Skip to main content
Home Conservation Front

The reallocations wars - in perspective

Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
Based on this year’s 14.3 million pound quota, a few commercial corporations are given exclusive ownership rights and control to 7,293,000 pounds of red snapper. They can sell these shares at the going rate of $40/pound, giving the overall value of the shares of almost $300 million. How much did these shareholders pay for these IFQ shares?

Nothing. Our government gave these shares to them for free. Talk about an entitlement program! Makes welfare and food stamps look pitiful, and any politician supporting this government handout needs to be made aware of this.

Another interesting fact is this; the maximum amount that any one entity can “own” is a little over 6% of the commercial quota, or about 440,000 pounds - these are called "highliners". The going rate for selling these shares is about $40/pound, so the "assets" owned by EACH commercial red snapper highliner is about $17.6 MILLION. Ten highliners own over 60% of the commercial red snapper quota.

Or, each year, the shareholder could decide not to even go fishing and lease out his shares for the going price of $3.50 to $4.00 per pound. That means, each year, this fat cat can sit back and collect about $1.5 to 1.76 MILLION in resource rent (money that SHOULD be going to our nation) without doing anything more than shuffling some papers around. The nation nor the fishery receives one red dime from these transactions - 97% of the revenues go straight into their private bank accounts. There is a paltry 3% cost recovery fee assessed which doesn’t even come close in covering the costs of enforcing and managing the commercial red snapper IFQ program.

So, the nation is getting the shaft since it receives no benefit from the harvest of our public trust resource, and the American Taxpayer/Voter is footing the costs of managing/enforcing this scam. Now they want to expand this concept into our recreational for-hire industry.

Shameless.

Another way to look at it is this; when the Gulf Council increased the quota from 11 million pounds to 14.3 pounds this year. What does this mean to the 3 sectors?

1. Commercial: Each commercial red snapper highliner received an increase of 100,000 pounds to his IFQ account. An increase of $4,000,000 in his net worth, in addition to $350,000 to $400,000 per year in increased revenue if he decides to lease out this increase in quota.

2. For-Hire Sector: The Gulf charter and headboats received 35 more fishing days than last year.

3. Private recs: We received 1 more fishing day than last year.

I think that puts the situation into sharp perspective.

Replies

  • Ron@.38 Special[email protected] Special Posts: 6,921 Admiral
    Makes my butt hurt!
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,741 AG
    I believe the going rate for leasing around here is 2.25 - 2.50 lb..

    That doesn't sound as dramatic as 4.00 though.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    The going price for leasing red snapper has been around $3.50/pound for quite some time.

    Even at $2.50/pound, the highliners just got a $250,000 raise, per year, in the free money entitlement program called Catch Shares.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,741 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    The going price for leasing red snapper has been around $3.50/pound for quite some time.

    Even at $2.50/pound, the highliners just got a $250,000 raise, per year, in the free money entitlement program called Catch Shares.
    I know what the price is here Tom, don't know what y'all do in Texas..

    I have heard that everything is bigger in Texas..lol











    including the tall tales.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    It doesn't matter where you are in the Gulf, increasing the quota by 30% this year results in several commercial fat cats each getting at least a 1/4 million dollar annual raise in salary, while the majority of Gulf recreational fishermen get a single season day.

    Not a fair bargain in any sense of the word, and illustrates what is driving this madness.
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,874 Captain
    Just another good old fashioned kick in the nuts for the little guys! In this case ,the Rec anglers.
    Pretty **** sad the rules benefit a few, at the expense of the vast majority! I guess benefit is really not a strong enough word, when you take into account the Millions of dollars that are involved.
    Hard to fathom how the powers to be can allow this to continue. The only logical explanation is that the powers to be are benefitting from this F`ed-up system . Oops, my bad, it has already been shown over and over that there are many examples of conflict of interest amongst many of the councils that help set the policy.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Did I mention that the NMFS/Gulf Council doesn't have enough money to pay for the enforcement/management of the Gulf red snapper IFQ program, so the American taxpayer is footing the bill? The 3% cost recovery fee doesn't even come close to covering the costs.

    If this was done in the private sector, these people would be in prison.

    Catch Shares (couple with the government's willingness to do the enviros' bidding by micro-managing the Gulf recreational red snapper fishery into oblivion) have caused more damage to the Gulf fisheries, coastal communities, and supporting businesses than the oil spill and Katrina combined.
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    what is the actual cost of the IFQ program?
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    drgibby wrote: »
    Just another good old fashioned kick in the nuts for the little guys! In this case ,the Rec anglers.

    I Have to ask WHY.....
    Why are we referring to ourselves as the little guy.
    We (the recreational angler) make up about 11% of the population in the GOM; this actually exceeds the number of seafood consumers in the area (when those who catch their own are factored out) by nearly a full percentage point.
    We (the recreational angler) provide an estimated $15 to as high as $23 Billion in economic activity to the region, which dwarfs the amount of economic activity provided by seafood consumers in the region.
    So I ask again why are we the "little guy"

    Together we are a very large voting block and if listed on the Forbes List would be a very sizable company.

    So again; why are we the "little guy"

    As long as we victimize ourselves, marginalize ourselves, and relegate ourselves to "little guy" status, we will continue to be on the short end of the stick.

    At some point we will all need to pull on our big boy panties and fight for our access to our fisheries.
    At some point actual physical involvement will be required.
    At some point all these "little guys" will have to engage....or forever relegate yourself to little guy status in perpetuity
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,874 Captain
    I Have to ask WHY.....
    Why are we referring to ourselves as the little guy.
    We (the recreational angler) make up about 11% of the population in the GOM; this actually exceeds the number of seafood consumers in the area (when those who catch their own are factored out) by nearly a full percentage point.
    We (the recreational angler) provide an estimated $15 to as high as $23 Billion in economic activity to the region, which dwarfs the amount of economic activity provided by seafood consumers in the region.
    So I ask again why are we the "little guy"

    Together we are a very large voting block and if listed on the Forbes List would be a very sizable company.

    So again; why are we the "little guy"

    As long as we victimize ourselves, marginalize ourselves, and relegate ourselves to "little guy" status, we will continue to be on the short end of the stick.

    At some point we will all need to pull on our big boy panties and fight for our access to our fisheries.
    At some point actual physical involvement will be required.
    At some point all these "little guys" will have to engage....or forever relegate yourself to little guy status in perpetuity
    You are 100% correct. I for one am mad as hell and not willing to take it any more. I am sending checks and emails to anyone and everyone I can. I have no problem putting my money where my mouth is. If you need me to fight, just say the word, I know for a fact my redneck bone is willing and able.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    I Have to ask WHY.....
    Why are we referring to ourselves as the little guy.
    We (the recreational angler) make up about 11% of the population in the GOM; this actually exceeds the number of seafood consumers in the area (when those who catch their own are factored out) by nearly a full percentage point.
    We (the recreational angler) provide an estimated $15 to as high as $23 Billion in economic activity to the region, which dwarfs the amount of economic activity provided by seafood consumers in the region.
    So I ask again why are we the "little guy"

    Together we are a very large voting block and if listed on the Forbes List would be a very sizable company.

    So again; why are we the "little guy"

    As long as we victimize ourselves, marginalize ourselves, and relegate ourselves to "little guy" status, we will continue to be on the short end of the stick.

    At some point we will all need to pull on our big boy panties and fight for our access to our fisheries.
    At some point actual physical involvement will be required.
    At some point all these "little guys" will have to engage....or forever relegate yourself to little guy status in perpetuity



    Maybe because of the small ideas the private sector has for management!
  • TypicleseTypiclese Posts: 393 Deckhand
    I Have to ask WHY.....
    Why are we referring to ourselves as the little guy.
    We (the recreational angler) make up about 11% of the population in the GOM; this actually exceeds the number of seafood consumers in the area (when those who catch their own are factored out) by nearly a full percentage point.
    We (the recreational angler) provide an estimated $15 to as high as $23 Billion in economic activity to the region, which dwarfs the amount of economic activity provided by seafood consumers in the region.
    So I ask again why are we the "little guy"

    Together we are a very large voting block and if listed on the Forbes List would be a very sizable company.

    So again; why are we the "little guy"

    As long as we victimize ourselves, marginalize ourselves, and relegate ourselves to "little guy" status, we will continue to be on the short end of the stick.

    At some point we will all need to pull on our big boy panties and fight for our access to our fisheries.
    At some point actual physical involvement will be required.
    At some point all these "little guys" will have to engage....or forever relegate yourself to little guy status in perpetuity

    Since everyone else is replying to Capt B using quotes, I will too.

    Capt B, it is akin to herding cats. Yes, we are a HUGE block. To motivate this block to some form of action, even if by 25% of representative numbers, requires leadership. Right now there is none. Zip. Nada.

    I like to think I'm representative of the average FL rec angler. I work between 50-60 hours a week, sometimes more. In my "free" time I'm usually stomping out some fire related to the family. Wife's car is tango uniform, ok gotta take care of that. Kids are sick, ok run that down. Dog has fleas, check ,time for a dip. The list goes on and on.

    Given the "real world" pulls juxtaposed to the fighting catch share push, the equation is not balanced. Like me, I think most guys are going to take care of theirs, and let the other stuff float by - although not at all to happy about it.

    Tired of writing Congressman Jolly et. al. about this crap. Nothing changes. Reauthorize Mag stevens, gee thanks.

    Having served many tours in combat, I have to laugh at some of the living room Green Berets. Although I applaud their vigor, I find their comments somewhat hollow. Kind of reminds me of that chickenhawk character from Foghorn Leghorn.

    Our politicians don't serve us. Our fisheries management is fighting against us. We pay both, and fund all the actions they take against us with our tax dollars.

    What do you propose?
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    Typiclese wrote: »
    Since everyone else is replying to Capt B using quotes, I will too.

    Capt B, it is akin to herding cats. Yes, we are a HUGE block. To motivate this block to some form of action, even if by 25% of representative numbers, requires leadership. Right now there is none. Zip. Nada.

    I like to think I'm representative of the average FL rec angler. I work between 50-60 hours a week, sometimes more. In my "free" time I'm usually stomping out some fire related to the family. Wife's car is tango uniform, ok gotta take care of that. Kids are sick, ok run that down. Dog has fleas, check ,time for a dip. The list goes on and on.

    Given the "real world" pulls juxtaposed to the fighting catch share push, the equation is not balanced. Like me, I think most guys are going to take care of theirs, and let the other stuff float by - although not at all to happy about it.

    Tired of writing Congressman Jolly et. al. about this crap. Nothing changes. Reauthorize Mag stevens, gee thanks.

    Having served many tours in combat, I have to laugh at some of the living room Green Berets. Although I applaud their vigor, I find their comments somewhat hollow. Kind of reminds me of that chickenhawk character from Foghorn Leghorn.

    Our politicians don't serve us. Our fisheries management is fighting against us. We pay both, and fund all the actions they take against us with our tax dollars.

    What do you propose?

    The first step is to retire the current non-in-season-quota-management Data collection system and built a system that provides timely and accurate data. You can't manage in ignorance...

    Management requires:
    Knowing the inventory (Stock Assessments; current count, recruitment, removals)
    Knowing the Customers (Anglers)
    Understanding buying patterns (fishing activity & catches)

    Assessments must beginning using an innovative approach of actually looking for and counting fish where they live; trawling up 100's of square miles of barren sand and then assuming the red snapper are not there is pure folly

    From there it is a simple equation....
    F(quota) = Beginning Count + Recruitment - Removals

    Next you adjust up or down Removals up or down to maintain a proper balance. Remember the angler portion of Removals is the only factor that can be controlled, natural mortality and mortality events can not be controlled, but must be factored in.


    The fact is......If anglers believed in the data and trusted the data and the data showed any species were in real trouble.....They would be the first to call for shutting it down....

    So the key is good data and a change in the definition of data from Best Available to Best and if data can not be repeated, reviewed and approved it is not really data but just made up numbers to simulate data, kind of like trying to go fishing with you fish finder in simulation mode....it looks impressive and you might even catch something, but it will be pure accident not design.
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    notreely wrote: »
    Maybe because of the small ideas the private sector has for management!

    Not worth my time
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Not worth my time

    Your time is 9 days fishing for ARS in federal waters.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    M
    The first step is to retire the current non-in-season-quota-management Data collection system and built a system that provides timely and accurate data. You can't manage in ignorance...

    Management requires:
    Knowing the inventory (Stock Assessments; current count, recruitment, removals)
    Knowing the Customers (Anglers)
    Understanding buying patterns (fishing activity & catches)

    Assessments must beginning using an innovative approach of actually looking for and counting fish where they live; trawling up 100's of square miles of barren sand and then assuming the red snapper are not there is pure folly

    From there it is a simple equation....
    F(quota) = Beginning Count + Recruitment - Removals

    Next you adjust up or down Removals up or down to maintain a proper balance. Remember the angler portion of Removals is the only factor that can be controlled, natural mortality and mortality events can not be controlled, but must be factored in.


    The fact is......If anglers believed in the data and trusted the data and the data showed any species were in real trouble.....They would be the first to call for shutting it down....

    So the key is good data and a change in the definition of data from Best Available to Best and if data can not be repeated, reviewed and approved it is not really data but just made up numbers to simulate data, kind of like trying to go fishing with you fish finder in simulation mode....it looks impressive and you might even catch something, but it will be pure accident not design.


    The first step is to retire the current non-in-season-quota-management Data collection system and built a system that provides timely and accurate data. You can't manage in ignorance...

    Management requires:
    Knowing the inventory (Stock Assessments; current count, recruitment, removals)
    Knowing the Customers (Anglers)
    Understanding buying patterns (fishing activity & catches)

    Assessments must beginning using an innovative approach of actually looking for and counting fish where they live; trawling up 100's of square miles of barren sand and then assuming the red snapper are not there is pure folly

    From there it is a simple equation....
    F(quota) = Beginning Count + Recruitment - Removals

    Next you adjust up or down Removals up or down to maintain a proper balance. Remember the angler portion of Removals is the only factor that can be controlled, natural mortality and mortality events can not be controlled, but must be factored in.


    The fact is......If anglers believed in the data and trusted the data and the data showed any species were in real trouble.....They would be the first to call for shutting it down....

    So the key is good data and a change in the definition of data from Best Available to Best and if data can not be repeated, reviewed and approved it is not really data but just made up numbers to simulate data, kind of like trying to go fishing with you fish finder in simulation mode....it looks impressive and you might even catch something, but it will be pure accident not design.


    Management requires:
    Knowing the inventory (Stock Assessments; current count, recruitment, removals)
    Knowing the Customers (Anglers)
    Understanding buying patterns (fishing activity & catches)

    Your sector is the only sector that doesn't want to work within the current assessment.

    If you don't like,trust,agree or want to use the current stock assessment, have your sector pay for its own, get it peer reviewed and bring it to the council. Other fisheries have done that.


    If you really want to know the effort propose a tag system or VMS or some comprehensive way to track real time private sector effort and landings.

    All you do is complain and blame everyone else.

    Instead of begging for money for your lawsuit, why don't you raise money for your own ARS stock assessment!
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    Talked with a Congressman earlier this week - he like the idea of doing a 6 month season for everyone, 2 fish limit per person, with a standardized mandatory reporting system similar to what Alabama implemented last year, for a period of 3 years.

    Also perform assessments where the fish actually live each of the 3 years by "NMFS-Free" scientists.

    Then take this data and make informed decisions on where to go.

    One of the many problems with the "solution" called Sector Separation is that they put the cart before the horse and split the fish without having the data to make that type of decision.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    notreely wrote: »
    M






    Management requires:
    Knowing the inventory (Stock Assessments; current count, recruitment, removals)
    Knowing the Customers (Anglers)
    Understanding buying patterns (fishing activity & catches)

    Your sector is the only sector that doesn't want to work within the current assessment.

    If you don't like,trust,agree or want to use the current stock assessment, have your sector pay for its own, get it peer reviewed and bring it to the council. Other fisheries have done that.


    If you really want to know the effort propose a tag system or VMS or some comprehensive way to track real time private sector effort and landings.

    All you do is complain and blame everyone else.

    Instead of begging for money for your lawsuit, why don't you raise money for your own ARS stock assessment!

    We already pay for assessments. The fact that the NMFs/MRIP system continues to guess at large
    portions of the data is not out fault. We have called upon those in charge to fix the problem. They
    have largely ignored, and what's worse, extremist in the privatization sectors have tried stopping any
    progress to getting better data. they seem to prefer the status quo. John Carmichael has proclaimed
    that their goal is to reach a 50% chance of reliability of their "Science". If anyone thinks the same odds
    as flipping a coin is "Good" Scientific confidence, well there much be some form of "Green" blurring
    their vision. States have begun taking matters into their own hands and showing NMFS assessment
    numbers for what they are....very unreliable. Unfortunately, even comprehensive and reliable data coming
    out of the states are only "Averaged" in at best. BTW....NOAA/NMFS "Peer Review" is meaningless since the process and methodology of the assessments are largely off limits. Its the number crunching that's allowed
    and that really misses the fallacy of current assessments. Since the council neither conducts the assessments,
    sets the seasons, determines effort numbers, etc....taking anything to them is pointless. Of coarse when
    Congress ordered NOAA to fix the MRFSS flaws we see how well they listened. MRIP is little more than a
    reincarnation of MRFSS. The clearly identified flaws of MRFSS largely are still in place with MRIP. For profit
    fisheries paying more for data is not comparable with Family Level angling. In any case the paying for
    good data is not something the for profit sectors really do, since any inherited cost is just passed on to
    consumers, whereas Recreational anglers have no such luxury. In many places added taxes are paid by
    the family level angler. Given what the economic impact of the harvesters of the nations 2% of the fish
    landed generate compared to the 98% landed commercially, seems the best return by far is the recreational
    anglers impact. Of coarse the 3% paid by the IFQ business owners in the Gulf is really not paying their
    own way when the likely cost to taxpayers is closer to 15%. It is the fault of the federal fishery managers and those fighting to prevent the current failures in data collection and science to be corrected that are indeed to
    blame.
  • notreelynotreely Posts: 653 Officer
    Henry we are talking about the gulf ARS fishery. Many of you think the assessments are done only by NMFS and NOAA scientists. They are not, the pool of scientists come from many areas including the STATES. ESPECIALLY FLORIDA.

    Again only the private recs don't want to work within the current assessment and effort estimates. Some people on this forum including you have stated that the private recs are by far the most important economically and socially user group.

    I noticed when the states tried their little coup d'état,industry giants such as Yamaha were onboard with it. NMFS has asked for more money to do better and more frequent stock assessments, people like yourself and especially congress are not willing to do that.

    So you and other private recs that don't like the science and don't want congress to appropriate more funds to improve the science need to find a new approach. Yourself,Bob, Tom and others claim you are the big powerful majority. So raise the money to do it yourself, call Yamaha and other industry.
    Come up with a plan that will help you scientifically argue the current science. Do a new stock assessment. If you don't like NOAA peer regulations use your own and challenge their scientific standings in court.

    Create a real time data base that tracks effort and catch, that might mean reporting impositions or other burdens to private recs. Again the private recs are the only sector not willing to work within the current system.

    As for the flip of coin science you keep bringing up, it's extremely disingenuous of you to state that. Do you have a transcript of when Mr Carmichael said this, what was the context. Did Mr Carmichael actually say he flips a coin?

    For example if I give 12 numerical data sets,

    7
    5
    6
    5
    3
    5
    4
    2
    5
    8
    5
    5

    When you put that data on a chart, graph or average you are going to get 5.
    Now only 50% of my data was correct, but the best available science says 5.
    That's not exactly flipping a coin.

    So before you keep using or continue to misuse his words why don't you email him and ask him if you have interpreted his words correctly . If he agrees with your characterization of his words please forward us his reply. Otherwise you should stop saying that.Again please show use were he said this?

    HENRY YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD NOT STATE FALSE CLAIMS!!!!!!
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Let's put something in perspective here in regard to reallocation. Red snapper reallocation is Amendment 28. The Council is currently working on Amendments 41 and 42. I have spent the last hour wandering around in the Council's FTP site and on their web site to get some dates, as to how long this amendment has been being put off.

    In 2007, the Council was already working on Amendment 29 (grouper IFQ) and Amendment 30 (became 30A and the infamous 30B). So, amendment 28 was on the books but not being considered by the Council at any of their 2007 (and apparently 2008, 2009, or 2010) meetings. AT that time it was both snapper and grouper.

    In 2008, the new rebuilding plan was implemented (amendment 27), and lowered TAC to 5 million pounds. This apparently really put a damper on proceeding with reallocation, although the Council had already requested it.

    From 2009 through 2011, the focus seemed to be on grouper (29 was grouper, 31 was grouper, 32 was grouper, etc, plus amberjack and triggerfish)

    In late 2012, the Science Center gave the Council the economic evaluation of reallocation for red snapper, and recommended only small changes. The Council began talking about reallocating 3, 5, and maybe 10% of the quota. the TAC was raised to 8+ million pounds. The Council was working on Amendments 33, 35, 37, 38, and asked that work start on 39 and 40. By late 2012, there was a scoping document for 28, which included snapper and grouper, but Council had lost the opportunity to move quota as the TAC increased 3 million pounds.

    From the Intro of Amendment 28:
    In January 2013, the Council convened a special meeting of their Reef Fish Committee
    (Committee) to focus on red snapper management issues. The Committee requested that
    Amendment 28 focus on red snapper allocation only and decided to address allocation of
    groupers (i.e., gag, red, and black) in a separate amendment.


    Before the 2013 recreational season opened, the TAC was set at about 8.5 million pounds, still under same old 49:51 split. In the fall of 2013, the TAC was raised to over 11 million pounds, again, at 49:51. Another reallocation opportunity lost due to inaction by the Council. (I'll get to the inaction part at the end). I can't find it, but I think somewhere in late 2012 or 2013, the Council tabled action on 28, then took it back up on late 2013.

    In June 2014, the Council tabled further action on 28 until 40 was completed.

    In 2015, TAC was raised to over 13 million pounds, still under the same old same old 49:51 split. The Council then untabled 28.

    So, here is my point. The Council started this somewhere like 2008, but sat on it. They finally decided to move forward some time in 2012, and didn't get serious about it until 2013, but then drug their heels, and hemmed and hawed. Now, here it is, 2015, and they MIGHT take action on this amendment, to reallocate 2.5% later this year.

    The TAC has increased over 5 million pounds, yet, the Council's inaction didn't allow them to reallocate based on TAC increases (at one point, they were going to reallocate over the old 9.12 million pound target, but they've tossed that now). Now, the TAC is stable and may even go down.

    And who were the primary folks on the Council dragging their feet to make this move the private sector so badly wants? In my opinion, the states did. They represent nearly 1/3 of council votes, and when they vote as a bloc, they really can swing a vote (especially a couple of vocal state representatives). In my opinion, they basically swung the deciding votes to table, to stall, to delay, bring it back one more time, etc.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain
    It just illustrates that the Council is driven by commercial interests, who do NOT want reallocation. Blaming it on the state reps is not accurate.

    AM 28 had some pretty good steam, that is, until the commercial EDF-funded fat cats filed their lawsuit that resulted in our 9 day season - they admitted as such in the enclosed letter...."for the time being, we have thwarted the PLOT called reallocation..." The lawsuit had nothing to do with "accountability" and everything with intimidating the council into putting off reallocation.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    notreely wrote: »
    Henry we are talking about the gulf ARS fishery. Many of you think the assessments are done only by NMFS and NOAA scientists. They are not, the pool of scientists come from many areas including the STATES. ESPECIALLY FLORIDA.

    Again only the private recs don't want to work within the current assessment and effort estimates. Some people on this forum including you have stated that the private recs are by far the most important economically and socially user group.

    I noticed when the states tried their little coup d'état,industry giants such as Yamaha were onboard with it. NMFS has asked for more money to do better and more frequent stock assessments, people like yourself and especially congress are not willing to do that.

    So you and other private recs that don't like the science and don't want congress to appropriate more funds to improve the science need to find a new approach. Yourself,Bob, Tom and others claim you are the big powerful majority. So raise the money to do it yourself, call Yamaha and other industry.
    Come up with a plan that will help you scientifically argue the current science. Do a new stock assessment. If you don't like NOAA peer regulations use your own and challenge their scientific standings in court.

    Create a real time data base that tracks effort and catch, that might mean reporting impositions or other burdens to private recs. Again the private recs are the only sector not willing to work within the current system.

    As for the flip of coin science you keep bringing up, it's extremely disingenuous of you to state that. Do you have a transcript of when Mr Carmichael said this, what was the context. Did Mr Carmichael actually say he flips a coin?

    For example if I give 12 numerical data sets,

    7
    5
    6
    5
    3
    5
    4
    2
    5
    8
    5
    5

    When you put that data on a chart, graph or average you are going to get 5.
    Now only 50% of my data was correct, but the best available science says 5.
    That's not exactly flipping a coin.

    So before you keep using or continue to misuse his words why don't you email him and ask him if you have interpreted his words correctly . If he agrees with your characterization of his words please forward us his reply. Otherwise you should stop saying that.Again please show use were he said this?

    HENRY YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD NOT STATE FALSE CLAIMS!!!!!!

    Actually I was there at the Fishery Science and Management workshop when He said it. I was not the
    only one there. In fact Reps from both the Gulf Council and South Atlantic Council were there. As too was NOAA,
    NMFS, SEDAR (besides John), 2 former council members (directing the meeting), Roy Crabtree (not sure if he was in the room for that session or not) dozens of commercial, charter and private recreational anglers, sports writers, FWC reps, etc. I even questioned the statement at the forum. While he qualified that statement with the great uncertainties associated with collecting data as the impact on shooting for 50%, the fact is his comment reflects the lack of confidence of most fishery stakeholders, that is except those that prefer artificially suppressed numbers
    due to economic gain of the supply and demand price hikes in a near virtual environment. BTW...I mentioned
    the "Flip of a Coin" comment at the conference after he stated it and while getting a chuckle from the
    crowd, got no real reply from John Carmichael.

    As to the "Best Available Science".....its really a joke. It may sound good, but even outdated, incomplete,
    unreliable, inaccurate, fatally flawed, and 100% computer generated models based on no hard data......
    can be considered "Best Available". If that is acceptable to anyone, that itself is a problem.

    I fish both sides of Florida. On the east coast I run Charters and many times have state biologist on
    the boat. States do the bulk of the work on data collection that NOAA/NMFS/MRIP use, however, its not
    their methodology, nor their compilation, nor their algorithms, that come up with the end results. States
    have started running their own data programs separate from what they do for NOAA. Those results show
    a greatly different result. Its really surprising that they do not send up a lot of "Red Flags" to the federal
    managers, but as we heard....they will eventually be "Averaged in".

    Now you, have misstated and made false claims about me. I never stated that "the private recs are by far the most important economically and socially user group." I have repeated NOAA statistics about economic impact of recreational angling nationwide compared to commercial harvest. I have even cited regional Grouper economic comparisons of rec vs commercially harvested fish. I have even stated the fact that there are many more time the recreational angler than commercial angler. Maybe you should show me where I made the claim you stated.

    Now when different science and data deficiencies were clearly identified in MRFSS was ordered fixed....WHO was responsible to do so? When anglers brought forth plans to create better recreational angler data to the councils
    WHO did not follow up on them? Even plans like Florida's Gulf Angler Permit plan, the biggest push back and attempt to hack that has come from those of the Commercial/Separatist camp....even right here on this
    forum. I for one am all for better data, and not only support the Gulf Reef Fish Permit idea, think it should be done on both coast. I support the idea of electronic reporting for Charter boats on the east side as currently being discussed, in which I operate my charters. I am very concerned however about the way the data is used, given
    the many clearly identified deficiencies that remain in MRIP. I would not even be opposed to a form of recreational
    stamp program....IF....it was used to gain effort data and not for "Fleet reduction", and was used for ALL
    recreational anglers. Now, if you actually look back at many of my post, you will see that these idea's have been
    stated many times before. Real World working idea's to get better data by a recreational angler and charter boat
    operator. Of coarse, implementing such idea's requires a federal fishery management policy that actually wants a
    science based solution and not a market Based one.

    Oh Yeah....whats Yamaha have to do with anything? I run Evinrudes.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    It just illustrates that the Council is driven by commercial interests, who do NOT want reallocation. Blaming it on the state reps is not accurate.

    Tom,

    Your quote is true that commercials don't want reallocation. But, who voted how?

    I know committee votes aren't roll call, or are council votes on actions still being worked on, so none of this can be documented. But I did get the opportunity to attend a couple of meetings over the last 2-3 years, when they were close enough to go without having to spend an arm and a leg. I didn't see you there, so for you to claim that isn't accurate is interesting. I did see the states vote (along with others) to bring it back, table it, do more work, look at something new, etc.

    Think about it; there are 4 true commercial reps on the Council, and maybe the 2 CFH might vote with them against reallocation (although in what I remember, they split their votes), along with 1 "other" who is now gone but always leaned commercial. Another "other" always votes rec (even after being replaced), and the 3rd "other" votes both ways. That's only 6 (7-8 tops) votes to stall or delay. That's 2-3 votes short of passage. You know the 2 true rec folks (and at least 1 CFH) voted to move forward. You know one "other" (and maybe 2) voted to move forward; that's only 4, maybe 5.

    So, who's left to vote to stall and delay? The states. And if I remember, those votes weren't close to stall, delay, bring it back with new stuff. The votes were something like 10-6.

    In fact when they stalled it out in June 2013, here is the Committee motion (accents added by me)

    DR. SHIPP: Assane Diagne discussed the options paper on red snapper allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors, Tab B, Number 6. Dr. Diagne indicated that, with the exception of the new Appendix B, the document presented was discussed during the February 2013 council meeting.

    Appendix B provides allocation scenarios based on the recent ABC recommendations made by the SSC. Committee members discussed potential red snapper ACLs that may be selected by the council following the ABC recommendations made by the SSC.

    The committee then made the following motion. By voice vote with one opposed, the committee recommends, and I so move, to request that staff revise Amendment 28, including the Appendix B scenarios, but with the ACL for 2013 set at eleven-million pounds and include the SSC ABC recommendations for 2014 and 2015.

    CHAIRMAN BOYD: We have a committee motion. Is there discussion? Hearing none, any opposition to this motion? Hearing no opposition, the motion carries.


    Later on in that meeting:

    CHAIRMAN BOYD: Any further discussion? Let’s have a show of hands on this. The motion is to take Amendment 28 to public hearings. All in favor raise your hand; all opposed raise your hand. The motion fails.

    Obviously, the motion failed big time, or they would have reported counts of hands.

    This was in 2013, and obviously they saw the same document in June 13 they saw in Feb. 13, but with some new info that made slight differences. That pattern has been repeated several times since, including tabling the amendment a year later in June 2014 until 40 was completed. To which the vote was:

    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GREGORY: We have nine yes and six no and one abstention and one absent. The motion passes.

    So where did those 9 yes come from? Crabtree would have been the abstention, don't know who was absent. But, I can figure out where the six no came from......... and that leaves states voting to postpone.
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