Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
Tom Hilton
Posts: 1,595 Captain
Looks like there is a snag in the sector separation concept
Tom Hilton
Posts: 1,595 Captain
Looks like there's a snag in the sector separation concept....Just goes to show how short-sighted this scam REALLY is and what happens when you only plug in a portion of the total formula.
By approving a fishery management plan that only takes into account the economic benefits of the charter for hire and completely ignores its effects on the majority stakeholders in the fishery (private recs), as well as the resulting effects on the entire Gulf coastal communities, the Gulf Council has illustrated the fallacy that Amendment 40 is a viable solution towards.....anything.
Until there is a viable plan on the table that addresses the whole enchilada, our Gulf fisheries management will continue to be one train wreck after another.
http://www.chron.com/sports/outdoors/article/Controversial-decision-may-limit-red-snapper-5864191.php
"Under current estimates of recreational red snapper landings used to determine length of the recreation snapper season in federal waters, recreational anglers fishing on private boats will land their much-reduced portion of the annual recreational quota (5.39 million pounds in 2014) in as little as one day. The charter/for-hire sector - businesses that make their living taking anglers on guided, pay-to-play fishing trips - would be allowed to take snapper from federal waters for 33 days or so, a full month more than anglers fishing from their own boats.
And if catches of red snapper from state waters increase from current estimates - likely if Florida, Mississippi or Alabama expand even slightly their current state-water snapper seasons - federal fisheries managers with the National Marine Fisheries Service could decide that the entire annual quota has been landed even before the June 1 opening of the recreational season in federal waters.
"If that happens - if NMFS estimates the entire TAC (total allowable catch) has been caught from state waters before June 1 - there could be no federal-water recreational snapper season, either for private boats or the charter/for-hire sector," said Lance Robinson, upper coast regional director for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's coastal fisheries division and part of the agency's contingent at Gulf Council meetings."
By approving a fishery management plan that only takes into account the economic benefits of the charter for hire and completely ignores its effects on the majority stakeholders in the fishery (private recs), as well as the resulting effects on the entire Gulf coastal communities, the Gulf Council has illustrated the fallacy that Amendment 40 is a viable solution towards.....anything.
Until there is a viable plan on the table that addresses the whole enchilada, our Gulf fisheries management will continue to be one train wreck after another.
http://www.chron.com/sports/outdoors/article/Controversial-decision-may-limit-red-snapper-5864191.php
"Under current estimates of recreational red snapper landings used to determine length of the recreation snapper season in federal waters, recreational anglers fishing on private boats will land their much-reduced portion of the annual recreational quota (5.39 million pounds in 2014) in as little as one day. The charter/for-hire sector - businesses that make their living taking anglers on guided, pay-to-play fishing trips - would be allowed to take snapper from federal waters for 33 days or so, a full month more than anglers fishing from their own boats.
And if catches of red snapper from state waters increase from current estimates - likely if Florida, Mississippi or Alabama expand even slightly their current state-water snapper seasons - federal fisheries managers with the National Marine Fisheries Service could decide that the entire annual quota has been landed even before the June 1 opening of the recreational season in federal waters.
"If that happens - if NMFS estimates the entire TAC (total allowable catch) has been caught from state waters before June 1 - there could be no federal-water recreational snapper season, either for private boats or the charter/for-hire sector," said Lance Robinson, upper coast regional director for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's coastal fisheries division and part of the agency's contingent at Gulf Council meetings."
Replies
(Back to Commission meeting news)
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) set the Gulf recreational red snapper season in state waters April 16 at a meeting near Tallahassee. The season will be a total of 52 days in 2014 and will start the Saturday before Memorial Day (May 24 this year) and remain open through July 14, closing July 15.
Starting the season the Saturday before Memorial Day will provide recreational red snapper fishing through an important holiday weekend, helping attract more visitors and bringing economic benefits to our coastal communities.
The federal season is currently projected to be 11 days long, starting June 1 and remaining open through June 11. This season is subject to change depending on projections by NOAA Fisheries for when the recreational red snapper quota may be caught.
Florida state waters in the Gulf are from shore to 9 nautical miles. Federal waters extend from where state waters end, out to about 200 nautical miles.
The daily bag limit will remain 2 per person in state and federal waters.
1. Live in a low law enforcement area
2. Purchase a 39' Yellowfin with 300hp triples
3. Fish anytime you want and run home at 60 mph near dusk
nothing but only further complicates any potential real solution. Fish continue to grow in both number, size
and average age class but access continues to fall. Data from states is indeed starting to highlight the MRIP
numbers being used as unreliable at best. The states have a MUCH more compelling reason to ensure healthy
fisheries exist than Federal Managers, afterall they receive a lot of funding from healthy fisheries regardless
of which waters were talking, whereas the feds get their money whether the fisheries or fishing communities
are good or poor. AM 40 does ZERO to fix the problems as it is primarily a economic amendment that benefits
one user group at the expense of another in a short term fix.....if that. Nothing in AM 40 adds data or conservation
than could be obtained under basic permit systems. Oh Yeah....though only 2 100% charter business owners on the
council voted to improve their financial status, had they done the right thing and recused themselves, what impact
would that have had on others voting yes? Taking an ethical stand often does matter. Either way, a yes vote on 40
proved to be a sham since it was done purely for economic gain of one user group and had no conservation, science,
Data, or allocation attached to it for stakeholders to it, despite years of debate and stakeholder comments on the
various alternatives presented. It was an empty shell and that's is perhaps worst of all. It allowed the same fishery
managers already having lost the trust of the stakeholders to decide basically behind closed doors how to divvy up
OUR fish.
Yet.......The NMFS/Council Band Plays On.
I don't agree with you about a legal or ethical conflict on AM 40 with council members who own intrest in a for hire business. If I follow your path of logic, I would conclude that council members that are state directors of non compliant states should recuse themselves. After all those directors represent those who have intentionally disregarded the federal FMP, purely for economic reasons.
I don't think your going to like this. I am prefacing this by saying this is just a RUMOR I heard,because sedar 41 was postponed there might not be any ATLANTIC RS Mini season in 2015. Last seasons catch is most likely to exceed the recreational ACL, SO NO SEASON NEXT YEAR.
While the COI "Exception" to the COI rule for voting council members, which was written some time after
the actual COI rule, MAY makes it "Legal" it does not make it "Right" or Ethical". There is actually another
rule that makes it illegal for Council members to vote on an item if they are part of a small group and would
have a definite financial outcome or impact on their business. Those voting members are part of a small
and "Limited" group of participants and obviously have much financial gain at hand in their decision to vote.
Additionally their is a "Principle" written in NOAA COI rules that sum up the intent of its employees and
agencies......That their decisions and choices in manners where conflict of interest "MAY" be an issue, acting
in such a manner so as to gain the trust of the stakeholders and nation as a whole should be the first
consideration. They certainly failed that by a long way.
As to states that are "Non Compliant".....don't know of any. There are states that have rules and seasons
inconsistent with federal seasons, but there is nothing "Non Compliant" about what the states are doing. The states reps are supposed to act in harmony with the states goals. As I said the states have a much more vested interest in Healthy Fisheries than the Feds do. The states are no bound by the federal FMP, are they? Seems
the states are proving that they are better at data collection also.
As to the SA ARS season, it would not be surprising. The entire system is based on a loose-loose situation
for the recreational angler. If catch rates are up and fish stocks are growing....they cut the season. If Catch
rates are down and stocks are dwindling, they cut the season. The "Compression of Effort" "Theory" ensures
that the system is a no win for anglers. As a Charter Captain and good businessman, I have not relied on
ARS to support my business. Whether in the Gulf or SA, a good businessman can keep busy without one
fish. Its a shame if they do so with stocks continuing to grow, and with a fishery that never should have
been closed to start with, but when SEDAR head John Carmichael stated that they shoot to hit a 50%
chance of reliability of their data, well its not surprising. Too bad our coastline on the east side does not have
a 9 mile limit, as I know several places to find ARS there!
The state reps on the Gulf Council are there to represent the rights of ALL of their constituents, not just special interest groups with large $$ to sway votes. If Johnny Green and Pam Dana had recused themselves, as they certainly should have, then AM 40 would not have passed. Looks like some rather major legal issues to be dealt with soon in a court of law.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Yes, the states are bound to the FMP, Red Snapper is a federally managed species. They can control the fishery in state waters, but they have to abide by the TAC according to the MSA. For example, a holder Saltwater Products Licence with a Restricted Species Endorsement can catch and sell a mangrove snapper caught in the Gulf of Mexico in florida state waters. That same person could not sell a Red Snapper harvested in state waters because it has a catch share program or IFQ and the ACL is already accounted for. If and when that mangrove snapper or any other reef fish without an IFQ and ACL was determined to have meet that fisheries ACL it would close in state waters also.
This is why AM 40 will be reauthorized before the sunset kicks in. AM 39, regional management will not pass in the next 2 years and probably never will pass at all. AM 39 does nothing but throw the recreational ACL on the table and let sates fight it out for their slice. So how I understand it to work( I have not read threw thoroughly) is the line between state and federal waters for RS would be abolished and each state is getting a slice of Gulf of Mexico. Within that slice of water their portion of the ACL with be given. Florida will most likely have to reduce their season from this past years season if regional management goes through. 30 B will disappear in the RMP so for hire boats will be able to fish in state waters and pound the the fish with more trips per day. Also I would assume the for hire fleet would catch a much higher % of the ACL than AM 40 gives them. Their would be no set seasons because the Headboats are accountable and charter boats are soon to be and that will result in in season closures or next year paybacks.
In the last meeting if state directors came to the council saying that their states would comply with the FMP, AM 40 would have died on the table!!!!!!
I have encouraged you to take this court a long time ago. Given the passion you and others have over this issue, I'm not sure why it isn't in the courts now? Is it lack of funding, inability to organize , BAD LEADERSHIP or you just know your going to lose!
only because they care so much....
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Until or Unless signed off by DOC its not an official rule, so nothing to take to court. More than enough
compelling reasons for the courts to take up the case however should DOC sign off.
South Atlantic ARS closed in Federal Waters but Open in state year round. Granted there is not much ARS
to be found but if it were the letter of the law? Guess that's true of Texas and LA. "Accountable"....again nothing
proposed could not have been done under permit allowances. Since all are already under AM's seems all user groups are
already "Accountable". Again, Nothing in AM 40 about Conservation or Accountability when passed, just Economic
benefits for one user group at the expense of another.
Henry I'm not an attorney, and I don't know if you can stop a governmental agency from using resources on a crafting an illegal action before it's implemented or not. Maybe someone with more legal expertise can chime in.
My point is that the only credible legal interpretation about AM 40 that I've heard comes from NOAA general counsel. I have not seen any credible legal opinion from those in opposition. No disrespect to your legal interpretation!!!!! I would have thought at the least an attorney representing those against AM 40 would have made public comment or provided a letter with specific legal objections. If you know of anything like that I would like to see it, if you can post it please do.
All the above state seasons have been estimated in into the compliant season for the sake of the ACL. If those states were compliant the compliant season would be longer.
http://www.rt-nav.com/10-3-14CCA(BallJanik)Am40letter.pdf
There has to be an action, such as approval by the S.O.C. before any legal action could be initiated.
Thank you for posting that.
I think they are coming at it from false premise.
Much like fish identification common names are different everywhere. This letter keeps calling it sector separation and says a new sector is being created. It's not it's still one allocation split between different fleets in the same sector. This has been done many times before within commercial fisheries.
Like I said before I will eat crow if judge strikes AM 40 down.
The real reason I wanted someone to post this is so you and others RELAX !
If its going to court,we shall see happens.
So Tom break out the good stuff ( I already have ) poor yourself a few and chill out!
Also, you ignored the numerous other legal problems with AM 40 brought up in the letter - it's not just about creating a new sector.
I don’t think a judge will overturn it either, they work for the government too.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Having a third "Sector", CFH, would not be legal. Having (2) sub-sectors under Recreational Sector
is legal but comes with conditions. Unlike commercial sub-sectors where different geographic regions
are treated differently, or different harvest and gear type are treated differently, the CFH sub-sector
fishes the same waters, for the same fish, with the same gear, and with the same anglers, thus the
requirement to have such groups treated equally. Giving one subsector of hook and line recreational
anglers fishing beside another boat on another sub-sector hook and line recreational angler different
days, seasons, or regulations does not meet the National Standards. EFP's currently in place do this
but EFP's are temporary and are allowed to break MSA laws, where FMP's are not.
Also seems the great impact proclaimed by the squeaky wheels on state water fishing for ARS and the
huge harvest....does not meet the assessments of such waters. Its a 2 edged sword.
Latest from those pushing the AM 40 scheme....remember they were crying how their businesses
were hurting so bad as to why they needed it? Now these very ones, having got AM 40 passed are
claiming 'Oh, we were fully booked even when Red Snapper closed'. Which statement is the lie?
a significant impact on their, their spouses, partners, aides, children, etc., financial status. Its only
by the "Exception" written at some time later by persons unknown that the 10% rule came about to
define what constitutes "Significant". Here's the kicker, the 10% clause defines the impact of a fishery
ownership, NOT the financial impact personally of the voting member. Consider this: a voting council
member owns 10% of a small fishery with little value, but another own 10% of one like say Alaska's
Pollock or King Crab. HUGE financial difference. Seems the intent of the rule clearly defined in the
basic rule before the exception and definition was written is totally missed. All other NOAA, NMFS and
even Council staff cannot have any ownership let alone 10% of an entire fishery. Allowing 10% of an
entire fishery could represent Millions of dollars.
There is another aspect of the COI rule that is not defined and COULD render the votes by the 2 CFH
owners on AM 40 illegal. Its the "Matters Primarily of Individual Concern" are those matters that affect
a small number of identified, or easily identifiable, parties... It cites the term "Small", but no specific
number is listed, and the Gulf CFH fleet is "Limited" and compared to all recreational anglers making up the
sector, it is Very Small and easily identifiable.
NOAA set a spirit of the COI rule statement also, covering all its agencies as being one that would NOT
create distrust on the part of the stakeholders or nation as a whole. Hard to say that 2 voting council
members voting yes to better their financial position did NOT create distrust.
I have read the MSA over and over including all revisions and reauthorizations since day one...
There is no definition in it concerning this supposed noncompliance.....
There is the mention of non-concurrence, but that simply defines a situation where one set of laws differ form another and since there is no legal authority to force states to adopt federal law within their borders then there is......
NO SUCH THING AS NONCOMPLIANT
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
The only problem with slapping your Zulu spear against your shield too early (also known as saber rattling) is that all those points can then be addressed before the Council submits the amendment. And, many of the points in that letter were addressed in discussion at the last Council meeting because of the letter. Most of those claims are not going to stick anyway; many are quite a stretch. I think my favorite part of the whole letter is where it says "Defendants......" instead of Council/NMFS; no foreshadowing there.
CaptBob, except the states sit on the Council and represent the biggest voting bloc. They are supposed to work cooperatively with the feds to manage federally managed species, not do one thing at Council and another at the state level.
Like the council is supposed to coordinate with stakeholders and value their input in the management of a federal species but then when their own freaking reef fish committee advised against moving forward with amendment 40 the council totally disregarded their recommendation.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
What are we going to give away, Steve ? This will be decided in court.
"Well Gary, the easiest way to look tall is to stand in a room full of short people." - Curtis Bostick
"All these forums, with barely any activity, are like a neglected old cemetery that no one visits anymore."- anonymouse
The NMFS mandate is the MSA. I do believe the MSA was crafted in, and passed by both houses of congress.
You never answered the question; What is the definition and purpose of a sector?
I'm not sure the MSA gives a specific definition and or purpose of a sector. I does however recognize that commercial,recreational and for hire are separate sectors.