ANUMBER1 wrote: »
Only ones I know that were eliminated from voting were the ones with very little or no landings.
Other small independant owner/operators(five of them at our dock including Touch and Go) were able to participate.
Capt Blood wrote: »
IMO - folks promoting state's to give the Feds the finger, simply want to watch it all burn out of spite. Our state waters that are easiest for us to get too will get whacked in short order. No thank you, we've lost enough already...
ACME Ventures Fishing wrote: »
I'm sure thats true, but the fact is, nearly 600 fishermen were eliminates, leaving less that
200 permit holders to determine the fate of all. It was a "weighted" vote. Small independant
landings with less landings due to their small size were eliminated from participating. The vote
was weighted along a landings history level that was determined by WHO? The landings
history level was determined along a line that yeilded a predictable referundum outcome. A
survey of those eliminated from participating in the referundum showed that the vote would
have been against IFQ by a wide margin, had they been allowed to participate. Since these
fishermen that were not eliminated from the fishery, but just the refurendum, it now has a
20% minoroty of fishermen setting policy for the 80% not allowed to vote on their own fate.
The "Pool" established for them to fight for scraps, or shell out money to the ones gifted
shares has eliminated those struggling to survive before having their ability to speak about
their resource taken away.
I am neither a Commercial Fishermen, nor an active GOM fishermen....but the NMFS operates
region (SA) as well, and the precident set in one region is likely to be seen in another if
allowed to continue. I like many in our region have educated ourselves about what is
taking place elsewhere to have a defense ready to face the attack likely heading our way.
In our region Commercial and Recreational anglers are well united in our opposition to any
privitization scheme, but then again in the GOM, it was not the Majority that got their way.
With the CFA using EDF backing to bring Catch shares into Recreational fishing in the GOM,
its only a matter of time before that push comes our way.
NOAA funding for catch Shares, like the Gulf IFQ has been outrageous. NOAA's reallocating
funds FROM fishery science and research TO catch Shares is disgusting. The states are
being adversly affected from this lack of sound and serious fishery management on NOAA's part.
Seeing states taking matters into their own hands may be the only thing that gets the NMFS's
attention. The states loose money when NOAA fails to do there job in managing with science instead
of policy, but NOAA's $$$$ keeps rolling in either way. The states are probably as tired of NOAA's
shortsighted approach to fishery management as the majority of fishermen are. Its only when NOAA
is willing to put funding prioroty on data collection before market based management that improvements
will be seen, but then again, they have fought this all the way, so until a change in NOAA leadership occurs,
its not likely. A State rebellion may be something that makes NOAA take notice however.
Gary S. Colecchio wrote: »
OK that makes sense. Sometimes I think acts of defiance of wrong things in hopes of change to right things are well worth the pain of enduring the continuance of pogressively oppressive wrong things. If the feds have their way, they will have their way with Florida fisheries,beyond defensible good science and public policies recognised by all and determined at the local level, where that expertise and vested interest resides.