Skip to main content
Home Conservation Front

SSC and Red Snapper

Did anyone listen in to the Red Snapper portion of the SSC? I know, yawn fest, but from what I gather from the presentation (it's on the Council's site, briefing book), it appears as there was a good sized jump in the total ACL.

Curious if anyone heard what they recommended

Replies

  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Did anyone listen in to the Red Snapper portion of the SSC? I know, yawn fest, but from what I gather from the presentation (it's on the Council's site, briefing book), it appears as there was a good sized jump in the total ACL.

    Curious if anyone heard what they recommended

    The SSC recommended an ABC (which the Council has always set equal to ACL) of 13.0 for 2015, going up to about 13.5 for 2017. So, for 2015, that would be 6.37 rec, and 6.63 comm. (about 1 million pounds to each sector). But, you need to back that rec value off by the 20% reduction to an ACT of 5.069 (last year it was about 4.3, I think). Plus, assuming NMFS approves sector separation, you need to split that recreational quota by the percentages approved for each sub-sector (42.3% for-hire and 57.7% private) or 2.14+ for anglers who choose to fish on for-hire boats and 2.92+ for private anglers fishing on their own boats).
  • toomertoomer Posts: 348 Deckhand
    BubbaII wrote: »
    The SSC recommended an ABC (which the Council has always set equal to ACL) of 13.0 for 2015, going up to about 13.5 for 2017. So, for 2015, that would be 6.37 rec, and 6.63 comm. (about 1 million pounds to each sector). But, you need to back that rec value off by the 20% reduction to an ACT of 5.069 (last year it was about 4.3, I think). Plus, assuming NMFS approves sector separation, you need to split that recreational quota by the percentages approved for each sub-sector (42.3% for-hire and 57.7% private) or 2.14+ for anglers who choose to fish on for-hire boats and 2.92+ for private anglers fishing on their own boats).


    Thanks for clearing that up!
  • Sure seems like a lot of time, work and money spent on something not approved by DOC yet.
    A rejection of modification by DOC will render this work pointless. I realize its a rushed attempt
    to get it pushed thru so a season can be announced if it is signed off. I see stormy weather on the
    horizon with this. If its signed off, and the courts or Congress steps in, Who gets to fish and Who
    does not until its decided? Does it revert back to a single sector Recreational Fishery while the details
    are being sorted out? If the CFH owners are not allowed to fish their subsector, with all recreational
    anglers fishing on friends, family members or their own boats be allowed to fish? Will the Head Boats
    be called out on their quota even though an EFP because it comes out of the recreational sector?

    Its still 1 sector with 1 designated harvester, so hard to impact 1 subsector without affecting the other,
    since the angler, the harvester for whom the quota applies to, is one and the same.
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Looks like Amendment 40 just went up for comment by NOAA.

    Thanks Bubba for the info.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    AM 40 will be decided in the court room after the 60 day public comment period is over, as it is illegal.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    AM 40 will be decided in the court room after the 60 day public comment period is over, as it is illegal.

    Capt. Tom,

    What's illegal about amendment 40? Magnuson specifically identifies that that the recreational sector consists of 2 components: private and for-hire. All 40 does is set separate sub-quotas for those two components, based on a logical historical landings history.

    ACME,

    Its still one sector (recreational). Maguson specifically says that when the recreational sector reaches its quota, recreational harvest stops. If one component (for hire vs private) exceeds their allocation, and runs over the total recreational ACT, then the whole recreational sector is shut down, even if the other component has fish remaining.
  • BubbaII wrote: »
    Capt. Tom,

    What's illegal about amendment 40? Magnuson specifically identifies that that the recreational sector consists of 2 components: private and for-hire. All 40 does is set separate sub-quotas for those two components, based on a logical historical landings history.

    ACME,

    Its still one sector (recreational). Maguson specifically says that when the recreational sector reaches its quota, recreational harvest stops. If one component (for hire vs private) exceeds their allocation, and runs over the total recreational ACT, then the whole recreational sector is shut down, even if the other component has fish remaining.

    But yet the Headboat EFP fished on........ Still Private Recreational Anglers at the end of those rods.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    But yet the Headboat EFP fished on........ Still Private Recreational Anglers at the end of those rods.

    If the quota had been met, the headboats had to stop fishing too. The quota wasn't met.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »

    Section 1.1. The socio-economic information was in the document reviewed and approved by the Council, and even discussed by Council staff at length during Council deliberations. They also knew the range of any future change. More to the point, the Council wasn't picking an allocation; it picked a range of years that best represented past and present landings, and made a strong case for the rationale of using those years. Whatever numbers came out of the years were what they were. It was the years, not the percents.

    Section 1.2. The Council passes a lot of complex regulations that interact with each other. Perhaps it makes future management more tedious; its not illegal.

    Section 1.3. The Council does a lot of things that are not necessarily popular. They cut catch levels, bag limits, seasons, etc. This isn't a popular vote.

    Section 1.4. This starts with a rehash of the complaint in 1.1, but its incorrect; the Council knew the range of the changes and they weren't picking percents, just the range of years. The rest of the section mixes and matches regional management and regional allocations, which has nothing to do with 40. Again, not illegal.
  • BubbaII wrote: »
    If the quota had been met, the headboats had to stop fishing too. The quota wasn't met.

    If the quota had not been met, why did the private recreational fishermen, not on one of the privileged few headboats, have
    to stop fishing long before the EFP group? The quota must not have been met. Tell us....what was the 2014 total recreational
    harvest of ARS in the GOM?
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