ARS and GAG Exemption Permits

2

Replies

  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    His words, his actions.

    It was no coincidence that he was on the Catch Shares Task Force.

    It was no coincidence that he was subsequently appointed chairman of the Gulf Council where he was able to control the discussion and the agenda to slant Council actions to adopt IFQ/Days At Sea/Catch Shares.

    It was no coincidence that it was Bob Gill himself who made the motion to put Sector Separation into scoping, seconded by another commercial rep Kay Williams.

    It was no coincidence that he was at the Sector Separation Workshop personally towing the EDF party line.

    None of these EDF puppets come out and plainly say that they are doing EDF's bidding - that is not how it works. Just look at the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, The Charter Fisherman's Association, The Gulf Fishermen's Association, The Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen's Association, The South Atlantic Fishermen's Association...etc. etc. - ALL created/funded by EDF to provide a front for their agenda. These fishermen have been promised (and many have received) substantial $$$ from EDF to travel to Washington to lobby on behalf of EDF, not to mention the substantial $$$ to fatten their personal bank accounts from the windfall of gifting our Public Trust Resource.

    ALL of them.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

    If you are going to accuse Gill of this, then you must also accuse Pam Dana, Dr Shipp etc, all that voted for SS to go to scoping.

    Based on your logic that a vote for SS scoping was the result of the nefarious EDF puppet master, then all who voted for it must be EDF minions. Interesting.

    Or maybe it's because they're all so tired of this thing they want it to go out to scoping so it can go away. Nah, too simple. It has to be a plot.

    While I don't doubt EDF funded the groups you mention, where is the paper trail for the Council? If they lobbied, then there would be record of it. You seem to be good at finding this sort of thing, let's see your evidence. If it is true, then this would be a monumental slap down of the Council process. If Gill or any other Council person is getting a fat paycheck from EDF, prove it.

    As Johnny Cochran said, if the glove don't fit...
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    Pam Dana or Bob Shipp didn't make the motion to take sector separation to scoping - Bob Gill did.

    Nor were they appointed by Jane Lubchenco herself to serve on the Catch Shares Task Force - Bob Gill was.

    Who WAS on this catch Shares Task Force? Take a look, do some research, and you will find that most, if not all of the Catch Share Task Force members were hand-picked due to their pro-catch share stance.

    Monica Medina, Senior Advisor to Lubchenco, Head of Catch Shares Task Force
    John Pappalardo, chairman, New England Fishery Management Council
    Dr. Lee Anderson, vice chairman, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
    Eric Olson, chairman, North Pacific Fishery Management Council
    George Geiger, member, South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
    Robert Gill, member, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
    Dr. David Hanson, member, Pacific Fishery Management Council
    Sean Martin, chairman, Western Pacific Fishery Management Council
    Dr. Jim Balsiger, acting NOAA assistant administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service
    Dr. Steve Murawski, director of scientific programs and chief science advisor, NOAA’s Fisheries Service
    John Oliver, deputy assistant administrator for operations, NOAA’s Fisheries Service
    Alan Risenhoover, director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NOAA’s Fisheries Service
    Pat Kurkul, northeast regional administrator, NOAA’s Fisheries Service
    Dr. Roy Crabtree, southeast regional administrator, NOAA’s Fisheries Service
    Dr. Sam Pooley, director, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, NOAA’s Fisheries Service

    Who knows? Maybe Mr. Gill will get a job with EDF as a "consultant" after he leaves after carrying EDF's water while in a position to affect change. He certainly looked anxious when he made the motion for sector separation - he knows his time is running out as he is being kicked off the Council soon.
  • saltybradsaltybrad Posts: 501 Officer
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Wow. Just wow.

    How much of an allocation have these guys received?

    This crap is why we oppose complete management control by agenda driven groups Mike.
  • Chester BrewerChester Brewer Posts: 171 Officer
    Tom,
    One person on that list is definitely not pro-catch shares. That person is the much maligned George Geiger. George put together the votes and made the motion to halt catch share programs in the South Atlantic. Of course after he left we have the SAFA. Chester Brewer
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,863 Admiral


    Or maybe it's because they're all so tired of this thing they want it to go out to scoping so it can go away.

    As Johnny Cochran said, if the glove don't fit...
    BINGO!!!
    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: 1,580 Captain
    Tom,
    One person on that list is definitely not pro-catch shares. That person is the much maligned George Geiger. George put together the votes and made the motion to halt catch share programs in the South Atlantic. Of course after he left we have the SAFA. Chester Brewer

    Hi Chester,
    I have not had the opportunity to meet Mr. Geiger or see him in action at one of the SAFMC meetings, but it seems there is/was some confusion on his stance on catch shares. He made the motion to terminate the idea of catch shares in the SAFMC, but I think the outcome was obvious by then...even Roy Crabtree, who abstained during the initial vote actually came out and voted with the majority (against) when it was obvious that his vote wouldn't count anyway.

    For those of you in the camp that believe that Mr. Gill made the motion "because they're all so tired of this thing they want it to go out to scoping so it can go away"....

    Sector Separation was a bad idea years ago when it surfaced and it is a bad idea today. The ONLY reason it is still on the table is because of people such as Bob Gill who have kept it on the table. Claiming that he made the motion to put sector separation to scoping because they "want it to go away" is ludicrous.

    Who is in charge of determining the "results" of that scoping?

    Think about it. It's the same people who claim that we have increased our effort almost 6X since 2006.

    O.M.G.!

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    True, Dana and Shipp did not make the motion, but they did vote for it, when they could have voted against it

    Seems like your cherry picking your data towards the people you're friendly with or fans with.

    This is going to be an uphill battle anyway. Scoping doesn't mean it's going to happen.

    By the way, a list of people isn't evidence. Facts, for example a fact would be: Carrots contain vitamin A. Facts are not 'Beets are purple. I ate a purple plum. Therefore plums are beets.'

    Your correlation is causation argument leaves your logic a bit lacking. Do better. I know you can.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    Whatever.

    I will say that Bob Gill is not as bad as John Pappalardo, another council chairman, who used his position and vote to not only promote catch shares but to give the Hookers an inordinate amount of allocation. Pappalardo also headed up the Hookers, thus his vote was a clear conflict of interest.

    Speaking of cherry-picking, Lubchenco has been doing just that by removing people from Councils who were not on board with their Catch Share Plan and replacing them with pro-catch share minions. The councils and APs have been stacked by EDF/Lubchenco to ensure the vote is determined before the vote is even taken - maybe you are right about Pamela Dana, I don't know. She did replace a very good Council Member in Ed Sapp who I doubt would have voted FOR Sector Separation going to scoping. Bob Shipp seems to have embraced the SOS Plan unfortunately.

    The list of people, if you did your homework, would show their ties to EDF/Catch Shares for the overwhelming majority of them - Lubchenco cherry-picked each of the Task Force Members also, remember.

    Lubchenco also cherry-picks what "science" she wants to use to justify Catch Shares. Lubchenco justified catch share implementation budgets of up to $54 million a couple of years ago by claiming "scientific evidence is compelling that catch shares can also restore the health of ecosystems and put fisheries on the path to profitability and sustainability."

    The sole reference, however, was a non-peer reviewed policy paper by EDF, which repeated the organization's mantra that overfishing was threatening a global oceanic dystopia - OCEANS OF ABUNDANCE. But the evidence had been debunked in the influential cautionary article, "Faith-based Fisheries," by Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington. Hilborn warned that anti-fishing zealotry combined with circulation-seeking publications were putting into print junk that was being passed as bonafide science-gospel, to advance the ultra-greens' agenda.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Again, evidence. I ask you to provide it and you go on your usual rant about Lubchenco

    We all get your position about EDF and associated parties. I doubt there's anyone on the fourm that doesn't. You've got to have a bigger bag of tricks than that.

    If you don't have the evidence, but it is personal opinion, just state it. No harm, no foul.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    What do you want? Signed, notarized, affidavits?

    Yeah, right....

    The results of their actions are "evidence" enough.

    Forget the individuals involved - just look at the actions and the end results of those actions - they all point to results that would be expected of someone working in the interest of EDF. That is undeniable, although I'm sure you will attempt to deny it and claim it is just a "coincidence" that it worked out that way.

    Yeah, right.

    I also get it that you are probably one of the select few who would benefit from sector separation / catch shares / days at sea - would mind signing and notarizing an affidavit stating as such?

    Thanks in advance!
    Tom
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Again with the conspiracy...

    Sure, if you have them post 'em. The thing about your claims, is you can't back them up without falling back on the EDF rants you post consistently. For someone as involved in the fishery as you, I would think you would jump at the chance to do so. My claim is simple, post accusations does nothing. It may find supporters who already believe your opinions, but for people who would rather base decisions on facts and follow the crowd into the burning house, it encourages doubt.

    For example, I could state that you are a whack nut conspiracy theorist who has had way too much koolaid, but I can't and won't simply because I don't know if you drink koolaid.

    And thank you for the laugh, I would not benefit from SS/CS/DAS. Other than if I wanted to go fishing on a charter/headboat, but I would prefer to fish on my own boat.

    I think it's awesome, and entertaining, that when you can't defend the vitriol that you write you attack with the 'you don't agree with me, therefore you must be a CS supporter'

    I thank you for providing your continued logic. Please, keep it up.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    Ah, the "conspiracy theorist" card again - results are results Amigo no matter how much you deny it.

    I asked you what kind of "evidence" you needed but you were unable to say what you wanted but preferred to rant about what I am pointing out.

    Oh well, as they say - you just can't fix stupid, so I guess I'll quit trying to get you to understand Tripple.

    All the best,

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    So, then you're not going to fix yourself?
    I asked you what kind of "evidence" you needed but you were unable to say what you wanted but preferred to rant about what I am pointing out.
    As you will notice, second line "Sure, if you have them post 'em. "

    Results? What results. All you have is specious argument with no evidence. All I have asked for is evidence, yet you try your best to insult me, which by they way, you really need to work on.
    Where is it? You make all these wild claims but can't back it up with anything concrete. You're arguments are weak and draw of subjective inferences of what you think and can provide no evidence, though, I will admit, they are written in pretty colors. I expected better from someone who has the such knowledge of the fishery.That's all I want AMIGO.

    Amigo? that's even funnier. Your o so subtle digs are most excellent, though your delivery could use work.

    As a general claim, to anyone who reads this board, send/post the evidence of what the Capt is claiming. Clearly, he can't. I will gladly change my mind if you can prove it, sorry Tom, I'm not a blind follower as you seem to be.

    So, to be clear, 'cause apparently the brain trust representing Texas can't:

    Post, please:
    Direct evidence.
    Affidavits
    Letters
    youtube videos
    A turtle wearing an apron

    Anything that shows and proves what you say. I mean this with no disrespect nor will I disregard what you show.

    Why? If you want to bring the system down, you need hard facts not words
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    Whatever.

    You are the one calling me a whack nut conspiracy theorist Amigo, uh, I'm mean hypocrite.

    I am used to people such as yourself resorting to the conspiracy theorist rhetoric, as that's all y'all have. You can't rely on your own substantive arguments but rely on trying to discredit people. Gary Jarvis and Scott Hickman have called me a conspiracy theorist for years because I kept pointing out that their Sector separation scheme is ALL ABOUT CATCH SHARES. They denied it, denied it, denied it, for years, calling it a "scare tactic".

    Guess what? They are now admitting that Sector Separation IS ALL ABOUT CATCH SHARES.

    Tell me Tripple - who was right? Who was wrong?

    Similarly, here we have actions by people at the Council levels/NOAA Fisheries, (which, BTW is now headed by EDF people), ignoring Congressional mandates to improve the data, taking away monies from data programs and putting it into Catch Share implementation, which BTW is NOT mandated by law.

    We have people working inside NOAA Fisheries who ignored the Congressional mandate last year to curtail funding for Catch Share programs, by continuing to get $$ from the NFWF to continue this funding.

    The "evidence" is all right there, as it's a matter of Public Record.

    It goes on and on, yet you don't seem to have a problem with that. Strange, if you REALLY cared about the situation the Gulf fisheries is in right now. It's clear you have aligned yourself with the green takeover of our fisheries.

    Like I said, YOU JUST CAN'T FIX STUUUUPID, or is it GREEEEED?

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • EggsuckindogEggsuckindog Posts: 1,528 Officer
    " The intent is to better document the viability of a rights-based management strategy that could
    potentially improve the economic viability and performance of the headboat sector. "

    Well DUHHHH
    1976 SeaCraft master Angler - Merc 200 XRi
    dscf1243-1.jpg
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    No Tom, I can't fix you.

    1) I wouldn't call what you state about catch shares and the CB as conspiracy theory. What days at sea is, is a different name special privileged access, and that is fairly transparent.

    2) you still offer no evidence, but go, again, on a multi-colored discourse that has nothing to do with the request for evidence. Which, sadly, seems to be your MO when you can't prove something

    3) What evidence do you have that I am affiliated with some green group? nothing. Which couldn't be further from the truth. I simply disagree with you and your logic. But that seems to be your MO too. To cry wolf when you're challenged, that if I'm not with you I must be against you.

    4) You'll note, I have said in multiple posts that I think you have the knowledge and background to provide said evidence as noted by your discourse on the angler action network. Apparently, whatever you're smoking is clouding your abilities to provide this evidence

    5) Can you new word other than Amigo? Seriously dude

    It is apparent that you are only for reform if it fits your scheme. If one challenges you, your inner Yosemite Sam appears and rational thought goes. Sad, really.

    True, I called you a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps that was a bit strong, but I was infected by your continued evasion of providing concrete evidence. Lists and multi-colored posts are not evidence. If I pulled you over, do you think a list of what was on my uniform would cut it in court? I apologize, I should have been the adult in the situation.

    It is apparent, the truth you seek to deliver to us, the unwashed masses, isn't up for debate. It is your way or no way and can be equated to the exact opposite of how NMFS treats us. A ideologue. It's the same, but opposite, zealotry that caused the mess we have now.

    On the subject of scoping, if it doesn't go to scoping it will never go away. In scoping, as you must be aware, is where all the hidden agendas will come to light. But perhaps this is what you would like for this nonsense to continue so your soapbox will be preserved and your sainthood insured.

    I had heard good things about you from others that use this forum and others. Sadly, I do not see that. Perhaps you will prove differently in the future.
  • FV Miss MaryFV Miss Mary Posts: 497 Officer
    No Tom, I can't fix you.

    1) I wouldn't call what you state about catch shares and the CB as conspiracy theory. What days at sea is, is a different name special privileged access, and that is fairly transparent.

    2) you still offer no evidence, but go, again, on a multi-colored discourse that has nothing to do with the request for evidence. Which, sadly, seems to be your MO when you can't prove something

    3) What evidence do you have that I am affiliated with some green group? nothing. Which couldn't be further from the truth. I simply disagree with you and your logic. But that seems to be your MO too. To cry wolf when you're challenged, that if I'm not with you I must be against you.

    4) You'll note, I have said in multiple posts that I think you have the knowledge and background to provide said evidence as noted by your discourse on the angler action network. Apparently, whatever you're smoking is clouding your abilities to provide this evidence

    5) Can you new word other than Amigo? Seriously dude

    It is apparent that you are only for reform if it fits your scheme. If one challenges you, your inner Yosemite Sam appears and rational thought goes. Sad, really.

    True, I called you a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps that was a bit strong, but I was infected by your continued evasion of providing concrete evidence. Lists and multi-colored posts are not evidence. If I pulled you over, do you think a list of what was on my uniform would cut it in court? I apologize, I should have been the adult in the situation.

    It is apparent, the truth you seek to deliver to us, the unwashed masses, isn't up for debate. It is your way or no way and can be equated to the exact opposite of how NMFS treats us. A ideologue. It's the same, but opposite, zealotry that caused the mess we have now.

    On the subject of scoping, if it doesn't go to scoping it will never go away. In scoping, as you must be aware, is where all the hidden agendas will come to light. But perhaps this is what you would like for this nonsense to continue so your soapbox will be preserved and your sainthood insured.

    Tom won you lost.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    Tranquilo Amigo.

    You have to remember I am a 4th generation native Texan - you know, Texas, the state that defeated the country of Mexico and became its own country? Spanish is our second language and is a necessity being so close to Mexico, so don't sweat the phrase - it's what we say over here much like how Aussies refer to their buds as Mates.

    I could tell you the sky is blue and you would want evidence that the sky is blue. All you have to do is look and you will see the sky is blue Amigo.

    Have a great weekend.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 8,863 Admiral
    I didn't know Texas was a country, butt if you say so Tom.
    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.
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    I didn't know Texas was a country, butt if you say so Tom.

    As Tom said, "Texas 'became' its own country". The Republic of Texas, before joining the Union.
    It even has its own power grid.

    As to the whole 'conspiracy' thing, well there is not much conspiracy to it, it pretty clear. Most
    'evidence' on the matter is circumstancial, but it is multifaceted, and numerous. If it walks like
    a duck, and talks like a duck, it certainly is not an elephant! There is a perponderance of this
    type of evidence that it is not an Elephant!

    The group behind this push, and the group funding them is no secret. They have been pushing
    their 'New and Novel' management schemes for some time, and from different angles, but its
    the same group, and the endgame plays out the same. Their members have been directly ask
    of their affiliations and typically refused to answer, any wonder why? We do know that EDF flew
    their members to Wyoming to form a supposid consensus that Charter Captains want this scheme,
    and we do know that their members have been flown to DC to sit next to EDF reps and testify
    on keeping Catch Share funding, as well as their support of the MSRA without revisions, including
    the opposition to the idea of adding Science Bssed data Mandates.

    BTW, on the role science should play in fishery management, these groups have continually
    danced around the questions I and other have ask them about making Science based data
    manditiry (no not the 'best avalible science, which allows even bad, outdated, and non-existant
    science to be used), and they refused to answer, as they also refused to answer about their
    willingness to call out those opposing science based data mandates, namely EDF and Pew.
    Gary Jarvis did, perhaps out of frustration as a result of my refusal to stop asking his about the
    position of his groups stand on mandating science, respond with these words:

    Gary Jarvis - "Science will not save you"


    Gary Jarvis - "In fact science may make things worse"

    BTW, those words from him are in writing and not hearsay!

    So they want management, but Science's role it it seems of little interest. Thats good for their
    members, but not the Fisheries nor fishing communities as a whole.

    So they want Sector Seperation, which of it self does nothing other that divide quota's among
    larger groups, but does nothing about seasons, days at sea, ACL's, etc. It is obviously needed
    to create the aforementioned FMP's however. Its only a step needed to allow a FMP to follow,
    Conspiracy? Obviously not. There is no other reason to take that step, without having a plan
    to advance a FMP that they want, which they have made clear.

    This exemption for permits will allow them some great profit while trying to advance their idea.
    Although its a travesty that they are suggesting that they should be allowed to retain these
    fish when all others are not, if the Gulf Council should go against the overwhelming opposition,
    maybe they should add a clause that trips where these fish that are being caught and retained on
    cannot be charged more for, and any fish under these exempted permits that are retained must
    be donated to food banks! Of wait...that goes anainst their purpose does'nt it?

    The information they claim to seek with this could easily be determined on paper from behind a
    desk, or on computer modeling.......after all is'nt that how most if the data comming out of the
    NMFS thet determines the recreational catch records, participants and even stock levels happens?
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    ACME
    As ever, your detail is very good and seemingly respectful. Others should learn your ways.

    You clearly state what I was trying to get out of others. That evidence is "circumstantial, but it is multifaceted, and numerous"

    Though, at times, I may disagree with some of what you have said, your arguments are clear, logical and free of insolency. It's too bad other, more emotional, arguments aren't like yours.

    What you present is concise and free of hyperbole. Thank you.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    You are correct - he didn't call anyone a conspiracy theorist wacko nut as "others" have stooped to do on this board.

    That was nice and vague - what exactly do you disagree with regarding ACME's analysis?

    Thanks in advance.
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Tom, I did not say I didn't agree with Acme's post. There have been others in the past, there have been, howeothers in the past.

    Look, this is my line of thought. The EDFs of the world are better funded and have high dollar lawyers, and likely read these forums. My guess is they use what we say in these posts to prepare themselves for whatever it is they do. This is why we need to have as much verifiable evidence as possible. I didn't see that in your posts.

    So, I contested your position and hoped to see you refine and become more precise with your logic and evidence. If hard evidence isn't there, that's fine. It only shows we need to dig deeper to get at it. Clearly, something is going on, but what we need to be sure we are not out-maneuvered in the future is this type of data. Opinions and correlation = causation, will not win the fight.

    As I have noted you clearly have the ability to overturn all stones; but yet, in so many posts you keep showing the same things over and over again. I think you can do better, so I challenged you.

    Why is it if I disagree with you or challenge you, you throw me into the Econazi group?

    BTW Tom, the sky isn't blue, it's falling. (also The sky isn't really blue, the blue color we see of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering)
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,426 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    You are correct - he didn't call anyone a conspiracy theorist wacko nut as "others" have stooped to do on this board.

    Really? Who said such a thing?

    FYI, there's a difference between likening someone's arguments to "conspiracy theory" and calling someone "a conspiracy theorist wacko nut". The former has been done by myself (and others), the latter I've never read on this forum (but I certainly could have missed it).

    So, kindly quote someone using those words or retract your statement.

    Thanks in advance....Mike
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    Tarponator wrote: »
    Really? Who said such a thing?

    FYI, there's a difference between likening someone's arguments to "conspiracy theory" and calling someone "a conspiracy theorist wacko nut". The former has been done by myself (and others), the latter I've never read on this forum (but I certainly could have missed it).

    So, kindly quote someone using those words or retract your statement.

    Thanks in advance....Mike

    Post #42 on this thread; "For example, I could state that you are a whack nut conspiracy theorist who has had way too much koolaid, but I can't and won't simply because I don't know if you drink koolaid ."

    Tripple was in effect stating it whether you admit or not.

    Regardless, no retraction coming Amigo. BTW, Amigo is spanish for "Friend". Don't know why you would take offense to anyone calling you a friend.

    A.M.F.,

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton

    (A.M.F. is "Adios My Friend") lol
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    Tom, I did not say I didn't agree with Acme's post. There have been others in the past, there have been, howeothers in the past.

    Look, this is my line of thought. The EDFs of the world are better funded and have high dollar lawyers, and likely read these forums. My guess is they use what we say in these posts to prepare themselves for whatever it is they do. This is why we need to have as much verifiable evidence as possible. I didn't see that in your posts.

    So, I contested your position and hoped to see you refine and become more precise with your logic and evidence. If hard evidence isn't there, that's fine. It only shows we need to dig deeper to get at it. Clearly, something is going on, but what we need to be sure we are not out-maneuvered in the future is this type of data. Opinions and correlation = causation, will not win the fight.

    As I have noted you clearly have the ability to overturn all stones; but yet, in so many posts you keep showing the same things over and over again. I think you can do better, so I challenged you.

    Why is it if I disagree with you or challenge you, you throw me into the Econazi group?

    BTW Tom, the sky isn't blue, it's falling. (also The sky isn't really blue, the blue color we see of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering)

    Tripple,
    Using your own logic regarding the high dollar lawyers reading these posts, don't you think they have been covering their tracks in the past 2-3 years regarding their probably illegal undue influence on our fisheries management? Your quest for "evidence" directly contradicts your own statements.
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Tom
    Still waiting for you to answer my question.

    Please explain to me how I am contradicting my quest for evidence. Regardless of whether or not lawyers read these boards, evidence should be provided to allow people such as myself to come to a decision based on facts and not emotion laden posts. I have no idea if they have been covering their tracks, nor can anyone else as, by definition, how could we?

    There is always evidence. Sometimes hidden evidence is in plain view.

    Also, I doubt your use of the word 'amigo' towards me means 'friend' When used in the tone your email is set in, makes it seem a tad bit patronizing. As it is clear to me what you think, as you have yet to retract your statement on my position in fisheries, I strongly doubt you would or will ever see me as a "friend." Perhaps I'm wrong, and I really don't care either way, but that is my objection to the word.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    I don't know - the judge giving NOAA Fisheries deference when everything points to an investigation certainly gives the crooks ample time to shred documents or whatever else they need to do to cover their tracks. As you said, they likely read these forums. Dale Jones was under investigation up in the NE and he shredded the hell out everything in his office, and that was our own government employee. Finding data from a corporation is another can of worms that is not covered by FOIA.
  • Chester BrewerChester Brewer Posts: 171 Officer
    All,
    Checked again today. The EFP has still not been published in the Federal Registry. Word is the application has been referred to legal "to clear up some issues". In other words the thing so blatantly violates MSA that it had to be cleaned up. NMFS is doing that for the EDF Judas goats. We shall see what legal comes up with but lets be ready to raise unholy hell when the time comes. Chester
  • TrippleTailIVTrippleTailIV Posts: 197 Officer
    Chester, interesting I hadn't checked the Federal Register. Another question I have regarding the EFP is, shouldn't it be a representative sample of all the headboats? Seems like this particular EFP biases results.

    I'm not statistician, and rhetoric free, this, as some have said, seems like it will have a predetermined outcome. In most tests, wouldn't you want to have a wide sample? Is there a statistician out there that can answer this?
2
Sign In or Register to comment.