Home Conservation Front

Replies

  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain

    How is sector separation working out for you Ard? Looks like you boys will be "taking a haircut" to quote gary Jarvis when it comes to your historical landings. Not to mention the "recalibration" coming which looks to (rightly) shift more allocation to the private recs and whittle on your "haircut" even more. Not to mention that there is a distinct possibility that Sector Separation will go bye bye in 3 years like it should have all along, but now due to the Republicans wanting to reverse all decisions made by Obama in the last 60 days of office.

    To quote your article;

    "Tuesday’s 5th Circuit ruling affirmed a January 2016 ruling by U.S. District Judge Jane Triche Milazzo in New Orleans, who had said that a shorter federal season for private anglers is offset by their ability to go after the fish in state waters, where charter captains cannot work."

    The recreational fishermen who choose to fish on for-hire boats CAN fish state waters too, if they so desire. The FRA lawsuit is a different animal than the CCA lawsuit Ard, as this shows that the law has been implemented solely for financial benefit of corporations at the expense of access for private recreational fishermen who clearly get less fishing days via Sector Separation.

    Shane Cantrell.

    “This decision is a major win for hundreds of thousands of recreational anglers who love to fish for red snapper but aren’t fortunate enough to own their own boat,” said Capt. Shane Cantrell, executive director of the association."

    Isn't Cantrell one of the captains who charges recreational fishermen $16/pound (whole weight) to take them fishing on his commercial catch share fishing experiences while legit Gulf charter captains are forced to stay on the dock? I don't even think he fishes his federal reef fish permit anymore.

    Isn't he one of the leaders of the Charter Fisherman's Association who pushed for Sector Separation knowing full well that Texas charter captains would take a HUGE hit in access if Sector Separation was indeed implemented? The proof is in the pudding with AM 41 (made possible by AM 40) showing that Texas charter captains will probably be getting less than 200 pounds of snapper landings PER YEAR while AL/FL boat will be getting 3,000-4,000 pounds/year. I believe the AL/FL boats are getting the shaft with that poundage.

    In 2016, Sector Separation allowed Gulf for-hire boats to fish 44 days while private recs got to fish 11 days in federal waters. One odd thing about their 44 day season in 2016; historically, Gulf headboats have accounted for about 14% of the Gulf red snapper landings. Yet, the Gulf Council/EDF/NMFS gave them 44 days this past year compared to our 11 days. If head boats normally account for 14%, why are they giving them 400% the access? (44 days vs 11 days).

    If they implement PFQs in 2016, the for-hire boats would have only gotten about 17 fishing days, so why did the Gulf Council/EDF/NMFS give them 44 days? Aren't they constrained by the allocation cap via Sector Separation? Apparently the Gulf Council/EDF/NMFS have decided to look the other way here when it comes to potential overfishing by the for-hire fleet in their attempt to put lipstick on this pig called Sector Separation.

    Looks to me that the NMFS/EDF/Gulf Council is not providing "fair and equitable" access to the fishery, which, after all, was one of the primary reasons for implementing sector separation now wasn't it? We all know the MAIN reason; implementation of Catch Shares in our recreational fisheries - again, the proof is in the pudding; look at AMs 41 and 42 - the only options left on the table are IFQs/PFQs.

    Never mind that implementation of Catch Shares will DRASTICALLY reduce access for THEIR customers, but that is just collateral damage necessary for these greedy individuals to gain ownership rights to our Public Trust Resource (OUR fish).


    Sector Separation is a MAJOR LOSS for ALL recreational anglers regardless of what type of boat they choose to fish from.

    ....major loss in opportunity to fish,

    ....major loss in availability of our Public Trust Resources to future generations,

    ....major loss in terms of being able to go out and catch fish "for free" as we will have to PAY SOMEBODY if Tom Ard, Shane Cantrell and their fellow EDF-funded cohorts get their way.

    We can only hope that the FRA lawsuit is successful in reversing this scam, but Ard failed to mention that the CFA attempt to intervene was DENIED by the federal judge overlooking the case. CFA is in the process of appealing that, thus delaying the final decision on AM 40.

    We can only hope that the Trump administration will bring badly needed reforms to our federal fisheries management. It's time to fire the incompetent/corrupt NMFS/EDF/Gulf Council and place the management of our fisheries (both recreational and commercial) in the hands of our coastal states' fisheries commissions via HR 3094.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Your question was how is it working out for me before you started rambling. Well its working out great because without it we would only have about 9-10 days to catch a red snapper since we cant fish in state waters.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Wait Hilton you forgot to mention that Sector Separation will never stand the test of the courtroom, remember all that? Yeah you were wrong. Want to wager a steak dinner on the RFA Lawsuit? Scared money never wins.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    Listening to the headboat/charter AP meeting last week, the STUPIDITY of just now looking at how they should divide the spoils of war (our fish) at this late stage of the sector separation scam is glaringly apparent. Hell, they (and the Gulf Council members in attendance) don't even know what constitutes the definition of a headboat.

    STUPIDITY and GREED aren't a good combo for you boys Ard - begging for the Feds' to put the noose around your necks while they dangle the carrot of ownership of our fish in front of your noses.

    Pretty **** hilarious to watch.

    The FRA lawsuit hasn't been decided, and the sunset provision might make it go away anyways next year.
  • JCSJCS Posts: 35 Deckhand
    Seems like a big contradiction "this is a win for hundreds of thousands of recreational angler...". If they are recreational anglers, shouldn't they abide by the same regulations a every other recreational angler? There is no way to paint a different picture, they have privatized a public resource.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    I know, thats why its a bet. If RFA wins I owe you one steak dinner at any restaurant you chose just send me a receipt. Same for you.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    I would love for it to be fair. CCA funded council members Pushed thru amendment 30b years ago and it hasn't been fair ever since.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    I have never agreed with 30B, the Gulf Council voted to rescind it, and the agency rejected the Gulf Council's action. Roy said you couldn't have sector separation without it, if I remember correctly.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Sure but the CCA council guys pushed it through to begin with to keep the big bad charter boats out of state waters, you remember that? I do. Now that started all the Sector Separation stuff, so in reality all of this is CCAs fault, and their on doing. You want to talk about greed. CCA with their brilliance started all of this.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    That's pretty rich - now you are blaming CCA for sector separation.

    The EDF websites used to proclaim proudly; "...our Oceans Team was instrumental in getting a market-based system (Catch Shares)..." in the reauthorization of Magnuson in 2006.

    In 2007, state water fish ALL OF A SUDDEN became an issue and they reduced our allocation by about 1 million pounds and so on for the many years until we got to where we are today. Our own federal government was complicit in the scam to push the "solution" - Catch Shares.

    Of course Catch Shares couldn't be implemented without Sector Separation.

    Here is the REAL source of Sector Separation, STRAIGHT from the horse's mouth in 2009;
    http://www.walker-foundation.org/Files/walker/2009/GulfofMXupdate.doc

    "The work we are doing with a core group of for-hire recreational fishermen, whose movement we helped develop and continue to support, called SOS (Save Our Sector) (now called The Charter Fisherman's Association), will be important to continue to move catch shares forward in the for-hire sector of the recreational red snapper fishery. SOS now has over 200 supporters across all five Gulf states. This membership, which includes boat owners and crew members, reflects a significant portion of the 1,100 licenses in the for-hire fleet. The group’s work was a key factor in the Gulf Council’s October decision to consider separation of the recreational sector into for-hire and private angler sectors in the generic Annual Catch Limit/Accountability Measures amendment, which will be subject to public hearings in either December or January and likely voted on next summer. The amendment will form the foundation for a for-hire IFQ and harvest tags for private anglers."
  • surfmansurfman WC FLPosts: 5,982 Admiral
    Tight Lines, Steve
    My posts are my opinion only.

    Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.  Will Rogers
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    I know, thats why its a bet. If RFA wins I owe you one steak dinner at any restaurant you chose just send me a receipt. Same for you.

    Sounds good - you have a bet. BTW, it's the Fishing Rights Alliance (FRA) lawsuit. The bet is that the FRA will win the lawsuit, and that any appeals by your CFA will be a separate issue.

    Probably should cap the steak dinner bill at $100, eh?
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Sounds good - you have a bet. BTW, it's the Fishing Rights Alliance (FRA) lawsuit. The bet is that the FRA will win the lawsuit, and that any appeals by your CFA will be a separate issue.

    Probably should cap the steak dinner bill at $100, eh?


    Sounds great! Your on.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Rich sounding or not. Sector Separation wasn't even on the table until amendment 30b was installed. We never even thought about it, we were all battling fishing issues together until that time. That was when we were separated. The state management deal really has a good chance now with the change of administration, it could be real good for Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and even Alabama. Florida not so much, will get hammered on that deal, its the state with the most users but the least about of biomass.
  • lemaymiamilemaymiami Posts: 3,925 Captain
    I first got involved in fisheries conservation issues back in the late 1970's... We lost every battle back then - and watched as species after species went into decline and collapse... When the forerunner of the CCA came along (the FCA) we began to win an occasional battle but finally had to go for a constitutional amendment to ban inshore netting -since nothing else worked.. Since then we've been winning more than losing and thank heavens for the CCA -it's lead the way in front of all others.

    I strongly support CCA, donate my time and fishing trips for auction each year (and in more than one state - there's a CCA in every coastal state) and will continue to do so. Basic fisheries conservation is how we'll be able to pass along to our descendants the fishing we enjoy now. I have five grandkids (and a sixth on the way...) -they're the best reason I know of to support the CCA...

    Anyone wanting to copy this and pass it along - go right ahead and attach my name to it...
    Tight Lines
    Bob LeMay
    (954) 435-5666
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    Texas has had it's 365 day snapper season for decades, and it was never a problem, that is, UNTIL the 2006 hijack of Magnuson. Immediately in 2007, the NMFS began micro-managing the fishery claiming that we overfished our quota by 1 million pounds due to; Texas and Florida state water fishing. EDF was responsible for the Hijack, EDF was responsible for the Walker Foundation "Plan" to implement IFQs in the for-hire and fish tags for the rest of us, and EDF is responsible for the sorry situation that ALL of us are facing today, including the for-hire "sector". Apparently today's reality is not what EDF and its minions have been promising now that is coming down to the Nut-Cuttin'.

    First and last lines from the article;

    "A federal fishing rule resulting in significantly longer recreational red snapper seasons for charter boat services than for private anglers in the Gulf of Mexico has been upheld by a federal appeals court....

    ...Tuesday’s 5th Circuit ruling affirmed a January 2016 ruling by U.S. District Judge Jane Triche Milazzo in New Orleans, who had said that a shorter federal season for private anglers is offset by their ability to go after the fish in state waters, where charter captains cannot work."

    Anyone else notice WHO is missing from this equation? The recreational anglers who choose to fish on for-hire boats.

    It is these anglers that are being disenfranchised from the process and will not have a say in how their access to the fishery is managed. They will not have a vote in the possible upcoming referendum on whether to go to IFQs/PFQs or not. Never mind that it is THEIR access that will be drastically shortened if IFQs/PFQs are implemented, what's important here is that OWNERSHIP of our fish is transferred to these charter boat services, right? Not. Did I mention that these same recreational anglers who choose to fish on for-hire boats can also choose to fish state waters? They are not being denied anything that the private recs have access to, yet they are bending (probably breaking) the law to accommodate the financial needs of charter boat services.

    National Standard 5 of the MSA: "Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose."

    I'm no attorney, but I don't see anything in the Magnuson that allows the fish to be allocated to fishing businesses as an economic allocation, (and remember these captains who cannot even fish in the fishery), and NOT allocated to the ACTUAL fishermen in the fishery.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    I'm going to have a few votes if a rights based management system comes to a moratorium vote. As of right now I haven't seen anything I could vote yes for. Might come as a surprise.
Sign In or Register to comment.