Why aren't catch shares just auctioned at the start of each season? - Page 7
REPORTSREGIONSFORECASTPHOTOSBOATINGHOW-TOSPORTFISHGEARVIDEOS
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by ANUMBER1 View Post
    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?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
    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?
    Im no expert but you will probably come up with a way to say that Im wrong about that too.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,544
    But Ard, you are spreading misinformation, that is crystal clear.

    Are you really that misinformed about fisheries management or are you intentionally misleading people?

    Which is it?

  4. #64
    Senior Member ANUMBER1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ozello Fl.
    Posts
    7,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Fintastic.Inc View Post
    Sir I donít 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
    And I don't want on e with you as we have discussed this before, I was just saying that the initial allocation was based on lbs landed during a set period hence the blood, sweat, and tears remark.

    Good luck with your business sir..
    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.

  5. #65
    Senior Member ANUMBER1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ozello Fl.
    Posts
    7,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
    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?
    no self proclaiming here, nor am I a "paid" rep as you alluded.
    I'm not an atty either but words like "shall", "may", and "if appropriate" kinda jump out..

    I was spot on though as they just don't pay as much as Tom wants.
    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.

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by ANUMBER1 View Post
    no self proclaiming here, nor am I a "paid" rep as you alluded.
    I'm not an atty either but words like "shall", "may", and "if appropriate" kinda jump out..

    I was spot on though as they just don't pay as much as Tom wants.
    Spot on? LOL. Another intentionally misleading statement.

    You intimated that they are paying 3% royalties when they are clearly not. The American taxpayer is also being saddled with paying expenses for the management of the IFQ program not covered by the 3% Cost Recovery Fee.

    We need to make sure that the for-hire boats pay royalties (in addition to the 3% Cost Recovery Fee) to the nation as they should if by chance AMs 41 and 42 somehow move forward.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
    Spot on? LOL. Another intentionally misleading statement.

    You intimated that they are paying 3% royalties when they are clearly not. The American taxpayer is also being saddled with paying expenses for the management of the IFQ program not covered by the 3% Cost Recovery Fee.

    We need to make sure that the for-hire boats pay royalties (in addition to the 3% Cost Recovery Fee) to the nation as they should if by chance AMs 41 and 42 somehow move forward.
    I dont see 41-42 moving forward. I was surprised they didn't table it at this meeting.

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Huckleberry View Post
    I dont see 41-42 moving forward. I was surprised they didn't table it at this meeting.
    Yes.

    The whole purpose of AM 40 - AMs 41 and 42, both of which ONLY push IFQs/PFQs as I have said since the very beginning Tom Ard, and you, Tin Foil Hat, said I was a conspiracy theorist. Scott Hickman said Sector Separation had nothing to do with Catch Shares.

    So, time has shown who was telling the truth and who was lying - repeatedly.

    Sector Separation was designed to implement Catch Shares - that is indisputable now. Implementing PFQs/IFQs would drastically reduce the Gulf for-hire fishing days as I have said for many years now, and why you think AMs 41 and 42 are going nowhere.

    The Gulf for-hire fleet has overfished its quota since Sector Separation was implemented - you know it, I know it, Crabtree and the Gulf Council know it. It's a sham and has been a sham for years and you Capt. Tom Ard have been a vocal proponent of that sham. The 46 days and 49 day seasons the last 2 years were based on fraudulent data - it's been a fraud from the gitgo.

    Do you have no shame? Geez.

    It's time for an investigation into this fraud and attempted felony theft of our resources via Catch Shares.

    Wilbur Ross and Chris Oliver, we, the American recreational fishermen, need your help.
    Last edited by Tom Hilton; 10-07-2017 at 10:46 PM.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •