Grouper law change would be a mistake

[touchngo]

The price of fish would go thru the roof? Is that your intention? Put the com sector out of business so you can import all seafood? How is that system of importing everything from China work for this country now? Just kill a few more com sector jobs, waste our own natural resource so we can rec fish. I don't agree.

The Council has the power (and the duty) to levy a royalty on the IFQs that have been gifted to the commercial fishermen. Have it where the commercial fishermen have to lease their quota from the government each year, and use that as a revenue stream to fund the badly needed data. The going price for red snapper IFQ is about $3/pound - multiply that by 4 or 5 million pounds and there you go - problem fixed.

Virtually everywhere else in America where individuals/corporations harvest our Public Trust resources (oil, timber, mining, etc.) they are required to pay for that priviledge - EXCEPT HERE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO IFQ PROGRAM. WHY? That's the question we need to be asking every single Gulf Council Member, our legislators, our Congressmen, our Governors, etc.

In these lean economic times, we simply cannot afford to let that enormous amount of money to be left on the table so that private individuals/corporations can put those $$ in their own bank accounts - it is against the Public Trust Doctrine, and against the American way of life. If the idea behind IFQs/Catch Shares is really about helping the resource, why are they designed to end up as a welfare system for humans without really doing a damn thing for the fish?

This is not the Socialist Republic of America comrade touchngo.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

[Tom Hilton]

The system is CURRENTLY in place for fishermen to lease/sell to one another - this does NOT benefit the resource or America for that matter. Screen name posted up that there is a guy on his dock that leases 100% of his fish that he catches and still makes a good living - this would not change that, AND the monies generated WOULD go back to the resource via ANNUAL assessments, fishery independent research, habitat enhancement, etc.

Why are the GULF OF MEXICO IFQ OWNERS somehow different from the oil, timber, mining interests who DO pay for the priviledge to harvest/profit off of our Public Trust Resources?

There's a guy on the Gulf Council AP that represents himself as a recreational charter captain as he is an officer in the EDF-funded Charter Fisherman's Association, but owns every type of commercial IFQ in existence. He recently stated that he is a "Free Market Capitalist". Everyone in the room shook their head in disbelief - how can you be a "Free Market Capitalist" when the government gives you, free of charge, our Public Trust Resource so that you can profit personally from that resource? Sounds like Socialism at its worst. If he were to lease that IFQ quota from the government then actually go out and make a living fishing off of that quota, then yes, he would be a "Free Market Capitalist".

Right now, he is just a glorified welfare recipient.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

[CaptBobBryant]

The system is CURRENTLY in place for fishermen to lease/sell to one another - this does NOT benefit the resource or America for that matter. Screen name posted up that there is a guy on his dock that leases 100% of his fish that he catches and still makes a good living - this would not change that, AND the monies generated WOULD go back to the resource via ANNUAL assessments, fishery independent research, habitat enhancement, etc.

Why are the GULF OF MEXICO IFQ OWNERS somehow different from the oil, timber, mining interests who DO pay for the priviledge to harvest/profit off of our Public Trust Resources?

There's a guy on the Gulf Council AP that represents himself as a recreational charter captain as he is an officer in the EDF-funded Charter Fisherman's Association, but owns every type of commercial IFQ in existence. He recently stated that he is a "Free Market Capitalist". Everyone in the room shook their head in disbelief - how can you be a "Free Market Capitalist" when the government gives you, free of charge, our Public Trust Resource so that you can profit personally from that resource? Sounds like Socialism at its worst. If he were to lease that IFQ quota from the government then actually go out and make a living fishing off of that quota, then yes, he would be a "Free Market Capitalist".

Right now, he is just a glorified welfare recipient.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

Tom they are entitled to it don't you know

[Tom Hilton]

Yep,
Catch Shares are in fact an Entitlement Program, just like food stamps. Although the government doesn't pay out to the IFQ beneficiaries, the government's refusal to charge a royalty on the use of our Public Trust Resource for profit ends with the same result - less money in the coffers to actually to do anything to help the resource, our federal budget, or America for that matter.

The question needs to be answered; Why are the GULF OF MEXICO IFQ OWNERS somehow different from the oil, timber, mining interests who DO pay for the priviledge to harvest/profit off of our Public Trust Resources?

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

[touchngo]

nobody ever mentioned that when the ifq was being created. When we voted to put this plan into action, it was never mentioned? You would think nmfs would try and suck every last dime from the com sector. Maybe if they do a rec ifq, then they will collect royalties. QUOTE=Tom Hilton;435904]Yep,
Catch Shares are in fact an Entitlement Program, just like food stamps. Although the government doesn't pay out to the IFQ beneficiaries, the government's refusal to charge a royalty on the use of our Public Trust Resource for profit ends with the same result - less money in the coffers to actually to do anything to help the resource, our federal budget, or America for that matter.

The question needs to be answered; Why are the GULF OF MEXICO IFQ OWNERS somehow different from the oil, timber, mining interests who DO pay for the priviledge to harvest/profit off of our Public Trust Resources?

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton[/QUOTE]

[touchngo]

nobody ever mentioned that when the ifq was being created. When we voted to put this plan into action, it was never mentioned? You would think nmfs would try and suck every last dime from the com sector. Maybe if they do a rec ifq, then they will collect royalties. QUOTE=Tom Hilton;435904]Yep,
Catch Shares are in fact an Entitlement Program, just like food stamps. Although the government doesn't pay out to the IFQ beneficiaries, the government's refusal to charge a royalty on the use of our Public Trust Resource for profit ends with the same result - less money in the coffers to actually to do anything to help the resource, our federal budget, or America for that matter.

The question needs to be answered; Why are the GULF OF MEXICO IFQ OWNERS somehow different from the oil, timber, mining interests who DO pay for the priviledge to harvest/profit off of our Public Trust Resources?

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton[/QUOTE]

[Tom Hilton]

Funny how you try to put everything on to the recs, whether it's the feds' failure to collect adequate data or to collect royalties on our Public Trust resource that you, touchngo, and other commercial fishermen are profiting from without paying for the priviledge.

It's right here in the NOAA Catch Shares Manual:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_f..._cs_policy.pdf

"Royalties: NOAA will assist Councils if and when they determine that it is in the public interest to collect royalties for the initial or subsequent allocations in a limited access privilege program."


"Designing and enforcing an individual angler catch share program for potentially millions of participants in a fishery could also be a prohibitively costly and complex undertaking. Thus, as explained in more detail below, NOAA will support the design and implementation of catch share programs for the recreational charter and head boat sectors where appropriate, but does not advocate the use of individual private angler catch shares.

The question needs to be answered touchngo; Why are the GULF OF MEXICO IFQ OWNERS somehow different from the oil, timber, mining interests who DO pay for the priviledge to harvest/profit off of our Public Trust Resources?

I have asked each and every Gulf Council Member if they have determined whether or not it is in the public interest to collect royalties the Gulf IFQs with the only response coming from a commercial fishing representative coming out against the idea. If they have not looked into it, why not? They have the power to do it. If it's not in the public interest to collect royalties from the Gulf of Mexico IFQ Program, then exactly how/why is it not in the public interest? We, the Public have the RIGHT to know.

This fundamental question needs to be addressed and answered BEFORE looking to expand IFQs/Catch Shares/Sector Separation into the recreational sector, and should be asked by each and every one of us to each and every Gulf Council Member.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

[ANUMBER1]

Spoken like a true resource raping fool
You got yours and everyone lese can go screw and we should leave the conservation of our resource to the likes of you.

As for your fix the rec data.....since 2004, that is going on 8 years for the counting impared, I have been trying struggling to change the wrong direction that fishery data is going.
I was on the National Research Council's review of MRFSS, where WE determined it was fatally flawed.

We offered up suggestions and solutions and NMFS was mandated by congress to have a new system in place by Jan 1 of 2009. Well it is Jan of 2012 and the system has barely just come on line.
Having "fixed data" (oh and don't come off like the commie data is perfect, it is just as flawed as the rec data, only you guys are forced to write it down) is only part of the equaltion, its analysis and application are the other 2 parts and even if NMFS had 100% accurate data regarding NMFS, they lack the analytical will and application agenda to do the right things. THis wil remain so as long as NMFS is more concerned with the COMMERCIAL VIABILTY of the fishery than they are the biological viability.

Now about your data. Does you data include all of the short maggots that are routinely cut up and used as bait aboard your vessel. Does it count all of the illegal shark fins that come in down below. Does the commercial data include the scores of untargeted by-kill that you do not have to report?

So screw you about data, the commercial data only shows what the commercials want it to show.


Use of gear like long line must go.....
A fishery deemed in trouble needs to have all commercial use stopped
IFQ ands catch shares need to be a use it or lose it permit that requires the end fisherman to purchase his share of the fish form the people he claims to feed and not the fish barons whoa re gaming the system.
All IFQ and catch shares need to have trips limits establish as well, top prevent the big operators for completely raping and area and leaving it barren.



SO when you are interested in what is actually good for the fishery...come back with your big boy pants on and we will talk until then, you are just part of the problem along with NMFS

Editorial note: The use of your implies your as a member of the industry and not specifically you.....

PS: How about all people should have the exact same bag limits...

Bob, have you been on his or any vessel where shorts are cut up for bait? I mean besides your own...

[ANUMBER1]

Commercial grouper, thrown on the ice twelve days before we hit the dock. Yum... Sorry commercial rapers, fresh fish means three days or less. I tell every cut boy at the seafood counter how old his "fresh fish" is.

Bring back the fish traps then! Never took me more than 5-6 days dock to dock to get my 6000lb limit.

[ANUMBER1]

Another very classy reply.

Bout as classy as some of bob's rants as well as saltybrad. Throw in frisbee and a couple of others and this will be the Springer show. You know it, you're just stirring.....lol