Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
Tom Hilton
Senior MemberPosts: 1,595 Captain
C.F.A. (Charter Fisherman's Association) Loses yet another court battle.
Tom Hilton
Senior MemberPosts: 1,595 Captain
Kudos to the FRA!!
http://thefra.org/cfa-has-no-interest-deriving-from-a-legal-right/
"Anglers are one step closer to reclaiming their fishing rights.
In a huge blow to the Charter Fisherman’s Association (CFA is the sector separation front group for the Environmental Defense Fund), yesterday’s Appellate Court ruling DISMISSED an appeal by CFA to intervene in the FRA’s Sector Separation Lawsuit. The motion, filed in March and denied in August, claimed that CFA had standing as a defendant in the Sector Separation lawsuit.
Craig Berman has continued to do an outstanding job on the FRA’s lawsuit. He has answered a motion to intervene from CFA. Yesterday, the Court agreed with Mr. Berman. The ruling seems to parallel the FRA’s contention that the angler’s fishing rights cannot be reassigned based on pure economic interest. Read the six page ruling. Here are a few quotes:
Because CFA’s members’ interest in the underlying litigation is purely
economic, CFA has failed to demonstrate a “direct, substantial, and legally
protectable interest.” -US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 1/26/17
The interest must “be one which the substantive law recognizes as
belonging to or being owned by the applicant”: that is, “an interest that derives
from a legal right.” Id. (emphasis in original). A pure economic interest is not
enough. -US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 1/26/17
CFA has identified no interest deriving from a legal right. -US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 1/26/17"
Please help the FRA continue this fight. Your fishing rights are on the line. Donate or Join now!
http://thefra.org/cfa-has-no-interest-deriving-from-a-legal-right/
"Anglers are one step closer to reclaiming their fishing rights.
In a huge blow to the Charter Fisherman’s Association (CFA is the sector separation front group for the Environmental Defense Fund), yesterday’s Appellate Court ruling DISMISSED an appeal by CFA to intervene in the FRA’s Sector Separation Lawsuit. The motion, filed in March and denied in August, claimed that CFA had standing as a defendant in the Sector Separation lawsuit.
Craig Berman has continued to do an outstanding job on the FRA’s lawsuit. He has answered a motion to intervene from CFA. Yesterday, the Court agreed with Mr. Berman. The ruling seems to parallel the FRA’s contention that the angler’s fishing rights cannot be reassigned based on pure economic interest. Read the six page ruling. Here are a few quotes:
Because CFA’s members’ interest in the underlying litigation is purely
economic, CFA has failed to demonstrate a “direct, substantial, and legally
protectable interest.” -US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 1/26/17
The interest must “be one which the substantive law recognizes as
belonging to or being owned by the applicant”: that is, “an interest that derives
from a legal right.” Id. (emphasis in original). A pure economic interest is not
enough. -US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 1/26/17
CFA has identified no interest deriving from a legal right. -US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 1/26/17"
Please help the FRA continue this fight. Your fishing rights are on the line. Donate or Join now!
Replies
Never said CFA lost the court case - that's next, now the delay caused by the CFA appeal is out of the way.
We filed this lawsuit because Amendment 40 is unlawful. It provides an “economic allocation” in violation of National Standard 5.
We filed this lawsuit because Amendment 40 is not “fair and equitable” because it provides 42% of a rapidly increasing biomass of recreational red snapper to an ever-decreasing number of for-hire permit holders, and thereby creating a windfall of profits for the for-hire sector.
We filed this lawsuit because Sector Separation seeks to privatize a public resource for private gain. More resource equals more gain.
All anglers sacrificed during recovery efforts and a privileged few could not be allowed to “siphon off recovery benefits” for the sole purpose of enriching the for-hire sector.
We filed this lawsuit because those proposing Amendment 40 were attempting to retroactively establish property rights and re-allocate a federal resource to a small group of charter vessels who are “protected” from new competition based upon a permit moratorium already in place.
We filed this lawsuit because Amendment 40 is WRONG and should have failed miserably due to the crushing weigh of its unlawful actions. It didn't though due to pressures brought to bear by overzealous groups who intend to privatize our fisheries and steal our rights to our common resources.
We filed this lawsuit because the rights of the common man and woman, the true recreational angler has been under attack for too long. And while we are not a giant organization with unlimited funding we do pick our battles and this is one of them.
And to set the record straight, The Fishing Rights Alliance does not just represent Florida recreational anglers. We are a national organization with a national membership. So the "wishful thinking" that this lawsuit would only apply to Florida based charter boats is completely untrue. Amendment 40 covers the entirety of the Gulf States and when we win this rightful and just lawsuit ALL Gulf Of Mexico charter boats will then gracefully take their place back in line with the recreational angling community. And we will accept them back gracefully because they will be providing a service by taking RECREATIONAL ANGLERS out to catch fish RECREATIONALLY, under the recreational allocation as set forth for recreational anglers by NMFS.
So - recreational anglers - please do help the Fishing Rights Alliance (FRA) continue this fight.. It isn't over - but it is just and right! Donate or join the FRA today. www.thefra.org
My mistake - I mistakenly referred to RFA on the first line - I have corrected it.
I have contributed a sizable sum to the lawsuit, and continue to support the FRA and any other organization that fights this hostile takeover of our fisheries via Catch Shares.
Now they are trying to push through AMs 41 and 42 before AM 40 gets defeated - they have expanded their felony fish theft scam to include Greater Amberjack, Gray Triggerfish, Gag Grouper, Red Grouper, in addition to Red Snapper for the for-hire corporations now.
If 41 and 42 go multi-species there will be no reason for 40. They will replace it.
Who catches and keeps all these "stolen" fish?
No don't redirect, I asked you a simple question. Answer it. Then you can ask a question.
Ok so as it stands right now, a recreational fisherman can fish on his on boat a very liberal state season for red snapper, or charter a state licensed guide boat to do the same, or they can fish for 9 days in federal waters on their on boat or choose to Charter a Federally permitted boat and fish for 45 days. Correct? Ok you kill sector separation and that same recreational fisherman can do everything said above except in federal waters he can fish for about 11-13 days on his on boat or a federally permitted boat.
Looking at these facts which is really best for the recreational fisherman wanting to catch a red snapper?
By the way, I'm going to use your $100 to go buy a really nice steak at Ruth Chris when AM 40 is struck down.
The writing is on the wall when the judge states (twice) that the CFH has no legal standing in this matter.
https://youtu.be/eLK3ql1-q0I
Anyone would expect them to do what they can help their business. The shame is on the courts and politicians who allow our resource to be harvested by the highest bidder.
Most of the charter guys were fed a line of BS about what would happen if Sector Separation was implemented and that they could fish year-round like the commercial corporations do. This unrealistic view was illustrated in 2016 by giving the for-hire boats 44 days last year vs 11 days for the private recs in an attempt to sell the concept based on unrealistic numbers. If they go to PFQs of IFQs, the for-hire boats would only get enough fish to take their customers out for 16 - 17 days - NOT 44 days. Why such a discrepancy?
16 to 17 days to fish year-round - that's a little more than 1 day per month. Whooopty Doo!
In addition, using THEIR numbers, HISTORICALLY the Gulf head boats have accounted for about 14% of the Gulf recreational red snapper landings, and the CFH fleet has been responsible for about 28% which combines to the current 42% split of the recreational allocation leaving 58% for the private recs.
14/58 = 24% So......head boats HISTORICALLY have landed about 24% of what the private recs landed but they were given 400% the season days that the private recs got (44 days/11 days). Even taking into account inconsistent state water seasons, there is NO WAY that these numbers make sense. The same holds true for the CFH corporations.
It's just a scam perpetrated by an unaccountable out-of-control federal agency designed to make this pig called Catch Shares look better.
Seasons/bag limits work fine, and should be implemented equally for ALL recreational anglers regardless of what type of vessel they choose to fish from.
I thought that was you having the Cherry Jubilee
You should stick to fish then, because you obviously don't know what a good steak tastes like. :wink
Chris
Gulf Coast of FL
@flatsfrenzy #flyonly #onelessspinrod
Just joined FRA right now. We all need to get behind somebody who will fight the lord's of the sea.
"The main vice of capitalism is the unequal distribution of prosperity. The main vice of socialism is the equal distribution of misery." -Winston Churchill
Please explain?
CCA filed its lawsuit against AM40 in the 5th circuit court and lost.
The FRA filed its lawsuit in the 11th circuit court, which covers AL, GA, and FL.
Only AL and FL have a Gulf presence and would be affected.