Replies

• Huckleberry Posts: 180 Officer

  October 2017 #62

  Tom Hilton wrote: »

  If you have ever read the Magnuson, it's very clear - I have enclosed a screen shot addressing both royalties and the cost recovery fee in the Magnuson.
  
  The facts are that the Magnuson allows for the Councils to levy resource rent, or royalties as explained in (d).
  
  The facts are that the Magnuson allows for the Councils to collect a 3% Cost Recovery Fee as explained in (e). Anumber1 is obviously confused about the 3% CRF, which is designed to pay for the costs of administering and enforcing the IFQ program, which, btw doesn't even cover all the costs so the American taxpayer is forced to subsidize the difference.
  
  It's peculiar that Art and Tom Ard, self-proclaimed "fisheries experts", are so uninformed of the actual facts, or so willing to continue to misinform people.
  
  Which is it?

  
  Im no expert but you will probably come up with a way to say that Im wrong about that too.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• Tom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain

  October 2017 #63

  But Ard, you are spreading misinformation, that is crystal clear.
  
  Are you really that misinformed about fisheries management or are you intentionally misleading people?
  
  Which is it?

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• ANUMBER1 Posts: 13,168 AG

  October 2017 #64

  Fintastic.Inc wrote: »

  Sir I don’t want to get into some crazy pi$$ing match with you but I can assure you I am offshore well more than 250 days a year which I imagine is well more than most. So if that is a silver spoon in my a$$ then I guess I am a part timer

  And I don't want on e with you as we have discussed this before, I was just saying that the initial allocation was based on lbs landed during a set period hence the blood, sweat, and tears remark.
  
  Good luck with your business sir..

  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.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• ANUMBER1 Posts: 13,168 AG

  October 2017 #65

  Tom Hilton wrote: »

  If you have ever read the Magnuson, it's very clear - I have enclosed a screen shot addressing both royalties and the cost recovery fee in the Magnuson.
  
  The facts are that the Magnuson allows for the Councils to levy resource rent, or royalties as explained in (d).
  
  The facts are that the Magnuson allows for the Councils to collect a 3% Cost Recovery Fee as explained in (e). Anumber1 is obviously confused about the 3% CRF, which is designed to pay for the costs of administering and enforcing the IFQ program, which, btw doesn't even cover all the costs so the American taxpayer is forced to subsidize the difference.
  
  It's peculiar that Art and Tom Ard, self-proclaimed "fisheries experts", are so uninformed of the actual facts, or so willing to continue to misinform people.
  
  Which is it?

  no self proclaiming here, nor am I a "paid" rep as you alluded.
  I'm not an atty either but words like "shall", "may", and "if appropriate" kinda jump out..
  
  I was spot on though as they just don't pay as much as Tom wants.

  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.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• Tom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain

  October 2017 #66

  ANUMBER1 wrote: »

  no self proclaiming here, nor am I a "paid" rep as you alluded.
  I'm not an atty either but words like "shall", "may", and "if appropriate" kinda jump out..
  
  I was spot on though as they just don't pay as much as Tom wants.

  
  Spot on? LOL. Another intentionally misleading statement.
  
  You intimated that they are paying 3% royalties when they are clearly not. The American taxpayer is also being saddled with paying expenses for the management of the IFQ program not covered by the 3% Cost Recovery Fee.
  
  We need to make sure that the for-hire boats pay royalties (in addition to the 3% Cost Recovery Fee) to the nation as they should if by chance AMs 41 and 42 somehow move forward.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• Huckleberry Posts: 180 Officer

  October 2017 #67

  Tom Hilton wrote: »

  Spot on? LOL. Another intentionally misleading statement.
  
  You intimated that they are paying 3% royalties when they are clearly not. The American taxpayer is also being saddled with paying expenses for the management of the IFQ program not covered by the 3% Cost Recovery Fee.
  
  We need to make sure that the for-hire boats pay royalties (in addition to the 3% Cost Recovery Fee) to the nation as they should if by chance AMs 41 and 42 somehow move forward.

  
  I dont see 41-42 moving forward. I was surprised they didn't table it at this meeting.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• Tom Hilton Posts: 1,595 Captain

  October 2017 #68

  Huckleberry wrote: »

  I dont see 41-42 moving forward. I was surprised they didn't table it at this meeting.

  
  Yes.
  
  The whole purpose of AM 40 - AMs 41 and 42, both of which ONLY push IFQs/PFQs as I have said since the very beginning Tom Ard, and you, Tin Foil Hat, said I was a conspiracy theorist. Scott Hickman said Sector Separation had nothing to do with Catch Shares.
  
  So, time has shown who was telling the truth and who was lying - repeatedly.
  
  Sector Separation was designed to implement Catch Shares - that is indisputable now. Implementing PFQs/IFQs would drastically reduce the Gulf for-hire fishing days as I have said for many years now, and why you think AMs 41 and 42 are going nowhere.
  
  The Gulf for-hire fleet has overfished its quota since Sector Separation was implemented - you know it, I know it, Crabtree and the Gulf Council know it. It's a sham and has been a sham for years and you Capt. Tom Ard have been a vocal proponent of that sham. The 46 days and 49 day seasons the last 2 years were based on fraudulent data - it's been a fraud from the gitgo.
  
  Do you have no shame? Geez.
  
  It's time for an investigation into this fraud and attempted felony theft of our resources via Catch Shares.
  
  Wilbur Ross and Chris Oliver, we, the American recreational fishermen, need your help.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• testerman28 Posts: 1,329 Officer

  October 2017 #69

  I will ask you all this..
  what did Alabama, La., and Texas do different to make sure that the average person, charter boat and commercial boat had a chance to catch fish for a living or recreational ..???
  who is at fault for screwing this up so bad?
  Also who pockets the money?

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• testerman28 Posts: 1,329 Officer

  October 2017 #70

  ??? .. still no answer? is that how paid reps. are supposed to be? you should be a proud person if your making money off this..

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• ANUMBER1 Posts: 13,168 AG

  October 2017 #71

  testerman28 wrote: »

  ??? .. still no answer? is that how paid reps. are supposed to be? you should be a proud person if your making money off this..

  not quite sure the nature of the question?

  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.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• testerman28 Posts: 1,329 Officer

  October 2017 #72

  then go back and read post #69 and #70..
  
  then maybe you will.. please I would like an answer.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• testerman28 Posts: 1,329 Officer

  November 2017 #73

  still waiting for an answer if that's not too much to ask. there are at least 3 guys on here that should be able to give one as they comment on any red snapper report that comes up with the fishery..

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• ANUMBER1 Posts: 13,168 AG

  November 2017 #74

  testerman28 wrote: »

  ??? .. still no answer? is that how paid reps. are supposed to be? you should be a proud person if your making money off this..

  Well I'm not a paid rep. It's all on my own dime.
  I guess those three states extended their state waters season(I know tx was already 365) which resulted in the feds cutting the fed season for the rec sector.
  Fl extended their state season also but unlike the other states it only benefits the panhandle recs.
  The commercial guys are still bound by IFQ's, so that part of your question is moot.
  I don't pay to much attention the charter stuff.
  
  At fault? For what, using the best available science to manage the fishery?
  
  What money?

  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.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• testerman28 Posts: 1,329 Officer

  November 2017 #75

  thanks for some of the answer.

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook