Why aren't catch shares just auctioned at the start of each season?
REPORTSREGIONSFORECASTPHOTOSBOATINGHOW-TOSPORTFISHGEARVIDEOSSTORE
Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 75
  1. #1
    Senior Member Tarponator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Under a Bridge
    Posts
    8,206

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

    Catch shares have some distinct advantages. They also have some distinct disadvantages.

    It seems to me that most of the disadvantages are centered around implementation. Specifically, how they are allocated in the commercial sector.

    Instead of granting them in perpetuity, why not simply open them to public auction at the beginning of the year every year?

    Someone please tell me why that wouldn't solve most of the problems of commercial catch shares while keeping in place their advantages.

    After all, it's very similar to how we handle other public resources, be it trees or airwaves.

    Although it most certainly would result in an interesting discussion, I'm not talking of the recreational sector nor the crap going on with charter boats....just commercial.

    Thanks....Mike

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Largo ,Fl
    Posts
    1,140
    Sounds like an interesting concept. Fair and equitable to all participants except perhaps the sea lords with the lion`s share. So what.
    Gonna sit back and wait for the pro comm crowd to chime in.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Islandia
    Posts
    1,222
    First of all, a commercial fisherman needs to have a Federal Gulf Reef fishing permit with a vessel monitoring system in place before they are even eligible to use catch shares. Last I checked there were no Gulf Reef Permits available for sale. Then the commercial fisherman can lease catch shares from one of a few sealords, if they don't actually have them granted to them. So the money would either end up in the sealords pockets or the govts. Not much difference to the fisherman without granted shares.
    Last edited by abovebored; 05-21-2017 at 09:13 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,546
    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.

  5. #5
    Senior Member ANUMBER1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ozello Fl.
    Posts
    8,109
    we can throttle back the rec share too..
    3 days to 1 day.. lol
    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. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Panhandle
    Posts
    6,137
    'WE' ??? Whos' WE ???
    There should be NO Commercial Fishing for any fish species considered 'Over-fished' / 'Undergoing Overfishing' or Subject to Recreational Seasons or Limits

  7. #7
    Senior Member ANUMBER1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ozello Fl.
    Posts
    8,109
    Quote Originally Posted by reel stamas View Post
    'WE' ??? Whos' WE ???
    Axe Capt Tom Hilton.
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    197
    Can't the Council make plan amendments to the IFQ? While from a business perspective, it makes complete sense to have a 'right' to perpetuity. Especially if that right keeps increasing each year.

    Yet, at this point the IFQ seems to select against new entrants unless they have enough seed money to purchase shares. My guess is most new entrants don't have that type of cash laying around.

    I am loathe to take away the percentages or shares the existing fishermen have, but the idea of rolling back quota to a specific level and using the difference to allow for new entrants, that's an interesting idea. I have a hard time seeing industry supporting this, but still interesting way of getting new blood into the fishery.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,546
    Exactly - how much quota would it take to make a living? I would say $20,000 pounds would be a reasonable amount. I think the going rate for purchasing quota is $35 to $40/pound. That's $700,000 to $800,000 - not many if any new entrants could afford that. I think there are many many commercial fishermen who need to lease their fish - hard to make ends meet paying $3.00-$3.25/pound to a Sea Lord when the wholesale price at the dock is $4.75/pound.

    I'm not suggesting to take away their %'s - keep their existing %'s and apply them to the 4.65 million pounds - they have access to the access that their % promises, but they need to pay for the privilege. If ALL commercial fishermen paid the same $1.00 to $1.50/pound, it would level the playing field, make it easier to make a living, and provide an avenue for new entrants. It would also eliminate the scam of collecting our nation's royalties for their personal profit while neither the nation nor the fisheries receives a dime.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Tarponator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Under a Bridge
    Posts
    8,206
    Thanks for the posts guys.

    I didn't think too deeply about the limited entry nature of the fishery when I was working through this -- another area I'm not too fond of to be honest -- and perhaps I should have.

    But, on the other hand, granting rights in perpetuity for a renewable resource turns my free market stomach and this seemed like an easy fix proven fair and effective in other parts of public policy with similar concerns....and wondered what others thought of it.

    Thanks again...Mike

Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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