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
And what data are they using to arrive at the conclusion that we have exceeded our quota 5 out of the last 6 years? I believe it is the data derived from MRIP and the convoluted computer models in Andy Strelcheck's office.
Enclosed is a graphic from the preliminary results of the Alabama mandatory data collection program this year - granted, it is just one state and based on a very short time frame, but the same can be said of the NMFS data also shown. Additionally, given the significant historical impact that Alabama landings have had on the overall Gulf landings, I believe this is illustrative of what is happening elsewhere in the Gulf. You will notice that the NMFS numbers are 2.5 times the Alabama numbers - hmmm, let's see; one system is doing a job it's not designed to do (MRIP) and the other is doing EXACTLY what it is designed to do (Alabama), hence, resulting in MUCH more accuracy and accountability.
Since they are using the NMFS numbers to make the claims of us exceeding our quota, it is quite odd that they are wanting to give the for-hire sector (created in AM 40) 46% of the recreational red snapper when their own numbers show that they are responsible for landing 8%. Where are those extra fish coming from? Stolen from the private recs.
Now as far as the Litigation Steering Committee's letter, they have devoted one full paragraph to how the lawsuit pertained to reallocation - how can you say with a straight face Bubba that you see nothing in the letter about reallocation? I have re-type the paragraph for you below;
"As shareholders, this lawsuit verdict has created stability with your businesses and will help ensure that a fishery exists for your children. FOR THE TIME BEING, THIS VERDICT HAS DISRUPTED THE PLOT TO REALLOCATE RED SNAPPER AWAY FROM AN ACCOUNTABLE COMMERCIAL FISHERY AND RESPONSIBLE FISHERMEN. But the battle is not over yet. As long as this threat (REALLOCATION) continues to loom on the horizon, we will not stop fighting to protect this fishery (OUR ASSETS). To that end, we have also commissioned a comprehensive economic study that points out the fatal flaws in the economic arguments that supposedly "justify" REALLOCATION."
I believe the letter is very clear as to the intent of the lawsuit - it's straight from the horse's mouth - and that was to stall implementation of Amendment 28.
Lastly, the question begs why the commercial fat cats are so concerned about supposed overages in a sector in which they do NOT participate. This is especially poignant when you take into account that in 2014, the commercial red snapper barons were gifted the largest allocation in the history of their industry. Where have they been harmed? Are these supposed overages causing harm to the fishery? No, as it is quite obvious that the fishery is at its highest levels probably in history right now. They did cause immense harm to the recreational fishermen and Gulf coastal communities when their lawsuit resulted in our 9 day season, derailed reallocation, and resulted in the elimination of 30B not moving forward. I think these damages may be addressed in the upcoming lawsuit(s).
The EDF-funded commercial red snapper barons' lawsuit was ALL ABOUT delaying reallocation and had absolutely ZERO to do with "accountability", as reallocation equates to big $$ being diverted away from their bank accounts - nothing more, nothing less. These same commercial enviro-funded fat cats are meddling in our recreational fisheries for the same reason - to expand their assets to include the fish currently considered to be "recreational only".
If they were REALLY worried about the fishery, they would be demanding that the fed's fix the data, but so far, I don't see any of the EDF-funded shills doing that - just shouting for their own piece of the American pie for their own selfish purposes at the direct expense of every current American and their heirs.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Texas 6 packs would get 136 pounds of snapper/year! Yippeee! 136 / 8 pounds = 17 fish. For the year. That's not even two trips.
Even more interesting is that this spreadsheet was done back in September, and could have been made available to the Gulf Council and the public at the October Gulf Council meeting. You can make your own determinations as to why they opted not to distribute it.
Well, to a point, I think you and I have been discussing slightly different things. The lawsuit itself had one intent; the verdict has had lots of additional consequences. What the lawsuit attacked was accountability. If NMFS had won, I think you'd see a very different landscape today. However, the verdict, which did force the Council to address accountability, also had other further reaching impacts. From this outsider's perspective, it made the Council rather dysfunctional. They've run off in several directions without any real focus - sector separation, regional management, reallocation - while really ignoring the elephant in the room.
Lagerhead Fishing Team
Team Cabo Loco
You are correct - the lawsuit had one intent - to derail any reallocation at this time - it was successful.
One must ask the question as to the need for the commercial boys to be concerned about recreational accountability, when they have enjoyed the largest allocation in the history of their profession. Where is the need? What are the damages?
None.
On the flip side, the need to derail reallocation was very pointed and direct; if the Gulf Council implemented Amendment 28 and took fish away from the commercial fat cats to give to the recreational fishermen, THEN THERE IS A DIRECT NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE TO THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS.
Enough of the double speak - just say what the lawsuit really was - it's very clear to any unbiased "outsider".
The 8,000 pound elephant in the room, as Gary Colecchio very eloquently pointed out at the Sector Separation Workshop over 4 years ago, is The Environmental Defense Fund.
From this outsider's perspective, it made the Council rather dysfunctional.
From most involved in the issues it looks the same also!
They've run off in several directions without any real focus - sector separation, regional management, reallocation - while really ignoring the elephant in the room.
Whether an 8,000 lb Elephant or an 800 lb Gorilla, the Data continued to be used to determine
Quota's and peoples lives and livelihoods as it relates to the fisheries certainly qualifies as one
of those beast. The NMFS has continued to use identified flaws in their data, promising to fix things
yet how many years have gone by since that was supposed to happen. When state data with much
greater level of certainty creates huge differences like the 70% first year LA and 200%+ Alabama
numbers, rather than using it as a red flag moment to consider the real problem, like the Pachyderm
that it is, they simply "Average it" into their beast, Never really solving the problem or looking for
a solution. It fixes nothing, especially with their "Compression of effort THEORY" used to ensure that
any gain in stocks results in less access. Its a death spiral management system that has taken a
Fishery that's getting so healthy that a ZERO day season will result.
Love to be the fly on the wall when those that pushed the Separation scheme so hard start to
ponder over what the proposed allocation numbers mean really for them.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Suck it up buttercup.
If you let the commercial fisherman call the shots as is the case in the federal fishery you will always have trouble with the resource. Always!
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Species Total Pounds Total Trips Average Price Estimated Value
MULLET, BLACK 9,599,144 23,824 0.72 6,882,605
1989 we landed 26 million lbs so I wouldn't say landings are thru the roof.
You need to get your facts straight.
Okay using FMRI data the average catch per fisherman when they posted their average of 25 million pounds to the average or 8 million pounds works out to 383 #/trip compared to 311#/trip not a huge difference. Also not shown or talked about, ever, is the number of undocumented commercial fishermen working the roe season prior to the net ban. If we figure that in I bet that average drops quite a bit.
Like I said as long as the commercials run the show the resource will always suffer, what is going on right now in the North Atlantic and has been going on up there for decades. Same ol’ thing.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
I wish could find it. I'd buy it.
None of their mullet go on trucks either, it's all sold local.
But according to a well connected source mullet landing are thru the roof and no one wants it anymore...:rotflmao:rotflmao:rotflmao
So you run a fish house?
Actually, they will probably give it to you, certain times of the year they have been known to dump mullet, of course it has had the valuable roe striped from it already.
Does seem funny that they have the potential to do all this business but they just choose not to??
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Can't find it?:shrug
Not even at "the fisherman's dock"?:wink
Say it ain't so.:grin
not where I live off the coast.
The infrastructure to handle that amount of fish just isn't there any more and nobody is going to invest one million or so in a blast freezer with no reliable or steady source of product.
Why don't you set one up?
The rec sector dumps millions of carcasses every year after the valuable fillets are removed, there is even a thread over in the NE section about all the rec slobs at the ramps and fish cleaning being banned..
Maybe you need to get a tighter rein on this thread, nip it in the bud so to speak...
Problem??
Thanks.
What I$ Wrong with the Gulf Council?
It is not unusual for veterans of federal fishery management to marvel at the vastly different personalities of the various fishery management councils across the nation. Each region has its own distinct style of operation, and the New England Fishery Management Council has arguably held the title of most contentious arena given that region’s repeated groundfish disasters. However, an argument can be made of late that nothing compares to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.
In recent times, the Gulf Council has devolved to become the undisputed champion of dysfunction and acrimony. Packs of people roam the halls at Gulf Council meetings, plotting and scheming to influence proceedings. Public comment sessions at Gulf Council meetings routinely run for hours, as various factions try to convey the righteousness of their arguments by busing in overwhelming numbers to make three-minute statements. This happens occasionally at other fishery management bodies, but has become a regular feature in the Gulf. The August 2014 comment session in Biloxi ran from roughly 5 o’clock in the afternoon to 11 o’clock that night, a test of endurance for everyone involved, including the three peace officers brought in to keep things under control. This, despite the proclamation from a Louisiana Council member that public comments don’t matter because “we all know how we’re going to vote anyway.”
The drama of even a “normal” public comment session at the Gulf Council is always heightened by regular outbreaks of boos, cheers, groans, jeers and assorted other noises from the crowd.
The Council itself often resembles our dysfunctional, partisan, gridlocked Congress, particularly in its handling of the chaotic red snapper fishery. After years of inaction and ever-more draconian regulations, the Council lurched into a final vote over the controversial Amendment 40, which splits charter/for-hire businesses into their own sector and assigns them an allocation. It sets the stage for a catch share program for the charter/for-hire industry in which individual businesses will almost certainly end up owning a share of the fishery, much like the commercial sector in which roughly 380 people already own 51 percent of the entire fishery.
Before tackling a series of motions on Amendment 40 at the October 2014 meeting, NOAA Regional Administrator Roy Crabtree made an appeal to Council members for consensus and compromise. They then went on to decide various aspects of the most controversial and questionable amendment in recent times by votes of 9-8, 9-8, 12-5, 9-8, 9-8 and 10-7.
Appeal ignored.
Council and NOAA staffers often lament the challenges and shortcomings of the Gulf Council and wonder aloud why it has devolved into such a mess. By comparison at this point, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council runs like a church service, and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission like a military unit.
So what’s the difference? It’s not a mystery. The same motivation that pulled the New England Council into chaos is at work here – greed.
No council that manages fisheries with significant recreational participation is putting the amount of emphasis on catch shares and privatization as the Gulf Council. Since the creation of the commercial red snapper catch share program in 2007, the Gulf Council has become the place people come to grab their piece of the pie. The term “snapper baron” was coined to describe the massive transfer of wealth that occurred in the Gulf when that public resource was gifted and acquired by a select few commercial fishermen.
It isn’t so much about managing fisheries anymore in the Gulf; it’s about manipulating the system and positioning yourself to reap a windfall. It’s ugly because it’s about money, and when people see an opportunity to take ownership of a prized resource like red snapper or amberjack or grouper, the long knives come out.
Gulf Council and NOAA staff moan about the chaos, but their shepherding of this fishery and overt promotion of catch shares helped create it. If you choose to manage valuable public resources like a king dispensing favors, then you shouldn’t be surprised when respect and thoughtful discussion go right out the window. Everyone wants to be a winner and they’ll do anything to be the next millionaire.
If nothing derails Amendment 40, which until the Secretary of Commerce signs it is only a recommendation, the Gulf charter/for-hire industry is in for a tumultuous time. There is still no mechanism for how to allocate this pile of gold they’ve been given. Somehow, 1,300 boats from different regions are going to have to figure out how to divvy up millions of pounds of red snapper. If the Gulf Council is any indication, that won’t be a pretty process. Contrary to what many in that industry were led to believe, not everyone is going to be a winner.
NOAA staff can cluck and shake their heads over the chaos in the Gulf, but their own misguided management philosophy is at the root of it. Unfortunately, now we all have to live with it.
Author unkown.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Gulf Council Divides Recreational Fishery, Charter-For-Hire to Have Snapper Quota
by News Editor / Newsroom Ink OCTOBER 29, 2014
Biloxi GC_75
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council recently voted to approve Reef fish Amendment 40, a measure supporting both commercial and recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico by differentiating the amount of fish caught by recreational anglers and charter boat companies who provide fishing trips to hundreds of thousands of individuals. Photo: Ed Lallo/Newsroom Ink
by Gulf Council Staff and Ed Lallo, Gulf Seafood News Editor
After more than two years striving to obtain sustainable management of the Gulf Red Snapper Fishery, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council recently voted to approve Reef Fish Amendment 40, a measure supporting both commercial and recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico by differentiating the amount of fish caught by recreational anglers and charter boat companies who provide fishing trips to hundreds of thousands of individuals.
Reef Fish Amendment 40 divides the recreational red snapper sector into two distinct components – a private angling component and a for-hire component.
Dorsett
“Fishermen, scientists, managers and everyone who has a stake in a healthy Gulf of Mexico have reason to be heartened by the council’s decision,” said Chris Dorsett, Vice President for Policy and Programs at Ocean Conservancy. Photo: Blue Front/Dubinsky Photo
After reviewing the document and listening to hour after hour of public testimony, the Council approved sector separation with an added three-year sunset provision. The amendment now goes to the Secretary of Commerce for final approval and implementation.
“Fishermen, scientists, managers and everyone who has a stake in a healthy Gulf of Mexico have reason to be heartened by the council’s decision,” said Chris Dorsett, Vice President for Policy and Programs at Ocean Conservancy on a posting on their website. “This decision enables a much more tailored approach to ensuring that red snapper populations in the Gulf are healthy for generations to come. It will allow state and federal managers to be more responsive to the unique needs of the fishermen from each sector, rather than lumping them together in a single system.”
The amendment separates the quantities of red snapper caught by private recreational fishermen and charter for hire captains who provide access to fishing to the non-boat owning public. It will also increase accountability to address the red snapper quota being exceeded, which has happened every year but one since 2007.
Sector Management Meets Needs
Amendment 40 is aimed at making it easier for charter-for-hire captains to successfully operate their business, allowing each sector to develop a management plan meeting their needs.
Charter captains can now explore management that provides a stable and flexible business plan similar to the one that has worked well for commercial fishermen.
The charter-for hire sector will be able to design data programs aimed at doing a better job of counting fish with more accurate data to further improve fishery management.
Separate management will promote fairness between recreational fishermen who own their own boats and those who don’t. For years, individual anglers have benefited from longer state seasons, while charter captains and customers have been stuck at the dock. With the new management plan, charter captains will be able to provide more access to recreational fishermen who don’t own their own boats.
Shane
“Amendment 40 lays the groundwork for solving the problems facing red snapper fishermen in the gulf and gives the charter for hire industry the ability to stand on its own two feet for the first time, said Captain Shane Cantrell of Galveston Sea Ventures. Photo: Galveston Sea Ventures
“Amendment 40 lays the groundwork for solving the problems facing red snapper fishermen in the gulf and gives the charter for hire industry the ability to stand on its own two feet for the first time, said Captain Shane Cantrell of Galveston Sea Ventures. “This critical first step will allow private anglers and charter for hire businesses the ability to develop and implement appropriate management and accountability measures for their respective segments of the fishery.”
According to Margaret Henderson, executive director of the Gulf Seafood Institute (GSI) the passage of this amendment has been a priority.
“This is a great step in the right direction for better and more equitable management of red snapper for professional fishermen, their clients and the broader economy of the Gulf,” Henderson told Gulf Seafood News. “We are very pleased with this outcome. We thank all those who’ve spent tireless hours educating the community in the Gulf, the Gulf Council and the Delegation in Washington about the importance of allowing the federally-permitted charter community to be managed as their own separate component.”
The measure had support from charter fishermen across the Gulf, including the Charter Fisherman’s Association, Alabama Charter Fishing Association, Destin Charter Boat Association, Clearwater Marine Association and the Mississippi Charter Boat Captains Association.
LaSEA_Harlon_l
According to GSI’s president Harlon Pearce, a member of the Gulf Council, with passage of amendment 40, the Council recognized three distinct components in the Gulf: harvesters, charter-for-hire and recreational. Photo: Ed Lallo/Newsroom Ink
According to GSI’s president Harlon Pearce, a member of the Gulf Council, with passage of amendment 40, the Council recognized three distinct components in the Gulf: harvesters, charter-for-hire and recreational. “Amendment 40 will allow all three components to manage their own fishery, and let the recreational sector begin to develop a management plan independent from charter-for-hire.”
Amendment 40 is a step towards the continued recovery and long-term health of the Gulf red snapper fishery and a testament to what fishermen, scientists, conservation groups and managers can accomplish together to maintain a healthy and sustainable red snapper fishery.
“The Council’s decision on Amendment 40 reflects their recognition that the for-hire sector is fundamentally different from the private recreational sector and needs a different management scheme to properly address the needs of that industry,” said GSI Florida board member Bob Gill. “This is an important step in correctly managing our Gulf fisheries.”
Red Snapper Regional Management
Snapper Couple
The Council also resumed discussions on Reef Fish Amendment 39 – Regional Management of Recreational Red Snapper. This amendment considers dividing the federal recreational red snapper quota among states and giving them authority to set some of their allowing for own management measures for red snapper to vary by state. Photo: FishOrangeBeach.com
During the recent meeting in Mobile, the Council also resumed discussions on Reef Fish Amendment 39 – Regional Management of Recreational Red Snapper. This amendment considers dividing the federal recreational red snapper quota among states and giving each state authority to set some of their own management measures for red snapper.
An alternative to Action 1 was added that would establish a regional management program in which each region would submit proposals to National Marine Fisheries Service describing the measures they would adopt for the management of their respective portion of the red snapper quota.
The Council also added options for a 2-year or 3-year sunset provision in both Alternatives 2 and 4 of Action 1, and selected Alternative 2 – Option d, delegation with a sunset after 3 calendar years, as its preferred alternative.
Under Action 3 which considered allocation among regions, the Council selected Alternative 2 – Option d and Alternative 3 – Options a & b, as the preferred alternatives. These alternatives would result in regional apportionments based on 50% of landings from 1986-2012, and 50% from 2007-2012 landings, and exclude landings from 2006 and 2010.
Author *known...:wink
I believe they have PURPOSELY been mislead in order to gain support for it, and now that it has been approved by the Gulf Council, reality hits.....
According to the enclosed spreadsheet provided by the NMFS AFTER the October Gulf Council meeting (interesting timing, eh?), Texas 6 pack charter boats may get a whole 136 pounds of red snapper, per year. Those are not my "unsubstantiated" numbers, they are the NMFS numbers - you know, the same people many charter captains are trusting to do the "right thing" here. Unfortunately for them, the NMFS has a long track record of not doing what they promised.
One has to ask why this spreadsheet, apparently generated in September, was not made available to the public or to all Gulf Council members at the October GC meeting. I believe the information contained within is something that we have been asking for for years and could have had an impact on how the vote went. You can make your own determination as to why this information was withheld until AFTER AM 40 was approved.
You may remember that I have been warning ALL Texas charter captains that this may happen yet many pro-sector segregation captains dismissed it as tin foil conspiracy stuff. Yet, here we are, and that scenario certainly is on the table now isn't it?
Compare that 136 pounds to the Alabama/FL panhandle 6 pack boats which would get about 1,800 pounds each. That's quite a difference - no disrespect intended, but are those boys over there REALLY that much better fishermen than our Texas charter captains? I think not. It's obvious that these decisions are being made on knowingly flawed data.
Or, if the federal fisheries managers decide they should divide up the fish equally, then each 6 pack charterboat across the Gulf would get 841 pounds - or about 100 fish each, per year?
If that happens, that would mean that the AL/FL boats would have to give up about 1,000 pounds of their fish to give to their Texas brethren to make everything even. Somehow, I just don't see those boys willing to give up that much equity in their assets (our fish), after all, the whole idea of Sector Segregation was based on making windfall profits from the conversion of our Public Trust Resource into private commodities for maximum profit.
The push for Sector Segregation was based solely on greed and to hell with anyone who didn't like the idea or how it would affect every other recreational fisherman in the Gulf.
What's next? Income qualifiers for charter boats to be eligible to participate in the fishery now to weed out the part-timers? Next we will hear how they have created this "dangerous fishing derby" and the only solution is Catch Shares.
Also of interest is how much each headboat would receive. The 17 boats in the headboat EFP were given almost double the average landings for Gulf headboat red snapper landings - strange since 5 of the boats are from the Tamp/St Pete area, which have little to no red snapper landings history. If/when Sector Segregation is implemented in the for-hire sector, the number of fish given to each headboat therefore will be approximately 1/2 of what these 17 headboats received, IF they apportion the fish based on historical numbers. One has to ask why they would give the EFP so many fish IF this was really meant to serve as a test to see how it would work Gulf-wide - you can make your own determination as to why that happened.
I do know for a fact that Catch Shares for the for-hire boats are next up, that is for sure, as THAT was the ONLY reason for Amendment 40.
This spreadsheet was prepared by Andy S. at the request of an Alabama CFH owner to see what a Catch
Shares quota may look like if AM40 was passed. It includes a 20% buffer but also based on an unrealistic 44% giveaway to
the CFH "Sector". Even so look at what this gives them....or doesn't give them.
If divided regionally, the Keys, West Coast of Florida, Mississippi and Texas would end up with basically
nothing, maybe a couple trips worth of fish. Think they would have supported this had they seen this
set of numbers before 40 was voted on? So what if each permit CFH permit holder gets an equal share
of 841 pounds? As Tom said, about 100 fish. 16 trips at 1 fish pp/6 persons. Many ARS trips are offered as
1/2 day trips meaning 2 trips per day, so 8 days? With 1 fish per day vs 2 per day there is likely to be greater discard mortality to be figured in. Also this is still based on a 44% fish grab of the rec quota which won't likely remain. Seeing that Alabama and the Florida Panhandle would have to give up a thousand pounds to make
an 800 lb average work....think they will want to share like that?
The "CCA Drivel" may be "Drivel"....but its Accurate Drivel!
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
While I don't doubt the numbers, I do doubt how any of it can be tracked with the monitoring system we have. MRIP sure can't do it. Texas's program can't do it. Maybe LDWF's can.
All I can see from Amendment 40 is the CFH guys are going to go over their quota and blame the system for not being able to monitor them.
Good chart/spreadsheet, but if we can't even get catch estimates until like 2 months after the season closes, how does this change things?