Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
Tom Hilton
Posts: 1,595 Captain
great article by Ben Raines
Tom Hilton
Posts: 1,595 Captain
Here's another great article by Ben Raines - he nails it;
http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2016/10/edf_how_a_rogue_environmental.html
Here are some quotes from some of the folks pushing the catch share agenda;
"Sector Separation has nothing to do with Catch Shares - peroid." Capt. Scott Hickman
Yet, AMs 41 and 42, created as a result of AM 40 (sector separation) are all about catch shares. The latest version of catch share implementation in the CFH sector is for PFQs (Permit Fishing Quotas). PFQs set up a system where each permit holder is allocated a % of the fish, and allows for leasing and transfer of quota similar to IFQs. Was Hickman naive, stupid, just plain dishonest, or all 3? You make the call.
"Allocation caps address massive consolidation and huge buyout." Capt. Mike Jennings
Yet Gary Jarvis and others on the red snapper charter ap were more than happy to suggest implementation of a 2% cap on allocation for PFQs (meaning that no permit could own more than 2% of the fish). PFQs would thus provide the vehicle for MASSIVE consolidation - worst case scenario based on the 2% cap would be reduction of the Gulf charter fleet from 1,200 permits to just 50 (and the possibility of the 50 boat scenario was acknowledged on the record). I would say that a 96% REDUCTION (or even a 30% reduction) in permits through PFQs would be considered MASSIVE consolidation, but then again, these EDF-funded boys aren't real good with math it seems.
"AM 40 stopped the entire (for-hire) industry from being pushed out of the fishery and I can prove it in court." Capt. Mike Jennings
If AM 40 is providing the platform for massive consolidation of the fleet (and it is), then how is reducing the Gulf charter fleet (as Catch Shares always do) stopping the charter industry from being pushed out of the fishery? Seems to me that AM 40 is providing the mechanism to do just that as illustrated above and by what happened in the commercial red snapper industry when they went to IFQs. If they wanted to preserve the charter access, they would set aside 1/1200th of the allocation for each of the 1200 permits, but then again, it's really not about that is it?
"The private recs need to go to a fish tag system where they could fish year-round." Buddy Guindon and Shane Cantrell
First, what part of sector SEPARATION do they not get? They won - they got separated from the private recs. So why then do they feel they have the right to continue to dictate what the private recs do? (Answer: They don't). Of course, their assertion that the private recs could fish yer round with fish tags is a fairy tale. Crabtree said the private recs would get 422,227 tags if we went that direction - that's not enough to even give Florida anglers alone one tag per year. Obviously these guys don't own a hand-held calculator. Of course, then "solution" will be when it is shown that there aren't enough tags to go around, is for the commercial and charter boys to sell us some quota, much like what is happening up in the Alaska halibut fishery.
"I want the mention of fish tags stricken from the AM 41 document." Capt. Tom Steber
The EDF-funded boys don't want fish tags for their boats - they want ownership via PFQs, yet they say that fish tags are the answer for the private recs. Based on the assumption that the cfh would 67% of the for-hire allocation, if implemented this last season, PFQs (or fish tags) would have provided 17-18 days where they could go out and put 5 customers on 2 fish limits each. Yet, they got 45 days to put their customers on limits of snapper. Who is getting the short end of this catch share stick? Their own charter customers.
If fish tags would reduce the fishing days so dramatically for the known, relatively small number of charter boats, then just how much would it reduce the large, unknown number of private rec fishing days? I would submit that it would result in a catastrophic reduction even from our current meager 11 day season.
Both the EDF-funded folks and Roy Crabtree and Co. need some basic math lessons as what they are claiming simply doesn't add up. Yes, it sounds good, but when asked to back up their assertions, their credibility (or lack thereof) becomes crystal clear, yet they are considered the "experts" by the Gulf Council.
http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2016/10/edf_how_a_rogue_environmental.html
Here are some quotes from some of the folks pushing the catch share agenda;
"Sector Separation has nothing to do with Catch Shares - peroid." Capt. Scott Hickman
Yet, AMs 41 and 42, created as a result of AM 40 (sector separation) are all about catch shares. The latest version of catch share implementation in the CFH sector is for PFQs (Permit Fishing Quotas). PFQs set up a system where each permit holder is allocated a % of the fish, and allows for leasing and transfer of quota similar to IFQs. Was Hickman naive, stupid, just plain dishonest, or all 3? You make the call.
"Allocation caps address massive consolidation and huge buyout." Capt. Mike Jennings
Yet Gary Jarvis and others on the red snapper charter ap were more than happy to suggest implementation of a 2% cap on allocation for PFQs (meaning that no permit could own more than 2% of the fish). PFQs would thus provide the vehicle for MASSIVE consolidation - worst case scenario based on the 2% cap would be reduction of the Gulf charter fleet from 1,200 permits to just 50 (and the possibility of the 50 boat scenario was acknowledged on the record). I would say that a 96% REDUCTION (or even a 30% reduction) in permits through PFQs would be considered MASSIVE consolidation, but then again, these EDF-funded boys aren't real good with math it seems.
"AM 40 stopped the entire (for-hire) industry from being pushed out of the fishery and I can prove it in court." Capt. Mike Jennings
If AM 40 is providing the platform for massive consolidation of the fleet (and it is), then how is reducing the Gulf charter fleet (as Catch Shares always do) stopping the charter industry from being pushed out of the fishery? Seems to me that AM 40 is providing the mechanism to do just that as illustrated above and by what happened in the commercial red snapper industry when they went to IFQs. If they wanted to preserve the charter access, they would set aside 1/1200th of the allocation for each of the 1200 permits, but then again, it's really not about that is it?
"The private recs need to go to a fish tag system where they could fish year-round." Buddy Guindon and Shane Cantrell
First, what part of sector SEPARATION do they not get? They won - they got separated from the private recs. So why then do they feel they have the right to continue to dictate what the private recs do? (Answer: They don't). Of course, their assertion that the private recs could fish yer round with fish tags is a fairy tale. Crabtree said the private recs would get 422,227 tags if we went that direction - that's not enough to even give Florida anglers alone one tag per year. Obviously these guys don't own a hand-held calculator. Of course, then "solution" will be when it is shown that there aren't enough tags to go around, is for the commercial and charter boys to sell us some quota, much like what is happening up in the Alaska halibut fishery.
"I want the mention of fish tags stricken from the AM 41 document." Capt. Tom Steber
The EDF-funded boys don't want fish tags for their boats - they want ownership via PFQs, yet they say that fish tags are the answer for the private recs. Based on the assumption that the cfh would 67% of the for-hire allocation, if implemented this last season, PFQs (or fish tags) would have provided 17-18 days where they could go out and put 5 customers on 2 fish limits each. Yet, they got 45 days to put their customers on limits of snapper. Who is getting the short end of this catch share stick? Their own charter customers.
If fish tags would reduce the fishing days so dramatically for the known, relatively small number of charter boats, then just how much would it reduce the large, unknown number of private rec fishing days? I would submit that it would result in a catastrophic reduction even from our current meager 11 day season.
Both the EDF-funded folks and Roy Crabtree and Co. need some basic math lessons as what they are claiming simply doesn't add up. Yes, it sounds good, but when asked to back up their assertions, their credibility (or lack thereof) becomes crystal clear, yet they are considered the "experts" by the Gulf Council.
Replies
try again later..
LMAO!
Sure we do. Even with a tempest knocking on our front door, we Do Not like the idea of getting things crammed up our backdoors!
Hope everyone stays safe through this weather event...............
We can address the lying and deception in our fisheries management later.
Looks like the word is getting out....
http://thehayride.com/2016/10/is-a-far-left-environmentalist-group-controlling-louisianas-department-of-wildlife-and-fisheries/
openroadland.com
Yep, closed seasons/bag limits/slot sizes should be applied to all............not just rec anglers.
seems like not only does he have to comply with bag limits and slot sizes, but also pay the investors. So the guy paying the highest price for environmental protection is the small business owner.
It's too much pressure for local small businesses. No way they can survive that way. So they will be pushed out, and it'll just be between investors and corporations (usually the same people, right?). Just like apartment rent in big cities pushing out the people who used to live there. The only folks who will be able to afford the price of fishing are large corporations. Am I wrong? Just doing some armchair political analysis. Haha!
openroadland.com
Well, when there are fish no more it won't matter much now will it..........we've already managed to destroy the Everglades, Lake O, Lake Apopka, the Indian River, etc., etc.........all in the name of progress. So what more? If it isn't sustainable, it shouldn't be a business.
Bingo!