Handguns
Subscribe
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
Conspiracy? Like I said, google up his work. He is nothing more than a PAID shill for the enviros under the guise of speaking for the recreational fishermen.
Nothing anyone in your family, my family, or Mother Teresa's family has ever done or will do, entitles them to a free conversion of a public owned resource to their personal property to be used for their exclusive financial gain.
I think it is pretty dam obnoxious for you to insinuate that it is "American" to allow that.:nono
No soldier ever valiantly died in battle so "Notreely" could be given part of a monopoly on Red Snapper harvest.:rotflmao
You should be ashamed of yourself for cheapening the service your family has provided our nation by stooping so low as to making such an outlandish comment.:rolleyes
Hey flubba and not reeeeeeeeely smart. Flubba, on another thread you bandied about regarding the states provide the data for the basis of NMFS regulations. Yeah, sure. They "augment" to quote Dr. Richard Merrick from his statement and testimony entered in the record on May 21, 2013 when he testified in front of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs. Appears the .gov boyz have a few extra Dyson class vessels (here's a link to what they are http://www.omao.noaa.gov/publications/od_flier.pdf) with which to go out and "sample" the biomass - yeah and they cost about $75 million (of our money) a piece.
Seems your friends are taking a few hits WRT computer models. Climate model - fail. Arctic and Antarctic Ice coverage - fail. That last one is hilarious, the "scientists" can't understand how the model underestimated to such a level as the reality. Therein lies (pun and bad grammar intended) the issue. When your models meet reality they fail.
For those on the forum that are not as galactically misaligned as not reeeeeeely smart and flubba. You can view the statements to the Subcommittee and watch the testimony (about 2+ hours long but well worth it) at this link
http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=333644
See flubba, my links actually work because they point to real info, not your unicorn pixie dust BS.
Also, the Oversight Hearing on "Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act", which strangely took place on 11 September 2013, can be viewed. Another interesting view if you have the time.
I laughed when Dr. Merrick stated that they, NOAA NMFS, had been working diligently to implement a "new" data collection effort that should be deployed sometime in 2014. Like 5 years late and it will still be biased and, amazingly, the data will no doubt support their bogus claims.
Flubba, you tax feeder, you and your ilk are going to rue the day you uncorked this scheme on the citizens of this country.
Like Capt Tom said, the light will shine; and burn you festering fungus ridden trolls from meddling in, and conspiring to profit, from We the Peoples resource.
I greatly respect you being mature enough to post this reply. I assure you I would never be ungrateful for anyone's service to this country, but was simply making a point that your post had likewise hit a nerve with me.
I also agree totally with an earlier post of yours reminding everyone that George W. Bush was the one who signed this train wreck in motion. (I think many forget or won't acknowledge that fact). I am also disappointed in the current administrations inability or refusal to correct the issues that are affecting both the commercials and recreationals best use of the resource.
We simply disagree on what is the best way forward with getting out of this status quo quagmire, and I guess it wouldn't really be very "American" if everyone in the room was in agreement. So we carry on.
I am not eligible to receive any quota from a for hire reef fish IFQ plan. I have no financial or professional interests in the gulf for hire fishery. If I did I would have been leading the charge for sector separation and IFQ'S years ago.
At this point it may be to late to get sector separation in time to save them. They should have seen the 9 day and soon to be no federal season coming. Many of them believed in the flawed data and conspiracy theory's instead of looking at reality. They watched the other for profit sector prosper under IFQ'S and did not come to some consensus until now.
Your right bumpkin , and hopefully things will improve with MSA and the snapper stock keeps improving so everyone will have more access in the future.
Right now, the only plans on the table deal with gifting our Public Trust Resources to the for-hire permit owners - they are ignoring the largest stakeholder in the Gulf - the private recs.
So with the NMFS under the constraints of a U.S. Distract court order and the states expanding the fishery in their waters. This effectively shuts down the federal fishery and separates the federal for hire sector from the non federal for hire boats and private recs.
So as things stand now, under the MSA better data and even a great stock assessment will not provide enough days for a viable federal season. That is the consensus opinion of mangers and scientists, even Dr Shipp.
So if sector separation and IFQ'S is not the answer what is?
One of the BIGGEST problems is that the fisheries managers refuse to count the fish that are around artificial reefs and oil platforms, and call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but I believe that is due to the undue influence that the enviro corporations have on our fisheries management process. The enviros do not like artificial reefs or oil platforms, as by and large, they believe that they are simply fish congregating devices, ATTRACTING the fish making it easier for fishermen to catch them and thereby being a net detriment to the fish populations. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I'm sure you already know that. If the federal fisheries managers would recognize the incredible success that the Alabama/FL panhandle reefs have had on PRODUCING sustainable quantities of red snapper where none existed before, you would think they would want to emulate that success across the Gulf, but no, they won't. Take a look at the enclosed graphic, which I think explains a lot, including debunking the absurd notion that the Alabama reefs are being populated by red snapper migrating from banks offshore of Texas.
The solution, according to Dr. Bob Shipp, is for the fisheries managers to do a better stock assessment that gives "full credit" to the artificial structures found in the Alabama reefing zones and oil platforms in the western Gulf, and we we see a quota that is 3 or 4 times greater than what we have now. This would allow EVERYBODY to have a 6 or even 8 month red snapper season, which "wouldn't make a dent in the red snapper populations". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLK3ql1-q0I
It is the RECREATIONAL fishermen catching the fish, and it shouldn't matter what kind of boat they are fishing on - they should all be regulated fairly and equally - otherwise, we will continue to have tremendous acrimony and division among the Gulf fishermen. The for-hire sector will just have to adapt and endure, as you already have if you are still in business, and the private recs have also done, until this can be accomplished.
Tom Hilton
“If the stocks were in trouble and there weren’t any fish out there, we’d never get to the quota. But there are so many fish and they’re so big, as long as we have a quota system, this is what’s going to happen.”
The federal recreational season announced Wednesday begins at 12:01 a.m. on June 1 and closes at 12:01 a.m. on June 10, with a two-fish bag limit and 16-inch minimum total length size limit.
Shipp said the system itself was broken, so a new stock assessment really wouldn’t provide much relief in extending the recreational season.
“Let’s say if by some miracle they jacked it (the stock assessment) up 50 percent, then okay, we’ll have a 14-day season,” he said. “We’ve got to change the basic system.”
That literally would take an act of Congress, but Shipp hoped the spectacle of a nine-day season could be a tipping point for real change in the system.
“The Magnuson Act has got to be amended to get away from this quota system,” he said. “And the simplest and easiest solution would be to turn it over to the states.
http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=6624
You see even Dr Ship knows without changing the MSA nothing can be done even with better assessments.
So now your left with no federal recreational season and the states having larger seasons.
If not sector separation, what would you have the federal permitted vessels do.
That would be a violation of the MSA.
SO THATS AGAINST THE LAW.
If not sector separation, what would you have the federal permitted vessels do?
Council tried to do that. Texas wanted something like 2-3% more allocation than they had reported. AL and FL said "No way, Jose!" And so far, nothing's changed....... all because of 150,000 pounds (i.e. 1 federal day of fishing).
I'm not a fan of fish tags, but the point is that there are a myriad of ways to address the problem, but the missing component is ANY plan that addresses the Gulf recreational fishermen as a whole.
The numbers do not add up for IFQ distribution between the federally permitted vessels - IFQs will require a substatial number of the boats out of the fishery - UNNECESSARILY.
yeah, but that can't be done, and from what I understand, they were told that.
So, Tom, I'm curious, did you get a reply? I made several comments earlier about your post, and TripleTail pointed out many of the same things later on. Did the NMFS guy reply? You said several Council members replied to you; just wondered if NMFS did, or if they just considered another of your soapbox rants (TripleTail called it a rant, not me).
Tom the devil is in the detail
Will the states comply with the tag system?
Since you have a fist full, I would assume you intend them to be transferable. If so. Then you will open a marketplace for tags,they will go to the highest bidder.
You would have about 500,000 tags for 300,000,000 people eligible to get them.
As far as a huge costs,most new businesses require a huge cost. It could be mandated that in a IFQ program that with any added allocation a percentage goes into a new entry pool.
Yes got a prompt but generic reply from Branstetter.
The numbers still don't add up for IFQs.
The best solution is to implement the OFS Permit Plan.
Professor, your details are just throwing monkey wrenches into what otherwise is a very simple concept. Anyone can buy tags at Wal Mart, but only the first 500,000 surrendered are valid. States make a mint, a few people catch fish.
Tom, care to share the "prompt but generic" reply from Branstetter (whoever he is)? You've posted your letter to him twice, and noted there were replies from Council members and now from NMFS, but you've never shared what those folks replied to you. If you put up the bait and repeatedly state it, show us the catch, if you don't mind. That is transparency that you so desperately demand.
They can sell them the day after thanksgiving!
Professor, as I understand it, many are receiving the benefits of "catch and fillet", as we speak. We don't need no stinkin' tags; we need more green eggs on the back deck.
Better data by way of gastronomic sampling!
Yall are awfully quick to point out that there won't be enough fish tags (and I have to agree), but carefully avoid pointing out the exact same flaw with recreational IFQs.
Tom I don't have qualms about giving the for hire sector, their historic share of the fishery. Headboats have and charter boats will have to be highly regulated and accountable to participate. I think ensuring a healthy for hire fishery is good for the entire recreational fishery. I know I, and I'm sure many others who might read this have had our passion for fishing sparked on a Headboat or charter boat. I wonder how many here can trace back all of their financial fishing expenditures(rod,reels, boats,hell even a subscription to florida sportsman) because a parent or grandparent took them on for hire boat.
I'm quite sure you don't have qualms about shutting out the majority of the stakeholders, and their historic access to the fish in the Gulf as long as you get yours.
Any formula that only addresses part of the equation is doomed to fail, and that is the very definition of Sector Searation / Recreational IFQs.
I don't mind people posting anonymously but way too many people on this forum post under multiple aliases.
And some of the worst offenders are the ones who post at least one avatar up with their real name or business affiliation and do all their trolling with the others.:shrug
Since the idea of IFQ’s requires a stakeholder referendum, would not ALL recreational anglers be allowed to decide if they want a CFH IFQ or not, unless or until such time that Sector Separation is forced upon us, since all of the fish in question belong to the recreational angler, not the boat owner or captain? Can an EFP trump National Law?
Answer:
The Council would define who represents a substantial participant. You are asking a question that cannot be answered until that decision is made.
So basically, 'You have to pass the law first to see whats in it'!
In a follow, follow up reply (he missed the 2 part question:
The lack of need for a referendum is explicitly explained out in the Federal Register notices for both the headboat and charterboat applications.
Its a loophole used to circumvent the legal requirements. In the commercial side its simply a "Grey" area,
until they do what was done in New England. In the Recreational side however I believe there is a much more
well defined line being crossed and somehow ignored. First......the "Recreational Quota" belongs to the
"Recreational Stakeholders".....AS A WHOLE. To carve out from their quota a chunk of quota to be used
as a test IFQ fails to address the rightful stakeholders say in the matter. Its actually done (2) things with
the quota, Separate the sector, or at least a portion of it, and separate the quota for a specifically determined
ownership right of harvest (IFQ). All of this of coarse while no specific amendment for such has ever been
implemented.
Questions on the conflict of interest on the data used by these "EFP's", The legality of establishing a FMP,
even an EFP or Pilot for primarily economic purposes were unanswered.
How many deer tags are issued with hunting licenses each year? Many hunters do not punch a tag at all since they didn't go deer hunting, but they have the option to do so if they wish. You don't buy deer tags at Walmart - they are attached to your license. I believe there could be a system implemented very easily and cheaply with a barcode scanning system to scan fishing licenses and track landings.
You say IFQs are a very simple concept, but cannot provide even the simplest explanation of what would actually happen if they were implemented. The numbers do not add up in any way, form, or fashion. Please provide a hypothetical scenario of what would happen based on an 11 million pound TAC, including what would happen with the private recs. It's like implementing IFQs in the commercial red snapper fishery, except only certain boats would be given IFQ quota while the other portion would be using tags or other type of regulation - doesn't make sense to do that there, or in the recreational sector.
I don't have permission from anyone to post up their private emails to me Pard.