Home Conservation Front

AL and MS are now noncompliant for Fed red snapper season

markw4321markw4321 Posts: 171 Officer
The state's of AL and MS elected today to o:cool:pen their state waters for the month of July 2014 for red snapper.
«13456

Replies

  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,010 Admiral
    MS doesn’t have much if any at all but, the real kicker to those states is the sorry 3 mile boundary. If I was governor of one of those states I would be raising heck about that. That includes LA too. They are really getting screwed.
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • markw4321markw4321 Posts: 171 Officer
    surfman wrote: »
    MS doesn’t have much if any at all but, the real kicker to those states is the sorry 3 mile boundary. If I was governor of one of those states I would be raising heck about that. That includes LA too. They are really getting screwed.





    note the following paragrah within the below article, basically telling you to run the gauntlet. Bubba you better get on the phone to Roy. Them dang states are acting up again. LMAO



    "The Alabama Legislature passed a bill in the 2014 session to extend Alabama waters to nine miles for fisheries management. This new distance is not currently recognized by the federal government and persons possessing red snapper or gray triggerfish farther than three miles from shore could receive citations from federal or state law enforcement officers. During this extended season, the Marine Resources Division will recognize the Legislative nine-mile limit for the harvest of red snapper and gray triggerfish. However, anglers should be aware that federal enforcement officers could issue citations outside the three-mile limit and should understand that possession of red snapper and gray triggerfish between three and nine miles in Alabama state waters is at your own risk."



    Alabama to open red snapper season in state waters every weekend in July
    By WALA Webstaff
    Published: June 26, 2014, 2:46 pm 16197 MONTGOMERY, Ala. (WALA) – Governor Robert Bentley along with The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division announced Thursday that Alabama State waters will open for the harvest of red snapper and gray triggerfish on all Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays in July.

    “The state red snapper season will be open during three of the biggest weekends for fishing: The Fourth of July weekend, the Roy Martin Dauphin Island Young Anglers Tournament and the Alabama Deep Sea Fishing Rodeo,” Governor Robert Bentley said. “Red snapper fishing is popular along the Alabama Gulf Coast, and the extra fishing days are good for the Gulf Coast economy. I welcome fishermen to take advantage of the additional opportunities for red snapper fishing in our waters.”

    The bag limit will be two red snapper per person per day and two gray triggerfish per person per day. The minimum size for red snapper will be 16” total length and the minimum size for gray triggerfish will be 14” fork length. Federal waters remain closed to red snapper and gray triggerfish harvest.

    Fishermen are required to report red snapper harvest to the Marine Resources Division. Only one report is required per vessel trip, and fishermen can provide details via a smartphone app available under “Outdoor Alabama” in the iTunes or Google Play app stores; online at outdooralabama.com; by telephone at 1-844-REDSNAP (1-844-733-7627), or by paper forms available at select coastal public boat launches. Additional information can be found at outdooralabama.com/fishing/saltwater/redsnappercheck/.

    “The federal red snapper season this year was only nine days. Our biologists have assessed the resource in our waters, and we feel that there are still enough red snapper in Alabama waters to open an additional season in order to give our citizens the ability to catch more red snapper this year,” Chris Blankenship, Director of the Marine Resources Division said. “The red snapper reporting compliance from the recreational and charter fishermen during the federal season was very good. The information obtained from the red snapper reporting program gives us confidence that we can open this season in state waters for sustainable harvest.”

    The Alabama Legislature passed a bill in the 2014 session to extend Alabama waters to nine miles for fisheries management. This new distance is not currently recognized by the federal government and persons possessing red snapper or gray triggerfish farther than three miles from shore could receive citations from federal or state law enforcement officers. During this extended season, the Marine Resources Division will recognize the Legislative nine-mile limit for the harvest of red snapper and gray triggerfish. However, anglers should be aware that federal enforcement officers could issue citations outside the three-mile limit and should understand that possession of red snapper and gray triggerfish between three and nine miles in Alabama state waters is at your own risk.

    “We will continue to work with the federal government and the other Gulf States to responsibly manage this great fishery in federal waters while also allowing proper management in Alabama waters,” said Conservation Commissioner N. Gunter Guy, Jr. “Governor Bentley and the Department of Conservation appreciate the participation of our fishermen in the Marine Resources Division Red Snapper Reporting Program. The information from this program is vital to improving the access of our citizens to red snapper fishery.”
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,010 Admiral
    Yep, didn't LA do the same thing?
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    I would like to congratulate all of you who wanted the states to control the red snapper fishery. Your paranoid conspiracy theory diatribes have put enough pressure on the states that they have all gone rogue. YOU HAVE WON!

    Here's what you've won.
    Federal waters will be closed to private recreational anglers for red snapper and other reef fish species.
    Sector separation,The for hire industry will be laughing all the to the bank.
    Law suites initiated by the commercial, recreational for hire and the NMFS against the states for not holding there private and for hire sectors accountable.
    State run fish tag programs and or restrictive fishing licenses, so the state fisheries are accountable.

    So for those who believe in this Cabal of commercial fisherman,environmentalists,for hire,NMFS ,aliens and Bigfoot led by Dr Crabtree. You have unknowingly championed there cause.

    You should all be very proud of your selfs!
  • SpineymanSpineyman Destin, FlPosts: 8,377 Admiral
    notreely wrote: »
    I would like to congratulate all of you who wanted the states to control the red snapper fishery. Your paranoid conspiracy theory diatribes have put enough pressure on the states that they have all gone rouge. YOU HAVE WON!

    Here's what you've won.
    Federal waters will be closed to private recreational anglers for red snapper and other reef fish species.
    Sector separation,The for hire industry will be laughing all the to the bank.
    Law suites initiated by the commercial, recreational for hire and the NMFS against the states for not holding there private and for hire sectors accountable.
    State run fish tag programs and or restrictive fishing licenses, so the state fisheries are accountable.

    So for those who believe in this Cabal of commercial fisherman,environmentalists,for hire,NMFS ,aliens and Bigfoot led by Dr Crabtree. You have unknowingly championed there cause.

    You should all be very proud of your selfs!

    What are you smoking? Something had to be done and this is a start letting them know we will not sit idly by while they strip our fishing rights away one by one. They will keep messing and it will get ugly.
    Kayak Rookie...and loving it.
    Fishing beautiful Destin / Ft Walton Beach area!

    II Chronicles 7:14
    if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.



  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Spineyman wrote: »
    What are you smoking? Something had to be done and this is a start letting them know we will not sit idly by while they strip our fishing rights away one by one. They will keep messing and it will get ugly.

    A very nice partagas 1845 Extra Fuerte, And I highly recommend one. I don't think that most people understand that the states for all there roguishness still have to follow the ACL. Since sector separation is now coming the private recreational ACL will be cut in half. It is now a pissing match between the states to see who can be the most roguish .So as the states all try to out do each other the state for hire and recreational part of the ACL is most likely to be exceeded. So now that the federal for hire sector will be on an IFQ and the federal private recreational federal season will most likely be closed. Dr Crabtree can say to the judge that the recreational federal sector is completely accountable. The focus of the law suit will shift to the states.
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,010 Admiral
    No he's right we should just all keep our mouths shut and be good citizens and just do what the Fed tells us to do. It is for our own good after all.
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • Mackeral SnatcherMackeral Snatcher Posts: 12,362 AG
    Or....................................
    THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,010 Admiral
    More controversy against the recreational fisherman.....


    For Immediate Release
    Federal Fisheries Agency Adjusts Misleading Economic Information
    Corrected figures show commercial sector shrank by $2.3 billion in 2012

    ASA Mary Jane Williamson 703.519.9691x227
    CSF Cole Henry 202.543.6850 x19 NMMA Lauren Dunn, 202.280.6928 Center Jeff Angers 225.382.3755
    IGFA Jason Schratwieser 954.927.2628
    GHOF Tony Fins 800.288.1227
    CCA Ted Venker, 713.626.4234
    TBF Andrew Cox 954.938.0150


    Washington, D.C. – June 26, 2014 – After significant objection from the recreational fishing and boating community, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has taken steps to correct a key fisheries economics report that misleadingly indicated that the domestic commercial fishing industry in the United States was significantly larger than the recreational fishing industry. When imported seafood, which is not regulated or managed by NMFS, is removed from the equation, the corrected data show that the recreational fishing industry is actually $7.9 billion dollars larger than the commercial fishing industry. Furthermore, the corrected data show that the domestic commercial fishing industry actually decreased by $2.3 billion in 2012.
    “When seafood imports, industrial species, shellfish and fish that aren’t caught by recreational anglers are removed, recreational fishing generates $33.3 billion dollars more than their commercial counterparts while taking far fewer pounds of fish,” said Ted Venker, Conservation director for the Coastal Conservation Association. “That is the apple-to-apples number that needs to be considered when we are talking about management decisions that impact domestic fisheries, and it is important that NOAA corrected the data.”
    In late April of this year, NMFS released its Fisheries Economics of the United States 2012 with the headline “NOAA Reports Show Strong Economic Gains from Fishing, Continued Improvement in Fish Stocks,” but there was no indication that the agency had changed the way the economic impact data were compiled in the report. Previously, NMFS separated imports from domestic industry figures and reported each separately. In the latest report, the agency eliminated that distinction and simply published a total that included domestic and imported seafood. As such, topics such as imports from illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, 75,000 pounds of shark fins and shrimp harvested by practices that the U.S. has banned were included in the totals for the domestic commercial sector.
    “It was important to set the record straight because people naturally use this report to compare the two sectors, and combining imported seafood with domestically caught seafood gives an overinflated and incorrect representation of the economic impact of this country’s commercial fishing industry,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “This is particularly risky if this information is used to halt progress on important management decisions such as how fisheries are allocated between the two sectors. More than 64 percent of the total sales of seafood is generated by imported product which should have no bearing whatsoever on allocation discussions.”
    Recreational fishing and boating organizations including the American Sportfishing Association, Center for Coastal Conservation, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, International Game Fish Association and National Marine Manufacturers Association recently met with agency officials to request a correction. The agency refused to reprint the report, but did release a web query that allows individuals to remove imports and generate an accurate report on their own. [https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=160:1:0::NO]
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Great plan - results in closing federal waters to the majority of people fishing in the Gulf.

    Plus, this joker is blaming the private recs for this debacle? Kinda like how they tried to blame CCA for our 9 day season this year. What a joke, and a bad one at that.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,504 AG
    surfman wrote: »
    More controversy against the recreational fisherman.....


    For Immediate Release
    Federal Fisheries Agency Adjusts Misleading Economic Information
    Corrected figures show commercial sector shrank by $2.3 billion in 2012

    ASA Mary Jane Williamson 703.519.9691x227
    CSF Cole Henry 202.543.6850 x19 NMMA Lauren Dunn, 202.280.6928 Center Jeff Angers 225.382.3755
    IGFA Jason Schratwieser 954.927.2628
    GHOF Tony Fins 800.288.1227
    CCA Ted Venker, 713.626.4234
    TBF Andrew Cox 954.938.0150


    Washington, D.C. – June 26, 2014 – After significant objection from the recreational fishing and boating community, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has taken steps to correct a key fisheries economics report that misleadingly indicated that the domestic commercial fishing industry in the United States was significantly larger than the recreational fishing industry. When imported seafood, which is not regulated or managed by NMFS, is removed from the equation, the corrected data show that the recreational fishing industry is actually $7.9 billion dollars larger than the commercial fishing industry. Furthermore, the corrected data show that the domestic commercial fishing industry actually decreased by $2.3 billion in 2012.
    “When seafood imports, industrial species, shellfish and fish that aren’t caught by recreational anglers are removed, recreational fishing generates $33.3 billion dollars more than their commercial counterparts while taking far fewer pounds of fish,” said Ted Venker, Conservation director for the Coastal Conservation Association. “That is the apple-to-apples number that needs to be considered when we are talking about management decisions that impact domestic fisheries, and it is important that NOAA corrected the data.”
    In late April of this year, NMFS released its Fisheries Economics of the United States 2012 with the headline “NOAA Reports Show Strong Economic Gains from Fishing, Continued Improvement in Fish Stocks,” but there was no indication that the agency had changed the way the economic impact data were compiled in the report. Previously, NMFS separated imports from domestic industry figures and reported each separately. In the latest report, the agency eliminated that distinction and simply published a total that included domestic and imported seafood. As such, topics such as imports from illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, 75,000 pounds of shark fins and shrimp harvested by practices that the U.S. has banned were included in the totals for the domestic commercial sector.
    “It was important to set the record straight because people naturally use this report to compare the two sectors, and combining imported seafood with domestically caught seafood gives an overinflated and incorrect representation of the economic impact of this country’s commercial fishing industry,” said Mike Nussman, president and CEO of the American Sportfishing Association. “This is particularly risky if this information is used to halt progress on important management decisions such as how fisheries are allocated between the two sectors. More than 64 percent of the total sales of seafood is generated by imported product which should have no bearing whatsoever on allocation discussions.”
    Recreational fishing and boating organizations including the American Sportfishing Association, Center for Coastal Conservation, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, International Game Fish Association and National Marine Manufacturers Association recently met with agency officials to request a correction. The agency refused to reprint the report, but did release a web query that allows individuals to remove imports and generate an accurate report on their own. [https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/apex/f?p=160:1:0::NO]
    So we can't use shellfish or industrial fish in our impact chart because the rec sector doesn't have access, but the rec sector can use income generated from fish that the commercial sector has no access to?

    Ya'll are the masters at spin...
    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.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    So we can't use shellfish or industrial fish in our impact chart because the rec sector doesn't have access, but the rec sector can use income generated from fish that the commercial sector has no access to?

    Ya'll are the masters at spin...

    When a directed GOM comparison on grouper was done it was nearly 15 times greater economic impact
    when recreationally caught. That study was done to do a comparison of a fish that both sides targeted.
    When all US harvested FinFish are compared 98% are caught commercially and 2% caught recreationally
    yet the total economic impact is about equal.
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    notreely wrote: »
    A very nice partagas 1845 Extra Fuerte, And I highly recommend one. I don't think that most people understand that the states for all there roguishness still have to follow the ACL. Since sector separation is now coming the private recreational ACL will be cut in half. It is now a pissing match between the states to see who can be the most roguish .So as the states all try to out do each other the state for hire and recreational part of the ACL is most likely to be exceeded. So now that the federal for hire sector will be on an IFQ and the federal private recreational federal season will most likely be closed. Dr Crabtree can say to the judge that the recreational federal sector is completely accountable. The focus of the law suit will shift to the states.

    Actually not quite right and this was a major sticking point last week.

    See NMFS believes that 1/2 of the fish are caught in State waters. Federal Permitted vessels would then only be granted about 46% of 1/2 or 23%, which by the way is about the amount needed to supply them their customers, considering they are selling rides not fish.
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Actually not quite right and this was a major sticking point last week.

    See NMFS believes that 1/2 of the fish are caught in State waters. Federal Permitted vessels would then only be granted about 46% of 1/2 or 23%, which by the way is about the amount needed to supply them their customers, considering they are selling rides not fish.

    Bob, I believe it will closer to 50/50 spilt of the total recreational ACL. They are going to take a long term average of of the fishery,going back far enough to incorporate the data before implementation of 30B. The further back they go, the for hire sector will benefit because they caught a higher percentage of ACL.

    Oh and BTW for those who were clamoring for state control of the fishery, the interstate pissing contest has already started. The Texas and Louisiana representatives on the council tried to get the gulf RS stock spilt into eastern and western stocks in the next assessment to try and get more of the remaining ACL. This is going to get very interesting watching the five states fight over the leftover crumbs.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    We have asked for better data, for many year now with no result.

    How can you split the fish fairly and equitably when you are relying on what is knowingly flawed data?

    Again, fits with yall's insistence on sticking with an allocation based on decades old, obsolete data.

    I don't think this is going to fly at the state level - any plan that eliminates the largest user group from the gitgo is not going to be received favorably at the state level. Could be you can catch your federal IFQ snapper, but not be able to land them.

    State fishery managers have proven to be able to manage the fisheries FAR better than our federal fisheries managers ever dreamed of doing. They also understand the importance of providing habitat, which our federal fisheries managers can't seem to get their head around, since their collective heads are so far up the enviros' backsides.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    We have asked for better data, for many year now with no result.

    How can you split the fish when you are relying on what is knowingly flawed data?

    Again, fits with yall's insistence on sticking with an allocation based on decades old, obsolete data.

    I don't think this is going to fly at the state level - any plan that eliminates the largest user group from the gitgo is not going to be received favorably at the state level. Could be you can catch your federal IFQ snapper, but not be able to land them.

    Tom you need to take a Xanax and get some sleep! If you think the states have that kind of power why wouldn't they just not allow the commercial industry to land their fish.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    notreely wrote: »
    Tom you need to take a Xanax and get some sleep! If you think the states have that kind of power why wouldn't they just not allow the commercial industry to land their fish.

    I am not an attorney, but I would think that the states' do have power over what is landed in their ports. There is a difference in allowing the commercial boats to land their allocation and tolerating an action that removes the largest user group (that buys state fishing licenses) from the water. The federally-permitted boats could certainly catch their snapper in federal waters, but would have to figure out a way to get them to port since they will need to traverse through state waters.

    Looks like a HUGE lawsuit about to unfold, and (notreely) in your favor.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom what you are saying is that the states are eliminating 53% of the largest user group by allowing commercial fisherman to land red snapper in their ports. Are you changing your conspiracy theory?

    I believe it would be against the interstate commerce act but I am not an attorney either.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    TPWD enacted a law a while back that prohibited federally-permitted commercial fishermen from landing more fish on our docks than the state bag limits per person while fishing in Texas State Waters - that is law, now. Who knows what prohibitions could be enacted relative to other federally-permitted fishermen?

    Seeing as how the Gulf communities have already suffered losses over over $12 BILLION since EDF hijacked our fisheries, I believe there is legal standing to stop this madness.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    TPWD enacted a law a while back that prohibited federally-permitted commercial fishermen from landing more fish on our docks than the state bag limits per person while fishing in Texas State Waters - that is law, now. Who knows what prohibitions could be enacted relative to other federally-permitted fishermen?

    Seeing as how the Gulf communities have already suffered losses over over $12 BILLION since EDF hijacked our fisheries, I believe there is legal standing to stop this madness.
  • BubbaBubba Posts: 204 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I am not an attorney, but I would think that the states' do have power over what is landed in their ports. There is a difference in allowing the commercial boats to land their allocation and tolerating an action that removes the largest user group (that buys state fishing licenses) from the water. The federally-permitted boats could certainly catch their snapper in federal waters, but would have to figure out a way to get them to port since they will need to traverse through state waters.

    Looks like a HUGE lawsuit about to unfold, and (notreely) in your favor.

    Ask Florida how that concept turned out for them back in the 90s when they tried to stop commercial fishermen from transiting state waters to land their federal catch.

    Example 2: Florida has a 1 fish cobia bag limit. The federal limit is 2. If a fisherman catches 2 cobia in federal waters, he can transit FL state waters and land his 2 cobia. Now...... if he stops and fishes in state waters on the way in, and is intercepted by enforcement, all fish on the boat are considered caught at that site, and the fisherman would be in violation of state law. But as long as he is in transit and lands, he's legal.
  • BubbaBubba Posts: 204 Deckhand
    Actually not quite right and this was a major sticking point last week.

    See NMFS believes that 1/2 of the fish are caught in State waters. Federal Permitted vessels would then only be granted about 46% of 1/2 or 23%, which by the way is about the amount needed to supply them their customers, considering they are selling rides not fish.

    Now, I didn't listen in last week as I was out of town, but what someone told me today was the Council picked a preferred of something like 47% for hire, and 53% private for the split.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Bubba it's going to very interesting to see how the states are going to respond to having to be accountable.
  • BubbaBubba Posts: 204 Deckhand
    notreely wrote: »
    Bubba it's going to very interesting to see how the states are going to respond to having to be accountable.

    yeah, I wasn't even going to reply because you covered it in page 1, and maybe in another thread here. Eventually, CFH will maybe get an IFQ (although I suspect a lot will go bankrupt before its enacted), and federal waters will be closed permanently for private anglers, who comprise the majority of effort, and they'll be restricted to their state waters.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    notreely wrote: »
    Bubba it's going to very interesting to see how the states are going to respond to having to be accountable.

    You got it backwards - it is the states that are taking the reins in their own hands to provide their own accountable data since the feds' refuse to do it. It will be interesting when the feds' are finally held accountable.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    Bubba wrote: »
    yeah, I wasn't even going to reply because you covered it in page 1, and maybe in another thread here. Eventually, CFH will maybe get an IFQ (although I suspect a lot will go bankrupt before its enacted), and federal waters will be closed permanently for private anglers, who comprise the majority of effort, and they'll be restricted to their state waters.

    So Private Rec's compromise the Majority of effort, but with ARS they basically
    would only get something like only half the rec quota? BTW....WHO says they compromise
    the majority of the effort, and does that account for the overestimation that continues
    to occur in MRIP by maintaining MRFSS methods of determining rec effort that was found
    to "Grossly Overestimate" Recreational Effort...for all recreational anglers?

    As to the 'States being Accountable', well that's just funny. The NMFS and its councils
    have not been accountable to seemingly anyone for some time. They have created
    FMP's without required stakeholder referendums when required by law, have ignored
    Congress on calls about Catch Shares, have thumbed their nose at the very law they
    claim to be mandated to follow, including by creating FMP's for purely economic considerations.
    Seems lawsuits and the impending action likely from impending legal action is the only
    thing the NMFs/NOAA/Councils really respond to.

    The states are not working blind, and do have a much greater vested interest in the health
    of the fisheries than the NMFS.

    So what do you think....Will the NMFS ignore the requirement for a stakeholder referendum
    in creating an IFQ in the recreational sector like they did in the commercial GOM fishery, where
    they kept 60% of the permitted commercial fishermen from participating in the process, or
    like they did in New England where they converted a EFP "Pilot" into a full FMP without a
    required referendum by simply proclaiming that the "Pilot" was an established FMP and thus
    not requiring a fishermen say?

    Will the NMFS use the states taking control of their own waters and fish to proclaim the
    need for an "Emergency Rule" as they have so often, mirroring the Whitehouse game
    of "Executive Order" to avoid having to follow all of the protective laws and procedures
    designed to protect the resource and stakeholders? My guess is that the HB scheme will be
    converted Gulf wide without a referendum, mirroring New England's move, then the CFH
    scheme will use the precedence they set as a claim to enact it without any referendum.
    How about the millions of recreational anglers who had no say in having their fish divided up
    and given to private corporations?

    It might be a regional fight for just one fish right now, but we all know that it will not stop
    there, The states are being victimized by the Federal agencies failure to Manage, and their
    refusal to follow the laws they are required to. The states are punished by the Feds along with
    their citizens, business's and visitors whenever the NMFS thinks they are challenging their
    rule, but when does the NMFS get held accountable. They lost a lawsuit by commercial fishermen
    against recreational interest...but WHO got punished? WHO lost wages, jobs, business's, for
    "Their" mismanagement? Remember the "What does it take to get fired at NOAA"? question?
    Seems more than fitting for the NMFS and its Councils.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    So Private Rec's compromise the Majority of effort, but with ARS they basically
    would only get something like only half the rec quota? BTW....WHO says they compromise
    the majority of the effort, and does that account for the overestimation that continues
    to occur in MRIP by maintaining MRFSS methods of determining rec effort that was found
    to "Grossly Overestimate" Recreational Effort...for all recreational anglers?

    As to the 'States being Accountable', well that's just funny. The NMFS and its councils
    have not been accountable to seemingly anyone for some time. They have created
    FMP's without required stakeholder referendums when required by law, have ignored
    Congress on calls about Catch Shares, have thumbed their nose at the very law they
    claim to be mandated to follow, including by creating FMP's for purely economic considerations.
    Seems lawsuits and the impending action likely from impending legal action is the only
    thing the NMFs/NOAA/Councils really respond to.

    The states are not working blind, and do have a much greater vested interest in the health
    of the fisheries than the NMFS.

    So what do you think....Will the NMFS ignore the requirement for a stakeholder referendum
    in creating an IFQ in the recreational sector like they did in the commercial GOM fishery, where
    they kept 60% of the permitted commercial fishermen from participating in the process, or
    like they did in New England where they converted a EFP "Pilot" into a full FMP without a
    required referendum by simply proclaiming that the "Pilot" was an established FMP and thus
    not requiring a fishermen say?

    Will the NMFS use the states taking control of their own waters and fish to proclaim the
    need for an "Emergency Rule" as they have so often, mirroring the Whitehouse game
    of "Executive Order" to avoid having to follow all of the protective laws and procedures
    designed to protect the resource and stakeholders? My guess is that the HB scheme will be
    converted Gulf wide without a referendum, mirroring New England's move, then the CFH
    scheme will use the precedence they set as a claim to enact it without any referendum.
    How about the millions of recreational anglers who had no say in having their fish divided up
    and given to private corporations?

    It might be a regional fight for just one fish right now, but we all know that it will not stop
    there, The states are being victimized by the Federal agencies failure to Manage, and their
    refusal to follow the laws they are required to. The states are punished by the Feds along with
    their citizens, business's and visitors whenever the NMFS thinks they are challenging their
    rule, but when does the NMFS get held accountable. They lost a lawsuit by commercial fishermen
    against recreational interest...but WHO got punished? WHO lost wages, jobs, business's, for
    "Their" mismanagement? Remember the "What does it take to get fired at NOAA"? question?
    Seems more than fitting for the NMFS and its Councils.


    So the question I have for you Henry is. If you operated your business in the gulf or when sector separation and IFQ'S come to the south Atlantic would you or will you shut down your business or participate in program.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    notreely wrote: »
    So the question I have for you Henry is. If you operated your business in the gulf or when sector separation and IFQ'S come to the south Atlantic would you or will you shut down your business or participate in program.

    Sounds like something out of a mafia movie.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    notreely wrote: »
    So the question I have for you Henry is. If you operated your business in the gulf or when sector separation and IFQ'S come to the south Atlantic would you or will you shut down your business or participate in program.

    First, My questions remain unanswered, but not surprising as they
    call to question the root of the problem. BTW, council reps asked, as
    well as NMFS officials and Mr. Crabtree himself have all skirted these questions.

    So, now....I do fish recreationally in the GOM, on a private boat, which makes
    me a recreational participant and stakeholder there as well as in the South Atlantic.
    As such it would be expected that as a Recreational Stakeholder, my position
    should be considered before MY sector's quota is divvied up and part of it is given to
    a business or boat owner. As a boat owners and business owner myself, it would
    be unthinkable to suggest that I own the fish my guest intend to harvest, or even
    that I own the exclusive rights to such fish. Since bag limit sale of recreationally caught
    fish has all but been eliminated the distinction between recreationally caught and
    commercially caught fish is clearer than ever (except the scheme where a few dual permitted
    boats take recreational anglers and rename them crew members on commercial trips).

    Guess to answer your question, though you did not answer mine, I would need to know
    if I was being given a choice or say in the matter, or if I was being forced to comply or get
    out like many IFQ schemes have effectively become without the legally required stakeholder
    referendum. BTW, despite a few o the same commercial players as in the GOM part of the Southern
    Catch EDF backed group on the east coast, most east coast fishermen learned the hard lesson
    being played out in the GOM and other regions where Catch Shares have been forced in and remain
    pretty untidily opposed. Even with a new council member tied to EDF and pro Catch Share, the idea
    has not made it very far in any discussion. Even the recent port meetings held had catch Shares
    brought up at each and every one.......making the SAFMC's top list of talking points.....funny though,
    the real point discussed widely about it at these meetings was that it was not welcome!

    Like most other comments, its the failure of the NMFS to manage effectively with reliable science based
    data that has led to most problems. Its their lack of accountability in their actions that allows them
    to keep mis-managing. Its the apparent policy of management before science, you know the call to
    'Give it a Try' to collect better data, rather than the collect better data then manage. Despite being
    ordered to "Fix" MRFSS because of in large part the gross overestimation of recreational effort......they
    gave it a new name.....but maintained most of the methodology used to determine the effort. Despite
    claims by the NMFS and their councils that they have stood the court challenges over the data....that is
    only relating to the implementation of the new system, not the actual accomplishment of correcting
    the plague of problems that still exist. The NMFS and councils claims it is a "Work in Progress" yet how
    many years has this been going on, and they are still using the same old system, and only now talking about
    any tweaks to it? BTW....the claimed adjustments they are looking to implement sometime in the future still
    reply on an unknown universe of anglers, by targeting random coastal residents. Funny how they did
    a comparison of random landline calls to directed mail in surveys to those on the Angler Registry to show
    a claimed great improvement....yet the proposed survey when mail in and cell numbers are included
    will still be random.

    Seems like the have a skyscraper built on a shaky foundation and they are worried about the penthouse
    suites.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Sounds like something out of a mafia movie.

    " And I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen; I didn't ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business"
    Hyman Roth
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Digital Now Included!

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

Preview This Month's Issue

Buy Digital Single Issues

Don't miss an issue.
Buy single digital issue for your phone or tablet.

Buy Single Digital Issue on the Florida Sportsman App

Other Magazines

See All Other Magazines

Special Interest Magazines

See All Special Interest Magazines

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Florida Sportsman stories delivered right to your inbox.

Advertisement

Phone Icon

Get Digital Access.

All Florida Sportsman subscribers now have digital access to their magazine content. This means you have the option to read your magazine on most popular phones and tablets.

To get started, click the link below to visit mymagnow.com and learn how to access your digital magazine.

Get Digital Access

Not a Subscriber?
Subscribe Now