Role of Artificial Reefs In Fisheries Management - Page 7

Florida Sportsman

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 99
  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St Pete FL
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by ACME Ventures Fishing View Post
    Actually the "Shares" were not equitably divided. Remember for the IFQ to pass referundum, a
    majority of stakeholders had to be eliminated from participating. Yes these were small guys,
    the proverbial "Maw and Paw" operations, but reguardless of their size and history, had a
    legitimate stake in the claim. These were the ones that surveys have shown would have
    likely voted against the plan.......had they not been disqualified from participating in the
    referundum! The remaining participants, a minority of all stakeholders were now free to
    decide how the total harvest allowance would be "Shared". Not really "Free Market" whan the
    deck is stacked against a majority interest even before the first hand is dealt.
    .
    Basically you are so full of ***** I don't know where to start. Nobody was eliminated, except for some were eliminated from longlining. I know because I was one of them. If you had grouper landings during the time period used you got IFQ. Maw and Paw got shares also. The smallest holders didn't get to vote but they weren't eliminated either. They got the same percentage of their histoical catch as any one else. ALL stakeholders got less than they would have liked, especially later when the Gag grouper was cut way back. But now with a stake in the fishery they have a reason to hang tight and know that when the TAC goes up they will get more fish to catch

    I don't think it was fair for me to be eliminated from longlining grouper. But life isn't always fair and the majority of historical fisherman are doing well.
    Last edited by Capt Easy; 03-30-2012 at 08:41 PM. Reason: clarify more info

  2. #62
    Senior Member ACME Ventures Fishing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Mims
    Posts
    743
    Quote Originally Posted by Capt Easy View Post
    (1)Basically you are so full of ***** I don't know where to start. (2) Nobody was eliminated, except for some were eliminated from longlining. I know because I was one of them. If you had grouper landings during the time period used you got IFQ. Maw and Paw got shares also. (3)The smallest holders didn't get to vote but they weren't eliminated either. They got the same percentage of their histoical catch as any one else. ALL stakeholders got less than they would have liked, especially later when the Gag grouper was cut way back. But now with a stake in the fishery they have a reason to hang tight and know that when the TAC goes up they will get more fish to catch

    I don't think it was fair for me to be eliminated from longlining grouper. But life isn't always fair and the (4)majority of historical fisherman are doing well.
    1)Actually I'll help you start, since you prefer to sling mud and insults rather than a civilized
    factual discussion.

    2)NMFS claims a total reduction in Red Snapper shareholders of 22 percent, from 546 initial
    participants to 425. This number doesn’t count the fishermen who qualified to catch Red Snapper
    before the IFQ but were cut out of the fishery afterward, which has been extimated to be as
    much as a 44% reduction since the IFQ. They were eliminated by design however, eother by
    attrition or financial strangulation.

    3) The Council and the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) — used their authority to limit
    the pool of voters to only those fishermen who had historically caught the most fish. Its not that
    the smaller operators caught NO fish in most cases, but were not the bulk of the harvest. As such,
    only 167 ballots were cast in the referendum, and more than 600 were eliminated from voting
    in the process that would decide their fate. Can you imagine if the political process worked that
    way, and those making the biggest donations got to vote, but the smaller contributors did not?

    4) The "Majority" allowed to share the largest peice of the guarenteed "pie" are likely doing
    well. This does not include the overall majority however. The higher dock prices 'seen' by
    fishermen come at a cost. The higher operating cost of the IFQ drives dockside prices up, which
    in paid by the consumer, who in turn HAS started looking moreso to cheaper and yes inferior
    imported products. This has hit record high's. Catch Shares by design "Eliminate a Significant
    Fraction of the Fleet". We know who boasted that claim. They have dome just that. The fewer
    remaining, who have gained the biggest peice of the pie, are likely doing well, but at the expense
    of those not doing well. Call that "Free Market" if you want, but its not, when the government
    determined "Who" was allowed to play the game to start with.

    A claim that Rec's don't want Catch Shares, because they want all fish for recreation only was made.
    I don't know if that was supposed to be a joke, or some people actually believe that. If anything
    the NMFS has seen Commercial influence push the notion of Recreational fishing being only
    Catch and Release (Vision2020), and anyone wanting to eat fish would have to buy it. Recs, CFH
    and Private alike want Catch Shares eliminated altogeather, and certainly do not want them in the
    Recreatonal sector. The very lack of data that is affecting ALL fisheries, Rec and Com alike is due to
    a lack of money to perform the necessary Stock Assesments, or at least according to NOAA thats the
    reason. They do have enough money to have spent several hundreds of millions of dollars on Catch
    Shares, that has not been repaid by the recipients, and continue to do so with a hundred million
    more being spent on them in only a 3 year period. All so a small number of commercial fishermen
    can profit. Yet NOAA does not have the money to collect the data needed to manage our fisheries
    in a Science based manner?????

  3. #63
    Senior Member ACME Ventures Fishing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Mims
    Posts
    743
    So back to Artifical Reef's. Good science to support the role of Artifical Reef's is already
    out there, both on paper and in reality. The call for more "science" to 'build a better' reef
    is not a bad call, but, this should not hamper progress in continuing to seed our oceans
    with foundations for new reef's, and especially should not allow existing structure to be
    systematically destroyed as is happening now.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Mackeral Snatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    up a creek without a paddle tampa
    Posts
    8,659
    Mark,
    Your words:.........."Nobody was eliminated, except for some were eliminated from longlining."

    In my world that's a good thing, but you can't have it both ways. Either people lost their job or they didn't.........and we all know they did.
    Just like longlining, you'll never convince me(or a bunch of other people) that CS/IFQ or whatever you want to call it is a good thing.
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St Pete FL
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by ACME Ventures Fishing View Post


    2)NMFS claims a total reduction in Red Snapper shareholders of 22 percent, from 546 initial
    participants to 425. This number doesn’t count the fishermen who qualified to catch Red Snapper
    before the IFQ but were cut out of the fishery afterward, which has been extimated to be as
    much as a 44% reduction since the IFQ. They were eliminated by design however, eother by
    attrition or financial strangulation.

    3) The Council and the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS) — used their authority to limit
    the pool of voters to only those fishermen who had historically caught the most fish. Its not that
    the smaller operators caught NO fish in most cases, but were not the bulk of the harvest. As such,
    only 167 ballots were cast in the referendum, and more than 600 were eliminated from voting
    in the process that would decide their fate. Can you imagine if the political process worked that
    way, and those making the biggest donations got to vote, but the smaller contributors did not?

    4) The "Majority" allowed to share the largest peice of the guarenteed "pie" are likely doing
    well. This does not include the overall majority however. The higher dock prices 'seen' by
    fishermen come at a cost. The higher operating cost of the IFQ drives dockside prices up, which
    in paid by the consumer, who in turn HAS started looking moreso to cheaper and yes inferior
    imported products. This has hit record high's. Catch Shares by design "Eliminate a Significant
    Fraction of the Fleet". We know who boasted that claim. They have dome just that. The fewer
    remaining, who have gained the biggest peice of the pie, are likely doing well, but at the expense
    of those not doing well. Call that "Free Market" if you want, but its not, when the government
    determined "Who" was allowed to play the game to start with.

    A claim that Rec's don't want Catch Shares, because they want all fish for recreation only was made.
    I don't know if that was supposed to be a joke, or some people actually believe that. If anything
    the NMFS has seen Commercial influence push the notion of Recreational fishing being only
    Catch and Release (Vision2020), and anyone wanting to eat fish would have to buy it. Recs, CFH
    and Private alike want Catch Shares eliminated altogeather, and certainly do not want them in the
    Recreatonal sector. The very lack of data that is affecting ALL fisheries, Rec and Com alike is due to
    a lack of money to perform the necessary Stock Assesments, or at least according to NOAA thats the
    reason. They do have enough money to have spent several hundreds of millions of dollars on Catch
    Shares, that has not been repaid by the recipients, and continue to do so with a hundred million
    more being spent on them in only a 3 year period. All so a small number of commercial fishermen
    can profit. Yet NOAA does not have the money to collect the data needed to manage our fisheries
    in a Science based manner?????
    THE MORE ARTIFICIAL REEFS THE BETTER

    (2)I am most familiar with the grouper IFQ. The snapper IFQ and grouper IFQ are mostly the same. I was given 7 pounds in the initial snapper IFQ. The facts are that no one was eliminated soley by going to IFQ. If they sold their shares at a later date they did so without a gun to their head.

    To put it in a nice way...For you to say that people were eliminated from the fishery because of IFQ is false, false, false. No one was eliminated They sold out.

    (3)If 30% of the fisherman caught 90% of the fish why should the 70% of fisherman that caught 10% of the fish dictate the terms. The regulators gave the voting power to the fisherman that caught the bulk of the fish.

    The fisherman over a certain threshhold (over 5,000 pounds a year in 5 of the 6 qualifying years) got an equal vote. The fishermen under the qualifying amount got no vote.

    (4)The price of fish has risen, I think it's a good thing. That was in the list of pros for catch shares. The ability to supply markets 12 months a year will help keep the price up because when price is up supply will come, when price is down supply will slow down. Total market influence. The government decided long before catch shares who would catch the fish. Snapper and Grouper have been limited access fisheries for many years before catch shares.

    I stand by my claim that there are important recreational players that want to eliminate commercial fishing. IFQ will make that more difficult.

    I can't see the future. What would happen if all fisheries went IFQ, even recreational fisheries. A total market solution. The fish go to the highest bidder. Why would recreational fishermen be opposed to that? I read often how much more valuable recreational fisheries are supposed to be. What would the rec sector have to be afraid of?

    I'm not advocating for rec IFQ, like I said I can't see the future. I don't think IFQ has all been good. My first trip as a commercial fisherman was out of St Pete in about 1975. We had 5,000 pounds of Red Snapper in 5 days with 4 bandits. The captain never even took out a chart till it was time to go home. All we had was "A LORAN". The way I remember it it got you within a mile or two of your spot. After a few more years the snapper were mostly gone from this area. Later fisherman in this area were resricted to a trip limit of 225 pounds landed between the first and tenth of the month. As a consequence the local fisherman didn't land much snapper and when it went IFQ did not get many shares. Now that the snapper have come back we either have to discard them or pay over 3 dollars a pound to lease them. A bad, bad, bad situation. But I don't think that means to scrap the IFQ, I think it means that it must be modified. How? I don't know but I do know it will be a political minefield.

    For Mackerel Snatcher: There are legitimate reasons not to favor catch shares. The grouper snapper fisheries have been overcapitilised for years so less boats and less employment is not a legitimate reason. Nor is saying that people were forced out, they weren't they may have sold out but weren't forced out.

    As I've said before Most of the fishermen that deserved shares got them,Most of the fisherman that didn't deserve them didn't get them.

  6. #66
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    965
    Who decides who "deserves" shares who do not? That is the problem in a nutshell.

    If ALL of the fishermen in the sector were able to vote, the point you are missing is that there would be NO IFQs - period. Done - end of story.

    They parsed the eligibility requirements then (on Gulf IFQs), much like they parsed the legal requirements for a referendum for Catch Shares in the NE where they completely avoided the legally mandated referendum. There is an investigation into that shennanigan as we speak.

    They stacked the vote then (on Gulf IFQs), just like they stack the Gulf Council meetings with EDF-funded lackies to try to show support for Sector Separation / Catch Shares when the overwhelming majority of CFH and private rec fishermen are AGAINST them - they just can't afford to take time away from their jobs nor pay the expense of the trip.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    73
    great post. the truth is spoken.
    Quote Originally Posted by Capt Easy View Post
    THE MORE ARTIFICIAL REEFS THE BETTER

    (2)I am most familiar with the grouper IFQ. The snapper IFQ and grouper IFQ are mostly the same. I was given 7 pounds in the initial snapper IFQ. The facts are that no one was eliminated soley by going to IFQ. If they sold their shares at a later date they did so without a gun to their head.

    To put it in a nice way...For you to say that people were eliminated from the fishery because of IFQ is false, false, false. No one was eliminated They sold out.

    (3)If 30% of the fisherman caught 90% of the fish why should the 70% of fisherman that caught 10% of the fish dictate the terms. The regulators gave the voting power to the fisherman that caught the bulk of the fish.

    The fisherman over a certain threshhold (over 5,000 pounds a year in 5 of the 6 qualifying years) got an equal vote. The fishermen under the qualifying amount got no vote.

    (4)The price of fish has risen, I think it's a good thing. That was in the list of pros for catch shares. The ability to supply markets 12 months a year will help keep the price up because when price is up supply will come, when price is down supply will slow down. Total market influence. The government decided long before catch shares who would catch the fish. Snapper and Grouper have been limited access fisheries for many years before catch shares.

    I stand by my claim that there are important recreational players that want to eliminate commercial fishing. IFQ will make that more difficult.

    I can't see the future. What would happen if all fisheries went IFQ, even recreational fisheries. A total market solution. The fish go to the highest bidder. Why would recreational fishermen be opposed to that? I read often how much more valuable recreational fisheries are supposed to be. What would the rec sector have to be afraid of?

    I'm not advocating for rec IFQ, like I said I can't see the future. I don't think IFQ has all been good. My first trip as a commercial fisherman was out of St Pete in about 1975. We had 5,000 pounds of Red Snapper in 5 days with 4 bandits. The captain never even took out a chart till it was time to go home. All we had was "A LORAN". The way I remember it it got you within a mile or two of your spot. After a few more years the snapper were mostly gone from this area. Later fisherman in this area were resricted to a trip limit of 225 pounds landed between the first and tenth of the month. As a consequence the local fisherman didn't land much snapper and when it went IFQ did not get many shares. Now that the snapper have come back we either have to discard them or pay over 3 dollars a pound to lease them. A bad, bad, bad situation. But I don't think that means to scrap the IFQ, I think it means that it must be modified. How? I don't know but I do know it will be a political minefield.

    For Mackerel Snatcher: There are legitimate reasons not to favor catch shares. The grouper snapper fisheries have been overcapitilised for years so less boats and less employment is not a legitimate reason. Nor is saying that people were forced out, they weren't they may have sold out but weren't forced out.

    As I've said before Most of the fishermen that deserved shares got them,Most of the fisherman that didn't deserve them didn't get them.

  8. #68
    Senior Member ANUMBER1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ozello Fl.
    Posts
    4,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Capt Easy View Post
    THE MORE ARTIFICIAL REEFS THE BETTER






    I stand by my claim that there are important recreational players that want to eliminate commercial fishing.
    I agree 100%! I also believe these same folks could give a shizz less about the average "Joe" recreational fisherman.
    This place rocks!
    Now

  9. #69
    Senior Member surfman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    WC FL
    Posts
    1,888
    How many centuries have fishermen been building ARs and why would mankind pursue it if it didn't produce. What possible reason could anyone dream up not to enhance our fisheries with ARs unless there was an alterior motive like posiblily removing the dreded recreational fisherman from the mix. Sorry for my spelling I am texting. Lol you are supposed to lol when you text I think.
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.
    Quote Originally Posted by gill netter View Post
    COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN WILL BE HERE FOREVER. WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK AROUND YOUR STUPID LAWS!!!!!!!!

  10. #70
    Senior Member ACME Ventures Fishing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Mims
    Posts
    743
    EDF has stepped up and broken their silence on the destruction of Gulf oil rigs. They even allude to
    the benefit these and other artifical structure plays on Fishermen access to the resource and even
    the benefit to fish stocks!

    "In addition, under a balanced management plan, providing for fishing access and designed for population productivity, the non-producing rigs may be useful in enhancing fish stocks in places where habitat is limiting."



    http://blogs.edf.org/edfish/2012/04/...emoval-policy/

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 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
  •