Home Conservation Front

Amendment 28 (red snapper reallocation) lawsuit ruling

BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
Somebody told me they'd heard about this, so I did some googling.........

https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2015cv02256/176077/30

Looks like the reallocation done in Amendment 28 is vacated by the judge and remanded back to NMFS and Council. There goes 1 day of the rec season, losing that 203+K lb allocated to private angler of the 352K lb reallocation.

Couple of weeks old now; surprised no one here commented on it.
«1

Replies

  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,234 AG
    nobody likes bad news
    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: 1,589 Captain
    Didn't know about it - thanks for the headsup.

    Apparently greed has no bounds. The small pittance of fish that the Gulf Council reallocated to the recreational side is too much for the Sea Lords? This will come back to bite them on their backside I believe.

    Consider that commercial IFQ shareholders enjoy harvesting 130% of pre-IFQ levels (6.0 mp now vs 4.65 mp in 2006) and commercial IFQ shareholders enjoy 300% of pre-IFQ access (365 days now vs 120 days 2006).

    Also consider that recreational fishermen enjoy just 3% of pre-IFQ levels in 2016 (11 days / 2 fish bag limits in 2016 vs 194 days / 4 fish bag limits in 2006). This will probably drop to the 1% to 2% range this year with the payback provision for supposed overages as well as the reduction in our allocation due to the reallocation being taken away. This ridiculous situation is nearing its tipping point.

    Obviously the system has been hijacked by the introduction of Catch Shares in 2007 to benefit commercial corporations at the direct expense of all recreational fishermen and the nation itself.

    This required immediate drastic action to correct this severe imbalance in our fisheries "management".

    The IFQ shareholders should be required to pay royalties just like any other industry that profits from the harvest of our Public Trust Resources - it's ALREADY in the Magnuson to do so, yet our fisheries councils have elected NOT to levy royalties to the Sea Lords. Why? They should be required to lease their apportioned quota directly from the government each year.

    IFQ shareholders should not have the right to COLLECT the nation's royalties through leasing their shares to other fishermen - NOBODY should have the right to collect our nation's royalties and pocket 100% of the proceeds. Leasing between fishermen should be prohibited - if there is any leasing to be done, it should be done directly from the government to the fishermen ACTUALLY DOING THE FISHING.
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 15,118 AG
    I was thinking about this and if they're getting all the fish, I mean they're the only ones allowed to harvest them. But everyone who is going out says the reefs on both the gulf and Atlantic side are all but infested with them, so it's not as if the commercial guys and the ones who benefit are hurting the stocks then are they?

    I'm not quite as schooled as some here, I mean I want to call them dirt bags, and be upset, but for the right reasons. They're not draining the stocks, the issue is we're not allowed to keep any, while they take whatever they want for profit correct?
    Yesterday's memories are not today's reality
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    I was thinking about this and if they're getting all the fish, I mean they're the only ones allowed to harvest them. But everyone who is going out says the reefs on both the gulf and Atlantic side are all but infested with them, so it's not as if the commercial guys and the ones who benefit are hurting the stocks then are they?

    I'm not quite as schooled as some here, I mean I want to call them dirt bags, and be upset, but for the right reasons. They're not draining the stocks, the issue is we're not allowed to keep any, while they take whatever they want for profit correct?

    Soda, you're not wrong. Comms get their half, recs get their half. Comms get money; recs get enjoyment (and hopefully some fish for the home table). That's the idea. The comm's are bound to a quota as are the recs, but the comm's can't exceed theirs under the IFQ.

    Unfortunately, the recreational quota is not so closely monitored, and catch reporting is delayed by a couple of months after it happened. Rec catches tend to exceed their quota. In 2016, even without final data right now, private rec catches are estimated to be 4.6 million pounds - the private rec quota is 3.3 million pounds.

    With the payback now in place, that overage must be subtracted from next year's quota. In addition, the states are leaving their waters open for long periods (TX is year round, FL is most of the summer and early fall, etc), and these catches have to be removed from the calculation of what the federal season can be.

    Its not rocket science. 4+ million pounds divided by 5 lb a fish (a small legal fish), means 800,000 fish (ok, 400,000 bag limits) to be distributed among how many private anglers fishing each year for red snapper? If anglers keep all those big fish we see pictures of, those are twice or triple the size. Too many fishermen; not enough quota.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,589 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Unfortunately, the recreational quota is not so closely monitored, and catch reporting is delayed by a couple of months after it happened. Rec catches tend to exceed their quota. In 2016, even without final data right now, private rec catches are estimated to be 4.6 million pounds - the private rec quota is 3.3 million pounds.

    Interesting that he speaks of a quota that is not closely monitored, yet one that always tends to exceed its quota. Doesn't make sense, and even if it did, the findings are not verifiable since MFRSS and MRIP were not designed to do the job.

    Congress mandated that this "fatally-flawed" data system in place be corrected by January 1, 2009. Guess what? They STILL have not met the requirements of the mandate, even over 8 years later. MRIP is not any better than MFRSS.

    On one hand the Feds' claim that effort spikes to the level that we catch exponentially more fish per day when they reduce our season days, yet they have not had an adequate system in place to verify this, so nobody can refute their findings.

    On the other hand, sales of offshore boats have declined dramatically in the 10 years that Catch Shares were introduced. Sales of fuel, tackle, motors, etc. - sales of items necessary to create a supposed spike in effort likewise did not happen. Strange. Perhaps this is an imaginary creation spawned in the office of Roy Crabtree to create a crisis where there is none in order to justify their implementation of Catch Shares?

    We will find out soon enough.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,234 AG
    One can catch ARS off a bay boat here, heck on calm days they're within reach of a pontoon boat.
    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: 1,589 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    One can catch ARS off a bay boat here, heck on calm days they're within reach of a pontoon boat.

    Exactly, but the enviro mantra is that there too many recreational fishermen who shouldn't get more than 0-1 red snapper per year which is what would happen if the Gulf Council is stupid enough to mandate fish tags for the private recs.

    There are plenty of fish out there for all - commercial and recreational alike. We need a correction to the extreme imbalance that exists today after 10 years of Catch Shares which would include prohibition of Catch Share ownership in any fishery and require the management of our fisheries delegated to the Gulf states.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Interesting that he speaks of a quota that is not closely monitored, yet one that always tends to exceed its quota. Doesn't make sense, and even if it did, the findings are not verifiable since MFRSS and MRIP were not designed to do the job.

    Congress mandated that this "fatally-flawed" data system in place be corrected by January 1, 2009. Guess what? They STILL have not met the requirements of the mandate, even over 8 years later. MRIP is not any better than MFRSS.

    On one hand the Feds' claim that effort spikes to the level that we catch exponentially more fish per day when they reduce our season days, yet they have not had an adequate system in place to verify this, so nobody can refute their findings.

    On the other hand, sales of offshore boats have declined dramatically in the 10 years that Catch Shares were introduced. Sales of fuel, tackle, motors, etc. - sales of items necessary to create a supposed spike in effort likewise did not happen. Strange. Perhaps this is an imaginary creation spawned in the office of Roy Crabtree to create a crisis where there is none in order to justify their implementation of Catch Shares?

    We will find out soon enough.

    Tom,

    MRIP is better than MRFSS. MRIP recalibration is what produced the reallocation in the first place, which the judge shot down.

    Not disagreeing with you. Elsewhere you've posted tags are not the answer. I agree. It would simply be a lottery. Should the quota be higher? I don't know. All we have is what the assessments give us. But, I don't think you can just open it up. I am old enough to remember when there were no quotas and you caught gunny sacks full of of 6" red snapper off TX on a headboat and we yoyo'ed 6" red snapper off AL, and nothing bigger.

    I agree; seems like there's a lot of snapper out there, based on all the anecdotal reports of fishermen on the water (both comm and rec). But, rec fishermen don't want 6" fish, do they?
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,589 Captain
    Nobody wants to overfish any fish stock.

    We need a sea change in the management approach, which will require revising Magnuson.

    Commercial fishermen sell fish by the pound - they should be managed by the pound.
    Recreational fishermen don't sell fish by the pound, so the weight of the fish has no bearing here. Who cares how much a deer weighs, or a crappie? Season days and bag limits work fine for many species of fish and other wildlife - no need for privatization of our Public Trust Resources through Catch Shares.

    Serious issues need answers as to why the fisheries councils have elected not to charge royalties to the IFQ shareholders. They are complicit in this felony theft from all Americans called Catch Shares.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    On the other hand, sales of offshore boats have declined dramatically in the 10 years that Catch Shares were introduced. Sales of fuel, tackle, motors, etc. - sales of items necessary to create a supposed spike in effort likewise did not happen. Strange. Perhaps this is an imaginary creation spawned in the office of Roy Crabtree to create a crisis where there is none in order to justify their implementation of Catch Shares?

    Really ?? What exactly forms of crack are you smoking? I don't exactly know about Texas but I do know Alabama and Florida and Boat sales, bait sales, tackle sales and fuel sales are through the roof. See its all economy based not fish kill based.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,873 Captain
    See its all economy based not fish kill based.

    Really??

    So when does your Charter business announce that you have converted to an all catch & release format?

    Talk is cheap unless you practice what you preach.:troll
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Really??

    So when does your Charter business announce that you have converted to an all catch & release format?

    Talk is cheap unless you practice what you preach.:troll

    It pretty much has. We run the majority of trips out of red snapper season. Very hard to run a majority of trips in 45 days. Catch and Release, kill a few vermillion, mangrove and mackerel and call it good. Been doing it for years now. I mean pretty much everything is closed right now and we are running 6 hr trips almost everyday the weather is good enough to go. When the economy is good and the people are in town all the charter boats fish. When the economy is bad you can have a 365 fishery and go broke. Recreational fishing is a luxury not a necessity.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,873 Captain
    It pretty much has. We run the majority of trips out of red snapper season. Very hard to run a majority of trips in 45 days. Catch and Release, kill a few vermillion, mangrove and mackerel and call it good. Been doing it for years now. I mean pretty much everything is closed right now and we are running 6 hr trips almost everyday the weather is good enough to go. When the economy is good and the people are in town all the charter boats fish. When the economy is bad you can have a 365 fishery and go broke. Recreational fishing is a luxury not a necessity.

    Yeah........funny stuff...........you sound like the 16 year old girl trying to explain to daddy that she's just a "little bit pregnant".:blowkiss
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Yeah........funny stuff...........you sound like the 16 year old girl trying to explain to daddy that she's just a "little bit pregnant".:blowkiss


    Whatever bud, but I do have 3 forty foot charter boats fishing most everyday. Come from the piney woods and check it out sometime.
  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,873 Captain
    Whatever bud, but I do have 3 forty foot charter boats fishing most everyday. Come from the piney woods and check it out sometime.

    I'm sure you do............and I'm sure if you stated a catch and release only policy aboard your charters, that you would see a decrease in your business.

    But you expect the average Joe, boat owning recreational fisherman to get on board with NOAA's Vision 2020, sector separation, catch shares etc.............knowing the future goal of that is to convert all private offshore recreational fishing to catch and release only.

    Then when that happens we will have 2 choices if we want fish...........buy it at market or pay a charter like yourself for the privilege of keeping one harvested on your vessel.

    I for one would never do either.....just as I wouldn't go to the local pawn shop and buy back a fishing outfit someone stole from me.:grin
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 12,234 AG
    I'm sure you do............and I'm sure if you stated a catch and release only policy aboard your charters, that you would see a decrease in your business.

    But you expect the average Joe, boat owning recreational fisherman to get on board with NOAA's Vision 2020, sector separation, catch shares etc.............knowing the future goal of that is to convert all private offshore recreational fishing to catch and release only.

    Then when that happens we will have 2 choices if we want fish...........buy it at market or pay a charter like yourself for the privilege of keeping one harvested on your vessel.

    I for one would never do either.....just as I wouldn't go to the local pawn shop and buy back a fishing outfit someone stole from me.:grin
    I buy fish at the market every week, gonna buy a scamp when the boat unloads tuesday.
    4 lb scamp at wholesale (or retail) price is a hell of a lot cheaper than me going to catch it myself..

    Plus it's turkey season.
    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: 1,589 Captain
    On the other hand, sales of offshore boats have declined dramatically in the 10 years that Catch Shares were introduced. Sales of fuel, tackle, motors, etc. - sales of items necessary to create a supposed spike in effort likewise did not happen. Strange. Perhaps this is an imaginary creation spawned in the office of Roy Crabtree to create a crisis where there is none in order to justify their implementation of Catch Shares?

    Really ?? What exactly forms of crack are you smoking? I don't exactly know about Texas but I do know Alabama and Florida and Boat sales, bait sales, tackle sales and fuel sales are through the roof. See its all economy based not fish kill based.

    Really?? You have drank too much of the EDF-spiked koolaid. Please post up documentation that Alabama and Florida and boat sales, bait sales, tackle sales and fuel sales are through the roof. I know you EDF-funded types find it hard to believe, but simply saying something doesn't make it true. Many, many people have given up offshore fishing altogether due to the stupid, arcane federal regulations and are fishing for trout/reds or picking up golf.

    Here are some screen shots from the 2012 youtube video that you yourself "starred" in Ard - it paints an accurate picture of what the changes to Magnuson via the 2006 Reauthorization have done in the 6 years between 2006 and 2012. $2 BILLION lost annually between 2006 and 2012 - that's $12 BILLION lost due to people not buying boats, fuel, tackle, etc., and we are now in 2017 - I'm sure that loss has grown.

    So you Ard, are claiming that things have gotten so much better since 2012 that people are clamoring to buy boats, fuel, etc. to get out there? No, quite the opposite actually - I have to ask how much crack you are smoking Ard? Anyone on the dock can plainly see that there are not as many boats on the water since the Hijack in 2006. The loss of the World Championship Red Snapper Tournament is just one example of how things have gone downhill since 2006 where Alabama businesses have lost the associated revenues.

    There is plenty of documentation of lower boat sales, tackle sales, fuel sales, etc. due directly to the unneeded/unwanted draconian regulations designed to justify implementation of Catch Shares - hell, the Feds' own numbers show it.

    There is a movement to document the billions of dollars in damages to the Gulf coastal communities since the 2006 reauthorization of magnuson. As your video said; It's time to change the magnuson - THAT is the answer, NOT Sector Segregation and discrimination based on arbitrary parameters such as what type of boat you fish upon.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    I'm sure you do............and I'm sure if you stated a catch and release only policy aboard your charters, that you would see a decrease in your business.

    I would still go. Its a fun day, if the weather is good. You catch some fish (the thrill is the bite and the fight, not the meal), and you have a good time with your friends that you can't otherwise enjoy as a non-boat owning recreational fisherman.

    Sure .... I'd still like to bring a "mess" of fish home to eat. But I don't need to hang all those fish on the pegs for pix, and then drag them home to pack them in my freezer until they burn because the light of my life doesn't like fish to start with.
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,698 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    I would still go. Its a fun day, if the weather is good. You catch some fish (the thrill is the bite and the fight, not the meal), and you have a good time with your friends that you can't otherwise enjoy as a non-boat owning recreational fisherman.

    Sure .... I'd still like to bring a "mess" of fish home to eat. But I don't need to hang all those fish on the pegs for pix, and then drag them home to pack them in my freezer until they burn because the light of my life doesn't like fish to start with.

    Doubt if too many folks want to shell-out for the price of an offshore charter just to enjoy " the thrill of the bite and the fight". But if you keep telling yourself that, maybe you will start to believe it. But I never will. There are game fish and there are food fish. Let`s not try to make game fish out of food fish.............
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,589 Captain
    Bubba Lanier pushing the EDF line.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Documentation Thomas, Really? All you have to do is drive down highway 59 to the gulf then turn east and drive to panama City. There is 3 times the boat dealerships now than there was in 2006. 3 times! Theres plenty of sight Documentation for ya right there. Oh and they are actually selling tickets to the boat show at the Wharf, selling tickets to look at boats for sale.
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,698 Captain
    Yep! Bay boat sales have really taken off since the net ban.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    drgibby wrote: »
    Doubt if too many folks want to shell-out for the price of an offshore charter just to enjoy " the thrill of the bite and the fight". But if you keep telling yourself that, maybe you will start to believe it. But I never will. There are game fish and there are food fish. Let`s not try to make game fish out of food fish.............

    Dunno. Haven't owned a boat in years, and the little 18 foot boat I had wouldn't go 20 miles offshore. But I see boat owners ***** about the cost of their boats, the cost of fuel for a trip, etc. You split a charter fare, which I do at least once a year, and it sounds much cheaper per person than a private angler and his buddy taking a private boat trip.

    Still cheaper is going to the seafood shop and buying about 5 lb of fish for dinner. But then you don't get the experience.
  • bay20bay20 Posts: 1,490 Officer
    When i had my boat (sold it last year) 20' Bay Boat i could fish all day within 25 miles of my coast, with 3 people on board splitting cost it wouldn't run any higher than $75 a person, Charter boats in my area are charging $900.00 a day to basically catch cat food (kingfish and AJ'S) so yes the people with their hot rod rod boats with 3 motors would pay considerably more i didn't.
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 15,118 AG
    bay20 wrote: »
    When i had my boat (sold it last year) 20' Bay Boat i could fish all day within 25 miles of my coast, with 3 people on board splitting cost it wouldn't run any higher than $75 a person, Charter boats in my area are charging $900.00 a day to basically catch cat food (kingfish and AJ'S) so yes the people with their hot rod rod boats with 3 motors would pay considerably more i didn't.

    You can't keep AJs anymore this year...season's closed!
    Yesterday's memories are not today's reality
  • bay20bay20 Posts: 1,490 Officer
    on the East Coast we can, point i was making was that i don't value either kingfish nor AJ'S good for anything other than the smoker and if i am going to lay down $200.00-300.00 i want to take something home a little more desirable to my taste buds
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 15,118 AG
    bay20 wrote: »
    on the East Coast we can, point i was making was that i don't value either kingfish nor AJ'S good for anything other than the smoker and if i am going to lay down $200.00-300.00 i want to take something home a little more desirable to my taste buds

    i understand, and that's a solid point. You want to keep desirable fish. Makes sense.
    Yesterday's memories are not today's reality
  • toomertoomer Posts: 345 Deckhand
    Look, I am not one of those sustainably sourced, non-GMO kind of zealots. Been around agriculture all my life. Grew up knowing commercial fishermen who were family friends. Fished recreationally and still do.

    But there is one thing that just frosts me: folks are allowed to buy and eat fish that I am not allowed to catch and eat. Yes, I know it may be legal, but to me it just is not right.
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 15,118 AG
    toomer wrote: »
    Look, I am not one of those sustainably sourced, non-GMO kind of zealots. Been around agriculture all my life. Grew up knowing commercial fishermen who were family friends. Fished recreationally and still do.

    But there is one thing that just frosts me: folks are allowed to buy and eat fish that I am not allowed to catch and eat. Yes, I know it may be legal, but to me it just is not right.

    I agree with you 100%. Why can it be sold but not bought? If I couldn't hunt but Publix sold venison i'd be angry i couldn't go shoot it myself. I do think that if I can't get on my boat and go catch it, why is someone else allowed to make money off of it? I mean of course that doesn't work for everything, but for fishing it's a valid point IMO.
    Yesterday's memories are not today's reality
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    bay20 wrote: »
    When i had my boat (sold it last year) 20' Bay Boat i could fish all day within 25 miles of my coast, with 3 people on board splitting cost it wouldn't run any higher than $75 a person, Charter boats in my area are charging $900.00 a day to basically catch cat food (kingfish and AJ'S) so yes the people with their hot rod rod boats with 3 motors would pay considerably more i didn't.


    I had my boat in the 80s. It had twin-carb 120 hp Chrylser engine with 3 5-gal. gas tanks, not saddle tanks. So, unless I wanted more tanks, I was kinda limited. If I remember, if I babied the engine, I could get about 3 miles to the gallon; if I stuck it in the corner (which I did once just to see), I sucked a tank dry in 4 miles (but dang that engine sounded like a 4-barrel kicked in!!). But back then......... there wasn't any GPS, and most sonar's were expensive etch-a-sketch things. My boat had a radio and a compass. And there weren't many people fishing offshore back then, and no reefs, really. Hell, there weren't any snapper offshore then, come to think of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.