Well the law suit have been filed

Jack HexterJack Hexter New Port RicheyPosts: 4,301 Moderator
Here's one:
Legal challenge follows Commerce approval of controversial
red snapper management scheme

Coastal Conservation Association announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against implementation of Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico. Also known as "sector separation," the amendment is a highly controversial management plan for red snapper that takes a significant percentage of the recreational quota and reserves it solely for use by the charter/for-hire industry.

"Amendment 40 embodies everything that is wrong with federal management of our marine resources. It is completely out of step with this nation's heritage of wildlife resource management," said Bill Bird, chairman of CCA's National Government Relations Committee. "It has been overwhelmingly opposed at every step in the process, but a very small minority has been allowed to manipulate the system to their personal advantage."

Amendment 40 is widely regarded as the first step to a catch share program for a privileged few in the charter/for-hire industry, similar to the one in place for the commercial red snapper industry. With passage of this amendment, the way is cleared for up to 70 percent of the entire Gulf red snapper fishery to be privately held, while recreational anglers who fish on their own boats will find their access to federal waters severely limited.

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council approved Amendment 40 by a 10-7 vote in October 2014 over opposition from four Gulf States, Congress, the vast majority of recreational anglers and even from within the charter/for-hire industry itself. In the immediate aftermath of the vote, eight representatives to the Council submitted a scathing minority report that was ultimately ignored. The amendment was approved by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce on April 10.

In its lawsuit, CCA charges that Amendment 40 constitutes agency action that is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations. The lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Here's #2
Ya'll asked for it....
Here it is ......now step up to the plate and help pay for it
LAWSUIT AGAINST AMENDMENT 40
On April 22, 2015, NOAA Fisheries published Amendment 40 in the Federal Register. Amendment 40 aims to curtail access to red snapper by private anglers and enlarge access to the fishery by the for-hire sector. Amendment 40, we believe, violates several National Standards. Amendment 40 gives 42% of the red snapper quota to the for-hire operators and is a re-allocation favoring the for-hire permit holders. National Standard 5 states: "Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency in the utilization of fishery resources; except that no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose." 50 CFR 600.330(a).
The private-angling component will surrender red snapper quota to fire-hire permit holders under Amendment 40. This quota will be turned into profits for some or most of the members of the EDF-supported Charter Fishermans Association in violation of 50 CFR 600.325(c)(3)(i)(A) ("an FMP objective to preserve the economic status quo cannot be achieved by excluding a group of longtime participants in the fishery"); 50 CFR 600.325(c)(3)(i)(B)("An allocation of fishing privileges may impose a hardship on one group if it is outweighed by the total benefits received by another group or groups. An allocation need not preserve the status quo in the fishery to qualify as ‘‘fair and equitable,’’ if a restructuring of fishing privileges would maximize overall benefits").
Red Snapper access is a zero-sum game. Under Amendment 40, the for-hire sector gains at the expense of the private-angler. Should the private angler be punished for refusing to pay to fish aboard a permitted for-hire vessel? Should members of the for-hire sector be able to profit from the additional trips resulting from restricted access on the part of the private angler.
Unless Amendment 40 is defeated, NOAA Fisheries will have no incentive to accurately estimate red snapper landings by the private angler. NOAA Fisheries overestimates landings and effort even under the MRIP by relying on data which Congress forbade reliance on. Effort surveys should target registered anglers but the current practice is to engage in random digit dialing. The data collected is not a reliable measure of effort.
To fight Amendment 40, it will take at least $60,000 for legal fees and other expenses, including an appeal if necessary.
Monetary donations can be made by check payable to the FRA Red Snapper Defense Fund and sent to Craig L. Berman, Esq., 111 Second Avenue NE, Suite 706, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (727) 550-8989. Credit card donations can be phoned into my office. Paypal donations should be made to [email protected].
Any monies will be kept in a Trust Account and used to pay attorney invoices generated and approved by the FRA. The lawsuit on Amendment 40 will be filed only if sufficient donations are made. Any person who donates at least $1,000 will be a named plaintiff and a client of my firm, Berman Law Firm, P.A. If anyone has questions, please call Craig L. Berman at 727-515-0847 or email [email protected].
Donations can be made at www.joinfra.org

Replies

  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,260 Officer
    My check is in the Mail
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    ALL recreational fishermen should join the CCA and FRA to help fight this frontal attack on our fishing heritage and future for our kids and thir kids.
  • will's dadwill's dad Posts: 102 Deckhand
    Done. Many people complain about the mismanagement of the fisheries, but few do anything about it. This has my full support, and a big thank you to those that are vigilantly following and fighting this federal nonsense. It is often thankless and frustrating, but to the few that fight tirelessly for equitable distribution of these public fisheries to recreational angling, and continue to keep the fishing community informed on this board and others...stay strong and keep it up.
  • keenerbenkeenerben Posts: 74 Greenhorn
    Craig, I sent you an email. I'd love to help you fight this.
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,260 Officer
    I am a bit surprised by the response, or lack there of, to this post. Especially after all the past heated and passionate debate related to this issue. Maybe some folks are content only seeing ARS when they are being off-loaded by a commercial boat.........................
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    I think people have become resigned to the fact that this issue will only be settled in the courtroom.

    I also believe that the lawsuits are the least of the AM 40 supporters' problems - this will be defeated in ways they cannot imagine at this time.
  • mjacksmjacks Posts: 152 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I think people have become resigned to the fact that this issue will only be settled in the courtroom.

    I also believe that the lawsuits are the least of the AM 40 supporters' problems - this will be defeated in ways they cannot imagine at this time.

    Sent Craig $500 today with a commitment for add'l $500. We need to do everything we can to put a stop to this. Hope everyone will participate regardless of amount right now. Every bit helps and our fishing rights - as we've seen - are not free!
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,580 Captain
    Mjacks is right - now is the time to put up or shut up. Please donate to FRA/Craig Berman's legal fund TODAY!

    Any monies will be kept in a Trust Account and used to pay attorney invoices generated and approved by the FRA. The lawsuit on Amendment 40 will be filed only if sufficient donations are made. Any person who donates at least $1,000 will be a named plaintiff and a client of my firm, Berman Law Firm, P.A. If anyone has questions, please call Craig L. Berman at 727-515-0847 or email [email protected].
    Donations can be made at www.joinfra.org
  • airopsairops Posts: 9 Greenhorn
    Every recreational fisherman in the country ought to donate to this cause. I cannot find words to express my disappointment. I know a lot of you guys have been following this issue for many years. How about some supporter of amend 40 and the old evil Save our Sector group explain how this is not taking a single fish from OUR allotment as was promised by SOS years ago. And as I have said before this is a blatant government imposed unfair and illegal business advantage given to a select few. What are the state guide guys and those without the fed charter permit going to get???
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 9,046 Admiral
    Those without the federal permit will get what they always have before SS in federal waters..... Zero days

    nothing has changed there.:shrug
    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.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    Those without the federal permit will get what they always have before SS in federal waters..... Zero days

    nothing has changed there.:shrug

    yeah, but they get 365 in Texas and 70 in FL waters (and lord knows what they get in LA where enforcement doesn't seem to notice boats coming in from outside 3 miles with red snapper onboard), whereas federal charter boats get whatever the federal season is.
  • BubbaIIBubbaII Posts: 328 Deckhand
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    Mjacks is right - now is the time to put up or shut up. Please donate to FRA/Craig Berman's legal fund TODAY!

    Any monies will be kept in a Trust Account and used to pay attorney invoices generated and approved by the FRA. The lawsuit on Amendment 40 will be filed only if sufficient donations are made. Any person who donates at least $1,000 will be a named plaintiff and a client of my firm, Berman Law Firm, P.A. If anyone has questions, please call Craig L. Berman at 727-515-0847 or email [email protected].
    Donations can be made at www.joinfra.org

    I asked this in the other thread too....... anyone got a link to the CCA lawsuit (not the press release).

    FRA is only soliciting funds to see if they can afford to sue. Are you gonna get your money back if they only collect 49,000 dollars? That FRA press release/request doesn't really address that issue.

    Funny thing is...... I heard that the wife of the fella that runs FRA was actually a Council employee a few years ago, drawing a government paycheck, and her husband filed a lawsuit against the Council. That seems rather odd to me. Does it seem odd to you?

    So, even though she doesn't work for them anymore (she got fired, is what I heard) she now has a 401k and some kind of retirement based on her government employment that will help support them later on. But FRA wants to sue to government. Does that seem odd to you?
  • mjacksmjacks Posts: 152 Deckhand
    BubbaII wrote: »
    I asked this in the other thread too....... anyone got a link to the CCA lawsuit (not the press release).

    FRA is only soliciting funds to see if they can afford to sue. Are you gonna get your money back if they only collect 49,000 dollars? That FRA press release/request doesn't really address that issue.

    Funny thing is...... I heard that the wife of the fella that runs FRA was actually a Council employee a few years ago, drawing a government paycheck, and her husband filed a lawsuit against the Council. That seems rather odd to me. Does it seem odd to you?

    So, even though she doesn't work for them anymore (she got fired, is what I heard) she now has a 401k and some kind of retirement based on her government employment that will help support them later on. But FRA wants to sue to government. Does that seem odd to you?

    Bubba,

    Whomever your "source" is should not be trusted. Maybe you should ask your "source" to spell out in detail how many Gulf Council / NMFS employees worked for EDF prior to or after their departure from their government jobs. When you get that question answered, ask yourself "Doesn't that seem odd to you"?
  • ACME Ventures FishingACME Ventures Fishing Posts: 851 Officer
    BubbaII wrote: »
    Does that seem odd to you?

    What seems odd is that 2 CFH owners on the council were allowed to vote on a measure that has a direct and significant impact on their personal finance, and its not considered a conflict. What seems odd is that 3 Commercial seafood lobby group BOD's were allowed to slide despite failing to disclose as re4quired by law their involvement in groups lobbying before both the council and congress. Also seems odd that various committee members that were in clear violation of requirements for their position are still serving on such after the council voted to change the rules and make their actions somehow legal. Also find it odd that the council has repeatedly ignored both the public comment they call for and even the recommendation of their own advisory committees. And like the other comment, I too find it odd that so many former council members and staffers are not on special interest retailer, with EDF and OC being the leading ones......and in at least one case before the time allowed by law to do so....with no action by the NMFS. Of coarse these are just a few odd issues that seem to be the norm with the Gulf Council where nothing is done about it.
Sign In or Register to comment.