Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
Digital Now Included!
Current Subscribers Click Here.
Current Subscribers Click Here.
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.
Replies
Exactly! How can no one see this?
It's time for the states to take over our fisheries management - totally and completely and free from federal/enviro meddling. That would be just great, let me guess you want a full 6 month 4 fish per person limit also or a full 365 day 4 fish per person limit? Its a very good thing for all of the private amateur recreational fisherman that you are not in charge of the fishery because in about a year none of them would be able to catch a scale that they could keep due to over fishing. I just read a thread yesterday about how bad the spots have been overfished off of Destin and Pensacola with a 52 day season state season with no federally permitted charter boats even fishing in there, 52 days! With the effort now it would not take long for everything to be overfished again in federal waters. Now is a perfect time for an accountable system that counts every fish, so we can keep this fishery at the top!
This really sums it up!
You can raise tilapia if you wish.
I believe you missed this part of his resume re fishery management
Fisheries management experience includes serving on the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, on New York's Marine Resources Advisory Council, as a bluefin tuna technical advisor to the US ICCAT delegation and as a winter flounder advisor to ASMFC.
This is a long time recognized recreational angler from the Mid Atlantic, who was a staunch recreational representative on the MAFMC. He butted heads with commercials so much he resigned from the Council without seeking second term. Mid Atlantic has more issues than the Gulf's one fish issue, and the issues apply, without species consideration. Its the management/politics, and he sums it up well.
This is a private angler speaking out to you private anglers.
you might want to read the bottom of his blog. your (in)actions have wider precedents. that law suit will most likely reverberate thru the nation.
Here is the list of the permit holders - there are almost 1,200 active;
http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/operations_management_information_services/constituency_services_branch/freedom_of_information_act/common_foia/RCG.htm
So, for all of these assertions that "every fish will be accounted for", etc. etc, where is the accounting for your IFQ Plan?
286,457 pounds have already been sliced off and gifted to the Headboat EFP (17 headboats). That's 16,850 pounds per boat.
366,000 pounds is what they are looking to give to the Alabama Charterboat Cooperative (90 boats). That's 4,067 pounds per boat.
There are about 1,200 for-hire boats in the Gulf that fish for red snapper. 47% of 5.5 million pounds = 2,585,000 pounds / 1200 boats = 2,154 pounds per boat.
Where is the accounting here? There is no accountability here with this for-hire IFQs Plan - just feel-good enviro-scripted fluff - you guys claim that this is a 100% accountable program, but you can't even account for projected outcomes of what would happen if and when your IFQ debacle is implemented. If you can't account for it now, how can you expect to provide a viable accounting once implemented?
Another telling defect is the claim that they can't tell us what will happen until AFTER the Plan has been implemented - sleazy.
It's a business plan that is using bogus numbers in an attempt to try to make this seem like a viable venture to invest in - it is not. I this was being presented to a Board of Directors of a large corporation, you guys would be laughed out of the room and probably headed to jail for fraud.
We see all of the trees in your forest!
So is that a Won't or Can't answer the question?
Since there are elements seeking to blame states being "Non-Compliant" as a theory
as to why the ARS season is being shortened and likely eliminated under Fed rule, figured
this question would be more than relevant. The answer however would only put blame
directly on the heads of the Federal Fishery managers and their process.........guess not
answering is an attempt to both protect them and not identify a real problem that could be
fixed without the SS/IFQ/Catch Shares scheme.
I may have ask this many times and to the Feds in charge also, but refusing to answer
actually in of itself is very telling. You may not like the consequences of the real answer
to the question since it highlights a continued broken system that is policy driven. Also
it shows that "REAL" solutions are not wanted by either fishery managers or those pushing
their "New and Novel" management schemes.
The states going "Non-Compliant" is a direct result of the Feds refusing to correct their
clearly identified data flaws that continue to needlessly shorten seasons. What is so hard
about acknowledging that?
Not responding to a hysterical non rational person is not shutting up! I believe the for hire sector is in the process of devising a plan to divide up the allocation to be given to them. When the for hire sector crafts and or ratifies that plan they agree too ( whether it's IFQ'S or not ) ,that is when it's accountability can be commented on.
Great plan - don't comment on accountability until AFTER they agree on the Plan - Ready! Shoot! Aim!
I believe that is the very definition of non-rational.
THEIR IS NO PLAN YET !
The amount of fish given to both the Headboat EFP and proposed Alabama Charterboat EFP does not reflect the REALITY of what would happen with Roy's suggestion that they go to a Gulf-wide For-hire IFQ PLAN - the Gulf-wide amount of fish would be FAAAAAR less than what these EFP boats are given.
It is very clearly a SCAM, inflating the numbers of fish per vessel to make it look like a good idea.
It ain't.
That response (Not Toms) makes as much sense as when Pelosi said that Obamacare had to be passed first to see what was in the law!
Here is the gist of it: Sector Separation first, since it does not require considering stakeholder
input (referendum). Then qualify Who from this new user group qualifies to participate in the
referendum for IFQ's (usually along the lines of who would benefit the most). Then let the majority
vote in a referendum that excludes those most likely to be put out of business by the plan. To
those not allowed to vote or gifted shares by the big players, create a small common pool for
them to buy (lease) from. Should not sound to far fetched, since NOAA has already done this
exact thing.
As an alternative, they could just declare the EFP's an established FMP like they did in New England
and ignore the whole legal referendum requirement thing.
If it smells fishy......it is.
I'll try and make this simple for you Tom!
These are pilot programs they were targeted to a specific audience, same way TV sitcoms are.
With the current constrictions of the fishery the majority of that specified audience likes what it has to offer.
The plan may look different from the pilot depending on what the audience liked or disliked. (Remember Ritchie's disappearing older brother Chuck in Happy Days)
The for hire sector will get a percentage of the recreational ACL. ( looks like about 47%)
How that sector carves up that percentage will be up to them.
If the for hire sector goes over their ACL , then people outside of the for hire sector can comment on the merits of the plan.
It's called a hostile takeover, it happens in business all the time especially to those industries that are over capitalized.
OK, thanks for very thoughtful and detailed analysis. So, according to that logic, some boats will get whatever poundage that whomever decides they should get, and a large % of the remaining for-hire boats will get NOTHING.
A hostile takeover is an apt description of Sector Separation/For-Hire IFQs - I'm glad that you finally came out of the closet on that. Jennings already admitted as such a while back, that the Plan was to eliminate much of their competition (other for-hire boats).
BTW - we are ALL stakeholders in this fishery pard, and we can comment on this or any other Plan that affects us.
Thanks again.
They will get the amount of poundage that the plan comes up with.
Like all LAP'S their will be winners and losers.
Those who feel they were illegally shorted by the plan, can seek resolution in the courts.
I think the federal for hire fleet would say it was a hostile takeover by the states.
As of right now you can comment all you want about sector separation and IFQ'S. When sector separation is implemented you will not be part of that sector, unless you have a federal permit.
This begs the question: why do they think they are entitled to 47% of our fish? Those numbers were based on about 1,600 permitted vessels fishing and the end result of this Plan will result in a number that may be less than 1/2 of that 1,600 (since there will be "winners" and "losers". Therefore, they should be entitled to whatever % of the original 1,600 boats that the consolidated number will end up being. For example, if there are 800 CFH boats left at the end of this consolidation, then they should get about 1/2 of the 47% or about 24%. Anything above that number should be considered THEFT.
No Tom it's not based on 1600 permits but an average of what the sector caught.
Why is there not 1600 permits anymore?
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
The average was caught by a much larger number of boats participating several years ago - there will be far fewer boats participating, especially after Sector Separation/IFQs come into play. Why should a much smaller group of boats be given the same catch % as the 1,600 boats? They shouldn't, especially when noting that the demographics of the fishery has changed in favor of the private recs - it is not the place of the government to determine how our Public Trust Resources should be divvied up, especially based on outdated information that has no bearing on today's realities.
Don't really know why there are not 1,600 permits any more - looks like the number has been growing over the last few years in Alabama and Louisiana and declining in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida.
You don't know why there are less permits ?
How do you know that all 1600 of permits were involved in the for hire red snapper fishery?
There are probably less permits because of the onerous federal regs that have been put in place since the hijack of our fisheries management in 2006 by you-know-who.
If you have information that documents that the 1,600 permits were NOT involved in the fishery, then please put it forward - otherwise, the assumption is the same for the 1,600 permits then as it is today with the 1,200 permits.
GEORGE W BUSH!
If you have information that documents that the 1,600 permits were involved in the fishery, then please put it forward - otherwise, the assumption is the same for the 1,200 permits then as it is today with the 1,200 permits.