Home Conservation Front

RFA Lawsuit over sector separation.

2»

Replies

  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I'm talking about Obama appointing EDF's Lubchenco to head NOAA whose main mission was to implement Catch Shares in ALL U.S. fisheries. Catch Shares led to the worst fisheries disaster in the history of US fisheries in the NE groundfishery.

    We have had a full 10 years to see the effects of the changes made to the Magnuson in 2006; 300% access for commercial IFQ shareholders as compared to 2006 levels while private recreational fishermen had 3% access as compared to 2006 levels and are looking at a 0.5% access this year and probable 0% access in 2018. In effect, building a wall to keep AMERICAN fishermen OUT while giving a free pass to for-profit corporations. Just ain't right.

    That answer is rhetoric. It doesn't answer my question at all. I asked you what catch shares came down during the Obama administration.

    You're answer is talking about allocation and catch rates. Allocations have not changed (commercial still gets 51%, recreational 49% -- for red snapper, which is what you seem obsessed on). The way the fishery operates (state water seasons vs federal) has changed, as well as CFH vs private rec. That has nothing to do with catch shares. CFH and private recs still managed by command and control regulations based on catch rates and effort.

    Please enlighten me, if you can, how catch shares have proliferated, which I think was your original wording. What has proliferated is increased catches of larger and more abundant fish, thus filling the various quotas more quickly. Those increased catch rates are being documented through a better data collection system, now being implemented by the states such as LA and AL and MS, which is then used by NMFS as a cross check to MRIP, that indicates the private rec quota is being caught more quickly. That is not catch shares.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,589 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    That answer is rhetoric. It doesn't answer my question at all. I asked you what catch shares came down during the Obama administration.

    You're answer is talking about allocation and catch rates. Allocations have not changed (commercial still gets 51%, recreational 49% -- for red snapper, which is what you seem obsessed on). The way the fishery operates (state water seasons vs federal) has changed, as well as CFH vs private rec. That has nothing to do with catch shares. CFH and private recs still managed by command and control regulations based on catch rates and effort.

    Please enlighten me, if you can, how catch shares have proliferated, which I think was your original wording. What has proliferated is increased catches of larger and more abundant fish, thus filling the various quotas more quickly. Those increased catch rates are being documented through a better data collection system, now being implemented by the states such as LA and AL and MS, which is then used by NMFS as a cross check to MRIP, that indicates the private rec quota is being caught more quickly. That is not catch shares.

    Rhetoric? It's the facts, plain and simple.

    Enclosed is the EDF Progress Report, published in 2009 (during Obama's reign). It spells out the proliferation, expansion, whatever you want to call it INTO the recreational sector. It also outlines the plan to implement Sector Separation in order to be able to inflict Catch Shares (IFQs for the for-hire and fish tags for the private recs). Are you enlightened yet Jeffery?

    www.walker-foundation.org/Files/walker/2009/GulfofMXupdate.doc

    How about the expansion of Catch Shares to include other species during the Obama administration, such as tilefish and grouper and NOT just red snapper as was the case on January 1, 2007?

    How about Sector Separation which makes catch Shares possible - passed during the Obama debacle. How about AMs 41 and 42 which also include EXPANDING cach shares to include 4 other species beside red snapper - introduced during the Obama regime. In case you don't think AMs 41 and 42 are about Catch Shares, take a look at the options - you will see that they are ALL ABOUT Catch Shares - IFQs or PFQs.

    BTW, the states' data collection systems are showing (not increased catch rates as you claim) but quite the opposite - far less landings than what the Feds' BS data shows which is why they have been forced to implement their own data collection systems. The federal data collection system is still fatally flawed, and not designed to do the job they are using it for.

    It should not matter what a red snapper weighs, just as it doesn't matter what a crappie weighs, or a deer, or a duck. When competent wildlife management is performed (which has been SORELY lacking in the federal regime), daily bag limits and seasons work fine. The problem that the EDF-funded folks have with seasons/bag limits is that it doesn't transfer ownership of our fish through Catch Shares.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Rhetoric? It's the facts, plain and simple.

    Enclosed is the EDF Progress Report, published in 2009 (during Obama's reign). It spells out the proliferation, expansion, whatever you want to call it INTO the recreational sector. It also outlines the plan to implement Sector Separation in order to be able to inflict Catch Shares (IFQs for the for-hire and fish tags for the private recs). Are you enlightened yet Jeffery?

    www.walker-foundation.org/Files/walker/2009/GulfofMXupdate.doc

    How about the expansion of Catch Shares to include other species during the Obama administration, such as tilefish and grouper and NOT just red snapper as was the case on January 1, 2007?

    I said grouper/tile was implemented under Obama, but the legwork was done, the plan was laid under Bush.

    As to your EDF plan; that's what it was. It was a plan to promote catch shares.

    I asked you a simple question, which you've avoided answering by dancing all around the bush: what proliferation actually occurred? Please name (besides grouper/tile) catch shares implemented in the last 8 years. Not potential ones in the future that may or may not be considered and/or approved/disapproved by the Councils.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,589 Captain
    The following is from Lubchenco's wikipedia page, so it is somewhat biased in its assessment of the benefits of Catch Shares, but it does show the push made during the Obama administration to inflict Catch Shares on every fishery possible. I believe the "recent scientific analyses" quoted are from the Environmental Defense Fund Catch Share manual by the way - hardly non-biased "science".

    What is the purpose of creating a National Catch Share Policy? To contain the use of Catch Shares or to promote their proliferation to "all appropriate fisheries"?

    Are you really this obtuse Jeffery? You asked; "I asked you a simple question, which you've avoided answering by dancing all around the bush: what proliferation actually occurred?"

    Read below - "During the four years Lubchenco was at NOAA, the number of catch share programs grew from 5 to 15." I would call that prolific proliferation, wouldn't you?

    "Under Lubchenco’s leadership, NOAA also pursued use of ‘catch shares’ as a viable fishery management tool for appropriate fisheries. Although catch shares have been used since 1990 in the U.S., scientific evidence about their merits suggests that the wider use of catch shares may benefit many other fisheries, making them once again profitable and sustainable. Science magazine quoted Lubchenco on catch shares, saying:

    Recent scientific analyses show us that fisheries managed with catch share programs perform better than fisheries managed with traditional tools. Even in the first years after implementation, catch share fisheries are stable, and even increase their productivity… I see catch shares as the best way for many fisheries to both meet the Magnuson mandates and have healthy, profitable fisheries that are sustainable.”[31]

    In 2010, after extensive consultation with regional fishery management councils, NOAA adopted its National Catch Share Policy, which encourages the use of catch shares where appropriate. Although critics asserted that NOAA imposed catch shares on fisheries, the policy makes it clear that they are not required, nor are they appropriate for every fishery. NOAA’s Catch Share Policy remains controversial, with critics asserting it cuts jobs for fishermen and takes away money from small coastal economies.[32] However, many coastal economies are beginning to embrace this type of fisheries management and, with the help of NOAA, are implementing a catch share-based system.[33] During the four years Lubchenco was at NOAA, the number of catch share programs grew from 5 to 15. In most of those programs, profitability is up, innovation by fishermen has increased and discards are down."

    It's an interesting footnote that Lubchenco was forced to resign due to her involvement in a coverup regarding the shredding of documents by Dale Jones while under subpoena by Congress to provide information on the misuse of funds collected from their harsh enforcement program at the time. Thank God this woman is no longer in a position to lead our nation down the failed path of Catch Shares.
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Here's NOAA/NMFS site

    Scroll down to region and year of implementation.

    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/catch_shares/about/programs_by_region.html
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Here's NOAA/NMFS site

    Scroll down to region and year of implementation.

    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/catch_shares/about/programs_by_region.html

    Thanks tripletail; you answered the question that he refused to answer and replied with more rhetoric. And obviously, his 5 to 15 is not accurate. Besides the grouper/tile which had all the legwork done prior to 2008........ (amendments take2 years to be completed and implemented, and IFQs are even longer because of referendum votes and final action and subsequent implementation).

    mid Atlantic golden tile 2009 (which would have all the groundwork laid before 2008)

    NE scallop 2010 (again, legwork done earlier)
    NE multi=species 2010 (again, legwork done earlier)

    Alaska rockfish 2011
    Pacific trawl rationalization 2011 (which is a different thing than an IFQ)
    Bluefin tuna 2015

    at most that is 7 (counting all the 2009 and 2010s), more likely 3. But its not really a proliferation as being proclaimed.

    Tom, aren't you hanging on to some old baggage with the Lubchencko thing; she wasn't even there for 4 years, and it is in the first Obama admin. She left (for whatever reason) before 2012.

    About the only thing I know about Lubchenko is that she wouldn't approve aquaculture, and it went into effect by course of law.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,589 Captain
    "...and obviously his 5 to 15 is not accurate."

    Not mine - that's from Lubchenco's Wkipedia page Einstein.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Lubchenco
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Wikipedia? Come on Tom. Get a better source. That site is user generated and can be edited by anyone.

    Heck I could go on there and create a page on how Charles Lindbergh was the first man to fly to Mars in a teacup.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,589 Captain
    I don't think Lubchenco would allow anything on her page that she did not endorse.

    What's y'all's point anyways? Fact of the matter is that we are under full frontal attack to implement Catch Shares across the board in our offshore fisheries. If you can't see that, I can't help you, as you are in denial.

    Catch Shares are the biggest threat to our fisheries heritage and future access in our lifetime, and need to be throttled back.
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Tom
    I merely presented the link with the information, how can you say I feel one way or the other about catch shares?

    The wikipedia point is this, if you are going to cite something get it from a reliable source. Not something that could be edited by anyone.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I don't think Lubchenco would allow anything on her page that she did not endorse.

    What's y'all's point anyways? Fact of the matter is that we are under full frontal attack to implement Catch Shares across the board in our offshore fisheries. If you can't see that, I can't help you, as you are in denial.

    Catch Shares are the biggest threat to our fisheries heritage and future access in our lifetime, and need to be throttled back.

    Yeah, having 3 commercial catch share programs implemented in the last 4-5 year is a real proliferation thread to the Americana, the recreational fishermen in Idaho who go to the coast to catch a salmon, or come here to catch anything, etc. Man, Jeffery, you are really out there in the tin foil hat area with this thread.

    According to your wiki page, she came in in 2009. It would have taken her until 2010 to get up to speed (trust me, it did - any new bureaucrat has to learn the system in place). She left in 2013 (that's really stretching it as she was not doing anything in 2012 as she knew she was out because she screwed up so bad.).

    Do you really think between 2010 and 2012 she really had an effect on policy of the federal bureaucracy? Geez, I've seen Council amendments take longer to develop than 3 years......... you think she really changed policy?
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,589 Captain
    Whatever Jeffrey.

    Keep your head in the sand - that's fine.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Whatever Jeffrey.

    Keep your head in the sand - that's fine.

    Kool Ade is good stuff, Jimmy. You must drink a lot of it, believing that someone in office for 3 yr set a policy that is still DRIVING the system.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,589 Captain
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Kool Ade is good stuff, Jimmy. You must drink a lot of it, believing that someone in office for 3 yr set a policy that is still DRIVING the system.

    No, Mr. Lanier.

    For you to claim that I believe that Lubchenco, placed in her position by The Environmental Defense Fund, is DRIVING the system, just underscores your total lack of understanding of the dynamics of the situation or your complete and total dishonesty.

    Which is it?
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    so I understand, as this topic wanders a bit

    Tom, you are saying that Lubchenco is still driving the policy in NMFS towards IFQs and she is responsible (along with EDF) for the proliferation of IFQs, yes?

    If this is accurate, then what about those IFQ programs that were implemented before her, under different administrations and those that were being developed before she was in office? Who was driving those programs?
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,589 Captain
    Common thread, as I tried to allude to in the last post; The Environmental Defense Fund.

    Lubchenco was simply an Environmental Defense Fund board member who got appointed as head of NOAA at the urging of The Environmental Defense Fund to lead the charge for Catch Share implementation across all U.S. fisheries.

    The changes to the Magnuson were initiated and implemented by The Environmental Defense Fund in 2006 and probably in 1996. Much of the Gulf Council and certainly the front groups such as The Charter Fisherman's Association, The Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, The Gulf Seafood Insitutute, etc. etc. etc. - ALL funded/created by The Environmental Defense Fund.
  • HuckleberryHuckleberry Posts: 180 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Common thread, as I tried to allude to in the last post; The Environmental Defense Fund.

    Lubchenco was simply an Environmental Defense Fund board member who got appointed as head of NOAA at the urging of The Environmental Defense Fund to lead the charge for Catch Share implementation across all U.S. fisheries.

    The changes to the Magnuson were initiated and implemented by The Environmental Defense Fund in 2006 and probably in 1996. Much of the Gulf Council and certainly the front groups such as The Charter Fisherman's Association, The Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, The Gulf Seafood Insitutute, etc. etc. etc. - ALL funded/created by The Environmental Defense Fund.

    All passed by a Republican House and Republican Senate, and George W a republican President in 2006. Question where was CCA, and RFA when this happen? Where were you? You act like the EDF runs Washington and no one else is to blame.
Sign In or Register to comment.