The Future of Fishing - Page 11

Florida Sportsman

Page 11 of 32 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131415161718192021 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 317
  1. #101
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
    Screen Name,

    Our fishery isn't broken Screen Name - the management of it has been hijacked by your Environmental Defense benefactors - THAT is what needs fixing.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
    All along this whole thing was a diabolical plot between Wal-Mart, hundreds of unscrupulous fishermen, law enforcement, scientists, NMFS, the Gulf Council, environmental groups, the advisory panel of fishermen that worked on it for three years, and the secretary of commerce.

    No way to count your fish, no way to control your catch, no way to enforce the rules, requiring managers to manage the unmanageable and expend tremendous resources to do it..........

    But out trying to fix the sectors that don't have any of those problems.

    Now, why would anyone think that is stupid?

  2. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    962
    Yeah, I didn't think you had the cajones to respond to an honest evaluation of your entitlement program.

    Fact: There is NO NEED for fishermen to trade, lease, or sell their shares to one another - that should be done directly between the government and the entitlement recipient. Fishermen could get credits for unused shares and place them into a government-run "bank" that could lease those shares to other fishermen. Removing the profit motive could actually give the Catch Shares movement some credibility.

    Fact: The Walton Family Foundation invested $36,341,561 in Environmental Defense Fund and other nonprofits helping the Obama administration re-engineer U.S. fisheries though catch share programs. Why? Oh yeah, the enormous profit potential explained by EDF's own Dave Festa that could exceed 400%.

    Fact: I'm not sure that they number in the hundreds, but there ARE a number of unscrupulous fishermen, funded by EDF, who have been spreading propaganda that has no basis in truth to push their Catch Share agenda. I have written documentation of such, written by their own hand (not mine).

    Fact: Federal law enforcement people such as Dave McKinney are "resigning" from their positions and taking better paying jobs with Environmental Defense and working the system (and their federal contacts) to push the EDF agenda. There are people in position to make a difference in policy TODAY, that will most likely be employed by Environmental Defense TOMORROW as "consultants".

    Fact: Scientists such as Steven Bortone who work for the NMFS/Gulf Council tried (unsuccessfully) to put on a Dog and Pony Show about a year and a half ago, masquerading a Gulf Council function called the Sector Separation Workshop to be something that was done by the Gulf Council. In reality, it was designed, orchestrated, and most importantly, controlled entirely by the Environmental Defense Fund's Whitney Tome to serve as an informercial for Catch Shares/Sector Separation.

    Shameful, and crystal clear to all attended. Did I mention that Gill, Bortone, and Tomes all tried unsuccessfully to circumvent the law by attempting to bar a reporter from the meeting? Did I also mention that Ms. Tomes was successful in preventing anyone from recording or videoing any of the meetings? Why? Oh yeah, it would have documented what they were doing.

    Fact: The current head of the Gulf Council, Bob Gill, is a commercial fish house owner and was on the Catch Shares Task Force. He is in a key position to control the Gulf Council agenda and the meetings, not to mention that he is very vocal at these meetings, to push Catch Shares, from which he is very likely to personally benefit.

    Fact: Environmental Defense Fund used to brag that; ""their Oceans Team was responsible for CRAFTING AND PASSING the reauthorization of the Magnuson with the introduction of market-based fisheries (Catch Shares)...". Now, they have wiped their sites clean of this verbage - Why? Oh yeah, it just may point to their possibly illegal undue influence on our fisheries management policy. Environmental Defense Fund HAS been successful in implementing their anti-fishing agenda into LAW.

    Fact: EDF's own Jane Lubchenco now heads NOAA. Coincidence? Not.

    For anyone to claim that the recreational fishery in "unmanageable" is either naive or has an agenda. Just because the NMFS has elected NOT to implement viable management programs does not indicate that our fishery is "unmanageable". Other federal wildlife management programs such as duck hunting which have millions more participants than offshore fishermen, not only manage those hunters efficiently, but know EXACTLY how many hunters are hunting each year in addition to utilizing derived funding to enhance the biomass of the duck populations to achive OUTSTANDING results for both hunters and ducks.

    The big mistake that you guys have made is trying to implement Catch Shares into the recreational sector - that is for sure.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
    Last edited by Tom Hilton; 02-27-2012 at 01:31 AM.

  3. #103
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    73
    easy now, your fishery is unmanageable. Prove that it's not with some true data? Your sector walked around the council meetings for years like a bunch of peacocks hammering away at the com sector without a care in the world. All of a sudden, the com sector got its act together, became accountable, developed a plan, and now the rec sector is scramblin to follow suit. You can blame edf, nmfs, whomever, but facts are facts and you have none to bring to the table. I hear you that its not your fault or any other rec fishermans fault personally, but as a sector nothing was being done until the com sector gots its act together. You may not like ifq, that's your opinion. Also, Bob Gill is a great man and works very hard. He believes what he is doing is best for the fishery.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
    Yeah, I didn't think you had the cajones to respond to an honest evaluation of your entitlement program.

    Fact: There is NO NEED for fishermen to trade, lease, or sell their shares to one another - that should be done directly between the government and the entitlement recipient. Fishermen could get credits for unused shares and place them into a government-run "bank" that could lease those shares to other fishermen. Removing the profit motive could actually give the Catch Shares movement some credibility.

    Fact: The Walton Family Foundation invested $36,341,561 in Environmental Defense Fund and other nonprofits helping the Obama administration re-engineer U.S. fisheries though catch share programs. Why? Oh yeah, the enormous profit potential explained by EDF's own Dave Festa that could exceed 400%.

    Fact: I'm not sure that they number in the hundreds, but there ARE a number of unscrupulous fishermen, funded by EDF, who have been spreading propaganda that has no basis in truth to push their Catch Share agenda. I have written documentation of such, written by their own hand (not mine).

    Fact: Federal law enforcement people such as Dave McKinney are "resigning" from their positions and taking better paying jobs with Environmental Defense and working the system (and their federal contacts) to push the EDF agenda. There are people in position to make a difference in policy TODAY, that will most likely be employed by Environmental Defense TOMORROW as "consultants".

    Fact: Scientists such as Steven Bortone who work for the NMFS/Gulf Council tried (unsuccessfully) to put on a Dog and Pony Show about a year and a half ago, masquerading a Gulf Council function called the Sector Separation Workshop to be something that was done by the Gulf Council. In reality, it was designed, orchestrated, and most importantly, controlled entirely by the Environmental Defense Fund's Whitney Tome to serve as an informercial for Catch Shares/Sector Separation.

    Shameful, and crystal clear to all attended. Did I mention that Gill, Bortone, and Tomes all tried unsuccessfully to circumvent the law by attempting to bar a reporter from the meeting? Did I also mention that Ms. Tomes was successful in preventing anyone from recording or videoing any of the meetings? Why? Oh yeah, it would have documented what they were doing.

    Fact: The current head of the Gulf Council, Bob Gill, is a commercial fish house owner and was on the Catch Shares Task Force. He is in a key position to control the Gulf Council agenda and the meetings, not to mention that he is very vocal at these meetings, to push Catch Shares, from which he is very likely to personally benefit.

    Fact: Environmental Defense Fund used to brag that; ""their Oceans Team was responsible for CRAFTING AND PASSING the reauthorization of the Magnuson with the introduction of market-based fisheries (Catch Shares)...". Now, they have wiped their sites clean of this verbage - Why? Oh yeah, it just may point to their possibly illegal undue influence on our fisheries management policy. Environmental Defense Fund HAS been successful in implementing their anti-fishing agenda into LAW.

    Fact: EDF's own Jane Lubchenco now heads NOAA. Coincidence? Not.

    For anyone to claim that the recreational fishery in "unmanageable" is either naive or has an agenda. Just because the NMFS has elected NOT to implement viable management programs does not indicate that our fishery is "unmanageable". Other federal wildlife management programs such as duck hunting which have millions more participants than offshore fishermen, not only manage those hunters efficiently, but know EXACTLY how many hunters are hunting each year in addition to utilizing derived funding to enhance the biomass of the duck populations to achive OUTSTANDING results for both hunters and ducks.

    The big mistake that you guys have made is trying to implement Catch Shares into the recreational sector - that is for sure.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

  4. #104
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    73
    easy now, your fishery is unmanageable. Prove that it's not with some true data? Your sector walked around the council meetings for years like a bunch of peacocks hammering away at the com sector without a care in the world. All of a sudden, the com sector got its act together, became accountable, developed a plan, and now the rec sector is scramblin to follow suit. You can blame edf, nmfs, whomever, but facts are facts and you have none to bring to the table. I hear you that its not your fault or any other rec fishermans fault personally, but as a sector nothing was being done until the com sector gots its act together. You may not like ifq, that's your opinion. Also, Bob Gill is a great man and works very hard. He believes what he is doing is best for the fishery.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
    Yeah, I didn't think you had the cajones to respond to an honest evaluation of your entitlement program.

    Fact: There is NO NEED for fishermen to trade, lease, or sell their shares to one another - that should be done directly between the government and the entitlement recipient. Fishermen could get credits for unused shares and place them into a government-run "bank" that could lease those shares to other fishermen. Removing the profit motive could actually give the Catch Shares movement some credibility.

    Fact: The Walton Family Foundation invested $36,341,561 in Environmental Defense Fund and other nonprofits helping the Obama administration re-engineer U.S. fisheries though catch share programs. Why? Oh yeah, the enormous profit potential explained by EDF's own Dave Festa that could exceed 400%.

    Fact: I'm not sure that they number in the hundreds, but there ARE a number of unscrupulous fishermen, funded by EDF, who have been spreading propaganda that has no basis in truth to push their Catch Share agenda. I have written documentation of such, written by their own hand (not mine).

    Fact: Federal law enforcement people such as Dave McKinney are "resigning" from their positions and taking better paying jobs with Environmental Defense and working the system (and their federal contacts) to push the EDF agenda. There are people in position to make a difference in policy TODAY, that will most likely be employed by Environmental Defense TOMORROW as "consultants".

    Fact: Scientists such as Steven Bortone who work for the NMFS/Gulf Council tried (unsuccessfully) to put on a Dog and Pony Show about a year and a half ago, masquerading a Gulf Council function called the Sector Separation Workshop to be something that was done by the Gulf Council. In reality, it was designed, orchestrated, and most importantly, controlled entirely by the Environmental Defense Fund's Whitney Tome to serve as an informercial for Catch Shares/Sector Separation.

    Shameful, and crystal clear to all attended. Did I mention that Gill, Bortone, and Tomes all tried unsuccessfully to circumvent the law by attempting to bar a reporter from the meeting? Did I also mention that Ms. Tomes was successful in preventing anyone from recording or videoing any of the meetings? Why? Oh yeah, it would have documented what they were doing.

    Fact: The current head of the Gulf Council, Bob Gill, is a commercial fish house owner and was on the Catch Shares Task Force. He is in a key position to control the Gulf Council agenda and the meetings, not to mention that he is very vocal at these meetings, to push Catch Shares, from which he is very likely to personally benefit.

    Fact: Environmental Defense Fund used to brag that; ""their Oceans Team was responsible for CRAFTING AND PASSING the reauthorization of the Magnuson with the introduction of market-based fisheries (Catch Shares)...". Now, they have wiped their sites clean of this verbage - Why? Oh yeah, it just may point to their possibly illegal undue influence on our fisheries management policy. Environmental Defense Fund HAS been successful in implementing their anti-fishing agenda into LAW.

    Fact: EDF's own Jane Lubchenco now heads NOAA. Coincidence? Not.

    For anyone to claim that the recreational fishery in "unmanageable" is either naive or has an agenda. Just because the NMFS has elected NOT to implement viable management programs does not indicate that our fishery is "unmanageable". Other federal wildlife management programs such as duck hunting which have millions more participants than offshore fishermen, not only manage those hunters efficiently, but know EXACTLY how many hunters are hunting each year in addition to utilizing derived funding to enhance the biomass of the duck populations to achive OUTSTANDING results for both hunters and ducks.

    The big mistake that you guys have made is trying to implement Catch Shares into the recreational sector - that is for sure.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

  5. #105
    Senior Member ANUMBER1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ozello Fl.
    Posts
    3,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post

    Fact: The current head of the Gulf Council, Bob Gill, is a commercial fish house owner and was on the Catch Shares Task Force. He is in a key position to control the Gulf Council agenda and the meetings, not to mention that he is very vocal at these meetings, to push Catch Shares, from which he is very likely to personally benefit.



    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
    Here you go assuming again.....
    FACT: Bob Gill doesn't own any boats or catch shares.
    His profit is made just as it was before CS's, from buying and selling fish.
    This place rocks!
    Now

  6. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    962
    Funny how none of you deny that the fisheries management process has been hijacked, nor do you seem to have a problem with it since you are able to enjoy the benefits of privatizing our Public Trust Resource while at the same time participating in the process of denying access to that resource to ALL Americans through the tragedy called Catch Shares.

    Also interesting is how none of you, (those hoping to receive the windfall profits from Catch Shares) dispute the incredibly bogus "data" used to further reduce our seasons/bag limits. You are afraid of upsetting the apple cart and may not get your free handout, so you blindly go with whatever the NMFS spews to justify their EDF-scripted agenda. Greed at it's worst, as what is actually best for the fisheries, the coastal communities, and America itself has been cast aside for personal gain.

    Bob Gill often controls the flow of conversation of the Gulf Council with his loud, forceful comments, often cutting off other Council members when they are not in alignment with his agenda. That is a matter of Public Record, and clear to anyone who has actually taken the time and expense to attend the Gulf Council meetings.

    Who knows what incentive has been given to him by the ever-present Environmental Defense Fund to push their agenda? Regardless, the record speaks for itself, as he has relentlessly pushed for CS while on the Council, and my experience has shown that when people are hand-picked to sit on a "(fill-in-the-blank) Task Force", they push to make that (fill-in-the-blank) happen REGARDLESS of what the facts show. As Chairman, he now controls the agenda.

    To claim that we (private recs) have brought nothing to the table is an outright lie. What is more accurate is that anything that the rec sector has brought to the table has been blithely ignored as it would interfere with the pre-determined agenda set in motion in 2006.

    The current review of the IFQ program needs to revoke the process which allows the trading, leasing, or selling of quota/allocation between fishermen for personal profit and requiring that those transactions be restricted to be between the government and the entitlement recipients. This would ensure that the IFQs would be used by those recipients for the purpose of FISHING, and if not used the excess would go back into the government's quota bank. Any needed quota could be leased directly from the government. Environmental Defense already circumvented the possibility of generating a substantial revenue stream to be used for the benefit of the fishery from the leasing of IFQs when they crafted and passed the changes to the Magnuson, yet left open the option for fishermen to benefit, even though they may not be engaged in fishing. The leasing of our Public Trust Resource between fishermen does NOTHING for the fishery, creates an un-necessary layer of cost to the product, and ultimately becomes a "retirement program" for fishermen. I looked through the MSA, and didn't see any requirement in there to create any such retirement program for fishermen - it's SUPPOSED to be about the fish, remember?

    Seems a bit backwards to me, and it illustrates that the true purpose of IFQs is to generate profits - not provide viable conservation benefits to the fishery.

    Now, they are setting their sights on the profits to be made from the fish in the recreational sector - the first order of business is to remove the competition (us).

    The commercial aspect of the fishery here in the Gulf has polluted the fisheries management process.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton







    Quote Originally Posted by touchngo View Post
    easy now, your fishery is unmanageable. Prove that it's not with some true data? Your sector walked around the council meetings for years like a bunch of peacocks hammering away at the com sector without a care in the world. All of a sudden, the com sector got its act together, became accountable, developed a plan, and now the rec sector is scramblin to follow suit. You can blame edf, nmfs, whomever, but facts are facts and you have none to bring to the table. I hear you that its not your fault or any other rec fishermans fault personally, but as a sector nothing was being done until the com sector gots its act together. You may not like ifq, that's your opinion. Also, Bob Gill is a great man and works very hard. He believes what he is doing is best for the fishery.

  7. #107
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    73
    yes, we have polluted the process with sound data that you can't provide. Your welcome. every time I post on here I dispute the bogus rec data. All of us want and need sound data coming from your sector. With all the money the rec sector generates, whats the problem. If someone really wanted sound data from that sector, it could happen . I feel if the rec sector leaders wanted it, we could have something alot better than what we have. Your to busy working on catch shares, something that is working, rather than focusing on data.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hilton View Post
    Funny how none of you deny that the fisheries management process has been hijacked, nor do you seem to have a problem with it since you are able to enjoy the benefits of privatizing our Public Trust Resource while at the same time participating in the process of denying access to that resource to ALL Americans through the tragedy called Catch Shares.

    Also interesting is how none of you, (those hoping to receive the windfall profits from Catch Shares) dispute the incredibly bogus "data" used to further reduce our seasons/bag limits. You are afraid of upsetting the apple cart and may not get your free handout, so you blindly go with whatever the NMFS spews to justify their EDF-scripted agenda. Greed at it's worst, as what is actually best for the fisheries, the coastal communities, and America itself has been cast aside for personal gain.

    Bob Gill often controls the flow of conversation of the Gulf Council with his loud, forceful comments, often cutting off other Council members when they are not in alignment with his agenda. That is a matter of Public Record, and clear to anyone who has actually taken the time and expense to attend the Gulf Council meetings.

    Who knows what incentive has been given to him by the ever-present Environmental Defense Fund to push their agenda? Regardless, the record speaks for itself, as he has relentlessly pushed for CS while on the Council, and my experience has shown that when people are hand-picked to sit on a "(fill-in-the-blank) Task Force", they push to make that (fill-in-the-blank) happen REGARDLESS of what the facts show. As Chairman, he now controls the agenda.

    To claim that we (private recs) have brought nothing to the table is an outright lie. What is more accurate is that anything that the rec sector has brought to the table has been blithely ignored as it would interfere with the pre-determined agenda set in motion in 2006.

    The current review of the IFQ program needs to revoke the process which allows the trading, leasing, or selling of quota/allocation between fishermen for personal profit and requiring that those transactions be restricted to be between the government and the entitlement recipients. This would ensure that the IFQs would be used by those recipients for the purpose of FISHING, and if not used the excess would go back into the government's quota bank. Any needed quota could be leased directly from the government. Environmental Defense already circumvented the possibility of generating a substantial revenue stream to be used for the benefit of the fishery from the leasing of IFQs when they crafted and passed the changes to the Magnuson, yet left open the option for fishermen to benefit, even though they may not be engaged in fishing. The leasing of our Public Trust Resource between fishermen does NOTHING for the fishery, creates an un-necessary layer of cost to the product, and ultimately becomes a "retirement program" for fishermen. I looked through the MSA, and didn't see any requirement in there to create any such retirement program for fishermen - it's SUPPOSED to be about the fish, remember?

    Seems a bit backwards to me, and it illustrates that the true purpose of IFQs is to generate profits - not provide viable conservation benefits to the fishery.

    Now, they are setting their sights on the profits to be made from the fish in the recreational sector - the first order of business is to remove the competition (us).

    The commercial aspect of the fishery here in the Gulf has polluted the fisheries management process.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

  8. #108
    Senior Member CaptBobBryant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Pete...West Coastie
    Posts
    5,655
    Quote Originally Posted by touchngo View Post
    yes, we have polluted the process with sound data that you can't provide. Your welcome. every time I post on here I dispute the bogus rec data. All of us want and need sound data coming from your sector. With all the money the rec sector generates, whats the problem. If someone really wanted sound data from that sector, it could happen . I feel if the rec sector leaders wanted it, we could have something alot better than what we have. Your to busy working on catch shares, something that is working, rather than focusing on data.
    The problem was and is....$54 million diverted form data improvement to CS....
    We pay and extrodinary amount ot the treaury each year in excise taxes for marine fuel and tackle purchases that are suppose to fund much of this.
    NMFS has slashed the budget for rec data...is that our fault?
    Did your industry directly pay for CS or simple benefit form the diversion of money within NMFS.

    CS and IFQ within the commercial industry should be 100% self supported, with fishermen purchasing quota form the federal government, making a decision each year how much they will need and the only funds made form transfers or sell backs or additional quota should go to the federal government.

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    962
    Quote Originally Posted by touchngo View Post
    yes, we have polluted the process with sound data that you can't provide. Your welcome. every time I post on here I dispute the bogus rec data. All of us want and need sound data coming from your sector. With all the money the rec sector generates, whats the problem. If someone really wanted sound data from that sector, it could happen . I feel if the rec sector leaders wanted it, we could have something alot better than what we have. Your to busy working on catch shares, something that is working, rather than focusing on data.
    Again, an untrue statement by you.

    I have provided a plan to provide almost real-time DATA to the NMFS/Gulf Council called the OFS Permit Plan. Guess what? They weren't interested.

    What they are interested in is expanding Catch Shares into the recreational sector through Sector Separation / DAS. Anytime you place a profit motive on an initiative, as is the basis for Catch Shares, the process is polluted by greed and corruption. Take the profit out of it (fisheries management) and place the priority where it rightfully belongs - the fishery. Allowing fishermen to make hundreds of thousands of dollars by becoming "fish brokers" through the leasing of their quota does NOTHING for the resource, adds an un-needed layer of cost to the consumer, and fuels the current push to expand their profiteering into the recreational sector.

    You EDF-funded fishermen claim that Catch Shares pay for themselves. Not true. The 3% cost recovery does not cover even a quarter of the law enforcement costs which are being covered by federal dollars. (Phil Steele) In fact, Catch Shares are costing the American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in federal budget allocations, further exacerbating the existing negative cash flow of subsidizing of your commercial fishery, yet they claim they don't have adequate funding for data.

    Bogus, to the extreme.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

  10. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    287
    Again, people forget, or want to forget, that good management of wildlife is easy, and proven. All you have to do is split any takes evenly among all citizens and put in whatever limits are necessary to sustain a good fishery, as with snook, redfish, deer, ducks and countless others.

Page 11 of 32 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112131415161718192021 ... 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
  •