Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
Tom Hilton
Senior MemberPosts: 1,595 Captain
Regional Anglers Organizations
Tom Hilton
Senior MemberPosts: 1,595 Captain
Were any of you paying attention to this little piece inserted by the NMFS at the Gulf Council meeting?
http://ftp.gulfcouncil.org/Web%20Cli...Book%202012-10
Click on; B - 5 IFQ Inter Sector Trading Issues - April 2013
They claim; "Except for potential resource re-allocation, no avenue to increase recreational access to red snapper resource."
What? Total BS.
If they improved the data, or enhance the habitat through increased artificial reefs which would produce more fish, then these would be viable avenues to increase recreational access to the red snapper resource. But, they would not be able to profit off of those avenues, now would they, so they are not really on the table.
x
x
x
"Auctions and lotteries granting the right to buy IFQ shares and allocation can be utilized."
"Private anglers form organizations, cooperatives, or groups and establish Regional Anglers Organizations
IFQ holders sell shares and allocation to Regional Anglers Organizations
Regional Anglers Organizations distribute shares and allocation to members and monitor harvests.
Regional Anglers Organizations adapted from angling management organizations (AMOs) proposed by Sutinen and Johnston (2003) [1]"
Angling Management Organizations (AMOs)
AMOs are independent entities established by private recreational anglers. AMOs are open to all anglers
Instead of assigning fishing rights to individuals as in IFQ programs, angling rights are directly assigned to AMOs.
AMOs allow management devolution, co-management, and strengthened recreational harvest rights.
AMO design is left to stakeholders. Design elements include rights and responsibilities of members, funding, monitoring and enforcement."
x
x
x
This is being presented by the NMFS to push the GC into implementing privatization of our Public Trust Resources in the Gulf recreational fisheries despite their frequent denials of their intentions to do so. The methods are designed to avoid the required referendum for IFQ implementation, since the quota would be held by these AMOs.
Larry Abele was correct when he pointed out the irony that they gifted the commercial red snapper IFQ shares to a select few commercial fishermen, FOR FREE, yet they want the recreational fishermen to PURCHASE their shares, from....those same select few commercial IFQ fishermen.
Certainly does not meet National Standard 4 requirements, which states; "
(4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges."
Total utter BS.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
http://ftp.gulfcouncil.org/Web%20Cli...Book%202012-10
Click on; B - 5 IFQ Inter Sector Trading Issues - April 2013
They claim; "Except for potential resource re-allocation, no avenue to increase recreational access to red snapper resource."
What? Total BS.
If they improved the data, or enhance the habitat through increased artificial reefs which would produce more fish, then these would be viable avenues to increase recreational access to the red snapper resource. But, they would not be able to profit off of those avenues, now would they, so they are not really on the table.
x
x
x
"Auctions and lotteries granting the right to buy IFQ shares and allocation can be utilized."
"Private anglers form organizations, cooperatives, or groups and establish Regional Anglers Organizations
IFQ holders sell shares and allocation to Regional Anglers Organizations
Regional Anglers Organizations distribute shares and allocation to members and monitor harvests.
Regional Anglers Organizations adapted from angling management organizations (AMOs) proposed by Sutinen and Johnston (2003) [1]"
Angling Management Organizations (AMOs)
AMOs are independent entities established by private recreational anglers. AMOs are open to all anglers
Instead of assigning fishing rights to individuals as in IFQ programs, angling rights are directly assigned to AMOs.
AMOs allow management devolution, co-management, and strengthened recreational harvest rights.
AMO design is left to stakeholders. Design elements include rights and responsibilities of members, funding, monitoring and enforcement."
x
x
x
This is being presented by the NMFS to push the GC into implementing privatization of our Public Trust Resources in the Gulf recreational fisheries despite their frequent denials of their intentions to do so. The methods are designed to avoid the required referendum for IFQ implementation, since the quota would be held by these AMOs.
Larry Abele was correct when he pointed out the irony that they gifted the commercial red snapper IFQ shares to a select few commercial fishermen, FOR FREE, yet they want the recreational fishermen to PURCHASE their shares, from....those same select few commercial IFQ fishermen.
Certainly does not meet National Standard 4 requirements, which states; "
(4) Conservation and management measures shall not discriminate between residents of different States. If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen; (B) reasonably calculated to promote conservation; and (C) carried out in such manner that no particular individual, corporation, or other entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges."
Total utter BS.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
Replies
1. More accurate rec catch estimates(overstated)
2. More accurate dead discard estimates (grossly overstated).
3. A reef fish-or red snapper endorsement on fishing licenses for more accurate counting of all snapper fishermen.
4. Elimination or at least reduction of the over-conservative "uncertainty buffers" (which only work against us-theres no buffer for being wrong the other way). Huge numbers of fish are being taken away by these "just in case" buffers.
5. Counting fish by heads not pounds.
6. The Models: Perhaps most important; fairly reevaluating the models which ultimately tell them how many fish the Gulf can afford to give up without "overfishing". The definition of overfishing itself is handed to us by the models. To be sure, red snapper would continue to expand and thrive if fishermen with a 2 fish limit were allowed to fish for 4 or 5 months. When its open that long people dont go everyday, they go when they want or on the weekends and per day pressure actually decreases. The models are stacked at every single step to lean extreme conservative then that unreasonable number goes to next step where it is put into a formula that is again stacked to be overconservative. By being tweaked against harvest at every single juncture in the models, the end result is that there can be no fishing, or maybe 27 days. Very small adjustments in the model can greatly change the outcome...if thats what you want to do......
Much of it is unfortunately mandated by the revised Magnuson Act but not all of it.
NOAA released its national catch share policy on November 4, 2010, coincidentally just before the Sector Separation Workshop in Tampa;
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20101104_catchshare.html
It states: "The policy also does not advocate individual catch shares for private recreational anglers. Councils will have NOAA support to consider catch share programs for charter boat and head boat sectors to explore recreational catch share pools that could benefit the health of the resource and the charter industry."
It also states; "“The purpose of this policy is to provide a strong foundation for the widespread consideration of catch shares, which have proven to be an effective tool to help rebuild fisheries,” said Monica Medina, principal deputy under secretary for oceans and atmosphere. “
The key to a successful catch share program is extensive stakeholder involvement in the design of catch shares that take into consideration each community’s particular fishing traditions and goals.”
How can they claim that there has been extensive stakeholder involvement when the overwhelming majority of CFH/Headboat/Private Recs adamantly oppose catch shares yet NOAA Fisheries keeps pushing this?
How can they claim extensive stakeholder involvement when they EXCLUDE the recreational community from meetings directly affecting recreational fishing opportunities such as they did with the Timeliness of Data Workshop where is was "invitation only" to those individuals who support catch shares / sector separation?
Here is a presentation exploring who to place private recreational fishing under catch share pools dated February 22, 2010 - 9 months prior to the National Catch Share Policy announcement;
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocs/mafac/meetings/2010_02/docs/comstock_cs.ppt
Page 11 states;
Creating a recreational catch share pool can promote conservation
Non-profit entity would be responsible for keeping anglers within limit using bag limits, season lengths, and angler limits. (Note: angler limits - the ability to limit the number of anglers going fishing).
Creation of non-profit entity
Allocation of catch shares to entity
Ability to collect revenue from stamps
Ability to exclude anglers without stamps
http://www.eli.org/pdf/seminars/03.17.11dc/comstock.pdf
Looks like they want to make us pay coming and going - first, you will be required to be a dues paying member of this Regional Angler Organization, then you will be required to purchase the right to go fishing via stamps or whatever. This provides the mechanism to EXCLUDE recreational anglers from accessing our Public Trust Resource even though they have no idea if those numbers are increasing or decreasing - in other words, it's not even necessary for the health of the fishery - it's only necessary to charge the American Public for something they already own.
What a scam - Al Capone is smiling from his grave.
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton
They don't have a clue how many fishermen are fishing offshore or whether those numbers are increasing or decreasing, yet they want to limit our numbers and CHARGE us for access?
Wake up people - this has been the Plan since the Hijack in 2006.
Despite all the meetings, all the evidence, options, input.............they just keep moving "their" agenda.
Are the commercial lobbyists pockets truly that deep?
How can this even legally happen?
How can the family man get legal representation on these matters??
1. Yes.
2. No strong recreational representation.
3. You can't. The only current representation is the FRA and yourself by emails to your congressmen, and showing up at the meetings and becoming involved.