Home Conservation Front

Breaking news from the Gulf Council meeting

Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
I believe Sector Separation just got "un-tabled" and approved to go to scoping. That's interesting. Amendment 39 is what was approved to go to scoping.

Looks also like they will most likely be reducing the red snapper limit to one fish.

Just popped in on the meeting mid-stream, so am unsure exactly what transpired to be honest.

Replies

  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    Here is a shot of some spreadsheet numbers given to me by the various agencies tracking Texas red snapper landings.

    Very surprising to me to see that over the last few years that, supposedly, 72% of the total Texas federal red snapper landings are made by headboats. That leaves 28% of the federal landings to be divvied up by the CFH and Private Recs.

    Somehow that just doesn't seem right. The Gulf overall average landings for headboats is less than 15%.

    Also notable is the apparent inflation of TPWD state landings numbers by the NMFS - remember, these state landings numbers are collected by TPWD and given to the NMFS. The net result is that the NMFS numbers show that Texas state caught snapper account for about 28% of the overall total NMFS figures for Texas. The TPWD numbers show that Texas state caught snapper account for only about 13%. Why the discrepancy?

    With all of this talk about sector separation and regional management, seems to me that the headboats will be making out like bandits based on these numbers, and the Texas CFH captains pushing for sector separation will be left standing on the dock with their hat in their hands, not to mention the private recs.

    Also would like an explanation from our TPWD reps on the Gulf Council why they are allowing the feds to inflate our numbers without reproach.

    I will be happy to forward to anyone the original sources of these numbers - they are not my figures.

    Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
  • BeckBeck Posts: 2,332 Captain
    Considering they also voted to resume discussions on Amendment 28 --- sector allocation, I would say it did get untabled.

    It looks like they are trying to sell sector separation under the guise of regionalization. I would love to see regional management but not if it includes sector separation.

    The Council is out of control!
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    Beck wrote: »
    Considering they also voted to resume discussions on Amendment 28 --- sector allocation, I would say it did get untabled.

    It looks like they are trying to sell sector separation under the guise of regionalization. I would love to see regional management but not if it includes sector separation.

    The Council is out of control!

    Oh let them seperate and give them enough quota to account for a bag limit for the amount of passengers they historically carry which is about 20%....
    In the end..1322 federally permitted operators will carry about 800,000 passengers. They are responsible for about 37% of landings....so if they have 20% of passengers and 37% of the landings, then .37*.2 - .074 so if we round up they get 8% of the recreational allocation or about 21 days at sea to use as they wish.

    Oh but make sure it is illegal to mix their recreational catch share with their commercial catch shares.....if they claim under comercial catch shares, then they have to pay the anglers and not have the anglers pay them.
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • BeckBeck Posts: 2,332 Captain
    Oh let them seperate and give them enough quota to account for a bag limit for the amount of passengers they historically carry which is about 20%....
    In the end..1322 federally permitted operators will carry about 800,000 passengers. They are responsible for about 37% of landings....so if they have 20% of passengers and 37% of the landings, then .37*.2 - .074 so if we round up they get 8% of the recreational allocation or about 21 days at sea to use as they wish.

    Oh but make sure it is illegal to mix their recreational catch share with their commercial catch shares.....if they claim under comercial catch shares, then they have to pay the anglers and not have the anglers pay them.

    Call me skeptical, but some how I feel there would be a revision of history. A revision in which private recs would end up with the 20% share!
  • SlingadorSlingador Posts: 64 Deckhand
    This is INSANE!
Sign In or Register to comment.