Sector Separation (Amendment 40) Public Hearings
Here are some graphics of what is at stake here.
You will notice that under Sector Separation, the recreational anglers who fish on for-hire vessels simply disappear, as they have no vote, and the have no stake in the fishery, as ALL of the rights to the for-hire component will be handed over to a select few corporations to price out as they seem fit for maximum profits.
Additionally, if there is a referendum, the recreational fishermen who fish on for-hire vessels will have no vote.
Under Sector Separation, the private recreational angling component will be shut out, and doled out fish tags via a lottery system to see who is lucky enough to get a tag to go fish.
Additionally, if there is a referendum, the recreational fishermen who fish on private rec vessels will have no vote.
Does that make any sense to you?
Any Plan that addresses only 1/2 of the equation, (as Sector Separation does), is doomed for failure.
Any Plan that addresses only 1/2 of the equation, (as Sector Separation does), is half-baked and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it belongs.
UNTIL there is a Plan on the table that clearly addresses ALL Gulf recreational fishermen in a clear, transparent manner at to the effects of such Plan on ALL Gulf recreational fishermen, (such as Sector Separation), any action to separate the recreational fishery should be shelved.
There is ALREADY Sector Separation implemented in a US Recreational fishery - the Alaska Halibut fishery. The Gulf Council needs to take a long hard look at what is happening up there relative to the effects of Sector Separation on the recreational for-hire and private recs RIGHT NOW. It is not a theory or a hypothesis - it is the REALITY of what is happening to those fishing communities RIGHT NOW...it is an unmitigated disaster.
Sector Separation is going to cause scores of charter operations to close their doors this year since they took away 50% of their catch. Sector Separation is geared to force charter operators to lease commercial quota in order to have enough fish to take their clients fishing (Catch Sharing Plan).
Why should ANY American be forced to pay ANOTHER American (commercial fishing corporations) for the right to go catch what we ALREADY OWN? This is especially poignant when you consider that these same commercial fishing corporations paid $0 for their IFQs.
Contact ANY of the Alaska charter organizations (not funded by EDF) and they will ALL tell you the SAME thing - FIGHT THIS WITH EVERY OUNCE OF ENERGY YOU HAVE, AS IT WILL FOREVER CHANGE OUR FISHING HERITAGE AND OUR KIDS'/GRANDKIDS' FISHING FUTURE.
When you make you case at the Public Hearings in the next couple of weeks, here is an example of what you should say;
"My name is ______________ from ______________, I have been recreational fishing the Gulf for Red Snapper since _____ on private boats, charter boats and head boats. With regards to Amendment 40, Action item 1, I am in favor of Alternative 1. I urge the members of the Gulf Council to act to adopt Action 1, Alternative 1. With regards to Amendment 40, Action item 3, I am in favor of Alternative 1. I urge the members of the Gulf Council to act to adopt Action 3, Alternative 1."