The Real Purpose Behind AnglerAction.org?

[ACME Ventures Fishing]

"...the bogus concern of the rec sector."

Far from "Bogus" is the hundreds of millions of our dollars that have already been spent,
and continue to be budgeted on a small group of primarily commercial fishermen, to fund their
Market Based Fishery Management program, so that they can profit from the public resource
without having to pay those funds to the rightfull owner of the resource, or its public trustee.
And, as a result of this wastefull spending policy on a privilidged few, we have ZERO fish
saved as a result, and a cavernous void growing in the Fishery Data that is so desparetly needed
to mnage OUR fisheries with. These Comprehensive Stock Assesments which "should" be used to
determine sustainable harvest rates do not exist in MOST stocks, and are typically outdated where
they do exist at all.

Demanding that the government does what it is supposed to do, rather than pandering to ENGO's and
a small group of the fishing community that profit greatly from the Public's resource, certainly is not
"Bogus". Those with a Guarenteed "Share" of the fishery should actually be very worried. Without
reliable biomass data, you too are subject to NOAA's whimsicle determination of fishery stocks as
determined by the NMFS. Look at the Alaska crab Catch Shares. Shortly before the start of their
season (no Catch Shares don't allow them to fish whenever they want), it was announced their
quota was cut by 50%. They though they were on the gravy train with guarenteed quota's, but
wham, it was slashed overnight. Good assesments? Who knows, with no mandate to use reliable
data, the "Best Avalible Data" pushed for by groups like Pew, and Catch Share promoting
EDF does not really have to use science based data at all. Is that a "Bogus" concern?

Of coarse the 25% increase in GOM ARS quota has Share holders happy, but Recs again are
paying the price for your profit, with even shorter seasons. This again is directly connected to the
funding of Your management scheme. If the ARS data was known, the likely result would have
a much greater ARS limit for the rec sector. That would not be good for commercial interest
however would it? Commercial fishermen "Should" be just as outraged over NMFS's lack of
reliable data as Recs are, and it seems some are, but that is split at the line where Catch Shares
enter the equation. On the Rec side, the CFA (Charter Fishermens Association), a very small group
with ties and support from EDF, like the GOM reef shareholders, have even testified with EDF to
keep Science Mandates out of the MSRA and fishery management! How sickening. Realistically,
good science would benefit all, but Catch Share groups can get their quota, without having the science,
and that very lack of science is being used to cut limits for everyone else, while increasing it to
Jane's followers (kind of sounds like a 'cult')

So is it bogus to think NOAA should follow the law? Collect the data they are mandated to collect?
manage the fisheries in a way that considers both enviromental and economic issues? Provide fair
and equal access to the fisheries among all stakeholders? ...Put Science before Policy in fishery
management?

The data in question on this thread, is something NMFS is responsable to collect, but they have refused.
If this data is privatly collected, will they even give it consideration? How would they use it? Selectivly?
What would they reconcile it with, since they have little biomass data to use as a baseline? Would it
change a thing in their current policy? None of these issues are "Bogus" and despite Catch Share
supporters having little concern for anything but the bottom line, most fishermen do care about the
fishery health, and how the budget that is allowing a few to profit is threatening the very health of
OUR fisheries!

So here is a question deserving a serious answer: Do you support or oppose a legislative measure that
would mandate reliable science be used in regulating our fisheries?

[touchngo]

who doesn't want reliable data? I certainly do. The problem is how do we get that from the rec sector? You can't do it without vms. And even that is not criminal proof. With so many rec fishermen jaded by the process, who believes their data anyway? You want biomass data and all these other things, how bout starting with any true data? baby steps would be encouraging.

Far from "Bogus" is the hundreds of millions of our dollars that have already been spent,
and continue to be budgeted on a small group of primarily commercial fishermen, to fund their
Market Based Fishery Management program, so that they can profit from the public resource
without having to pay those funds to the rightfull owner of the resource, or its public trustee.
And, as a result of this wastefull spending policy on a privilidged few, we have ZERO fish
saved as a result, and a cavernous void growing in the Fishery Data that is so desparetly needed
to mnage OUR fisheries with. These Comprehensive Stock Assesments which "should" be used to
determine sustainable harvest rates do not exist in MOST stocks, and are typically outdated where
they do exist at all.

Demanding that the government does what it is supposed to do, rather than pandering to ENGO's and
a small group of the fishing community that profit greatly from the Public's resource, certainly is not
"Bogus". Those with a Guarenteed "Share" of the fishery should actually be very worried. Without
reliable biomass data, you too are subject to NOAA's whimsicle determination of fishery stocks as
determined by the NMFS. Look at the Alaska crab Catch Shares. Shortly before the start of their
season (no Catch Shares don't allow them to fish whenever they want), it was announced their
quota was cut by 50%. They though they were on the gravy train with guarenteed quota's, but
wham, it was slashed overnight. Good assesments? Who knows, with no mandate to use reliable
data, the "Best Avalible Data" pushed for by groups like Pew, and Catch Share promoting
EDF does not really have to use science based data at all. Is that a "Bogus" concern?

Of coarse the 25% increase in GOM ARS quota has Share holders happy, but Recs again are
paying the price for your profit, with even shorter seasons. This again is directly connected to the
funding of Your management scheme. If the ARS data was known, the likely result would have
a much greater ARS limit for the rec sector. That would not be good for commercial interest
however would it? Commercial fishermen "Should" be just as outraged over NMFS's lack of
reliable data as Recs are, and it seems some are, but that is split at the line where Catch Shares
enter the equation. On the Rec side, the CFA (Charter Fishermens Association), a very small group
with ties and support from EDF, like the GOM reef shareholders, have even testified with EDF to
keep Science Mandates out of the MSRA and fishery management! How sickening. Realistically,
good science would benefit all, but Catch Share groups can get their quota, without having the science,
and that very lack of science is being used to cut limits for everyone else, while increasing it to
Jane's followers (kind of sounds like a 'cult')

So is it bogus to think NOAA should follow the law? Collect the data they are mandated to collect?
manage the fisheries in a way that considers both enviromental and economic issues? Provide fair
and equal access to the fisheries among all stakeholders? ...Put Science before Policy in fishery
management?

The data in question on this thread, is something NMFS is responsable to collect, but they have refused.
If this data is privatly collected, will they even give it consideration? How would they use it? Selectivly?
What would they reconcile it with, since they have little biomass data to use as a baseline? Would it
change a thing in their current policy? None of these issues are "Bogus" and despite Catch Share
supporters having little concern for anything but the bottom line, most fishermen do care about the
fishery health, and how the budget that is allowing a few to profit is threatening the very health of
OUR fisheries!

So here is a question deserving a serious answer: Do you support or oppose a legislative measure that
would mandate reliable science be used in regulating our fisheries?

[ANUMBER1]

Far from "Bogus" is the hundreds of millions of our dollars that have already been spent,
and continue to be budgeted on a small group of primarily commercial fishermen, to fund their
Market Based Fishery Management program, so that they can profit from the public resource
without having to pay those funds to the rightfull owner of the resource, or its public trustee.
And, as a result of this wastefull spending policy on a privilidged few, we have ZERO fish
saved as a result, and a cavernous void growing in the Fishery Data that is so desparetly needed
to mnage OUR fisheries with. These Comprehensive Stock Assesments which "should" be used to
determine sustainable harvest rates do not exist in MOST stocks, and are typically outdated where
they do exist at all.

Demanding that the government does what it is supposed to do, rather than pandering to ENGO's and
a small group of the fishing community that profit greatly from the Public's resource, certainly is not
"Bogus". Those with a Guarenteed "Share" of the fishery should actually be very worried. Without
reliable biomass data, you too are subject to NOAA's whimsicle determination of fishery stocks as
determined by the NMFS. Look at the Alaska crab Catch Shares. Shortly before the start of their
season (no Catch Shares don't allow them to fish whenever they want), it was announced their
quota was cut by 50%. They though they were on the gravy train with guarenteed quota's, but
wham, it was slashed overnight. Good assesments? Who knows, with no mandate to use reliable
data, the "Best Avalible Data" pushed for by groups like Pew, and Catch Share promoting
EDF does not really have to use science based data at all. Is that a "Bogus" concern?

Of coarse the 25% increase in GOM ARS quota has Share holders happy, but Recs again are
paying the price for your profit, with even shorter seasons. This again is directly connected to the
funding of Your management scheme. If the ARS data was known, the likely result would have
a much greater ARS limit for the rec sector. That would not be good for commercial interest
however would it? Commercial fishermen "Should" be just as outraged over NMFS's lack of
reliable data as Recs are, and it seems some are, but that is split at the line where Catch Shares
enter the equation. On the Rec side, the CFA (Charter Fishermens Association), a very small group
with ties and support from EDF, like the GOM reef shareholders, have even testified with EDF to
keep Science Mandates out of the MSRA and fishery management! How sickening. Realistically,
good science would benefit all, but Catch Share groups can get their quota, without having the science,
and that very lack of science is being used to cut limits for everyone else, while increasing it to
Jane's followers (kind of sounds like a 'cult')

So is it bogus to think NOAA should follow the law? Collect the data they are mandated to collect?
manage the fisheries in a way that considers both enviromental and economic issues? Provide fair
and equal access to the fisheries among all stakeholders? ...Put Science before Policy in fishery
management?

The data in question on this thread, is something NMFS is responsable to collect, but they have refused.
If this data is privatly collected, will they even give it consideration? How would they use it? Selectivly?
What would they reconcile it with, since they have little biomass data to use as a baseline? Would it
change a thing in their current policy? None of these issues are "Bogus" and despite Catch Share
supporters having little concern for anything but the bottom line, most fishermen do care about the
fishery health, and how the budget that is allowing a few to profit is threatening the very health of
OUR fisheries!

So here is a question deserving a serious answer: Do you support or oppose a legislative measure that
would mandate reliable science be used in regulating our fisheries?

support

[ACME Ventures Fishing]

who doesn't want reliable data? I certainly do. The problem is how do we get that from the rec sector? You can't do it without vms. And even that is not criminal proof. With so many rec fishermen jaded by the process, who believes their data anyway? You want biomass data and all these other things, how bout starting with any true data? baby steps would be encouraging.

Actually Catch Share promoterr EDF, and Catch Share fishing alliances have testified in DC, Opposing measures
that would require Science in Fishery management. They continue to do so with the MSRA rework taking
place right now. Non-Catch Share fishermen are supporting this.

Biomass data is "TRUE" data! Biomass data is the most important data, more important than landing
data, commercial or recreational. Biomass data is the inventory level from which allowable catch levels
are "Supposed" to be determined from. These numbers are in very short supply, leading the NMFS to use
a calculated or extrapulated number that uses commercial landings and guesswork to "Fabricate" a
theoretical biomass number. Far from reality...far from accurate, far from science based...and far from
True data!

Monitoring recreational fishermens "catch" can be done with a measure of reliability.....but until NOAA policy
changes from one of Market based management to one of Science Based, and they are willing to change
their funding policy, it will be pointless. BTW, monitors on recreational boats are not as necessary as on
commercial boats, where the 'for profit' purpose of the trip, and lack of trip limits allows for a much greater
liklihood of cheaters. Even so, for what NOAA is spending on catch Shares, they could pay for observers
to be at most major ports ramps and docks, taking surveys of landing records of both rec and comm boats!

Recreational data.....The NMFS could, if they wanted, and if they followed their legal requirements have
collected a recreational catch history to a degree that would allow a reasonable measure of accuracy
in which to manage fisheries with....but THEY refused to fund it, choosing to fund Market based management,
rather than a Science Based Program. If, Even If recreational data was provided, the NMFS's refusal to
fund Comprehensive Stock Assesments as necessary to determine sustainable harvest levels means that
there is no data to reconcile catch data with........and that includes the commercial catch data YOU provide!
As such, again, we are forced to rely on what the NMFS tells us that they estimate the stock numbers to be,
rather than what they actually are. Its all about spending priorities. Eric Schwaab stated recently that the reason
better data and stock assesments do not exist is due to budget considerations.....

So, If NOAA chose to fund Fishery Science and Research instead of Catch Share programs, we all could have
reliable data to fish in sustainably managed fisheries! But....despite having the money to spend on Catch Shares,
$100 million in just 3 years, NOAA has ZERO data on 75% of their managed stocks!!! Does this not seem like
a very real case of putting the 'cart before the horse'? yet this is exactly what pro-Catch share groups are
pushing for.

[Capt Easy]

Man, Acme, You can shovel BS at a fantastic rate.

The US government could spend it's entire budget on science and not find out the biomass numbers for even a few fish stocks. It's impossible. Educated guesses is the best they can do. No government, university, NGO or fisherman have any idea. Fisherman catch fish till the CPUE falls then ajusts thier methods or gear to catch more fish and eventually the CPUE falls and can't get back up. From there the managers basically have to work backwords to a place were catches could be deemed steady and maybe slowly climbing.

I recently took part in the SEDAR 29 stock assessment for Black Tip sharks. This was the first stock assessment I've been involved with. Most of the particiants were well educated in science and seemed motivated by science not politics or agendas. They can only use the inputs they are given. On Blacktips there are surveys done with longlines and gillnets by states, universities and Mote Marine in state waters and and longline surveys by Mote and NOAA in federal waters. There was observer coverage data from the commercial bottom longline fleet and logbook data from the commercial longline fleet. Each input is rated by how much weight it should be given. For instance the observer coverage carried more weight than the self reported logbook data.

The rec sector provides the least verifiable data. But some data is better than none so at least Brettfitz is giving it a go.



Catch shares may not always and everywhere be the be all and end all but in the Gulf grouper fishery is has been very good. In fact the regulators can now put their energy into the science becuase or the commercial sector is squared away.

[ACME Ventures Fishing]

The US government could spend it's entire budget on science and not find out the biomass numbers for even a few fish stocks. It's impossible. Educated guesses is the best they can do. No government, university, NGO or fisherman have any idea. Fisherman catch fish till the CPUE falls then ajusts thier methods or gear to catch more fish and eventually the CPUE falls and can't get back up. From there the managers basically have to work backwords to a place were catches could be deemed steady and maybe slowly climbing.

Fish stocks can and have had biomass determined to a level that at least a ell educated estimate could be made.
Determining "biomass' from backwards enginering the catch numbers is what has led to the mess we have now.
Furthermore it has allowed policy to dictate management and regulations. With this method, it has been used to
show that a better harvest is an indication of overfishing, as well as a less than expected harvest! When more
money is being spent on management promotion based on the market, than based on science, it should be a
really obvious problem to anyone interested in conservation and fishery health. ONLY when realistic biomass data
is used to set a baseline stock level, can catch limits be determined as the msy. Yes fish can be "counted", though,
and though many factors must be used to determine a biomass number, simply generating this number from
primarily commercial landing numbers is a lazy and unscientific method of doing so.

HOW the NMFS used the data is also a very big problem. Consider the Black Sea Bass in the Southeast region. The
stock assesment still being used as the baseline is from 2000, when on the rec side, 25 fish as little as 8" could be
kept, and well on the commercial side, there might as well have been no limits. In 2001, having determined BSB
was overfished, the rec regs were changed to 12" min and 15 pp limit. The gas price spike and economy tumble
a handfull of years later left a reduced fishing pressure of what the NMFS states as 40% reduction, though it is
likely much greater. As a result a yearly quantity and quality improvement has been observed by all that participate
in the fishery. Yet, since this 2000 assesment is the Best Avalible Science, they have closed this fishery this year,
only 3 month;s into the season. They are still using the estimated biomass numbers from the 2000 assesment to
determine the ACL, and of coarse the NMFS refused to compile any meaningfull rec catch data, so despite them
adjusting what they claim rec anglers are catching up each year, they have not adjusted the stock levels up to match
conditions resulting in reg adjustments nor decreased participation. This is not an isolated example either.

The money spent on Catch Shares has NOT saved fish or rebuilt fisheries. That budget is huge also. What then has
it gotten us all for the huge investment? We already had a black and white commercial landing data without it,
in near realtime reporting. We had a lot more money in the budget for fishery science and research (remember
NOAA reallocated money from science to Catch Shares). Since its not saving fish or getting us better science, what
are we getting for this huge investment? WE are getting nothing....Only the small number that are deeded quota
of the public resource are benefitting. They have gotten the resource for free, and can turn around and sell or lease
it to others, without having to repay the public trustee for the investment made in the program or the resource
itself. They may pay taxes on the "profit" made, but that pales in comparison to what is spent every year financing
Catch Share Programs.

The money spent on this COULD have a 100% improvement on fishery stock assesments if it were spent on data
collection rather than Catch Shares. remember, Commercial fishermen do not pay for landing collection either, they
only pay when monitors are used to make sure they do no cheat! NOAA is legally responsible for data collection, but
have REFUSED to follow their mandate. Commercial Fishermen are not volunteering their reporting of catches
any more than fish houses are....its required by NMFS. Rec Data could be required, even a self reporting system...
If NOAA had any policy that favored real data more what they use now. What is getting really deep is what has been
shoveled out about how NOAA and its NMFS is a "Science based Agency". Sadly there is little science involved in most
fish stocks. Maybe the lease cost for "shares" should go to conducting stock assesments rather than in someones
checking account or pocket......