Home Conservation Front

A slap in the face

Gulf Council to hold Public Hearings on Reef Fish Amendment 40

Sector Separation



The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has scheduled a series of public hearings around the Gulf of Mexico beginning Monday, August 4, 2014 through Tuesday, August 19, 2014. The purpose of the meetings is to get public input on Reef Fish Amendment 40 - Sector Separation. All meetings will begin at 6:00 pm. local time and will conclude no later than 9 p.m.
Amendment 40 examines dividing of the recreational red snapper quota into a private angling sector and federal for-hire sector
All hearings will begin at 6 pm local time and will conclude after public input has ended, but no later than 9 pm.



I see this as a slap in the face since we all know it is a done deal.
Makes me sick!!
THERE SHOULD BE NO COMMERCIAL FISHING ALLOWED FOR ANY SPECIES THAT IS CONSIDERED OVERFISHED.
«1

Replies

  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    Gulf Council to hold Public Hearings on Reef Fish Amendment 40

    Sector Separation



    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has scheduled a series of public hearings around the Gulf of Mexico beginning Monday, August 4, 2014 through Tuesday, August 19, 2014. The purpose of the meetings is to get public input on Reef Fish Amendment 40 - Sector Separation. All meetings will begin at 6:00 pm. local time and will conclude no later than 9 p.m.
    Amendment 40 examines dividing of the recreational red snapper quota into a private angling sector and federal for-hire sector
    All hearings will begin at 6 pm local time and will conclude after public input has ended, but no later than 9 pm.



    I see this as a slap in the face since we all know it is a done deal.
    Makes me sick!!

    That is okay let them hold the hearing as they should....

    But we as a recreational fishing community must demand a referendum vote of all affected stakeholders.

    Meaning that if a single fish is moved from the open recreational sector to the closed sector, then we are impacted and all of the millions of recreational anglers who hold valid fishing licenses or what have you must be allowed to vote on such referendum.

    Let'em separate just do it with out our fish.
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Yes, it is up to the Gulf Council to determined who is eligible to vote on this - the MSA refers to valid permit holders. Well, our fishing licenses are our permits that allow us to go fish and we WILL all be affected by this action if implemented so we should ALL be included in the process.

    The other major issue is the preferred alternative of 47% proferred by Johnny Greene, a charter captain himself - seems like an obvious conflict of interest issue here. And, he wants the Council to use outdata information to arrive at that 47% figure - there were about 1,600 permit holders when that percentage was arrived at - now there are less than 1,200. Why should 1,200 permit holders get the same amount of fish that was relative to 1,600 catching? They should be getting about 1/3 less than that 47% (about 32%), especially when noting that the quota is much higher now than in past years.

    Additionally, the most recent data shows that the % of red snapper landings is closer to 66% private recs/33% for-hire. If they go forward with the 47% figure, it cannot be considered anything but felony THEFT.

    If they want to separate, then give them their 30-33% as the data on all fronts justifies.
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Yes, it is up to the Gulf Council to determined who is eligible to vote on this - the MSA refers to valid permit holders. Well, our fishing licenses are our permits that allow us to go fish and we WILL all be affected by this action if implemented so we should ALL be included in the process.

    The other major issue is the preferred alternative of 47% proferred by Johnny Greene, a charter captain himself - seems like an obvious conflict of interest issue here. And, he wants the Council to use outdata information to arrive at that 47% figure - there were about 1,600 permit holders when that percentage was arrived at - now there are less than 1,200. Why should 1,200 permit holders get the same amount of fish that was relative to 1,600 catching? They should be getting about 1/3 less than that 47% (about 32%), especially when noting that the quota is much higher now than in past years.

    Additionally, the most recent data shows that the % of red snapper landings is closer to 66% private recs/33% for-hire. If they go forward with the 47% figure, it cannot be considered anything but felony THEFT.

    If they want to separate, then give them their 30-33% as the data on all fronts justifies.

    Give them 12% that is all they need for their share of the customers.....
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,008 Admiral
    Has an amendment ever been fast tracked faster than this one?
    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
    That is okay let them hold the hearing as they should....

    But we as a recreational fishing community must demand a referendum vote of all affected stakeholders.

    Meaning that if a single fish is moved from the open recreational sector to the closed sector, then we are impacted and all of the millions of recreational anglers who hold valid fishing licenses or what have you must be allowed to vote on such referendum.

    Let'em separate just do it with out our fish.

    Only those who have federal permits are stakeholders!
    Private recs and federally permitted vessels just happen to fish on the same Quota. At least for now they do!
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    notreely wrote: »
    Only those who have federal permits are stakeholders!
    Private recs and federally permitted vessels just happen to fish on the same Quota. At least for now they do!

    Seems your idea differs from the powers to be who have publicly claimed that even eNGO's
    are stakeholders. Actually the "Recreational Angler" is the rightful 'Stakeholder.....NOT Business
    or boat owner or captain, unless they recreationally fish, which gives them a single voice like any other.
    Guessing your jesting, but since apparently actually feel this way, or believe that they somehow have
    the rights to the publics recreational quota for their business model, just thought I would put it out
    there.

    Seems the EFP's are being pushed because they can trump all federal fishery rules, and Sector Separation
    would be needed to install any sector wide IFQ scheme, since without it, ALL RECREATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS
    would deserve a say, whereas not so for the Sector Separation Scheme.

    BTW.....remember not long ago what 97% of the thousands of recreational anglers said about the idea
    of Sector Separation in the GOM? Seems the GC and NMFS has forgotten.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    That is okay let them hold the hearing as they should....

    But we as a recreational fishing community must demand a referendum vote of all affected stakeholders.

    Meaning that if a single fish is moved from the open recreational sector to the closed sector, then we are impacted and all of the millions of recreational anglers who hold valid fishing licenses or what have you must be allowed to vote on such referendum.

    Let'em separate just do it with out our fish.

    Why would you need a referendum? Sector separation, by itself, isn't creating an IFQ. If you create an IFQ, you have to identify substantial participants to vote in a referendum. You'd be hard pressed to provide evidence of substantial participation by private anglers; some go fishing one time a year, some a lot, but there is no documentation.

    Sector separations is simply creating an allocation for 2 parts of the rec sector; as long as Magnuson 407d is in place, there is still only one recreational quota. But, by your logic, then reallocating allowable catch to the rec sector (amendment 28) would require a referendum.

    Not sure I understand your logic of millions of recreational anglers are affected........ aren't the fishermen on a for-hire boat recreational anglers? So, I assume you mean Group 1 equals recreational anglers who own their boat vs Group 2 who are recreational anglers who don't own a boat (or don't have a friend with a boat) and are dependent on a for-hire boat. So, currently, aren't Group 2 anglers negatively affected because they can't fish in open state waters onboard a charter boat, but Group 1 anglers can?

    That might be an interesting vote, if it was actually needed.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,888 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    So, currently, aren't Group 2 anglers negatively affected because they can't fish in open state waters onboard a charter boat, but Group 1 anglers can?

    Are they not able to step on any properly licensed CFH and catch red snapper in state waters????? No federal permit needed right???????
    Isn't that what your friend in Jacksonville has been posting over and over lately????
    notreely wrote: »
    10,435

    Federal charter Headboat permits are irrelevant in the in florida state waters for hire fishery.

    As for the charter captain license any one with a USCG license can get one.
    So for $800.00 I can get this license and start to run charters. I have 4 commercially registered vessels, I could enter 4 vessels into the for hire fishery and wouldn't have to report it to anyone. I could run any commercial vessel in the for hire fishery. I can run 600 half day charters a year on a commercial fishing vessel and florida would have no idea of my effort.
    I can lease a head boat from Delaware and take 20,000 passengers a year fishing in state waters and florida would have no idea. I know traveling the state I've seen many charter boats from other states, if their captains have charter captain License who even knows they exist.
    I can rent a boat from a boat rental company and run for hire fishing trips on it.
    I can walk on any corporate owned sportfish with my florida charter license and run for hire fishing trips.
    What's going to happen when panhandle state red snapper for hire fishery starts having non federally permitted for hire vessels from other parts of the state fish the red snapper season ( where it's usually there slow season).
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Why would you need a referendum? Sector separation, by itself, isn't creating an IFQ. If you create an IFQ, you have to identify substantial participants to vote in a referendum. You'd be hard pressed to provide evidence of substantial participation by private anglers; some go fishing one time a year, some a lot, but there is no documentation.

    Sector separations is simply creating an allocation for 2 parts of the rec sector; as long as Magnuson 407d is in place, there is still only one recreational quota. But, by your logic, then reallocating allowable catch to the rec sector (amendment 28) would require a referendum.

    Not sure I understand your logic of millions of recreational anglers are affected........ aren't the fishermen on a for-hire boat recreational anglers? So, I assume you mean Group 1 equals recreational anglers who own their boat vs Group 2 who are recreational anglers who don't own a boat (or don't have a friend with a boat) and are dependent on a for-hire boat. So, currently, aren't Group 2 anglers negatively affected because they can't fish in open state waters onboard a charter boat, but Group 1 anglers can?

    That might be an interesting vote, if it was actually needed.

    Recreational Anglers are such REGUARDLESS of where they choose to fish. With Commercial Sector
    FMP's you are dealing with the harvester in determining what happens to their sector. This is not so
    with what is being pushed on the Rec Side. The Boat or Business owner of a CFH permitted operation
    DOES NOT hold title to the fish their guest harvest.....the Guest do. MANY of those guest also fish on
    private boats or other venues. So....WHY should the business owner get right to the allocation of fish
    that actually belong to the primary stakeholder in this sector, the Recreational Angler? It seems like
    the small group of CFH operations seeking their own private quota are either asking for outright
    ownership of the resource or to be named as a trustee with full power to disperse the resource how
    and when they see fit.

    Its true that SS would create a situation where the rightful 'Owner' of the recreational quota would
    be shut out of much that they have to say about it, but even then, if SS is forced upon us, does the
    ownership if the Resource change hands from the harvester to the boat owner, so as to have the right
    to say how its used? Its not like the Commercial sector.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Are they not able to step on any properly licensed CFH and catch red snapper in state waters????? No federal permit needed right???????
    Isn't that what your friend in Jacksonville has been posting over and over lately????

    Thanks bumpkin you've made my point. Federal for hire boats are already separated ! They are accountable for their size, passenger capacity and the RS FMP. State boats are not!!!!!!!!

    At anytime states can restrict their fishery to only the residents in their state and that will be coming soon. Citizens of the U.S. have no rights to fish in state waters and those state for hire vessels are separated from federal for hire vessel in their ability to fish in federal waters. So if a person from Pocatello Idaho wants to catch a red snapper in federal waters on a for hire vessel. They have to choose a separate sector !
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Recreational Anglers are such REGUARDLESS of where they choose to fish. With Commercial Sector
    FMP's you are dealing with the harvester in determining what happens to their sector. This is not so
    with what is being pushed on the Rec Side. The Boat or Business owner of a CFH permitted operation
    DOES NOT hold title to the fish their guest harvest.....the Guest do. MANY of those guest also fish on
    private boats or other venues. So....WHY should the business owner get right to the allocation of fish
    that actually belong to the primary stakeholder in this sector, the Recreational Angler? It seems like
    the small group of CFH operations seeking their own private quota are either asking for outright
    ownership of the resource or to be named as a trustee with full power to disperse the resource how
    and when they see fit.

    Its true that SS would create a situation where the rightful 'Owner' of the recreational quota would
    be shut out of much that they have to say about it, but even then, if SS is forced upon us, does the
    ownership if the Resource change hands from the harvester to the boat owner, so as to have the right
    to say how its used? Its not like the Commercial sector.

    You don't know what your talking about!!!!!!!!!
    Plenty of commercial operators were shut out of fishing without a referendums. The councils have decided who has the right to fish based on catch history,longevity in the fishery etc. Endorsements have been given,permits removed on the discretion of the councils.

    Here's one example. The commercial ACL for the south eastern gulf King Mackerel fishery is approximately 1,000,000 pounds. It is spilt 50/50 between the gill net sector and the hook and line sector. 1366 vessels have the right to fish 500,000 pounds in the hook in line sector. 20 vessels have the right to fish 500,000 in the gill net sector.
    You don't think those 1366 vessels would like to have referendum! According to you their participants in the fishery.
    Again the council is a representative body, if they think the idea of one person is more valid than those of 1000, that's what they chose.
    The council is charged with managing the fishery and that doesn't include having to have a referendum on the decisions they make.

    So if you don't like how your council representatives are voting complain to our Governor.
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,008 Admiral
    notreely wrote: »
    At anytime states can restrict their fishery to only the residents in their state and that will be coming soon. Citizens of the U.S. have no rights to fish in state waters and those state for hire vessels are separated from federal for hire vessel in their ability to fish in federal waters. So if a person from Pocatello Idaho wants to catch a red snapper in federal waters on a for hire vessel. They have to choose a separate sector !

    An even better reason to kick the Fed OUT! Besides bad management skills.
    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
    surfman wrote: »
    An even better reason to kick the Fed OUT! Besides bad management skills.

    That's a brilliant thought! Did it come to you quickly or did you have to toil over crafting it ?

    BTW, where do you want to kick the fed out of?
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 6,008 Admiral
    Fisheries management, let the sates do it they would be more fair, IMO. And do a better job all the way around, with the exception of highly migratory species, like tuna, I know you think snapper are migratory too, which makes my point.
    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
    notreely wrote: »
    You don't know what your talking about!!!!!!!!!
    Plenty of commercial operators were shut out of fishing without a referendums. The councils have decided who has the right to fish based on catch history,longevity in the fishery etc. Endorsements have been given,permits removed on the discretion of the councils.

    Here's one example. The commercial ACL for the south eastern gulf King Mackerel fishery is approximately 1,000,000 pounds. It is spilt 50/50 between the gill net sector and the hook and line sector. 1366 vessels have the right to fish 500,000 pounds in the hook in line sector. 20 vessels have the right to fish 500,000 in the gill net sector.
    You don't think those 1366 vessels would like to have referendum! According to you their participants in the fishery.
    Again the council is a representative body, if they think the idea of one person is more valid than those of 1000, that's what they chose.
    The council is charged with managing the fishery and that doesn't include having to have a referendum on the decisions they make.

    So if you don't like how your council representatives are voting complain to our Governor.

    The law states, and Crabtree has confirmed, that ANY fisheries plan that implements IFQs will be required to have a referendum.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    surfman wrote: »
    Fisheries management, let the sates do it they would be more fair, IMO. And do a better job all the way around, with the exception of highly migratory species, like tuna, I know you think snapper are migratory too, which makes my point.

    That would have to be done in congress. So you don't like the way red snapper is managed federally, that doesn't mean the rest of country wants our fishery management system changed. Since the MSA is the law of land don't plan on the states managing red snapper in federal waters.

    You have no idea of the chaos that would be introduced into all sectors of fisheries,if every state controlled federal waters off their coasts.
    21 states each with their own FMP for each species. Good look!
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    The law states, and Crabtree has confirmed, that ANY fisheries plan that implements IFQs will be required to have a referendum.

    Go buy charter/Headboat reef permit then you can vote.

    If not that,

    Turn your back 180 degrees, shake it a few times and pull up your big boy pants! ( right now your pissing in the wind )

    Go to court and see we're you stand.

    It appears though you and others just want to squat and pee.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    That's not how it happened with the commercial IFQ fishery dude - most of the commercial red snapper permit holders were excluded from being able to vote. Also, your fellow "useful idiots" have already admitted (I believe you also) that there will be winners and losers in this IFQ scam. There will be requirements (other than the permit) that will be put into place to EXCLUDE certain charter operators from the vote.

    The Gulf recreational fishery is comprised of millions of stakeholders that would be affected by this action, and I don't think EXCLUDING most of them is going to fly legally - we all have permits to fish (our fishing licenses) - I have been fishing offshore for over 50 years - much longer than you notreely.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    That's not how it happened with the commercial IFQ fishery dude - most of the commercial red snapper permit holders were excluded from being able to vote. Also, your fellow "useful idiots" have already admitted (I believe you also) that there will be winners and losers in this IFQ scam. There will be requirements (other than the permit) that will be put into place to EXCLUDE certain charter operators from the vote.

    The Gulf recreational fishery is comprised of millions of stakeholders that would be affected by this action, and I don't think EXCLUDING most of them is going to fly legally - we all have permits to fish (our fishing licenses) - I have been fishing offshore for over 50 years - much longer than you notreely.

    Their are winners and losers in everything.

    I'm sure those who were excluded from the snapper IFQ felt shorted.

    If what happened to them was against the they could have taken it to court.

    But I see you would just rather ***** and moan.

    You should try and convince a judge, instead of *****ing all over the internet.

    You won't do that though, because you know you can't stop it legally.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Just goes to show that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth - "all you need is a permit to vote" is not quite true is it?

    I know you guys despise social media since it allows the average Joe to get the word out on what you guys are trying to pull over on the American people and Gulf fishermen. You EDF-funded goons are misleading your charter boat brethren, knowing full well that some of these less-informed captains will be led to their own demise in the industry, but you need their support to get your scam passed.

    I guess we'll have to see what happens legally, now won't we? Looks like the NMFS/Gulf Council is about to step in it big time.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    notreely wrote: »
    You don't know what your talking about!!!!!!!!!
    Plenty of commercial operators were shut out of fishing without a referendums. The councils have decided who has the right to fish based on catch history,longevity in the fishery etc. Endorsements have been given,permits removed on the discretion of the councils.

    Here's one example. The commercial ACL for the south eastern gulf King Mackerel fishery is approximately 1,000,000 pounds. It is spilt 50/50 between the gill net sector and the hook and line sector. 1366 vessels have the right to fish 500,000 pounds in the hook in line sector. 20 vessels have the right to fish 500,000 in the gill net sector.
    You don't think those 1366 vessels would like to have referendum! According to you their participants in the fishery.
    Again the council is a representative body, if they think the idea of one person is more valid than those of 1000, that's what they chose.
    The council is charged with managing the fishery and that doesn't include having to have a referendum on the decisions they make.

    So if you don't like how your council representatives are voting complain to our Governor.

    So tell us Mr Professor.....If Sector Separation is forced upon the masses on behalf of a handful
    of charter boat owners......WHO would get a say in any referendum for IFQ's, the Boat Owner......
    or the Harvester of the fish, which is the individual Recreational Angler that hires the boat owner
    to take them fishing?

    Like I said this is much different that the commercial IFQ scheme.

    Your Wrong. The vessels with CFH Federal Permits have no voice in the matter, only perhaps the
    operator of the boat should they participate in RECREATIONAL fishing while on that trip, then they
    as an individual recreational angler has as much say as any of the other millions of recreational
    anglers. The council is really not a representative body if they chose to ignore the masses in favor
    of the few......there are a few other terms that best describe that.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Just goes to show that you are talking out of both sides of your mouth - "all you need is a permit to vote" is not quite true is it?

    I know you guys despise social media since it allows the average Joe to get the word out on what you guys are trying to pull over on the American people and Gulf fishermen. You EDF-funded goons are misleading your charter boat brethren, knowing full well that some of these less-informed captains will be led to their own demise in the industry, but you need their support to get your scam passed.

    I guess we'll have to see what happens legally, now won't we? Looks like the NMFS/Gulf Council is about to step in it big time.

    Yes Tom we will see but I don't think you will even get this to court. It's pretty simple the council represents you and it's their decision.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Legally, I don't think they will have a leg to stand on, as they would be violating the MSA.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Legally, I don't think they will have a leg to stand on, as they would be violating the MSA.

    How so? Please provide specifics.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    I'll provide specifics when you provide specifics on what would happen when/if an IFQ system was implemented in the Gulf recreational fisheries.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I'll provide specifics when you provide specifics on what would happen when/if an IFQ system was implemented in the Gulf recreational fisheries.

    Good luck with that lawsuit.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Yeah, just as I figured - ask for specifics on YOUR Plan, and all we get is BS.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    How so? Please provide specifics.


    What the hell have you provided? What the hell have you EVER provided? Please spare me with the paste and click bull ****.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Yeah just like always - you get on here and spread you anti-everything propaganda and will not answer a simple question. Your a smack talker and nothing more. Before you respond with a copy and paste multi-colored I suck Bob Zales off and jerk off to Southerland speeches mile long bull **** spin sheet. Just answer the question asked that you brought up. How would the gulf council be violating the MSA with amendment 40?
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,888 Captain
    notreely wrote: »

    It appears though you and others just want to squat and pee.

    Ironically it seems to me the ones who are doing that are the federal permit holders when they let King Roy dictate to them what they can and can't legally do in "State" waters. :shrug Did you sign all your rights over to Roy for the permit privilege or just those?:huh

    The states or no one else even remotely mentioned taking control away from the councils until the council's decided they were somehow entitled to control what happens in federal AND state waters.

    Just more big ego power grabs partially fueled by the " Patriot Act" which has blurred the lines of separation of powers between the feds and the states at many levels. Hell, every FFWCC officer is walking around cross deputized as a federal law enforcement officer now.:rotflmao

    But if the councils keep picking fights with the states they will eventually lose, that I guarantee you. Having all the shares won't do you any good if there are no ports for you to legally commercially land the fish at. Just ask Gene R.'s boys how that worked out for them with the redfish back in the day.:grin
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