volunteering their reporting of catches
    any more than fish houses are....its required by NMFS. Rec Data could be required, even a self reporting system...
    If NOAA had any policy that favored real data more what they use now. What is getting really deep is what has been
    shoveled out about how NOAA and its NMFS is a "Science based Agency". Sadly there is little science involved in most
    fish stocks. Maybe the lease cost for "shares" should go to conducting stock assesments rather than in someones
    checking account or pocket......
124»

Leave a Comment

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