Did you know that EDF is being paid almost 1/4 million dollars to evaluate the performance of IT'S OWN program? (I can already tell you they will find it a resounding success
, and therefore will recommend expanding it to the the implementation of the first large-scale recreational catch shares program in the Gulf of Mexico, which the NMFS will happily and eagerly do). They are in effect being paid by our government to rob us and violate our Constitutional rights.http://www.nfwf.org/fisheriesfund/Documents/2014-fif-grants.pdf
"Gulf of Mexico:
Evaluating a Catch Shares Pilot for Gulf of Mexico Headboats
Grantee: Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY
Fisheries Innovation Fund Award: $100,000 Matching Funds: $125,959 Total Project: $225,959
The Environmental Defense Fund will evaluate the economic and conservation performance of a rights based management (catch shares) pilot program for Gulf of Mexico recreational fishing businesses known as headboats. The applicant will collect unique data to evaluate economic and conservation benefits from the Experimental Fishing Permit. If the data and analysis show the headboat pilot to be successful, this project could lead to the implementation of first large-scale recreational catch shares management in the Gulf of Mexico."http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishery_bulletins/documents/pdfs/2013/fb13-107_headboat_collaborative.pdf
"Calculation of Quota
The Headboat Collaborative received a percentage of the red snapper and gag quotas. The Headboat Collaborative’s quota percentage was determined using 2011 landings of all participating Headboat Collaborative vessels relative to total 2011 recreational landings. This equated to 5.4363% of the 5.39 million pound red snapper quota and 2.8359% of the 1.519 million pound quota for gag. The Headboat Collaborative received 286,457 lb whole weight of red snapper and 43,053 lb gutted weight of gag. For reporting purposes, pounds were converted to numbers of fish based on regional average weights for each species."
Remember too that these numbers are not subject to the 20% "buffer' that the rest of us are required to abide by - let's see the 2011 landings for each of these 17 boats - I can guarantee you that they would not reflect what they were given in this EFP.http://www.gulfcouncil.org/docs/amendments/Regional%20Management%20Red%20Snapper.pdf
This is the Amendment 39 document - it is related to AM 40. On page 38 you will see a graph that divides the Gulf red snapper landings by state and mode - this is representative for recent years according to their "data". You will see that Gulf-wide, headboats accounted for about 14% of the total rec quota in 2012 (same % in recent years). However, if you do the math when considering there are about 75 headboats in the Gulf that target snapper, their numbers do not add up. 17/75 * 14% = 3% - THAT is the percentage they should have used to apportion the fish - instead they used 5.4363%.
The headboat EFP was apportioned fish supposedly based on the proportion of aggregate landings of THOSE 17 BOATS relative to the 2011 quota and how it related to the 2014/15 quotas. I believe these 17 boats were given FAR MORE than that - probably somewhere between 2 to 3 times the poundage they were entitled to, especially when you take into account there is a 20% buffer applied to everyone else in the Gulf. The 2 year time frame of the Headboat EFP is designed to put maximum financial pressure on the boats not participating in the program to just survive, and to force them to accept the catch shares plan.
For example, the 2 Texas headboats that participated in the iSnapper program (AND ARE ALSO IN THE HEADBOAT EFP) reported an average of 1,695 red snapper each in 2011. However, I have it on good authority that one of these headboats got 4,258 red snapper (about 2.5 TIMES what they really caught) plus 2 gag grouper. So, we have one scientific study conducted by the Harte Research Institute (iSnapper) to provide reliable methods of accountability (which I believe to be very accurate), and a sham of a pilot supposedly looking to do the same thing except they are bloating the landings numbers by a factor of 2.5. Granted, the quota was 7.526 MP in 2011 vs 11 MP in 2014/15, but that is a 46% increase in quota - NOT 250%.
I have confirmation that 8,779 fish were allotted to the one Galveston headboat, the Capt John. The Capt John holds approximately the same number of anglers as the headboat in the EFP (about 80 anglers each) but for some unknown and certainly unexplained reason was given 8,779 fish vs 4,258 fish given to the other headboat. The numbers are wildly out of control and in no way could possibly reflect reality, but that is exactly what they (NMFS/EDF) are claiming, and the reason for doing so is to make the program look wildly better than it really is in order to sell the need for it.http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/ifq/documents/pdfs/Headboat%20FAQs_20140110144135.pdf
To look at this from another angle to confirm what I am saying, compare the amount of fish given to the Capt John (8,779 fish x 5.16 pounds/fish = 45,290 pounds) vs the ENTIRE TEXAS CHARTER LANDINGS shown on page 38 of the AM 39 document (39,128 pounds). So, they are claiming 1 Texas headboat carrying about 80 anglers has been outfishing the ENTIRE Texas charter fleet by a large margin! You will see on the AM 40 spreadsheet that I posted earlier (THAT EXCLUDES HEADBOATS) that there are 177 Texas charterboats that carry between 1 to 31+ passengers each - let's assume that they carry a very conservative estimate that they are carrying 6 passengers each. That equates to 1,062 passengers per day vs 80 passengers per day for the Capt John, yet SOMEHOW the Capt John is OUTFISHING all of those boats by a LARGE margin? Remember, due to the number of anglers on headboats, they are forced to fish differently and result in a smaller average fish size (in this case 5.16 pounds each) vs charter boats which i believe average closer to 10-12 pounds each.
As you can see, they are using data to make massive changes to our fisheries management that defies logic, physics, and reality. This is also designed to violate our rights to access our Public Trust Resources in order to institute a large-scale privatization of what we ALL own (Catch Shares). I believe that The Environmental Defense Fund is complicit in this action and should be held liable for the damages done to our Gulf coastal communities. I believe that the NMFS has implemented a systemic program designed to violate our Constitutional rights and nullifying the MSA by refusing to utilize viable data to make their decisions relative to our fisheries management, and should be stripped of their right to manage our fisheries and delegate that authority to the states as the US Constitution intended. I believe certain members of the Gulf Council , including Roy Crabtree, should be held personally liable for their actions to defraud the American People and at the very least stripped of his pension.
I believe AM 40 needs to be rescinded and a program implemented Gulf-wide that is fashioned after the Alabama data collection program. That would be a good start.
My posts are my opinion only.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. Will Rogers
Did I mention they are also being paid $225,959 to study the "success" of THEIR OWN program?
I'm not an attorney, but there certainly seems to be some illegal BS going on here, and I can't see how the legal team from Gulf Council/NMFS is allowing this to happen.
If you can't provide a verifiable one then your post is BS.
You shouldn't be a mod.
Who said there was a link? I said I had confirmation that the Capt John got 8,779 fish - did you call Mr. Williams as I suggested? Obviously not, as he will tell you - why do you need a link when you can talk directly to the source?
Talk is cheap. Why not put your money where your mouth is Art?
I'll wager you $1,000 cash that I am right.
Do we have a bet?
Put up or shut up.
To look at it from a slightly different perspective, just look at the 286,457 pounds of snapper given to these 17 headboats. Considering that there are 75 headboats in the Gulf that target red snapper, if you divide that poundage by 17 boats and multiply it across the 75 boats, you will get a total Gulf headboat poundage of 1,263,780 pounds. Considering that according to NMFS numbers, the total Gulf headboats have historically accounted for about 14% of the total Gulf red snapper landings, then we should be looking at a total recreational TAC of over 9.03 million pounds, or a total Gulf red snapper TAC of 18.4 million pounds. Obviously that is not the case here now is it?
Bottom line is that they are not being truthful as to the benefits of IFQs here since if/when they are implemented Gulf-wide, the amount of fish per boat would be almost 1/2 the amount that these 17 boats were given. Either the amount of fish will need to be slashed by 50% or the number of boats fishing will need to be reduced by 50%.
Considering the history of fisheries in which IFQs have been implemented, virtually ALL of them have resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of boats - why should it be any different here? All one needs to look at is what happened with the number of commercial red snapper boats in the Gulf after IFQs were implemented to see the proof in the pudding.
"Talk is cheap. Why not put your money where your mouth is Art?
I'll wager you $1,000 cash that I am right.
Do we have a bet?
Put up or shut up."
The time has come on this forum for people to refrain from personal attacks - there is a new sheriff in town, whether you like it or not.
Art is a commercial fisherman - he knows full well that there is no link to where you can find the landings data for a single boat. If you want that data, you have to go directly to the source, which is where I suggested he go - he refused and preferred instead to question my integrity suggesting I was lying.
If he's not a friend, I can't see him confiding in you so it must be some kind of "he said, she said" gossip.
I apologize for any perceived slight or derail of your tantrum, you may carry on.
I would be careful about such behavior in the future - consider yourself warned.
It's interesting that even a commercial fisherman can't believe just how screwed up the data is that they are using to attempt to convert our public trust resource into private commodities via catch shares.
I just asked for a link to substantiate your claims.... You gave me some # to a "Mr. Williams", and unless your talking about Roy Williams, I have no idea.
Your #'s could be some kind of scam deal...
All I did was ask for some kind of confirmation to back up your claims, You got offended because I questioned you and took it to another level.
I will report you to administration for this.
I simply reported the facts.
You can't refute the facts so you attack the messenger, insinuating that the information was gotten using illicit means.
That's been the problem with this forum and exactly why I'm a mod.
We want people to participate on this forum without fear of being attacked by people who regularly do it, such as you Art.
You may also call us at 409.762.8808 or in the Houston area at 713.223.4853 and we will gladly assist you.
Legit Name...Legit Number and an invitation to call!
If you're going to make a claim, back it up with something more than a 'have it on good authority' statement or a phone number.
As moderator, you could make this happen Tom. Evidentiary based proof.
Ask about the NEW pilot program for red snapper!!!!
You may also call us at 409.762.8808 or in the Houston area at 713.223.4853 and we will gladly assist you.
Legit Name...Legit Number and an invitation to call!
A lot of facts are not posted on the web to be easily seen by others but are verifiable IF, IF someone
really wants to confirm such and not just stir the pot. Seems like the source is pretty available to any
really wanting to find out. Did you call? Did you ask them? The total numbers for the 17 boats are telling
enough if you do the math.
As to the spreadsheet on possible IFQ quota's I contacted the source and confirmed it. I also found
out Who created the numbers, and Who requested it. While I will not post His e-mail, all are free to
contact Him yourselves to conform such.
So much for the distraction away from the issue, not back to our regularly scheduled channel..AM40,
Headboat EFP, EDF. A few years ago the separatist were calling any that foresaw and spoke about
todays reality as "Strawmen" and "conspiracy Theorist".....but look where we are at now that reality
has proven those claims as true.
Perhaps you should direct your complaints to Roy Crabtree - why doesn't the NMFS publish the landings history of the 17 boats that was used to determine the allocation given to the Headboat EFP, or the resultant apportionment of fish between the 17 boats? Why the need for secrecy? Even if they didn't provide the name of the vessel, but just the individual landings/apportionment would suffice, but they will not, because their numbers don't add up.
Or, perhaps you should contact the Gulf Headboat Cooperative managers (Randy and Susan Boggs), Dr. Joshua Abbott (consultant for The Environmental Defense Fund from Arizona State University), Mr. Daniel Willard (Environmental Defense Fund), or their legal counsel to any of the foregoing. They have the same information that I have - why not call them and attack their integrity and accuse them of lying Tripple and Art? Oh yeah, that's because they don't want the general public to KNOW, so they are not saying.
Why is The Environmental Defense Fund, their paid consultants and attorneys given special access to this confidential information while virtually every other stakeholder in the Gulf is excluded? THAT is the question you SHOULD be asking.
All I can tell you is that the information I have provided is 100% correct - Art could have found that out if he had the cajones to ante up the $1,000. Instead, he chose to fall back on his usual unfounded attacks on people on this forum. That is going to change, very soon.
BTW Tipple, I have posted up multiple times in the past couple of years as to what the probable outcome of Sector Separation would look like and lo and behold, I was proven correct with the SS spreadsheet even though the EDF-funded people said I was a conspiracy theorist. Sometimes just using common sense is enough to see through the smoke and mirrors here.
As you and others have shown, the information from headboats are available, just in lump sum. Though, one way to test if the reason they do not give out individual boat data is through a freedom of information act request. Have you done this?
Lawsuits/investigations, while I see them coming, I'm concerned about the unintended consequences that often results from rulings. It's all in the language. Meaning, we could see Amend 40 struck down then wording in the ruling that could cause the Council to do somehting worse. Much like the allocation to boat possibility of Amend 40, it's what we don't see coming that will bite us.
Why do you keep threatening me?
Why do you belittle TrippleTailIV by calling him Tipple?
Have fun Tom, I'll weigh in from time to time.
No belittle meant - missed the "r" in Tripple.
I am going to ask that, for the sake of argument that everyone just assume that what I have said is true at this point - that such a gamble? If anyone can provide documentation refuting what I have claimed, then I would welcome that at at that point in time, but for now let's move forward based on the information that I have supplied.
So, if what I said in the first post on this thread is true, then what does that mean relative to our fisheries management and the solutions required to get back on track? Why is it so difficult to ascertain if the data is correct or not? Why the need for such secrecy? There are ways to provide the data needed without compromising the information relative to individual boats, yet the NMFS chooses not to provide that information. Why is EDF (and their paid consultants and attorneys) given special access to this information affecting fisheries management decisions while the rest of the Gulf's stakeholders and fishermen are prohibited from accessing that same information?
I believe this points to the need for a Congressional investigation into this scam - this reeks of the same BS that they tried to pull at the Sector Separation Workshop 4 years ago, which was billed as a Gulf Council function but was in reality an infomercial for Catch Shares that was designed, orchestrated, and controlled by EDF - special access was given to EDF while same access refused to others. This headboat EFP is also an infomercial for Catch Shares that is billed as a GC/NMFS function, but is in reality EDF's project, with their paid consultants from Arizona State and their attorneys all over it yet nobody else can garner a tidbit of information about how the program is designed/administered.
I believe it points out the obvious need to delegate the management of our fisheries to the states, who not only have proven to do a much better job of managing our Public Trust Resources, but are more open and willing to listen to their constituents.
The NMFS has failed ALL Americans, and needs to be held accountable for their actions which have needlessly caused more damage to our Gulf fisheries, coastal communities, and fishermen than the BP oil spill ever dreamed of doing.
Tom, as you note and acknowledge in later posts, individual landings can't be made public. Even as "Boat #1" and "Boat #2", landings data could provide a possible inference to specific vessels. I've read that EFP; the data reported by the headboats are what they are. Those are the landings of those boats. Now, is it possible the headboats inflated their 2011 landings by focusing on red snapper where they had not in other years? Perhaps. But, impossible to prove. The numbers are what were reported. There is no "adding up" to be done, except to add up the numbers they reported.
Tom, you yourself produced the text of confidentiality agreement of the EFP participants. The EFP participants are private entities and can agree among themselves as to who the data are to be shared with. In some past posts, you insinuated something against NMFS in supporting/producing this confidentiality agreement. According to my informed sources, NMFS had nothing to do with the confidentiality agreement drawn up among the Collaborative members.
As best I could understand that other thread, where you posted the spreadsheet, that was a single scenario, which was requested by a certain person for their interest, which then got shared. It was not the be-all, end-all. It was one possible way, out of a multitude of ways, to look at what would be. But, you made it sound as though that was the final outcome, no matter what. It was one possible option. Informed sources have told me that Council staff sent out some email to the AP that kinda put the kibash on that concept of "this is it and no one told us this was all we get" conspiracy theory.
Now, to that end....... you have taken several jabs at persons here, retorting to their statements. You claim there is a new sheriff in town, and that no personal attacks will be allowed. Yet, any time anyone posts a statement that is not in agreement with you, you get defensive. If you want to be a participant in a discussion, then be one. If you want to dictate your will as a moderator and squash any comment that disagrees with you, then you are not creating dialog or communication. You are simply forcing your own opinion, and if someone doesn't agree with your opinion, then they are wrong and you are right. That is not the roll nor mentality of a moderator. If you really want this forum to change, as you say you do, then be open to consideration of alternative viewpoints, instead of simply poo-hoo-ing that alternative in relation to your opinion.
OK, I've tossed out my 2 cents, and I'm gonna go crawl back under my rock because this topic is really something I have not been involved with, for this specific theme, which is why I didn't ever post in the spreadsheet thread here - I have never seen the spreadsheet, nor any discussion of it, except the screenshot you posted here.
The EFP for the Headboats to create a "Pilot" IFQ shares the same issues as the CFH IFQ idea's. Its NOT the Boats, Boat owners or Business owners quota, BUT the Recreational Anglers holding the rods. However, the NMFS allowed in this EFP the Business owner to seize control of the Harvest Rights from the recreational angler and allow them to make all decisions without input or direction from the one with the actual "Harvest Rights" in the IFQ. Even with that move which in the recreational Sector seems completely contrary to MSA direction, the Harvester is also being excluded from access to the data on the Results. Its still their fish remember. Now we learn EDF is getting money to evaluate how the program is working? Is this not a big Red Flag moment? The fox is being allowed to write the rules on guarding the henhouse, and now getting paid to tell all how well they are doing?
The Spreadsheet Andy produced for a post AM40 CFH IFQ shows scenario's that vary, however the numbers as a whole and the averages created are still relevant. The 841lbs per boat or just under 100 fish, based on an unrealistic 44% split is not a rosy scenario. These are real numbers from the NMFS though not official. When all is said and done with these numbers likely much less look at what it would get them. Go one step further, even without IFQ's and just a Derby "Season", the numbers do not buy any more days than they had this season. We "Heard" there was talk of a 30 day plus season projected if AM 40 went thru, but the numbers out of the NMFS office Andy presented do not support anywhere close to that.
First off, I would like to wish everyone on this forum a Happy Thanksgiving.
Bubba - the headboat landings do not add up, and the NMFS knows it - these are THEIR numbers, not mine;
* Texas headboats supposedly catch almost 70% of ALL Texas red snapper while the other 4 Gulf states' headboats catch closer to 7%?
* One Texas headboat received 16% MORE snapper this year in the EFP than the ENTIRE Texas charterboat fleet of 177 boats are slated to get in total from AM 40?
* Do you think the 5 boats from the Tampa Bay/St Pete area in the EFP have anywhere near the Gulf average landings history? I do not. But if we ignore that and assume that the 17 boats each have an average landings history, they should have received 171,042 pounds - not 286,457. The 286,457 number is saying that the 17 boats caught 67% MORE red snapper, on average, than what the Gulf headboats caught, on average. The 5 boats from Tampa, in my opinion, kill any chance of that being true.
* The Headboat EFP is supposedly a Gulf Council/NMFS function - it is not a "private sector" project. The Gulf Council/NMFS have (again) acted improperly by allowing one stakeholder unfair and undue influence on our fisheries management process.
* Yes, the spreadsheet scenario was one possibility - one that I presented multiple times over the years with the EDF shills saying I was nuts and a conspiracy theorist. Now these same shills have disappeared since it is now certainly on the table and a real possibility. Why wasn't this spreadsheet made available to the public and certainly the Gulf Council prior to the vote on AM 40? Don't you think the information provided would have had a bearing on the vote?
Lastly, there are certain people on this forum who continually attack me, my data, and claim that I'm not fit to be a moderator - I have responded to those unfounded attacks, probably not with the best tact in the world, but then again, I have never claimed to be perfect in that regard. Everyone is free to express their opinions, as you have Bubba, but when they cross the line into personal attacks, that is where it stops.
Again, I hope everyone enjoys their day today to be with their families and to reflect on the things that we should all be grateful for - that's where I'm headed (also to see Texas A&M BTHO LSU)!
LOL, Capt. Tom...... none of us are perfect, but this long reply lets me rest my case. You refuse to look at any other possibility that perhaps the headboat landings are accurate. you simply reiterate that they are false, without considering maybe they are what they are.
You stumbled onto something, though, with your analysis of TX landings. Why don't you ask TPWD why their numbers are so limited, and apparently out of line with reality?
Not sure why your panties are in such a wad over a pilot 2 year study. Its not permanent. It is what it is, and its over after 2015. And its based on what those boats reported. If other boats outside the cooperative didn't report accurately, then that is their loss. If boats in the cooperative padded their landings, then it is still a moot point; those are the data. Whether you agree with them or not, those are the available data.
I used to ride on boats where captains lied. I told them it would bite them in the butt..... but they didn't see the long term.
An EFP is a NMFS decision, not a council decision. And the confidentiality agreement was within the cooperative, not part of the EFP issued by NMFS. Go read the EFP and see if there is any mention of any confidentiality agreement in it. I only know about confidentiality from my old observer days. If the cooperative developed one, it was on their own. NMFS confidentiality is a different beast.
oh and I'm torn on the "game". Been in both states, and supported both. But think I agree with you about BTHO LSU.
But.......WHO's fish are they, WHO's quota? The recreational anglers holding the Rod....or the boat
owner/collaborative? Seems the data is actually being withheld from the one with the "Harvest Rights".